THE THIRD PART OF THE DEFENCE of the Reformed Catholike:

Against DOCT. BISHOPS Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious Preface to the Reader, and an Answer to M. PERKINS his Aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c.

Whereunto is added An Aduertisement for the time concerning the said DOCT. BISHOPS Reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the Answer to his Epistle to the King, with an Answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons lately become a Proselyte of the Church of Rome.

By R. ABBOT Doctor of Diuinitie.

Cypr. l. 1. epist. 3.

Haec est verè domentia, non cogitare nec scire quòd mendacia non diu fallant; noctem tamdiu esse quamdiu illucescat dies, &c.

LONDINI Impensis GEORGII BISHOP. 1609.

THE PREFACE to the Reader.

GOOD Christian Reader, thou shalt vnderstand, that vntill the greater part of this Booke was prin­ted, I thought I had giuen thee therein an answer to all that Doct. Bishop had published vnder the name of his Second part. But being at Southwell not long since to doe my dutie to the most Reuerend Father, the L. Arch­bishop of Yorke, his Gr. being pleased to vse speech to me concerning a point in the said Second part, and shewing me thereof the booke it selfe, I perceiued a defect in that that I had answered, finding there handled the other questions of the Refor­med Catholike which he had left vntouch­ed in his former booke, and whereof in the booke which I had receiued, there was [Page]conteined nothing. In turning the booke I found a fault of the Print in the answer to the Aduertisement, corrected in the end of the questions, whereby I presently percei­ued that he first printed his vngodly Pre­face here conteined, and the said answer, & for some cunning deuice (what it might be I leaue to thee to ghesse) did thus publish the beginning and end of the booke, and left the middle part to be added at his plea­sure afterward. As it first came foorth, so I receiued it, enquiring after no more, be­cause I thought I had receiued all, and knowing of no more, I haue written to no more, and had I knowen of the rest before I had printed so much of this, I would haue suppressed this till I had confuted that as I haue done this. And heereby thou vnder­standest the cause why I haue in diuers pla­ces of this booke taxed M. Preface. sect. 22 pag. 190. Aduert. sect. 1. pag. 193. &c. Bishop for the omitting of those questions, because hee himselfe had then diuulged his book with­out them, neither had I heard that he had written any thing of them: which taxations though now I cannot alter, yet by this Preface I reuoke, and doe wish thee to passe [Page]them ouer, as if they were not there at all. Albeit where I might alter them I haue so done, and therefore recalled from the Presse the copie of my Preface and aduer­tisement heere adioyued, wherein I had further noted that omission; by meanes whereof, and for the adding of an answer to some few exceptions taken against mee by M. Higgons, lately reuolted from vs, so soone as I could get the sight thereof, this booke hath been somwhat longer in com­ming foorth than otherwise it should haue beene. To which, being, though not by my default, thus maimed and vnperfect, I haue done some disgrace by withdrawing from it the Dedication which I had intended; being notwithstanding, good Reader, to intreat thy gentle patience to take this in good part, till God shall giue me opportu­nitie heereafter to adde the rest. Heereaf­ter I say, because it shall first be necessarie for mee to returne a Counterproofe to Doct. Bishops Reproofe, lately published against a little peece of my answer to his Epistle. Concerning which worke of his, (being such as I presume will in the end [Page]make him odious and hatefull to all men that will take knowledge of it) I haue heere added some aduertisement for the time, and giuen an answer to his Preface, wherein he hath taken vpon him to haue said so much as may suffice to discredit me with all indifferent men, that whereas it will require some longer time to examine his Reproofe in that sort as I intend it, I may notwith­standing in the meane time somewhat a­bate the edge, and remooue the scandall of it, whilest by discouery of some of his iug­lings (if at least being so grosse and palpa­ble, they deserue to be called iuglings) the Reader shall be able to conceiue what he is in all the rest. I will heere amplifie nothing further, but refer thee to those obseruati­ons that I haue giuen thee thereof. God giue his blessing both to my writing and to thy reading, that we may both grow in hatred of Antichristian error, and in the knowledge and loue of the trueth of God.

Thine in the Lord R. ABBOT.

THE ANSWER TO Doctor BISHOPS Preface to his second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, &c.

1. W. BISHOP.

CHristian Reader, I suppose it shall please thee better, if I doe entertaine thy studious minde with some serious discourse, than if I went a­bout to court it, with the ordinary complements of a curious preamble. Wherefore I purpose (by thy gentle patience) to handle here a mat­ter of maruellous great importance, which M. PERK. towards the latter end of his booke, laieth out against vs in maner of a most grieuous complaint: it is, that we Catholikes, among ma­ny other capitall crimes by vs (as he fableth) defended, doe bol­ster and vphold the most haynous sinne of Atheisme. The man is not a little troubled to deuise wherein we doe maintaine any such point of impietie: For, compelled by the cleere euidence of trueth, he confessed that we doe rightly acknowledge the vnitie of the God-head in the Trinitie of persons: yet that hee may seeme to say something therein against vs, he flieth vnto the threed-bare ragges of their common slanders of mans merits and satisfactions, and such old stuffe: and stretching them on [Page 2]the tenter-hooks, yet one nayle further then his fellows, striueth to draw out of them a certaine strange kinde of Atheisme, in this maner: The Roman religion makes the merit of the works of men, Rom. 11.6. to concurre with the grace of God, there­fore it ouerthrowes the grace of God. Item, they ac­knowledge the infinite iustice and mercy of God, but by consequence both are denied: for how can that be infinite iustice, which may any way bee appeased by humane sa­tisfaction? And how shall Gods mercy be infinite, when we by our owne satisfactions must adde a supply to the satisfaction of Christ? There needs apretie wit (I weene) to vnderstand how these points appertaine to Atheisme. For sup­pose that we defended, that the merit of the works of man con­curred with Gods grace, as two distinct agents, which wee doe not; for we hold that no works of man haue any merit, vnlesse they spring and proceed from the very grace of God: but let that be granted, what kinde of Atheisme or denying of God were this? or how followeth it thereof, that the grace of God (which is the principall agent, and farre more potent than the other) must thereby needs be cast to the ground and foyled? this is so silly & simple, that I know not what to tearme it: for he doth vntruely slander our doctrine, and that to no end and pur­pose. To this second cauill I answer in a word, that we teach (as he knoweth right well) the infinite iustice of God to be ap­peased no other way, than by the infinite satisfaction of Christs passion: And that our satisfactions are onely to pay for the tem­porall pains remaining yet due after the infinite are paid for by Christ. Now whether any such temporall pa [...]ne remaine or no, after the sinne is remitted, is a question betweene vs: but to say (as M. PER. doth) that we be Atheists, and do denie God to be God, for that we hold some temporall punishment of man to be due, after pardon granted of his greater paine, is most ap­parantly a very sencelesse assertion. As wide from all reason is his third instance: That Gods mercy cannot be infinite, when by our owne satisfactions wee adde a supply to the satisfaction of Christ. For if Christs most perfect and full [Page 3]satisfaction, can well stand with Gods infinite mercy: farre more easely may mans satisfactions agree with it, which are in­finitely lesse than Christs. But the infinite riches of Gods mercy appeareth especially, in that it pleased him freely to giue vnto vs (so meane creatures and wretched sinners) his owne onely deare Son, to be our Redeemer and Sauiour; and both Christs satisfaction and ours are rather to bee referred vnto Gods iustice, than to his mercy: wherefore very vnskilfully doth M. PERK. compare them with Gods mercy. Neither is it possible to distill any quintessence of Atheisme out of it, more than out of the former: nay, they both vprightly weighed, are so farre off from Atheisme, or derogating any thing from Gods glory; that they doe much magnifie and aduance the same. For al­beit we hold our good works to be both meritorious and satis­factory: yet doe we teach the vertue, value, and estimation of them, to proceed wholly from the grace of God in vs, whereby we be enabled and holpen to doe them; and not any part of the dignitie and worthinesse of the workes, to issue from the natu­rall facultie or industrie of the man that doth them. So that when we maintaine the merit or satisfaction of good works, we extoll not the nature of man, but doe onely defend and vphold the dignitie and vertue of Gods grace: which Protestants doe greatly debase, extenuate, and vilifie, not allowing it to bee sufficient to helpe the best minded man in the world, to doe any worke that doth not offend God mortally. Thus much concer­ning our supposed Atheisme against God: now of those that be (as he imagineth) against Christ the Sonne of God.

R. ABBOT.

MAster Bishop here promiseth vs a serious discourse, but it prooueth in fine to a leud and slanderous libell; which, though he court it not, as he trimly and finely telleth vs, with the ordinary complements of a cu­rious preamble, yet he foully corrupteth with the ordinarie Popish complements of foolish malice [Page 4]and wilfull fraud. A man may here see in him the true I­mage and picture of a Popish Doctor, who seeing himselfe vnable to contend further by sound argument, to make his part good, betaketh himselfe to this impudencie and im­portunity of lying and slandering. Albeit in the first part thereof as touching his maine drift I will not at all repugne him, the same seruing to cleere them of an imputation of Atheisme, charged vpon them by M. Perkins, but indeed amisse, as I cannot but ingeniously and freely confesse, be­cause it is conceiued and drawen from forced and imperti­nent grounds, and therefore breedeth rather cauillation a­gainst him, than accusation against them. The crime of A­theisme belongeth properly to them with whom God is either not at all acknowledged, Atheisme in what sort to be imputed to Popery. or not regarded, and either wholly denied to be, or accordingly esteemed as if he were not. But where there is Rom. 10.2. the zeale of God though not accor­ding to knowledge, howsoeuer by want of knowledge there may be misconceits of God and godlinesse, yet Atheisme is not to be vpbraided there. It is true indeed, as M. Perkins saith, that Atheisme is either open or coloured, but coloured Atheisme must be the same in the heart, that professed A­theisme is in the mouth, so to be affected as if there were no God. And this couert and coloured Atheisme is it which the Scripture for the most part speaketh of, whereby Psal. 14.1. the foole saith, not with his tongue, but in his heart, There is no God; it being a thing very rare that any man so professeth with the mouth, but very common with men Tit. 1.16. to professe that they know God, but by their deeds to deny him Cyprian. de dupl. martyr. Quemadmo­dum bona opera profitentur de­um; ita mala qu [...]dammodo loquuntur Non est deus, nee est Scientia in excelso.for naugh­tie doings, as Cyprian teacheth, doe after a sort say, There is no God, nor any knowledge in the most high. Now in Poperie we cannot doubt but that many there are who in simplici­ty professing the errors and superstitions alleged by M. Per­kins, haue notwithstanding in that ignorance a zeale of God, and an intendment of deuotion to Iesus Christ, and are so far from denying God, as that in dread of the Maie­sty of God, and in expectation of the iudgement to come, [Page 5]they are carefull, according to their maner, religiously to serue him. To these men then to impute Atheisme, by a consequence so far fetched, as bringeth all misdeeming of religion within the compasse thereof, I confesse, stood not with that aduisednesse and due consideration which had been requisite in a matter of so great moment and effect. Much rather should M. Perkins haue sought for Atheisme in the practise and policy of them who haue been and are the maintainers of that Romane Hierarchy; who making gaine and aduantage of the superstitions, wherewith they haue intangled the soules of men, and resoluing by all meanes to vphold their trade, haue in this emploiment quenched in themselues all inward light and sense of reli­gion, somtimes openly professing, and somtimes couertly dissembling their deniall and contempt of God, and impi­ous conceipt of the nullity of all the seruice and deuotion that is done vnto him. Whereof we haue notable example in their See the Bee­hiue of the Romish Church; the sixt book; the third Chap­ter. Popes, of which diuers haue openly shewed themselues to be meer Atheists, as Boniface the eight, and Iohn the three and twentith, who both denied the immor­tality of the soule; as Clement the seuenth, who lying at the point of death confessed that all his life he had doubted of three things, whereof now he should be resolued; whether there were a God; whether the soule be immortall; and whether there be any life after this life: as Iulius the third, who commanded to bring him his Porke in despight of God: as Leo the tenth, who made but a fable and a toy of all that we beleeue concerning Christ. Many other of them haue there been of the same stampe, most damnable vil­laines, the very monsters of mankind, vtterly deuoid of all remorse and conscience of piety towards God, and thereby giuen ouer to all dissolutenesse and abomination of wicked and finfull life. From them, and their appendants hath this poison spred it selfe, not only into the whole Court and Ci­ty of Rome, but into all Italy, insomuch that in the Italian tongue the name of Hespinian. de Origine Mona­chatus lib. 6. c. 66. a Christian is by custome growen to [Page 6]signifie a foole. M. Bishop well knoweth what the curse of the Wolfe is, a most horrible blasphemy there vsed, not fit for the mouth of any Christian to speake, or the pen of any Christian to write; to which though the Pope for his cre­dits sake, haue of later time assigned some kind of punish­ment, yet well he woteth that it is more generall than that his Law can worke the restraint of it. Out of Italy, or at least from birds of the Popes hatching, came the book De tribus mundi impostoribus, whereby Moses and Christ as well as Mahomet, are made but deluders and deceiuers of the world. Out of Italy came Machiauels precepts, wher­by he hath taught men to cast off all yoke of religion, and to vseit only to serue turne; which notwithstanding accor­ding to that conceipt that he had of religion could say, that Machiauel. Disputat. de resubl. l. 1. c. 12. Nusquam m [...] ­nus vel pietatis vel religionis est quam in ijs hominibus qui Romae vicin [...]o­res habitant. there was no where lesse faith or piety, than in them that dwell neerest to Rome. Whose rules, as they are at this day the ma­naging of the Papacy, and familiar to all states that are con­federated therewith, so specially are they entertained and practised by the Iesuits, who hauing taken away the honor from Friar Dominick, of being the pillar of the Lateran Church, and being become the speciall vpholders of the declining kingdome of Antichrist, are discouered by the secular Priests, and namely by their Proctor Watson, to be very Atheists, not regarding religion at all, but only for a cloke to hide their villanies, and for the compassing of their wicked and vngodly designes. Thus Atheisme, albeit it be not contained in the positiue Doctrine of the Romane Church, yet becommeth a sequell thereof whilst hauing no true grounds for the iustifying of it, and therfore being dri­uen to support it selfe by carnall policy, it begetteth in the Politicians that practise for it, a striuing and fighting a­gainst God, whereby religion is quite banished out of the heart, and only an outward colour remaineth for their maintenance of outward state. Now therefore I will not question them of Atheisme vpon M. Perkins grounds, but leauing his conclusion, will only examine so far as need re­quireth [Page 7]M. Bishops defense of the propositions, from which he draweth that conclusion, there being nothing here, but what either hath been before, or must afterwards be further spoken of. First M. Popery ouer­throweth the grace of God. Perkins propoundeth that the Church of Rome making the merit of mens works, to concur with the grace of God, ouerthroweth the grace of God. Which to be true, appeareth by the words of the Apostle; who mentioning Rom. 11 6. the election of grace, inferreth thus; If it be of grace, it is not of works; otherwise grace is no grace: or if it be of works, it is not of grace, otherwise worke is no worke: importing plainly that grace and worke cannot be so recon­ciled as that what is of grace may truely be said to bee of works, or what is of works, may truely bee said to bee of grace. For grace as Hierome expoundeth it, importeth Hieron. Rom. ca. 11. Gratui­tum munus ap­pellatur.a free gift; so that Iden epist [...]ad V [...]metriad. vli gratià, non o­perum retribu­tio, sed donatis est largitas. where grace is, there is not rewarding of works, but largesse and bounty of gift: For Leo epist. 84. Quae vt [...] (que) nisi [...]atis detur non est gratia sed merces, retribu­ti [...]o; merito [...]ū.grace, saith Leo bishop of Rome, except it be freely giuen, is not grace, but the reward and recempense of merits or workes; implying that if it be the reward of merits, then it is not freely giuen, and therefore cannot be calied grace. Therefore when the Apostle saith, Rom. 6.23. Eternall life is the grace (or gift) of God through Iesus Christ our Lord, we must vnderstand it accor­ding to the words of the Psalme; Vulgat. La­tin. Psal. 55.7. Pro [...]ihilo saluos fa­cies illos; Thou wilt saue them for nothing; [...]eion. ad P [...]g lib 2. Hand [...] quio iustos qui nou propr [...]c­r [...]to sed de: sal­u [...]ntur clemen­tia.meaning the iust, saith Hierome who art not saued by their owne merit, but by the mercy of God. To this M. Bishop telleth vs that they doe not make the merit of mans worke, and the grace of God two distinct agents, but hold that no works of man haue any me­rit vnlesse they proceed and prin [...] from the very grace of God. Where, not to question what he meaneth by giuing the name of an agent to the merit of mans worke, answer him to the rest, that his answer is vnsefficient and vaine, because the Apostle knew well that we haue no workes wherewith to mooue God, but only such as proceed from the grace of God; and yet resolueth that Gods election if it be of works cannot be said to be of grace. Whencesoeuer the workes [Page 8]proceed, this rule standeth still most firme and sure, that that cannot be said to be freely giuen and for nothing, that is repaied to the merit of workes. But whilest they will haue only workes of nature excluded by the Apostles words, and not the workes that are wrought by grace, they necessarily fall into the heresie of the Pelagians that the election of grace dependeth vpon the foresight of those works which our free will should doe by the help of grace. Which if they will not grant, as I trow they will not, they must perforce confesse that the Apostle heere excludeth not only workes of nature but generally all workes what­soeuer. And the rather must they so confesse that they may not make the Apostle speake so idlely as by that con­struction he doth; If it be of grace, then it is not of workes done without grace; and if it be of workes done without grace, then it is not of grace; as if the Apostle had had to doe with men who thought that by workes of nature they had obtained the election of grace. Againe that shift of theirs is so much the worse, for that the works of which M. Bishop speaketh are not totally the effects of grace, but a­rise in part from the free will of man. For although he tell vs that grace is the principall and more potent, yet he will not grant vs that it is the whole agent, which not being so, looke what is attributed to the free will of man, falleth out to be the impeachment of the grace of God, so that eternall life being ascribed to our good works, shall not be ascribed wholly to grace, because those good works proceed not wholly from grace but partly from our owne free will. Nei­ther is hee any whit helped by that whereon he insisteth againe in the end of this diuision, that albeit the works bee partly of our free will, yet the dignitie and worthinesse of the workes ariseth wholly of the grace of God; for howsoeuer he wholly referre the dignitie of works to grace going before, yet he thereby taketh away the nature of grace from that that foloweth after, because the latter grace cannot be said to be freely giuen if it be due to the merit of any worke that [Page 9]is gone before. Albeit the vaine man should see that heere­by he quite ouerthroweth all merit of man; because if the value and woorth of the worke grow wholly and onely on Gods part, then can it not be that man may be saied to me­rit or deserue any thing thereby (for what should I deserue of God by that that is wholly Gods and none of mine?) or if man doe truely merit, then doth not merit arise wholly from the grace of God.

As touching the second point, whereas he saith the infi­nite iustice of God is no other way appeased but by the infinite satisfaction of Christ, and yet that there are temporall punish­ments due besides for which we are afterwards to satisfie by our selues, he ignorantly crosseth himselfe, and by one part of his speech giueth checke to the other. For by what other iustice of God doe these temporall punishments fall vpon vs, but by his infinite iustice? what are they else in their owne proper nature but the first fruits of his eternall wrath and indignation against sinne? And if there can no other be imagined but See heere of the question of satisfacti­on. sect. 3. only his infinite iustice from which they proceed, then it is not in vs to pay satisfaction to God for them, because by M. Bishops owne confession, the infinite iustice of God is no other way to be appeased but by the infinite satisfaction of the blood of Christ. Now if he will say that fi­nite and temporall effects cannot proceed from an infinite cause, he is controlled by the whole course of this world; because all the proprieties of God which are infinite as they are immanent in himselfe, yet in their transitiue and foren effects are stinted and limited to the modell and state of the creature wherein the same effects are wrought.

In the third point it appeareth that hee vnderstood not what M. Perkins said. Gods infinite mercy shewed it selfe in prouiding for vs an infinite satisfaction in the person of Iesus Christ, whereby to exhaust and empt the most bot­tomlesse depth of all our iniquity and sinne. This the Scrip­ture euery where nameth as the effect of Ioh. 3.16. Rom. 5.8. Eph. 2.4. the loue and mer­cy of God; and therefore M. Perkins did not amisse to refer [Page 10]it accordingly. Now M. Bishop, tooke it that M. Perkins had named Gods mercy, as requiring satisfaction, not as prouiding and yeelding the same to vs in Christ: and ther­fore for an answer sendeth vs a dreame: that if Christs infi­nite satisfaction may stand with the mercy of God, much more easily may ours. But let him consider better of the matter, and tell vs at more leasure how the mercy of God can bee said to be infinite in the satisfaction of Christ, if it bee so li­mited and restrained as that in respect of temporall punish­ments, the same is wholly frustrate, and leaueth vs still to make satisfaction for our selues. If the satisfaction of Christ be infinite, it must necessarily bee extended to all that is to be satisfied for. If it extend not to all that is to bee satisfied for, it cannot be called an infinite satisfaction. But of this enough in the question of satisfaction.

He goeth on and telleth vs that their doctrine of merits and satisfactions is so farre from Atheisme, or derogating from Gods glory, as that it doth much magnifie and aduance the same. Of Atheisme I will say nothing; but it is vntruth which he saith that their doctrine doth not derogate from the glory of God: and a greater vntruth, that it doth magnifie and ad­uance the same. The glory of God appeareth not in the pride of our merits, but in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes. For howsoeuer he colour the matter in saying that the value and estimation, the dignity and worthinesse of our merits and satis­factions ariseth wholly from the grace of God; yet manifest it is that there is still somewhat left for vs to reioice in, for that we by our freewill, as they teach, are the doers of the work. Therefore the Apostle saith, that Rom. 3.27. reioicing or glorying is excluded, not by the Law of workes, wherein wee haue our part, but by the Law of faith, whereby we beleeue that God doth all, according to his free promise for his owne mercies sake. So in another place, hauing said that Eph. 2.5.6. wee are saued by grace through faith, not of our selues, it is the gift of God, he addeth; not of workes lest any man should boast: still im­porting that boasting cannot be excluded so long as the ti­tle [Page 11]of saluation is assigned to our workes. Therefore God though hee could haue made vs fully perfect, and wholly free from sinne, yet chose rather, as S. Austin well noteth, August. con. Iulian. Pelag. l. 4. c 3 Ideò fa­ctum est in loco infirmitatis hu­ius ne superbè viueremus vt sub quotidiana peccatorum re­missione viua­mus. that wee should liue vnder daily remission of sinnes, that wee may not be proud: Idem de spir. & lit. c. 36. vt etiam iustorum emus os obstru­atur in laude sua & non ape­riatur nisi in laudem dei.that euery mouth of man may be stopped in their owne praise, and may not bee opened but to the praise of God; Bernard. in Cant. ser. 50. sciemus in di [...] illa quia non e [...] operibus iusti­tiae quae fecimus n [...]s, sed secun­dum miserecor­diam suam sal­uos nos fecit.that we may know at that day, as Bernard saith, that not for the workes of righteousnesse which wee haue done, but of his owne mercy he hath saued vs. Why will M. Bishop goe about to rob God of this honour by such fantasticall specu­lations of the value and estimation, the dignity and worthi­nesse of our workes? And if he say that this is all of God, doth he any more than the Pharisie did, who said, Luk. 18.11. I thanke thee, O God, that I am not as other men are, &c. Hieron. adu. Pelag. lib. 3. Ille agit gratias deo quia illius misericordia non sit sicut cae­teri homines.Hee thanketh God, saith Hierome, that by his mercy hee is not like other men; hee acknowledgeth his righteousnesse to bee the gift of God; but yet hee is reiected whilest with M. Bishop hee flattereth himselfe in opinion of the value and estimation, the dignitie and worthinesse of his workes. Now the Protestants indeed are not of that Pharisaicall humor thus to plead the reputation of their owne workes, and doe take M. Bishop therein to be a foolish vaine man, and yet they doe not ther­fore debase and vilifie the vertue of the grace of God, as hee obiecteth, as not allowing it to be sufficient to help the best min­ded man in the world to doe any worke that doth not mortally of­fend God; but doe confesse and teach that the faithfull by the grace of God do many good workes very highly plea­sing vnto God, whilest Psal. 103.13. as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord is mercifull to them that feare him, remembring whereof we be made, and considering that we are but dust, and being ready when he seeth our willing indeuours to pardon the obliquities the defects and deformities of our doings, the same being perfumed by faith with the sweet incense of the obedience of Iesus Christ. So then according to rigour of iudgement the Protestants say, Esay 64.6. All our righteousnesse is as a defiled cloth; Dan. 9.7.To thee, O Lord, belongeth righteousnesse, [Page 12]but to vs shame and confusion of face. They subscribe that which Gregory saith: Greg. Moral. l. 8. c. 9. Iustise peritaeros abs (que) ambiguitate praesciunt, fire­mota pietate iu­dicentur, quia hoc ipsum, quò iustè videmur viuere culpa est, fi vitam no­stram cù iu­dicat, hanc a­pud se diuina misericordia non excusat. The iust know that without all doubt they shall perish if they bee iudged without mercy, because euen our iust life, as it seemeth, is but sinne if Gods mercy doe not ex­cuse it, when he shall giue iudgement of it. But yet the Prote­stants know also that by the mediation of Iesus Christ, Rom. 12.1. the giuing vp of our bodies to be a liuing and [...] sacrifice is accep­ble vnto God, and that 1. Pet. 2.5. we are made aspirituall house and holy Priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices which are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. In a word, the Protestants know that the Saints of God Apoc. 4.10. cast their crownes down before the throne of God, as arrogating no part thereof to themselues, but a­scribing all to God; and therefore cannot but condemne M. Bishop and the Papists, though not of Atheisme, yet of Pelagianisme and heresie, for that they teach men to keepe their crownes in part vpon their owne heads, and to take some part of glory to themselues to the derogation of the glory of God.

2. W. BISHOP.

First he argueth thus. He that hath not the Sonne, hath not the Father: and he that hath neither Father nor Sonne, denies God: now the present Roman religion hath not the Sonne, that is Iesus Christ God and man: For they in ef­fect abolish his man-hood, by teaching of him to haue two kindes of existing; one naturall in heauen, whereby he is visible, touchable, and circumscribed: the other a­gainst nature, whereby he is substantially according to his flesh in the hands of euery Priest, inuisible and vncir­cumscribed.

Answer. M. PER. and all Protestants know right well, that we beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God, and per­fect man, and therefore wee haue both the Sonne and the Fa­ther; and his reason against it, is not woorth arush: for we do not destroy the nature of man, by teaching it to haue two di­uers maners of existing or being in a place. When Christ was [Page 13]transfigured before his Apostles, hee had another maner of outward forme and appearance, than hee had before: yet was not the nature of man in him thereby destroyed; and after his resurrection hee was (when it pleased him) visible to his Apostles, and at other times inuisible; and yet was not his man­hood thereby abolished as M. PER. would make vs beleeue: no more is it when his body is in many places at once; or in one place circumscribed, and in the other vncir cumscribed. For these externall relations of bodies vnto their places, doe no whit at all destroy their inward and naturall substances, as all Philosophie testifieth: wherefore hence to gather that we denie both the Father and the Sonne to be God, doth sauour (I will not say of a silly wit) but of a froward will, peeuishly bent to cauill and calumniate.

R. ABBOT.

As touching the existing of the body of Christ, we be­leeue what the holy Scripture hath taught vs, The body of Christ locally circumscri­bed. and therein we rest, as the ancient godly fathers did; neither will we listen to the franticke dreames of new deuising heads, who for the maintenance of one absurdity not sparing to vnder­goe another, haue broached a maner of the being of the body of Christ according to the fancies of Marcion, Mani­cheus, Apollinaris, Eutyches and such other like Heretikes, who, howsoeuer they admitted the name of a body, yet de­nied the truth thereof. What other is it but a fantasticall body which they affirme to be in their consecrated host, where there is the sauour and tast of bread, the colour and appearance of bread, to sense and feeling no other but bread, and yet there is no bread, but a body of flesh and blood, as they tell vs, or rather a body which hath neither flesh nor blood? M. Bishop coloureth the matter by tel­ling vs of a diuers maner of existing or being in a place; but why doe neither Scriptures nor Fathers tell vs of this di­uers maner of existing or being? I know that to make some shew of antiquity they alleage a few sentences of the Fa­thers [Page 14]farre enough from the purpose; but this matter could not haue so passed with a by-sentence or two, when there were so many and so great occasions fully to declare it and to insist vpon it, if it had beene beleeued then as it is taught now. They cleerely and plainely taught, that Aug. in Ioan. tract. 50. secun­dum carnem quam verbum assumpsit, as­cendit in coe um & non est hic. Christ ac­cording to his body is ascended into heauen and is not heere: and against the Manichees; that Idem cont. faust. Mauich. l. 20. c. 11. sa­cundum prae­sentiam corpo­ralem, simul & in sole & in lu­na & in cruce esse non posset. Christ according to bodily presence could not at once be in the Sunne and in the Moone and vpon the crosse; that is, in many places, and that Idem in Ioan. er. 31. Cùm ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco vnde venit non est. When he is come to another place he is not in the place from whence he came, and therefore; that Vigil. cont. Eutich. lib. 4. Quando in ter­ra fuit (caro Christi) non erat vti [...] in coelo: & nunc quia in coelo est, non est vti (que) in terra. The body of Christ, when it was vpon earth, was not in heauen; and now because it is in heauen, it is not vpon the earth: that Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 24. Ergo non supra ter­ram nec inter­ra nec secun­dum carnem ti quaerere debe­mus. si volumus inuenire, &c. Stephanus teti­git quia quaesi­uit in coele. If we will find Christ, we must not seeke him in the earth nor vpon the earth nor according to the flesh, but in heauen. They would neuer haue spoken thus without any limitation or exception, if they had be­leeued that which M. Bishop heere would make vs be­leeue out of the doctrine of the church of Rome, that the body of Christ may be in infinite places at once, that it may be together both in heauen and earth, with forme and without forme, both visible and inuisible, both circum­scribed and vncircumscribed, that is to say by a plaine con­tradiction, both that that it is, and that that it is not. Surely they would haue saied as we doe; If it be visible, it cannot be inuisible; or if it be inuisible, it cannot be visible: if it haue forme, then it is not without forme; or if it be with­out forme, how should it be said to haue any forme? both these cannot stand together. True saith M. Bishop, in one and the same maner of existence and being. And say I, if it be but one and the same body, it can at once haue but one maner of existing and being: for according to the same, or totally, to be thus & not thus, cannot agree to one and the same thing. As for his instances whereby hee would take away the improbabilitie of this fancie, they are altogether ridiculous. Christ, saith hee, when hee was transfigured, had another maner of outward forme and appearance then he [Page 15]had before; and after his resurrection when it pleased him hee was visible to his Apostles, and at other times inuisible. And what then? Ergo Christs body may be in many pla­ces at once; it may together be both visible and inuisible, and whatsoeuer pleaseth them. But a man may euen as well say: M. Bishop is sometimes hot and sometimes cold, som­times asleepe, sometimes awake; sometimes sober, some­times merrie; sometimes like a schollar, sometimes like a swaggerer; sometimes at Rome, sometimes in England; ergò hee may at one time be together both asleepe and a­wake, both visible and inuisible, both at Rome and in England, and in many places at once; so that though by Parsons procurement he were fast laied vp in prison, yet he might at the same time be personally before the Pope to ac­quaint him with the appeale of the secular Priests and the exorbitant dealing of the Iesuites against them. What, will he not call him a dreaming Sophister that should conclude thus? Well then; let him for his paines take his fellow to him, and learne to argue more wisely another time. But marke heere gentle Reader, that M. Bishop maketh Philo­sophie a witnesse of this matter. We haue thought heere­tofore that they rested the same wholly and meerely vpon the omnipotent power of God; and haue obserued how their schoole-philosophers when they speake of relation of bodies to their places, do except this matter of the reall presence as a matter of irregularity, not comming within compasse of the rules of Philosophy, but farre transcendent aboue all their learning. Now M. Bishop will make vs be­leeue that it standeth with good Philosophy, and that all their Philosophers haue all this while beene deceiued; mar­rie it is woorth the while to note in what termes and how warily he hath set it downe. The externall relations of bo­dies vnto their places, do no whit at all destroy their inward and naturall substances, as all Philosophy testifieth. You say well, M. Bishop, and very wisely. Indeed it is not relation to a place, but the want of relation to a place that taketh away [Page 16]the nature of a body. For Aug. epist. 50. spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt, & quia nus­quam erunt, nec erunt. take from bodies space of place, saieth Austin, and they shall be no where; and because they shall be no where, they shall not be at all. Cyril de Tri­nit. lib. 2. si cor­pus, & in loco omninò, & in magnitudine & in quantitae­te, & si quanta facta esset, non effugeret cir­eumscriptio­nem.If it be a body, saith Cy­rill, then verily it is in a place, and hath greatnesse and quanti­tie, and if it haue quantitie, it cannot be but that it must be circumscribed.Didym. de sp [...]sancto. l. 2. si spiritus veri­tatis iuxta na­turas corporum circumscriptus est certo spacio, alium deserens locum ad alium commigrauit.It is the nature of a body, saieth Didymus, to be circumscribed in a certaine space, and therefore by com­ming into one place, it must forsake another. You therefore af­firming the body of Christ vncircumscribed, and hauing no commensuration or space of place, and comming into one place without the leauing of another, doe thereby vt­terly destroy the nature of a body. Ibid. Impossi­bile est & im­pium, ista quae diximus in cor­poralibus cre­dere. It is impossible and a thing impious, saith Didymus, to beleeue these things concer­ning bodily substances. This was the Philosophy that these Fathers had learned. They knew by Philosophy and by trueth that a body must haue extension of parts, and one part different and distant from another, and place corre­spondent to euerie part, so that where one part is, there an­other cannot be, and the whole so limited to one place, as that without leauing that place, it cannot be in another; but neither did Philosophy nor Diuinitie teach them that vncircumscribed body which M. Bishop speaketh of.

3. W. BISHOP.

Secondly, Master PERKINS chargeth vs with disgrading Christ of his offices: saying, that for one Iesus Christ the only King, law-giuer and head of the Church, they ioine vnto him the Pope not only as a Vicar, but as a fellow, in that they giue vnto him power to make lawes: binding in con­science, to resolue and determine infallibly the sense of ho­ly Scripture: properly to pardon sinne: to haue authority ouer the whole earth, and a part of hell: to depose Kings, to whom vnder Christ euery soule is subject: to absolue subjects from the oath of allegeance, &c.

Answer. Here is a bed-role of many superfluous speeches: for not one of all these things (if we admit them all to be true) [Page 17]doth conuince vs to haue disgraded Christ of his offices, which are these: to appease Gods wrath towards vs: to pay the ran­some for our sinnes: to conquer the Diuell: to open the King­dome of heauen: to bee supreme head of both men and Angels, and such like. He may (without any derogation vnto these his soueraigne prerogatiues) giue vnto his seruants; first, power to make lawes to binde in conscience, as he hath done to all Princes, which the Protestants themselues dare not denie: then, to determine vnfallibly of the true sense of holy Scrip­ture, which the Apostles could doe, as all men confesse; and yet do not make them Christs fellowes, but his humble seruants: to whom also hee gaue power properly to pardon sinnes: Luc. 24. Ioan. 20. Mar. 16. Matt. 28. Whose sinnes you pardon on earth, shall be pardoned in hea­uen: and finally, to them he also gaue authoritie ouer the whole earth: goe into the vniuersall world. Ouer part of hell no Pope hath authoritie; and when he doeth good to any soule in Purgatory, it is per modum suffragij, as a suppliant and entreater, not as a commander. Whether hee hath any au­thoritie ouer Princes and their subiects in temporall affaires, it is questioned by some: yet no man (not wilfully blinde) can doubt, but that Christ might haue giuen him that authority, without disgrading himselfe of it; as he hath imparted to him and to others also, faculties of greater authoritie and vertue, reseruing neuerthelesse the same vnto himselfe, in a much more excellent maner. As a King by substituting a Viceroy, or some such like deputie, to whom he giues most large commis­sion, doth not thereby disgrade himselfe of his Kingly autho­rity, as all the world knowes: no more did our Sauiour Christ Iesus bereaue himselfe of his power or dignitie, when hee be­stowed some part thereof vpon his substitutes. He goes on mul­tiplying a number of idle words to small purpose: as that we for one Christ the onely reall Priest of the new Testament, ioyne many secondary Priests vnto him, which offer Christ daily in the Masse. Wee indeed hold the Apostles to haue beene made by Christ, not imputatiue or phantasticall, but reall and true Priests: And by Christ his owne order and [Page 18]commandement, to haue offered his body and bloud daily in the sacrifice of the Masse; what of that? see that question. Furthermore he saith, for one Iesus the all-sufficient media­tour of intercession, they haue added many fellowes to him, to make request for vs: namely as many Saints as be in the Popes Kalendar: yea and many more too. For we hold that any of the faithfull yet liuing, may bee also requested to pray for vs: neither shall hee in haste bee able to prooue, that Christ onely maketh intercession for vs, though he be the onely mediatour that hath redeemed vs.

R. ABBOT.

Christ by his office is our Prophet, our Priest and our King. Christ degra­ded by the Pope. As a Prophet he hath declared fully and finally the whole counsell and way of God for the attainment of eter­nall life. As a Priest, he hath offered a sacrifice for our re­demption, and by vertue of that sacrifice is our Mediatour to intreat mercy for vs. As a King, he prescribeth lawes whereby to gouerne vs, and hauing Matt. 28.18. All power giuen to him both in heauen and earth exerciseth the same to safegard and defend vs. In all these offices, (of which M. Bishop speaketh as if he vnderstood not what they meane) the Church of Rome offereth most high indignity to the Son of God. To take the points spoken of in order as they are; first they are iniurious to the kingdome of Christ, in that they giue the Pope authority to make lawes to bind in con­science, which Christ only hath authority to doe. See hereof part. 2. pag. 17.18. To bind in conscience, is to tie the conscience and inward man to an opinion of holinesse and spirituall deuotion in the thing which is done, so as to account the same a worship of reli­gion whereby God is truly serued and honoured, yea and further, according to Romish fancies, the means of remissi­on of sinnes, and the merit of eternall life. This whosoeuer doth, sheweth himselfe a deceiuer and an Antichrist, and the Pope in so doing is found to be he, of whom the Apo­stle prophecied, 2. Thess. 2.4. that he should sit as God in the temple of God, [Page 19]domineering in the hearts and consciences of them of whom it is said, 2. Cor. 6.16. Ye are the temple of the liuing God. If Princes attempt to make lawes in this sort, they are therein vniust and presumptuous against God. Otherwise to speake of Princes lawes, God himselfe bindeth the consci­ence to yeeld the outward man in subiection to the Prince, when notwithstanding the conscience it selfe remaineth free as touching the thing which the Prince commandeth. I know that in outward things it is true which the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 6.12. & 10.23. All things are lawfull for mee, I may doe all things; God hath giuen mee no restraint. To eat or not to eat, to weare such a garment or not to weare it; to doe thus or thus it is all one with God: I am no whit the better the one way, nor the worse the other way. Neuerthelesse if my Prince command mee either way, God requireth mee to abbridge my selfe of the outward vse of that liberty which he otherwise hath giuen mee and to performe obedience to my Prince, yet still retaining inwardly the same opinion and persuasion of the thing in it selfe that I had before; and therefore content to tie my selfe outwardly to do thus, because I know inwardly that it is indifferent to God ei­ther to doe thus or thus.

The second presumption of the Pope against Christ is in taking vpon him infallibly to determine the sense of holy Scripture. By which pretense he most impudently carieth himselfe, bringing all abhominations into the Church, and corrupting all religion and seruice of God, and yet affir­ming that he doth nothing contrary to the Scripture, be­cause whatsoeuer the words of Scripture are, yet the sense must be no other but what he list. But well might we be thought to be without sense, if so senseles a tale should pre­uaile with vs; a thing which in the ancient Church for so many hundreds of yeeres amidst so many questions and controuersies was neuer dreamed of. What needed the fa­thers so much to busie themselues, and out of their owne exercise and experience prescribe rules to others for find­ing [Page 20]out the true sense of Scripture, when as a Pope with a wet finger could haue helped them to the certaine and in­fallible truth thereof? Yea why haue we so many Com­mentatours of the Church of Rome, so various and diuers in their expositions and interpretations of Scripture; and why doth not the Pope rather by one commentary of his illuminated vnderstanding reconcile all differences, dis­patch all doubts, and resolue at once infallibly what is the certaine meaning of euery place? Are those holy fathers loth of their labour, or are they so busied in other or greater affaires as that they haue no leasure to attend to such tri­fles? Satisfie vs, M. Bishop, as touching these matters; otherwise we must take this deuise to be as indeed it is the couer of your shame, the cloake of your apostasie, which can no otherwise be shadowed but by this pretense: That the Popes sense is the very trueth of Scripture, being not­withstanding wholly repugnant & contrary to the words. In a word, the Pope thrusteth out the lawes of Christ which are expressed in the words of Christ, and by his sense setteth vp his owne lawes vnder the name of Christ.

To giue power to the Pope properly to forgiue sinnes, as M. Bishop doth, is a wicked blasphemie and an Antichristi­an exalting of him into the place of Christ. When the Scribes said within themselues, Mar. 2.7. Who can forgiue sinnes but God only? our Sauiour Christ did not contrary them therein, but partly by discouering the thoughts of their hearts, and partly by the miracle that he wrought, taught them to vn­derstand him to be God the Sonne of God, and therefore that he had power to forgiue sinnes. He hath left it there­fore so to be conceiued of vs, that power to for giue sinnes be­longeth to God only.Cyprian de Lapsis. Nec re­mittere aut do­nare indulgen­tia sua seruus potest quod in dominum deli­cto grauiore commissum est.. The seruant, sai he Cyprian, cannot for giue that which by hainous traspasse is committed against the Lord. Cyril. in Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 56. Certè solius re­ri dei est vt possit à ptceatis homines solue­re: cui enim alij praeuaricatores legis liberare â peccato licet nisi legis ipsius au­thori?Surely it belongeth only to the true God, saith Cy­rill, to be able to release men from their sinnes; for who but the maker of the law, can free them from offense that are trespas­sers of the law? As for that which M. Bishop obiecteth that [Page 21]Christ said to his Apostles; Iohn 20.23. Whose sinnes ye remitte, they are remitted vnto them, and whose sinnes ye retaine, they are retained, it no more importeth a power of forgiuing sinnes, then the ministers 1. Tim. 4.16. Sauing them that heare him, importeth a power of sauing. For as the minister saueth not properly by any power of sauing, but only by teaching the way of saluation; so he also forgiueth sinnes, not properly by any power thereof, but by preaching the Gospell of remission of sinnes, and designing them to whom belongeth this re­mission. God hath made vs not Lords but 2. Cor. 3.9. Ministers of the new Testament, and of the spirit, neither hath he giuen vs the power but cap. 5.18. The ministry of reconciliation; for God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe, not imputing vn­to them their sinnes: to vs he hath committed (only) the word of this reconciliation, namely whereby we preach and testifie in the name of Iesus Christ remission of sinnes and reconci­liation to God to all that repent and beleeue the Gospell. But this whole cōmission of forgiuing sins shall be the bet­ter vnderstood by those instances by which Cyrill exem­plifieth the same, Cyril. vt su­pra. Erit autem id duobus vt arbitror modis, primò baptis­mo. acinde pe­nitentia. Nam aut credentes & vitae sancti­monia probates homines ad baptismum in­ducunt; & in­dignos diligenter expellunt, &c. First in baptisme, and afterward in re­pentance. Them that beleeue and approoue themselues by holi­nesse of life, the minister addmitteth to baptisme; (this is to forgiue their sinnes) but carefully he repelleth and putteth backe them that are vnworthy (this is to retaine them.) But of this forgiuenesse of sinnes in baptisme we must remem­ber that which S. Austine saith, if at least that booke be his; August. scal. Paradis. cap. 3. Officium bapti­zandi dominus concessit multis, potestatem verò & authorita­tem in baptismo remittendi pec­cata sibi soli re­tinuit. The Lord Iesus gaue the office of baptizing to many, but the power and authority to forgiue sinnes in baptisme, he reserued to himselfe only. For the noting of which difference he rightly alleageth the words of Iohn Baptist: Ioh. 1.26.33. I bap­tize with water, but he it is which baptizeth with the holy Ghost. Now if to baptize with water to the remission of sinnes be to remitte sinnes in that sense which our Sauiour intendeth in that speech; and to baptize with water to re­mission of sinnes importeth no power for forgiuing sinnes, but only a ministery for publication and for the apply­ing [Page 22]of Gods seale for exhibiting and confirming thereof, it followeth so far foorth that those words of Christ doe not giue to the minister any power properly to forgiue sinnes. Therefore Chrysostome though he terme this ministery in some sort a power, yet to shew in what sort it is to be con­ceiued, most notably saith; Chrysost in Ioan. hom. 85. Quid sacerdo­tes dico? Ne (que) Angelus, ne (que) Archangelus quicquam in his quae a deo data sunt effice­re potest, sed pa­ter & filius & sp. sanctus om­ma facit: sa­cerdos & lin­guam & ma­nus praebet. Not the Priest only but nei­ther Angell nor Archangell worketh any thing in those things that are giuen of God, but the Father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost doth all; the Priest putteth too but his tongue and his hand. The other instance which Cyrill giueth is, Cyril. vt su­prà. Aut eccle­sia filijs peccan­tibus quidem increpant, pae­nitentibus au­tem indulgent. 1. Cor. 5.5. When the minister giueth checke to offendours, and to the penitent release. Whereof he giueth example in the incestuous Corinthian, whom for fornication the Apostle deliuered to Sa­tan for destroying the flesh that the spirit might be saued, and afterwards receiued againe that he might not be ouerwhelmed with ouermuch sorow. here the Corinthians did forgiue, and the Apostle himselfe did 2. Cor. 2.7.10. forgiue, and thus the terme of for­giuing hath alwaies his place and vse, but this forgiuenesse is disciplinary for reconcilement to the Church: it is not forgiuenesse of sinnes spiritually and properly so called, though by the ordinance of Christ it must be to the peri­tent a necessary introduction to the assurance and comfort thereof, as See the An­swer to the epistle dedi­catory sect. 28 before hath beene declared. I conclude this point with that which Hierome writeth vpon the words of Christ to Peter Matt. 16.19. whatsoeuer thou bindest in earth shall be bound in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heauen, for declaration whereof he saith, that Hieron. in Matt. 16. Que­modo ibs sacer­dos leprosum facit mundum velimmundum (non quò sacer­dotes leprosos faciant & im­mundos sed quò habeant notitiam leprosi vel non leprosi, & possint discernere qui mundus quiuè immundus fit) sic & hic alligat vel soluit episcopus Et Presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxij; sed pro officio suo cum peccatorum audierit varietates scit qui ligandus sit, qui soluendus. as the Priest in Moses law did make the Leper cleane or vncleane not for that he did so (properly and indeed) but only tooke notice who was a leper, and who was not, and did discerne be­twixt the cleane and the vncleane, so heere the Bishop or Priest doth bind or loose, not bind them which be innocent, or loose the guilty, but when according to his office he heareth the variety of [Page 23]sinnes, he knoweth who is to be bound and who to be loosed. Not so then as that in propriety of speech he either remitteth or retaineth sinnes, but only discerneth and notifieth who is to be taken for bound with God, and who for loosed; whose sinnes must be holden either to be remitted or retain­ed Idem in Mat. 18. vt sciant qui à talibus condemnantur sententiam hu­manam diuina sententia robo­rari.. Which sentence of man they who are thus condemned, as Hierome againe saith, must know to be strengthened and made good by the sentence of God himself; namely when it proceed­eth according to those rules and directions which God hath prescribed in this behalfe; for otherwise, Idem in Mat. 16. Cùm apud deum non sen­tentia sacer­dotis, sed reorum vita quaeratur. it is not the sentence of the Priest but the life of the parties that is inquired of with God. Here then the Pope is a manifest vsurper, first against God in that he taketh vpon him a power properly to forgiue sinnes, and thereby seateth himselfe in the throne of Iesus Christ; secondly against the Church of God in chal­lenging to himselfe a propriety of that which was spoken Gregor. in 1. Reg. l 6. cap. 3. vniuersali ec­clesiae dicitur, Quodcun (que) li­gaueris, &c. to the vniuersall Church, and wherein euery one that is a successour of the Apostles hath as great power and autho­rity as he.

Christ, saith he, gaue his Apostles authority ouer the whole earth; Goe into the vniuersall world. But by this, Christ gaue no more authority to one of them, then he did to another, and whatsoeuer he gaue them what is it to the Pope, that he should thereby challenge Deecret. Greg. de foro compe­tenti, cap. Licet. & de Appellat. ca. vt debitus. in glossa Papa vnusomnium hominum ordi­narius. the whole world to be his di­ocesse, and should define that Extrau. de maior. & obed. c. vnam san­tam subesse Romano Ponti­fici omni huma­nae creaturae pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate sa­lutis. it concerneth euery humane creature vpon perill of damnation to be subiect vnto him? And what authority did Christ giue them hereby other then S. Mathew expresseth; Mat. 28.19. Goe, teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, teaching them to obserue al things whatsoeuer I haue comman­ded you. This was their authority; they had no power to command but what Christ had commanded them. Let the Pope conforme himselfe to the tenour of this commission, and he will then renounce his Popedome, and we shall ac­knowledge him the disciple and seruant of Iesus Christ.

Ouer a part of hell he saith no Pope hath authority, signi­fying [Page 24]thereby, according to their partition, the hell of the damned. But how then did Clement the sixt not doubt to say in one of his Buls, Bale in Clem. 6. Nolumus quòd paena in­ferni sibi a­liquatenus in­fligatur. we will that the punishment of hell in no sort be laied or inflicted vpon him; and how was it that Gregorie deliuered the soule of Traian out hell, as See Bellarm. de purgatorio. lib. 2. cap. 8. Da­mascen hath reported, and sundry authours of the Church of Rome as Bellarmine acknowledgeth haue stedfastly be­leeued? If M. Bishop tell vs that Gregorie did that only by way of intreaty and request, he himselfe granteth the Pope to haue no other ouer Purgatory, and therefore ouer hell and Purgatory he hath authority both alike. When he doth good to any soule in Purgatory it is per modum suffragij, as a suppliant and intreater, not as a commander, saith he. But how then did the same Clement the sixt say, concerning them who should die by the way as they were comming to his Iubilee at Rome; Bale. vt supra Nihilominus prorsus manda­mus angelis Paradisi qua­tenus animam à Purgatorie pentius absolu tam in Paradi­si gloriam in­troducant. We command the Angels of Paradise that they bring the soule of such a one into Paradise being fully freed from Purgatorie paines. And what; is all this power no more now but to supplicate and intreat? Haue they mocked the world all this while, & made men beleeue that the Pope not only hath power to deliuer soules out of Pur­gatory himselfe, but can also impart the same to others, and is all come now to supplication and intreaty? Why, M. Bishop can supplicate and intreat as well as the Pope, and what reason haue we but to thinke that God is as readie to heare his praier as the Popes, and so by that meanes he shall haue as great power ouer Purgatory as the Pope. Such are the mockeries of Poperie; such are their doctrines of reli­gion; they themselues can not well tell what to make of them.

Further he saieth, Whether the Pope hath any authoritie ouer Princes and their subiects in temporall affaires, it is que­stioned by some. The more shame is it, M. Bishop, for them by whom it is questioned. Tertullian reporteth the minde of the ancient Church in this behalfe, Tertul. ad scapul. Colimus im [...]eratorem vt hominem à deo secundum & quicquid est à deo conse­cutum solo deo minorem. We honour the Em­perour as the man next to God, and as hauing receiued of God [Page 25]whatsoeuer he is, being inferiour to God onely. And is it now come to be questioned whether the Pope euen in temporall affaires haue authority ouer Princes, who in their king­domes respectiuely are the same that the Emperour then was? But is it questioned onely M. Bishop and not deter­mined? Wee may indeed admire their impudency therein, that they, who so much pretend antiquitie, should resolue a matter so contrarie to the doctrine and example of all an­tiquitie; but yet they haue so resolued, that either directly or indirectly the Pope hath superioritie ouer Princes euen intemporall affaires. Treatise tending to Mitigation, &c. in the Preface to the Reader. sect. 22. The Canonists do commonly defend the first part, saith the Mitigatour, that is, directly: but Ca­tholike Diuines for the most part the second (that is indirectly and by consequence) but both parts fully agree that there is such an authority left by Christ in his Church. They agree in deed, but it is like Herod and Pilate against Christ. Accor­dingly as they carrie themselues in this point, so they de­serue to be credited in all the rest. But M. Bishop telleth vs that Christ might haue giuen him that authoritie without de­grading himselfe. And I answer him that the question is not what Christ might haue done, but what he hath done. Therefore his instance of a King substituting a Viceroy will not serue his turne; for hee that without any commission from the King taketh vpon him to be a Viceroy, and vnder pretence thereof impugneth his Princes lawes, and maketh construction of them at his owne pleasure, and to serue his owne turne, howsoeuer he seeme to doe all in his Princes name, yet is indeed a traitour and a rebell to his Prince. This is the Popes case, and therefore vnder the name of the Vicar of Christ, he is no other but a traitour and a re­bell against Iesus Christ. As for those faculties of greater authoritie and vertue, because wee reade nothing thereof in the Gospell, no not in S. Peter himselfe thove faculties which they attribute to the Pope, therefore we hold them and that iustly, to bee the Popes owne presumptions, the flatteries of Parasites, the deuises of ill disposed men, [Page 26] Tit. 1.11. who speake things which they ought not for filthy lucers sake.

The Popish Priesthood is not true and reall, but meerely fantasticall: for a true and reall Priesthood, such as they boast of, requireth a true and reall sacrifice for sinne, which they haue not. For after the sacrifice which pur­chaseth forgiuenesse of sinnes, Heb. 10.18.there is no more offering for sinne. But in the death of Christ is a full purchase of the forgiuenesse of sinnes. Therefore after Christs death there is no more offering for sinne. We say then of Priesthood as Cyrill hath taught vs to say; Cyril. epist. 10 ad Nestor. Nec praeter ip­sum alteri cui­piam homini siue sacerdotij nomen siue rem ipsam ascribi­mus. We ascribe not the name of Priesthood or the thing it selfe to any other but to Christ on­ly. See that question, saith M. Bishop. But where? for hee himselfe hath said nothing of it, and whatsoeuer he would say, it is already preuented in Sect. 27. answer of his Epistle to the King.

To the last obiection that for one Iesus the all-sufficient Mediatour of intercession, they haue made as many as be in the Popes Kalendar; he answereth, yea and many more to. What M. Bishop, so many Mediatours, when the Apostle saith plainly, 1. Tim. 2.5. There is one God, and one Mediatour betwixt God and man, euen the man Iesus Christ? We hold, saith hee, that any of the faithfull yet liuing, may bee also requested to pray for vs. True M. Bishop, yet not as Mediatours, as if we may plead any thing that they haue done or can do for vs for our owne accesse to God, but onely as fellow-members of one body affected in compassion one towards an other, pleading for our selues, and ech for other that which Christ hath done for all. Wherefore as the greater praieth for the lesse so doth the lesse also for the greater; not onely S. Paul for the Romans, the Ephesians, the Collossians, but also the Rom. 15.30. Romans, the Eph. 6.19. Ephesians, the Col. 4.3. Colossians for S. Paul. And although we thus request the praiers one of another, yet doe we not pray to God that he will heare vs for their sakes whom we request to pray for vs, but all expect mercy onely for Christs sake. But Popish praiers [Page 27]are of a farre other nature: The golden Letany. By the holy name of Marie haue mercy vpon vs: by the intercession and merits of S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Iohn the Euangelist and other of thine Apostles haue mercy vpon vs; by the vertues and merits of the holy fathers, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Am­brose and all other haue mercy vpon vs. This is one of the abhominations of Popery, that they do not onely idlely in­treat the Saints to pray for them, but do also alleage to God their merits and intercessions by vertue thereof to obteine mercy at Gods hands. But hee saith it shall be hard for vs to prooue that Christ onely maketh intercession for vs. Yea M. Bishop: but why then doth S. Austen say, that Aug. in Psal, 64. solus ibi ex his qui carnem gustauerunt in­terpellat pro nobis. in heauen of all that haue beene partakers of flesh Christ onely maketh intercession for vs? Did hee speake more then hee could prooue? Deceiue not your selfe M. Bishop; hee could prooue this matter well enough, but you cannot prooue that which so iniuriously to Christ the onely Mediatour you affirme and teach that Mediation of intercession be­longeth to the Saints; it being a thing vnreasonable and absurd to thinke that Mediatours for vs stand in need of a Mediatour for themselues.

4. W. BISHOP.

Lastly saith M. PERKINS for the only merits of Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased, (what was he not well pleased with his Apostles?) they haue deuised a treasury of the Churches, containing besides the merits of Christ, the ouerplus of the merits of Saints, to be dispensed to men at the discretion of the Pope, and thus wee see that Christ and his merits be abolished.

Answer. The good man is somewhat mistaken, for we hold not any ouerplus of merits in Saints, the which we acknowledge to be by God fully rewarded in heauen: but we affirme that some Saints and blessed Martyrs haue suffered more paines in this life, then the temporall punishment of their own sins deserued: Who therefore might truely say with that iust man Iob, Iob. 6.1. would [Page 28]to God my sinnes, whereby I haue deserued wrath, were weighed with the calamitie that I suffer, euen as the sands of the sea, this should be the heauier. Now part of these suf­ferings of Gods Saints (as being needlesse for their owne satis­faction) are reserued in the Churches storehouse, and may by the high steward of the Church (to whom the dispensation of her treasure belongeth) be communicated to others, as verie reason teacheth vs; for who is fitter to dispose of any mans goods, then he to whom the charge thereof is giuen by his testament? And thus I hope euery reasonable man doth finde vs Catho­likes to be farre off from transforming Christ into an Idoll of mans conceit, as M. PERKINS dreameth: onely we see a misconceited man, labouring in vaine to deface Christs benefits towards vs, to calumniate his chiefe seruants, and to skirmish against his owne phantasies, then against any doctrine of [...]rs.

R. ABBOT.

Whether M. Bishop or M. Perkins doe mistake, The Popes storehouse merits lately built. let the Reader iudge. The Pope saith that Extrauag. de poenit. & re­miss. cap. Vni­genitus. Ad cu­tus thesauri cu­mulum beata dei genetricis & omnium ele­ctorum à primo vs (que) ad vlti­mum merita adminiculum praestare nos­cuntur. the merits of the holy Ʋirgin, and of all the elect from the first to the last are knowen to yeeld supply or help to the store of his treasury: M. Bishop saith that they doe not hold any ouerplus of merits in Saints, and therefore denieth any merits to be laied vp in that storehouse. If M. Bishop say true, then the Pope lieth: If the Pope say true, then M. Bishop lieth: And if there be no ouerplus of merits in Saints, we desire to know what reason they haue then to craue mercy of God by the merits of the Saints, as we haue already seene in the former section. But M. Bishop doth not loue to be demanded a reason of all matters; he will haue vs to take his time though it be with­out reason. Well, though there be no merits, yet what els may we thinke is laied vp in that storehouse of the Pope? forsooth some Saints and Martyrs haue suffered more paines then the temporall punishment of their sinnes deserued. Full wisely spoken; the temporall punishment of their sinnes de­serued paines. But let that passe; and what I pray of those [Page 29]paines? forsooth the sufferings of the Saints which were need­lesse for their owne satisfaction, are reserued in the Churches storehouse, and are to be dispensed by the Pope. And therefore Iob is brought vs for an example, who complaineth that Iob 6.3. his calamity was heauier then his sinnes. Indeed the holy man Iob considering the course of Gods iudgements in this world, and knowing the cleerenesse of his conscience, and the vprightnesse and innocency of his life, might well and truely answer his friends that his strange fall and so vn­speakeable calamity was more grieuous then could be ex­pected out of that condition of life which he had liued. God had another end in the afflicting of Iob which Iob himselfe vnderstood not, and therefore wondered at that which befell vnto him. Whatsoeuer he suffered, he is therein set before vs for an example of patience; but as touching matter of satisfaction we read nothing. Nay as Paul in that respect said of himselfe, so must it be said of Iob also, 1. Cor. 1.13. Was Iob crucified for you? Albeit we would gladly know of M. Bishop what became of the ouerplus of Iobs satisfactions for so long a time? for the storehouse, of which M. Bishop speaketh, was of farre later time. The matter of it was prepared by Heretikes, the Pope gaue it ground, and the Scholemen built it. Where then was the supera­bundance of Iobs sufferings and of others all that while re­serued to the Popes vse? yea or how may it appeare that the disposing thereof is committed to the Pope? Who is fit­ter, saith M. Bishop, to dispose of any mans goods then he to whom the charge thereof is committed by his testament? Alas good man, and doe ye now appeale to the Testament of Christ? Bring vs foorth the Testament, M. Bishop; and shew vs where it is that Christ hath made the Pope super­visour of any such goods. He is a lewd man that belieth and falsifieth the Testament of another man; what are you then that thus belie the Testament of Christ? Of this blasphemous fancy enough hath beene said before in the question of Sect. 4. & 7. satisfaction. His parenthesis, what, was not [Page 30]the father well pleased with his Apostles? such a wise one as it is, is answered also Of Merits. sect. 2. before. He was well pleased with his Apostles, but it was Christ alone in whom he was well pleased towards his apostles, and is well pleased towards vs. Greg. in Eze­chiel. hom. 8. In solo sibi re­demptore nostro complacuit pa­ter quia in solo non inuenit cu [...]pam, &c. In Christ only, saith Gregory, the father was well pleas­ed, because in him only he found no sinne.

5. W. BISHOP.

He laieth lastly a third kinde of Atheisme against vs, for worshipping of God not with such respect as is sutable to his nature. For (saith he) our worship is meere will worship for the most part, without any allowance or commande­ment of God, as Durand in his Rationale in effect acknow­ledgeth: it is a carnall seruice standing of innumerable bo­dily rites and ceremonies, borrowed partly from the Iewes, and partly from the Heathens: it is deuided be­tweene God and some of his creatures, in that they are worshipped both with one kinde of worship, let them paint it as they can, &c.

Answer. Ipse dixit: Pythagoras hath pronounced his sen­tence; yet you need not beleeue him, vnlesse you list, because he fableth so formally: doth Durand acknowledge that all our worship is meere will worship, and that it hath no allowance of God? O egregious and impudent deceiuer! For that learned deuout Author Durand, doth nothing else in al that Booke, then set out the Maiestie, and declared the meaning of the worship of God, vsed daily in our seruice throughout the whole yeare: And therefore doth entitle his booke Ratio­nale Diuinorum, the reasons of diuine seruice. And as for bo­dily rites, wee vse but few, and those very decent, full of reue­rence, and most fit to stirre vp and cherish deuotion. We bee not spirits, and therefore must serue God by bodily ceremonies, al­though the life and vertue of them proceed from the spirit, em­ploying all parts of the body, in his worship, and to his honour that made it: neither be they borrowed of Iewes nor of the Heathens; albeit they might perhaps (the one by the comman­dement [Page 31]of God, the other by the light of nature (vse some such like: but ours were deuised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, (the heauenly guide and directer of the Catholike Church) to mooue vs to serue God more deuoutly, and with greater reue­rence. Now to say that we giue the same worship to any Saint that we giue to God, is a stale iest, that hath long sithence lost al his grace, being found to be nothing els, but a notorious vntruth very often confuted; as by others else where, so by me more then once in this booke: where also these other slanders here cast vp­on vs, are more at large in their seuerall places discussed: this therefore may serue in this place for an answer to those impu­tations of Atheismes, which Master PERKINS obiecteth a­gainst vs.

R. ABBOT.

It is not the maiestie of Gods worship that Durand setteth forth, but the foolery and absurdity of Popish superstition. Popish wor­ship of God is but carnall seruice. Of how many idle ceremonies doth he imforme vs, and what great mysteries doth he make of them? for which when he bringeth no allowance or commandement of God, doth he not acknowledge in effect that they are Col. 2.22.23. wilwor­ships, according to the doctrines and commandements, of men? Which being so, God asketh thereof, Esay 1.12. who required these things at your hands? and by the Prophet complain­eth; Esa. 29.13. Their feare towards me is taught by the precepts of men. His excuse of these carnall rites and ceremonies is false, for contrary to that that he saith, they are infinite in number, and a great number of them apish and rediculous in vse, not fit to stirre vp and cherish deuotion, but rather to busie and intangle the senses of the body, and thereby to sequester and extinguish the deuotion of the mind. S. Austine com­plained in his time that Aug. ep 119. Tam multis praesumptionib. sic plena sunt omnia &c. Quamuis nequ [...] hoc inueniri possit quomodo contra fidem veniant, ipsam tamen religio­nem quam pau­cissimis & ma­nifestissimis ce­lebrationum sacramentis miserecordia dei liberam esse voluit seruilibus oneribus premunt, vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint, tamen legalibus sarci­nis, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur. all was so full of humane presump­tions; and that albeit it could not be found how they were against [Page 32]the faith, yet the religion which the mercy of God would haue free with a very few and those most manifest mysteries and Sa­craments, was thereby clogged with seruile burdens, so that the condition of the Iewes was more tolerable, who though they knew not the time of liberty, yet were subiect not to the pre­sumptions of men but to the burdens of Gods law. What would he say if he were now aliue to see Durands Rationale diuino­rum, and those infinite presumptions wherewith Popish superstition hath clogged and oppressed the Church. Of which some are preposterous imitations of the Leuiticall and Iewish ceremonies, other taken from the abhominati­ons of heathenish Idoll-seruice; a thing so plaine as that M. Bishop denieth not, but that they vsed some such like, indeed the same, onely he setteth vpon them a false colour of being deuised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, not knowing Chrysostomes rule, that Chrysost. de sanct. & oran­do spiritu. Ex quo non legit haec scripta sed ex se ipso loqui­tur manifestum est quòd non habet sp. sanct. because they read not these things written but speake of themselues, it is manifest that they haue not the holy Ghost. We be no spirits, he saith, but yet he should know, that the true worshippers leauing Gal. 4.9. beggerly rudiments & Heb 9.10. carnall rites should Ioh. 4.24. worship the Father inspi­rit and truth. Whereas he alleageth that the life and vertue of bodily ceremonies proceedeth from the spirit, he saith no­thing but what was true, and necessarily required in the Iewish seruice, and therefore may as well be pleaded for the continuance of their ceremonies, as for the excusing of others deuised in steed of them. To that that M. Perkins saith that they giue the same worship to Saints that they doe to God, he answereth that that is a stale iest which long since hath lost all his grace, but he should haue told vs that they themselues haue long since lost all grace by mainteining such filtherie and abhomination in the Church. Bodin tel­leth vs that Bodin. method. h. c. 5. A ple­ris (que) in Italia & Gallia Nar­bonensi arden­tiore voto, certe maiore metu colitur D. An­tonius quàm deus immort [...] ­lis. in Italy and a part of France that which is cal­led Narbonensis, S. Antony is commonly worshipped with grea­ter deuotion and feare then almighty God. Lud. Vi [...]es saith that Lud. Viues. in Aug. de ciu. dei. l. 8. ca. 27. Mul­ti Christiani di­uos diuas (que) non alitèr veneran­tur quàm de­um; nec video in multis quod sit dis [...]i [...]men inter eor [...] [...]opi­nionem de san­ctis & id q [...]od gentiles puta­bant de suis dijs. many Christians (he was loth to say how many) doe no otherwise worship the Saints then as God himselfe; and in [Page 33]many saith he I see not what difference there is betweene their opinion of the Saints and that which the heathens deemed of their Gods, Yea Bellarmine confesseth that Bellarm. de sanct. beatitud. lib. 1. cap. 12. Omnes ferè. actus exteriores communes sunt omni adorati­oni. in a maner all their outward worshippes (he might haue said their inward also) are common both to the one and to the other. And so we see they pray to the one, they pray to the other: they kneele to the one, they kneele to the other: they offer, they vow, they fast, they build Churches and Altars, they keepe holy daies, they professe trust and confidence both to the one and to the other, only forsooth we must thinke that they retaine Ibid. Latria inclinatio vo­luntatis cum apprehensione dei, &c. Dulia inclinatio vo­luntatis cum apprehensione excellentiae plus quam hu­manae & minùs quàm diuinae. an apprehensiue and intellectuall difference be­twixt the one and the other. As if aman giuing the crowne and roiall honour of the king to a subiect, should thinke to discharge himselfe by saying that in his mind, for al that, he retained a farre higher opinion of the king then of the sub­iect. Which if it acquit not with men, surely we should know that the infinite excellency of God aboue all his crea­tures should be a reason to withhold vs from daring to ioine any creature in any part of communion or felowship with him. Your idolatry, M. Bishop, in this behalfe is so stale as that it is growen extreamely sower, and the time will come when you shall see it will be taken for no iest. As for your confutations and your answers, you should haue made them good before you had boasted of them. A wise man would not haue written a latter booke before he had made it appeare that he could defend the former.

6. W. BISHOP.

And for that this crime of Atheisme is the most heynous that can be, as contrariwise, the true opinion of the God-head and the sincere worship thereof, is the most sweete and beau­tifull flower of religion: let vs therefore, heere (to hold due correspondence with Master PERKINS) examine the Pro­testants dostrine, concerning the nature of God, and their wor­ship of him; that the indifferent Reader, comparing iudicious­ly our two opinions thereof together, may embrace that for most [Page 34]pure and true, that carrieth the most reuerent and holy con­ceit thereof. For out of all doubt, there can be no greater motiue to any deuout soule, to like of a religion, then to see that it doth deliuer a most sacred doctrine of the Soueraigne Lord of hea­uen and earth, and doth withall most religiously adore and serue him: Whereas on the other side, there is not a more forcible perswasion to forsake a religion before professed, then to be giuē to vnderstand, that the Masters of that religion, teach many absurde things concerning the Godhead it selfe, and do as coldly and as slightly worship God almightie, as may be. Marke ther­fore, I beseech thee (gentle Reader) for thy owne soules sake, what euidence I shall deliuer in against the Protestants, touch­ing this point of Atheisme, and following the same method that M. PER. obserueth, I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinitie and Deitie: secondly, such as are against our Lord Iesus God and man: lastly, I will speake one word or two about their seruice and worshipping of God: All which shall be performed in a much more temperate maner, then the graui­ty of such a matter requireth; that it may be lesse offensiue, Concerning the sacred Trinitie, it is by the doctrine of certaine principall pillars of their new Gospell brought into great questi­on.Lib. 1. In stit. ca. 13. ss. 23.25. Con. rationes Camp. p. 152.For Iohn Caluin in diuers places teacheth, that the se­cond and third persons of the Trinitie, doe not receiue the God-head from the first, but haue it of themselues, euen as the first person hath. And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker, and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first Counsell of Nice. Out of which position it followeth, that there is neither Father nor Sonne in the Godhead: for according vnto common sense, and the vniforme consent of all the learned, he onely is a true naturall Sonne, that by genera­tion doth receiue his nature and substance from his Father. We are called the Sonnes of God, but that is by adoption and grace: but he onely is the true naturall Sonne of God, that by eternall generation receiued his substance: that is, the God­head from him. If therfore the second person did not receiue the Godhead from the first, but had it of himselfe as they do affirm: [Page 35]then certainly he is no true Son of the first, & consequently the first person is no true Father. For (as al men cōfesse) Father & Son be correlatiues, so that the one cānot be without the other. Thus their doctrine is found to be faultie in the highest degree of Atheisme. For it ouerthroweth both Father and Sonne in the Trinitie. And further, if it were true, then doth the holy Ghost proceed neither from the Father, nor from the Son: for it receiueth not the Godhead from them at all, as they hold; but hath it of himselfe, and so proceedeth no more from them, then they doe from him, and consequently is not the third person: Wherefore finally they doe euerthrow the whole Tri­nitie, the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost.

R. ABBOT.

We are now come to the beginning of M. Bishops libell, for introduction whereof he telleth his Reader a goodly smooth tale of the important weight of the true opinion of the Godhead and the true worship thereof, Caluin truely teacheth the Godhead of Christ. and what a motiue it is to like of that religion that deliuereth sacred and sound doctrine concerning the same, faring as if he had bloody enditements in this behalfe against vs, calling the Iurie, putting in his euidence, and in the end all commeth to nothing; Parturit Oceanus, prodit de gurgite squilla. In the very first accusation he sheweth abundance of malice, but great want of wit, for that he is found a liar euen in the very place which he himselfe citeth. He chargeth Caluin to haue taught that the second and third persons of the Trinity doe not receiue the Godhead from the first, but haue it of them­selues as the first person hath. He citeth Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 13. ss. 23.25. which no man would thinke that he would so precisely set downe but that hee read the place. Now in the latter of those two sections Caluin saith thus: Caluin. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect. 25. Deitatem ergò absolute ex seipsa esse dicimus; Vndc & filium qua­tenus deus est, fatemur ex se­ipso esse sublato personae respe­ctu; quatenus verò filius est, dicimus esse ex patre: ita essen­tia eius princi­pio caret, per­sonae verò prin­cipium est ipse deus. we say then that the Godhead absolutely is of it selfe; and therefore that the Sonne as he is God, setting a side the respect of the per­son, is of himselfe; but as he is the Sonne, we say, that he is of the Father. So then the essence of the Sonne is without beginning; [Page 36]but the beginning of his person is God the Father; which he sheweth in the other section alleaged to be Ibid. sect. 23. Cum filio essen­tiam communi­cauit. R [...]s [...]at vt tota & in so [...]i­dum patris & filij sit cōmunis. by the Fathers communicating his whole essence to the Sonne. What can be more plainely or more truly spoken? He affirmeth that the Godhead whereby Christ is God, is of it selfe, that is to say, not of any other; but yet that Christ as he is the second person in Trinity is not God, of himselfe, but of the Father. In the former meaning he termeth Christ to be God of himselfe, vnderstanding the name of God absolutely, that is, that he is that one God who is God of himselfe and not of any other, but that the second person in Trinity receiueth not the Godhead from the first, Caluin neuer wrot it, neuer thought it, and most lewdly doth M. Bishop deale so falsely to charge him with it. Yea Bellarmine himselfe though he will seeme to condemne Caluin for the maner of his speech in stiling Christ, [...], God of himselfe, yet indeed fully and wholly doth acquit him; for he telleth vs that Bell de Christo l. 2. c. 19. Causa fuit quia Va­lentinus Genti­lis perpetuo ia­es abat soium patrem esse [...] & per hoc nomen in­telligebat solum patrem habere essentiam verè diuinam & in­creatam: silium autem & sp. sanctum habere aliam essenti­am productam à patre & ideo quoad essenti­am eos non esse autotheos. Calu. igitur occurrere volens Valenti­no contrarium asseruit, nempe filium esse auto­theon quoad es­sentiam, id est, in eo sensu quo id à Valentino negabatur. the cause which mooued Caluin so to write, was because Valentinus Gentilis (a new Arian heretike) was still prating that the Fa­ther only was [...] and meant thereby that the Father only had the essence truly diuine and vncreated, and that the Sonne and the holy Ghost had another essence produced of the Father, and therefore that as touching essence neither of them was [...]. Caluin therefore willing, saith he, to meete with Ʋa­lentine, auoucheth the contrary, namely that the Sonne is [...], God of himselfe as touching the essence, that is, in that sense wherein Valentine denied the same. Accordingly of his arguments he saith: Idem. Respon­deo hoc argumē ­tum benè con­cludere contrà Gentilem, &c. This argument concludeth well against Gentilis; this argument also concludeth well against Gentilis. How grossly then are these men blinded with malice, who acknowledging Caluins words to be spoken only in a cer­tain meaning against his aduersary, & that in that meaning they are true, and that his arguments doe conclude rightly and strongly to that purpose, doe notwithstanding cauill against him by wresting his words to another meaning then by their owne confession he intended in speaking of [Page 37]them? He tooke occasion of so speaking by his aduersarie. And is there any man who hauing to deal against an aduer­sarie will not vse his aduersaries owne words to dispute against him? And is there any fault herein, when in the very place he expoundeth himselfe, and taketh away al occasion of miscōstruction, saying: Caluin opusc. Explicat. perfi­diae Valent. Gent. ex Actis. Quead essenti­am sermo est deus abs (que) prin­cipio: in perso­na autem filij habet princi­pium à patre. As touching the essence, the word is God without beginning, but in the person of the Sonne he hath his beginning from the Father? for what will they say? is [...] a name wholly vnlawfull to be attributed vnto Christ the Sonne of God? Why more then by Elias Cre­tensis he is called Elias Cret. in Gregor. Nazi­an. Orat. 5. [...] and [...], and by Ori­gen Origen. in Ioan. tom. 32. [...] and [...] which being of the same cōpo­sition, must then be subiect to the same blame? Nay Bellar­mine himselfe confesseth that Christ may in some sense be called Bellarm. vt supra ex Epi­phan. haer. 69. [...], and by Epiphanius is so called as to sig­nifie that he is God himselfe, most verily and truly God. And could not his wisedome see that Caluin in effect meant no other but only so? for because Christ could not be verily and truely God vnlesse he were [...] in that meaning wherein Valentinus spake, therefore Caluin to auouch the true Godhead of Christ, affirmed him to bee [...], the very true God, God of himselfe that is, by that one only es­sence which is of it selfe, and whereby God, speaking abso­lutely, is of himselfe and is truely God, and not as Valenti­nus wickedly taught, by another inferiour essence made and produced of the Father as a superiour God, whereby it should come to passe that he were not God at all. And when he saw that by Caluins owne words he that is called God of himselfe is also affirmed to be God of God, the Sonne of God, why could he not excuse that maner of speaking in him as well as in S. Austin, who in the like sort saith that Christ is August. Orat. contra Iud. Pa­gan. & Arian. cap. 6. Fi [...]us & de se & [...] pa­tre splendens. the Sonne of God shining both of himselfe and of the Father? To shine of himselfe what is it but to be God of himselfe? As he shineth of himselfe, so he is God of himselfe: that is, according to his essence as he is absolutely God; according to his person he shineth of the father and so he is [Page 38]God of God, the Sonne of God. In this therefore iustly doth M. Whitakers defend Caluin, not praeferring him be­fore all the learned Fathers of the first Councell of Nice, as M. Bishop fondly cauilleth, but ioining with him to maintaine the same true Godhead of Christ against new Arians, which the Fathers of that Councell professed and taught against Arius of old. This matter then being cleered, and it being apparant that neither Caluin nor any of vs saieth any thing to the contrary, nay we stedfastly beleeue and teach that the second person of the Trinity receiueth his God­head from the first, and that the holy Ghost proceedeth both from the Father and the sonne, there is nothing heere more to be spoken of; and therefore as touching Atheisme we will leaue M. Bishop in his chaire to consider more wisely of his taleagainst the next time.

7. W. BISHOP.

Secondly, they may be truely stiled Atheists, who thinke a­ny one to be God, that hath not in him all singular perfections, in the most perfect sort that can be, but either wanteth some of them, or else hath them in a meaner degree then any other: they therefore that teach our Sauiour Christ, in his Godhead to be inferiour vnto his Father, stand iustly charged with A­theisme. Such a one is Epist. ad Polo. p. 940. & seq. In cap. 26. Matt. 24. con. Stancar. in lo­cis, cap. de Con. Har­ding, art. 17. in confuta. of the Papists slanders. Caluin who informall tearmes doth auouch and say, that Christ according to his Godhead, is lesse then his Father. And else where he affirmeth, the Father to hold the first ranke of honour and power, and the Sonne to obteine the second, which hee might haue learned of his great master Melancthon, who taught that the Sonne ac­cording to his diuinitie, is his Fathers subiect and minister. Further, that in Christ there was something of the nature of God; some other thing then, belike, was wanting. Againe. that the Godhead of Christ was obedient vnto his Father: with whom our countrey-men Iewel and Fulke doe iumpe, who affirme that the diuine nature of Christ offered sacrifice vn­to his Father. Briefly, all Protestants who hold Christ accor­ding [Page 39]to his diuine nature, to haue beene a mediatour) make his Godhead inferiour to God his Father. For to be (as a mediatour must needs be) a suppliant vnto another: to pray and offer sacrifice to him, is to acknowledge him to be his bet­ter, and that something lieth in his power to doe, which the o­ther of himselfe cannot doe, but by sute must obtaine of him. Ioyne heereunto that they doe expound most of the textes of holy Scripture, vsed by the ancient Fathers to prooue the bles­sed and sacred Trinity, euen as the old Arrians did, reprouing the ancient Fathers exposition; which cannot but argue, that they in their hearts (though they be yet ashamed to confesse it) decline apace from those holy Fathers steps, to fauour Arrianis­me. This little therefore may suffice to demonstrate, how the chiefe pillers of the Protestants religion, doe shake the verie foundations of the Christian faith, by their strange glosses and speeches about the sacred Trinity, and by their diuers deroga­tions to Christs diuinitie.

R. ABBOT.

How vaine this second imputation is, it plainly appea­reth by that that hath been said of the former. For seeing both Caluin and all our writers acknowledge the eternall generation of the Sonne of God to be as before was said the Fathers communicating of the whole essence of the godhead to the Sonne, they must consequently of necessity be vnder­stood to acknowledge the whole perfection and maiesty of the Godhead in the Sonne of God, because in the whole essence of God there can be nothing vnequall or inferior vn­to God. This is argument enough, neither needeth there any more to approoue in this behalfe the integrity of our faith; because to attribute to the Sonne the whole essence of the Godhead, and yet to make him vnequall to the Fa­ther, are things incompatible, Christ as God how e­quall and how inforior to the Father. and can by no meanes stand together. Well, yet M. Bishop telleth vs that Caluin in an Epistle to the Polonians in formall termes auoucheth that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse than his father. But [Page 40]how vntrue this is may easily be esteemed, for that the Po­lonians to signifie their agreement in faith with Caluin and with other Protestant Churches, thereby to cleere them­selues of some iealousie that was had of them, did in their Synod by Faelix Cruciger write thus to him and others: Foelix Crucig. inter epist. Cal­uin. 311. Credi­mus patrem omnipotentem; filium ei per omnia aequalem quoad naturam essentiam vel deitatem: mi­norem eo tan­tum quòd cum in forma Dei esset seipsum ex­inaniuit, seu vt vno verbo com­plectamur rati­one officij medi­ationis. We beleeue the Father to be almighty; the Sonne also as tou­ching his nature, essence, or godhead to be in all respects equall to the Father; but inferior only in that when he was in the forme of God, he humbled himselfe, or in a word to speake it, in respect of his office of mediation. Now if this were Caluins beleefe, and in his Epistle to the Polonians he professe no other but this, as indeed Caluin epist. ad Polonos in­teropuscula. In­scitè ex Media­toru titulo in­fertur Christum patre esse mino­rem quando haec optime inter se cohaerent vnige­nitum dei fili­um eundem & vnius cum patre essentiae fuisse deum & tamen fuisse quasi in­ter deum & creaturas, &c. he doth not, shall we not thinke M. Bishop a man very formall in telling an vntruth, who maketh Caluin simply thus to say, that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse than his Father? But yet by his Ma­ster Bellarmine, we guesse what the bone is whereupon he gnaweth, who mentioneth one Bellar. in pre­fat. ad controv. 2. general. de Christo, &c. Stanislaus Sanricius for a patrone of Arianisme, for that he said that in respect of the office of mediation Christ euen in his diuine nature is inferior to the Father. From which assertion how the Iesuit should gather Arianisme, it is very hard to say, inasmuch as Aria­nisme importeth the Sonne to be intrinsecally and essenti­ally inferior to the Father, whereas his wisedom and lear­ning if he would haue vsed it, might discerne that there is no meaning here of any intrinsecall and reall minority, but only of an extrinsecall, a dispensatiue and voluntary de­meaning of himselfe, whereby he is in some sort inferior to himselfe also, reconciling vs in the person of a Mediator to himselfe as he is absolutely God. And could he not con­ceiue this to be as tollerable and true a speech in vs as in Maldonatus his fellow Iesuit, who in the same termes affir­meth Maldonat. in Ioan. c. 14. Minor non quoad diuinitatis inequalitatem, sed quoad munus & voluntatem redemptionis. the Sonne to be inferior to the Father, not as touching any inequality of Godhead, but as touching the office and will of our redemption? The same Maldonatus telleth vs also a­nother [Page 41]respect wherin Christ is said as touching his God­head to be inferior to the Father, Ibid. Non quoad naturam substantiae sed quoad relatio­nem originis. not as touching nature of substance, but relation of originall and beginning. Wherein he is not alone, but the Greek Fathers who most vehemently impugned Arius the Heretike, yet take part with him, as Sixt. Senens. biblioth sanct. lib. 6. annot. 1705. Obser­uandum est Graecos patres non reformida­re hanc locutio­nem qua filius patre minor asseritur, non substantia qui­dem sed origine: iuxta quam ra­tionem frequen­tissimè apud Grecos Theolo­gos pater dici­tur principij dignitate autho­ritate & maie­state antecellere filium. Sixtus Senensis testifieth, and citeth to that purpose Ori­gen, Cyrill, Chrysostom and Basil, and of the Latine Fa­thers Hilary, some of these, and beside them Athanas. con. Arian. orat. 2. pater maior non magnitudine aut aetate, sed quia filius ex illo ortum habe­bat. Athanasius and Tertul. adu. prax. pater filio maior dumalius quigenerat, alius qui generatur, &c. Tertullian in that sense expounding of the diuine na­ture the words of Christ, Iohn 14.28. The Father is greater than I. Now if in this meaning Caluin should haue said as is se­condly alleged, that the Father holdeth the first ranke of ho­nour and power, and the Sonne the second; in which sort Ter­tullian also saith, that Tertul. vt suprae. vt tertium gradum osten­deret in Paracleto, sicut & nos secundum in filio propter [...] obseruationem. the Sonne hath the second degree, and the holy Ghost the third, not meaning it of any disparity of essence, but of the order of the persons, would M. Bishop be no wiser but through Caluins side to wound so learned a Iesuit as Maldonatus, yea and so many Fathers both Greek and Latine, and at once to bring them all within the compasse of Atheisme? But thou must vnderstand gentle Reader, that M. Bishop very perfidiously abuseth thee in this citation; the words of Caluin being spoken of the manhood of Christ being aduanced to sit at the right hand of God. Caluin. in Mat. cap. 26. ver. 64. Dicitur Christus ad dexteram patris sedere quia rex summus constitutus qui eius nomine mundum gubernet, quasi secundam ab eo honoris & imperijs sedem obtinet.Christ saith he, is said to sit at the right hand of the Father, because being constituted the highest king, in his name to gouerne the world, he obtaineth a seat of honour and power as it were second or next to God. M. Bishop I trow vnderstan­deth the Articles of the Creed, and thereby knoweth who it is that is said to sit at the right hand of God. There follow­eth next Melancton, who disputing against Stancarus, for that he held Christ according to his manhood only to bee our Mediator, though hee vse not expressy the words [Page 42]which M. Christ our [...]diator as he is both God & man. Bishop hath set down, yet acknowledgeth and defendeth that Christ according to his diuine nature was sent of the Father, and submitted himselfe in obedience to the Father to performe the office of Mediation betwixt God and man, but yet so as that he excepteth out of Cyril, that Melanct. Re­spon [...]. a [...]l contro. stanc. M ssio & obedientia non tollunt equali­tatem potentiae, [...]ut expresse Cyrilius inquit. this sending and obeying doe not take away from the Son equality of power with the Father, because they are not mat­ters concerning state of nature, but only arbitrary designe­ment of will. Surely amongst men in society and equality a man may be sent and may yeeld himselfe to be sent and imploied by the rest without derogation to his equality with the rest. As Peter and Iohn were Acts [...].14. sent by the Apo­stles to Samaria, and yet M. Bishop will not admit that ther­fore Peter was inferior to the rest of the Apostles. And if he will not grant that the Son of God, the second person in Trinity did in some sort submit himselfe to doe seruice to the Father, let him tell vs how he is called in Scripture ac­cording to his diuine nature, Gen. 6.7.13 I [...]d. 13.3.22. The Angell of the Lord. Surely to be an Angell, that is to say, a Messenger, is in some sort to be a subiect or minister. Seeing Christ therfore the second person of the Godhead hath taken vpon him to be the Lords Angell to declare the messages of God to men, let him shew vs how it may be auoided but that he hath in some sort taken vpon him subiection or seruice to the Fa­ther. Nay let him tell vs how it standeth that the Syrmian Councel saith, that H [...]lar. desy­nod. ex contil. syrmiens. st quis Christum filium dei obsecutum patr [...]m creati­one omnium non confitetur, ana­ [...]em. [...]sit. Et pauio post Non exaequamus pa­tri filium sed subi [...]ctum in­te [...]iginius. the Sonne in the creating of all things did obey the Father; and that we doe not equall the Sinne to the Father, but vnderstand him to bee subiect, and that Hi [...]arie saith, Hila. ibid Non coaequatur filius patridum su [...]ditus per obedientiae obsequelam est. that by yeelding obedience he is subiect to the Father, who notwithstanding spake these things amidst their de­finitions and resolutions against the Arian Heretikes. Yea let him tell vs how Christ saith; Ioh. 6.38 I came downe from Hea­uen not to doe mine own will, but the will of the Father that hath sent me: not speaking as in the nature of man, as Tertul. de Tri. Descendit dei verbum quod ihi fuit, &c. veniendo inde vnde homo venire non potuit, deum se ostendit venisse. Tertullian [Page 43]rightly argueth, but as in the person of the sonne of God, according to which it was that he was sent & came down from heauen, and abased himselfe to doe his Fathers will in taking vpon him the nature of man. And heereupon Maldonatus the Iesuit aforesaid, truly obserueth, Maldonat. in Mat cap. 6. fecit quidem Christus non suam sed patris volunta­tem, sed idip­sum sponte & volunt [...] sua fecit: ita (que) non sequitur eum esse [...]norem patre. that Christ indeed did not his own will, but the will of his Father; but he did it voluntarily and willingly, not by constraint; and therefore that it followeth not that he was inferior to the Fa­ther. As he did his Fathers will, so and no otherwise was he subiect and obedient to the Father. But that doing of his Fathers will being voluntarily vndertaken, argueth no es­sentiall minority or subiection in the Son. Therefore nei­ther doth the same follow of his being so far foorth subiect and obedient to the Father. And so Hilary briefly resol­ueth; Hilar. d [...] syn. pietatis subie­ct [...]o non est es­sentiae diminu­tione [...] religionis officium degene­rem facit natu­ram & patri & obsequio subiectus & no­mine: ita ta­men vt subiectio nominis propri­etatem natura­lis at (que) indisse­rentis testetur essentiae. subiection of piety is no diminution of essence, neither doth office of deuotion put nature out of kinde. He is subiect to the Father both by seruice and by name, but yet so, as that sub­iection of name testifieth a propriety of naturall and no way dif­ferent essence. And this point the Apostle S. Paul manife­steth when he saith, that Phil 2 6. Christ being in the forme of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equall with God, yet abased himselfe and tooke on him the forme of a seruant, and was made like vnto men. Where when he thus expresseth who it was that abased himselfe, he that was in the forme of God, and whereto hee abased himselfe, to take vpon him the forme of a seruant, he signifieth plainely that in the forme of God he, as it were, Tert. de Trin. Authoritas di­u [...]m verbi ad sus [...]piendum h [...]minem inte­rim conquies­cens ne [...] se suis viril us exer­cens deijcit se ad tempus at (que) de­ponit du [...]a ho­minem sert quem suscepit. stooped downe voluntarily to take the nature of man, thereby to doe the office of mediation betwixt God and man, not forgoing or impeaching the forme of God, but content in that wherein hee owed no seruice to become a seruant and to doe that seruice vnto God. And to this purpose Cyrill vrgeth those other words of the same Apostle, that 2. Cor. 8.9. Christ being rich, for our sakes became poore, for how shall we vnderstand it that Christ became poore? Shal we say of Christ as man, that of rich he became poore? That cannot be, because the manhood of Christ was rather [Page 44]enriched and infinitely dignified and honoured by being ioined vnto God. Shall we say that the Godhead of Christ became poore simply in it selfe? Neither may we say so, be­cause the Godhead in it selfe is immutable and not subiect to any change. It remaineth therefore as Cyril concludeth, that Cyril. resp. ad Theodoret. ana­them. 10. Quo­inodo pauper factus est? Quia cùm esset deus natura & filius de [...]ac patris sa­ctus est homo, &c. seruilem (que) mensuram sub­ijt, hoc est, hu­manam, is qui in forma dei & patris est. Christ as God, the Sonne of the Father, became poore in being made man and vndergoing the condition of a seruant, that is, of a man. Now then, as Christ according to his Godhead became poore, not simply as God, but as God incarnate and made man, so he became also subiect and obedient, a minister and seruant to the Father as God in man, the body and manhood of Christ being Athana apud Cyril, vt supra anat. 11. si vide­amus eum quasi per instrumen­tum sut corporis diuino modo o­perantem vel dicentem, cog­noscamus quòd deus existens omnia operetur. the instrument, as Athana­sius calleth it, wherein and whereby God the Sonne of God wrought whatsoeuer was needfull to reconcile vs vn­to God. And thus doth the Apostle say, that Act. 20.28. God pur­chased the Church with his owne blood, that2. Cor. 5.19.God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe, not as by communi­cation of proprieties, to affirme of one nature that which simply belongeth to the other, but to note the act of the whole person in the offering of that sacred blood for the redemption of mankind. Therefore M. Iewel and M. Fulke and we all doe rightly affirme, that Christ neither as God only nor as man only, but as God and man, offered sa­crifice both to himselfe, as Cyrill speaketh, and to the Father. Otherwise how should the Apostle say, that Heb. 9.14. by his eternall spirit he offered himselfe to God? If by his eternall spirit, then it was not the act of the manhood only; or if it were done only by the manhood, it could not be said to be done by his eternall spirit. But this matter is briefely resolued by Cyrill, who amongst other propositions, set downe against the Nestorian Heretikes and their fauorites, setteth downe this: Ibid. Pontifi­cem & Aposto­lum confessionis nostrae factum esse Christum diuina dicit scriptura obtulisse (que) se pro nobis in odorem suauitatis deo ac patri, siquis igitur Pontificem & Apostolū nostrum factum dicit non ipsum quod ex des est verbum & caro & homo nobis similis est factum, sed vt alium ab ipso proprie (seorsim) hominem ex muliere, &c. anathema sit. The holy Scripture teacheth that the high Priest and Cyril. vt suprà anathem. 10. Non alteri cele­brat immolati­enis modum sed magis sibi & patri.[Page 45]Apostle of our profession offered himselfe for a sweet smelling sauour vnto God: if any man therefore say that the word which is of God being made flesh and man for vs, is not our high Priest and Apostle, but as it were another from him properly or seue­rally the man borne of woman, accursed be he. And againe; Ibid anath. 12. si quis non confitetur verbum dei carne esse pas­sum, carne cru­cifixum, & mortem carne gustasse, primo­genitum ex mortuis factum quemadmodum vita est & vi­uificans sicut deus, anathe­ma sit. If any man doe not confesse that the word suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, tasted death in the flesh, was made the first borne of the dead, according as he is life, and giueth life as God, accursed be he. Whereby he giueth to vnderstand, that the person of Christ in the worke of our redemption is not to be diuided, but what we beleeue concerning Christ in the flesh, we are to beleeue that God did and suffered the same in the flesh; not as heereby to attribute to the word in it selfe either suffering or death, but to signifie that it was the act of whole Christ both God and man to offer himselfe by suffering in that nature wherein he was capable of suf­fering. And surely by that whole disputation of Cyrill approoued by the Ephesine Councell, and inserted into it, it most plainely appeareth that that parting of the God­head and the manhood whereby Christ is made our high priest and Mediatour only according to his manhood, sa­uoureth more strongly of the heresie of Nestorius than they would haue it seeme that are the defenders of it. Certaine it is that Bellarmine in that point affirmeth nothing that was not acknowledged by Theodoret and those other par­ty-Nestorians against whom Cyrill there disputeth, and his arguments and reasons make as much against him and the Councell as they doe against vs. And as for those things which M. Bishop here vrgeth, that to be a Mediatour is to be a suppliant, and that to pray and to offer sacrifice is to ac­knowledge him to whom he so doth, to be his better, and that something lieth in his power to doe, which the other of himselfe cannot doe, but by sute must obteine of him, these are in ef­fect but the weapons of those Nestorians, & of the Arians, the one seeking thereby to dissolue the vnion of the person of Christ, the other to destroy the Godhead of Christ. But [Page 46]let him take the answers that Cyril giueth to such obiecti­ons: Cyril. vt supra Anath. 11. Di­cet quispiam parum & in­dignum esse deo verbo plorare, mortem timere, poculum depre­cari, pontificem esse. Vti (que) sic dix er [...]m & ego ipse quòd emi­nentiae diuinae naturae ac glo­riae parua sunt haec sed in his contemplabi­mur pauperta­tem quam pro nobis sponte tu­lit. Quando tibi molesta videtur ignobilitas ista exinanitionis, admirare ma­gis dilectionem filij erga nos. Quod tu parum esse dixisti, hoc sp [...]nte fecit pro­pter te. Some man will say, it is base and vnwoorthy of God to weepe or cry, to be afraid of death, to pray that the cup may passe from him, to be a Priest. Verily so say I also that these things are base to the excellency of the diuine nature and glory, but in these things wee will behold the pouerty which of his owne accord he tooke vpon him for our sakes. If this base­nesse of humbling himselfe seeme amisse to thee, wonder the rather at the loue of the Sonne towards vs. For that which thou saiest is base, that did he for thy sake. And againe, Ibid. Incon­gruum esse dicis deo verbo hu­manitus sacrfi­cium ministra­repro [...]er per­sonam Ergo au­fer personam, nega constanter factam incarnationem verbi propter quam nominatus est etiam pontif [...]x. Thou saiest it is vnfitting for God the Word according to man to of­fer sacrifice as touching the person. Then take away the per­son; deny flatly that there is any incarnation of the Word by meanes whereof he is also named the high Priest. To be short, be questioneth with his aduersarie in this sort: Ibid. Quomodo vnitum dicis ei qui exs [...]mine Dauid est ex deo verbum sisol [...] qui ex sentine D [...]uid est Pontificatum attribuis? si vera est vnto, non duo vti (que) sunt sed vnas & so­lus ex am [...]obus intelligitur Christus. How dost thou say that the Word which is of God is vnited vnto him that is of the seed of Dauid, if thou attribute Priesthood to him onely who is of the seed of Dauid? If there be true vnion, saith he, then there are not two, but Christ of both is vnder­stood onely one: leauing it to be consequent which he after­wards concludeth, that Ibid. in fine: Ipsion [...]ma tribuimus tanqu [...]m rni. we are to attribute all to Christ as one, not making him our high Priest, as man onely and not as God, but acknowledging the whole person God and man, to be our high Priest and mediatour vnto God. The Arians also as I haue said, laboured by the same obiections to ouerthrow the Godhead of Christ. That the Son was inferiour to the Father they would prooue for that Christ saith of himselfe, that hee came to doe the will of his Father. But Athanasius answereth, that Athanas. de co. essentia patris & fi ij, &c. God fulfilleth the willer de­sire of them that feare him, and yet this is no abasing of him. The same they inferred because Christ is brought in o ask­ing [Page 47]or requesting of the Father.Ibid. Affirmat haereticus mino­rem esse poten­tem datore, si igitur patrem petentem inue­rias, quid hic respenacas? Et nunc Israel quid dominus tuus à te petit, &c.The heretike affirmeth, saith Athanasius, that he that requesteth, is inferiour to him that giueth. What wilt thou answer then, saith hee, if God re­quest?Deut. 10.12.And now O Israel, saith Moses, what doth the Lord thy God The He­brew word is the same as Psal. 2.8.aske or request of thee, but that thou feare him. He leaueth it to be vnderstood, that God notwithstand­ing doth not thereby become inferior to vs. Sundry other like examples might be alleaged: but in briefe I answer as before, that the things which in this behalfe we affirme concerning Christ, doe no more bereaue him of equality with God, then a King by vouchsafying of his Princely grace to doe some act of speciall office to a subiect, doth thereby diuest himselfe of the maiestie of a king. And this the ancient Fathers saw well, who though they make the manhood of Christ the subiect and matter wherein and whereby this mediation is performed, and in that respect doe sometimes referre it onely to the manhood, yet doe otherwise acknowledge that the acting and effecting thereof, belongeth to the whole person both God and man. Therefore Ambrose saith, that Ambros. in 1. Tim. ca. 2. vt ex vtro (que) esset me­diator. on both parts he is a mediatour; that Idem in Heb. 7. In aeternum diuinitate & humanitate mediator inter deum & homi­nes semper vi­uens est &c. both by his Godhead and by his manhood, he is the mediatour betwixt God and man. So saieth Austin, that Aug. Orat. cont. Iudaeos, Pagan & Ari­an. c. 8. Nobis mediator sa­ctus est homo totus & deus, verbum, amma, cara, vnus Christus. whole Christ both God and man, the word, the soule and the flesh being one Christ is made our mediatour. Yea and out of the very nature of a Mediatour it followeth that he must be so vnderstood, not onely as man, but as God also. For Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom. 7. Id mediatoris est proprium vtrorum (que) participem fieri quorum suerit mediator. &c. Quia duarum naturarum medius suit Christus, ambarum oportuit esse participem. it belongeth to a Mediatour, saith Chrysostome, to be partaker of them both, betwixt whom hee is a media­tour: therefore because Christ was a mediatour betwixt two natures, he was to be partaker of them both.Theo­phylact in 1. Tim. c. 2. Nequaquam purus est deus; ne (que) enim homines hunc excepissent qui es­set intercessor futurus: nec simplex homo quippe qui deum esset allocuturus.He is not onely God, saith Theophylact, for then men could not haue admitted him to be intercessour for them; neither is he onely [Page 48]man, because hee was to deale with God. Hence therefore doth he take an argument, to prooue that Christ is God, Ibid. Quòd deus sit filius li­quet ex eo quia & conciliator fit & mediator effectus.because hee is made an intercessour or mediatour. And in the same sort Theodoret reasoneth against Arius the here­tike: Theodoret. in 1. Tim. cap. 2. si vt vult Arius filius patris substantiae non est particeps, quomodo est in­tercessor? If Christ be not partaker of the substance of his Fa­ther, how is he then a mediatour? Now if a mediatour, as a mediatour must bee God, why doth M. Bishop with his fellowes beare vs in hand that Christ as he is God is not a mediatour? Why are they so fond to make our assertion an inducement of Arianisme, when they see the Fathers to haue made it a ground to dispute against Arius? for the auouching of the Godhead of Christ in this person of a mediatour did Melancthon vse those other words (if at least he did vse them, for I find them not) which M. Bishop taxeth; There must needs be in him somewhat of the diuine nature. Where because he saith somewhat, M. Bishop in­ferreth; some other thing then belike was wanting. Full wisely I warrant you. But I pray let vs aske him, when Thomas Aquinas said that Tho. Aquin. in 1 Tim. cap. 2. lect. 2. Christus mediator est si­milis vtri (que) ex­tremo, scilicet deo & homini inquantum de­us & homo, quia medium debet habere a­liquid de vtro (que) extremorum & haec sunt homo & deus. Christ the Mediatour was like to God and man in respect that he was both God and man because the Mediatour must haue somewhat of both the extreames which are God and man, did he meane thereby that Christ had a part of the Godhead, and wanted a nother part; or a part of the nature of man and not the whole? If not, how little doth M. Bishops head serue him to conceiue there a parti­tion meant of the essence of God where there is only inten­ded a distinction of two natures in one Christ? Melan­cthons meaning is plaine, that as Christ had somewhat whereby he was truly man, so he had somwhat also wher­by he was truly God; euen the perfect nature and substance both of God and man. As for his last cauill, that we expound the texts of Scripture vsed by the Fathers against the Arians in the same sort as the Arians did, because it nameth no man, it deserueth no answer. His maister Bellarmine from whose dunghill it is that he gathereth al his mucke, accuseth Eras­mus in that respect, but I hope M. Bishop will not say that [Page 49]Erasmus was a Protestant. Whatsoeuer he was, or howso­euer he faulted therein, so little is he approoued or followed by the Protestants, as that Beza in See Beza. Annotat. in Coloss. 1.15. Philip. 2.6. 1. Tim. 3.16 Tit. 2.13. sundry places profes­sedly disputeth against him, and rechargeth against the Arians those places from which he seemeth to discharge them.

8. W. BISHOP.

But this shall appeare yet much more perspiciously, if we doe well weigh what they teach touching the very nature of the God-head it selfe. Whosoeuer denies God to be almighty, or presumes to limite the infinite power of God, within the com­passe of mans weake vnderstanding, he in effect makes him no God at all, but some meane creature of a limitted strength and power: such be all Protestants, who affirme that God cannot set a body in the world, without a circumscribed place; Oecolamp. de verbis Domini. Beza in Neoph. simil. cont. And pag. 15. nor any one body in many places at once, with such like: the which (because they cannot, out of the dulnesse of their witte, or will not of frowardnesse, conceiue to be in nature possible) they flatly denie God to be able to doe: yea, some of them were so blind In a confe­rence at Paris.and bold, as to auouch God, not to be able to conceiue or vnderstand, how that is possible; which notwithstanding very naturall Philosophie teacheth to haue no repugnance in it selfe, as in his place I haue prooued.

R. ABBOT. How some things are af­firmed vnpos­sible to God.

To say that there are some things which God cannot do, or that are vnpossible to God, is not to argue in God any impo­tency or defect, but to commend his perfection and power.2. Tim. 2.13.God cannot deny himselfe: Heb. 6.18.it is vnpossible that God should lie. Ambros. epist. 37. Im­possibile istud non infirmita­tis est sed virtu­tis & maiestatis &c. Quid ei impossibile? Non quod virtuti arduum, sed quod naturae eius est contrarium.This impossibility saith Ambrose, is not a matter of infirmity but of might and maiesty. What is vnpossible to God, saith he? Not any thing that is hard to be done by power, but that which is contrary to his nature. Idem in. Psal. 118. ser. 20. Quid non potest quiomnia potest nisi quod posse nolit?What cannot he do who can doe all [Page 50]things, but what he will not haue possible for him to doe? To the same purpose S. Austen saith that Aug. de ciu. dei lib. 5. c. 10. Recte deus dici­tur ommpotens qui tamen mori falli (que) nō potest. Dicitur enim omnipotens fa­ciendo quod vult, non pati­endo quod non vult, quod si ei accederet, ne­quaquam esset omnipotens: vn­de propterea quaedam non potest quia est emnipotens. God is rightly called omnipotent, who yet can not die, can not be deceiued. For he is called omnipotent, saith he, for doing what he will, not for suffe­ring what he willeth not, which if he should, he were not almigh­ty. God therefore cannot some things, for that very cause be­cause he is almighty. Thus God cannot be any other but God, he cannot of the Creator make himselfe a creature, he cannot according to his Godhead be a body, he cannot make a creature the same that he himselfe is, not because he is not almighty, but because his almightinesse is a thing positiue in respect of the creature, not priuatiue to himself. Thomas Aquinas M. Bishops own Doctor, goeth further in this matter, and telleth vs that T. Aqui. 1. q. 25. art. 3. in corp. Deus dici­tur omnipotens quia potest om­nia possi [...]i ia absolutè. Duitur autem aliquid possibile vel im­possibile absolu­tè ex habitudine terminorum: possibile, quia praeditatum non repugnat subie­cto: impossibile absolutè, quia predicatum re­pugnat subiecto: vt hominem [...]sse asioū &c. Quic­quid potest habere rationem entis continetur sub possibilibus absolutis, &c. Nihil autem opponitur rationi entis nisi non ens. Hoc igitur repugnat rationi possibilis absoluti quod implicat in se esse & non [...]ssesimul, &c. Ea quae contradictionē implicant sub diuina omnipotentia non continentur &c. Cōueniētius dicitur quod ea nō possunt fieri quàm quòd deus ea non possit facere. God is called almighty, be­cause he can doe all things that are absolutely possible, not the things that are absolutely vnpossible. Absolutely possible is when the things affirmed ech of other are not one repugnant to the other; but where the thing affirmed is repugnant to that whereof it is affirmed, as for a man to be a man and yet to be an asse, this is absolutely vnpossible. Whatsoeuer may haue the condition of a thing being, is absolutely possible. Not being is opposite to being. That therefore which implieth in it at once both to be and not to be, is repugnant to the condition of a thing absolutely possible, which is the subiect of Gods omnipotencie. His resolution in a word is, that those things which imply con­tradiction are not comprehended vnder Gods omnipotency be­cause they cannot haue the condition of things possible to bee, and therefore it is more conueniently said that they cannot be, than that God cannot do them. He vseth for examples here­of that Ib. ar. 6. God cannot make the number of foure to be but foure and yet to be more than four; that he cannot make a thing essen­tially better than it is and to be still the same thing;Ib. ar. 4.that he [Page 51]cannot make those things not to haue been which haue been. Thus Hierome saith; that Hier. ad Eu­stath. Cum om­nia possit deus, suscitare v [...]rgi­nem nen potest post ruinam. whereas God can doe all things, yet he cannot make a virgin not to haue been corrupted when she hath been corrupted. S. Austen bringing in one, saying; Aug. cont. faust. Manich. l. 26. cap. 5 Quis. quis dicit, si om­nipotens est deus, faciat vt quae facta sunt, facta non fue­rint; non videt hoc se dicere, si omnipotens est deus, faciat [...]t ea quae vera sunt eo ipso quo verasunt, faisa sint &c. Hanc sententiam (qua di [...]imus aliquid suisse) deus fal­sum facere non potest quia non est contrarius veritati. If God be almighty, let him make those things not to haue been which haue been, answereth thus; The man seeth not that in effect he saith: If God be almighty, let him make those things that are true euen in that they are true, to be notwithstanding false. But this sentence (that the thing hath been which indeed hath been) God cannot make false because he is not contrary to the truth. In all these things then, and such like, to say God cannot doe this or that, Tho. Aqu. ibid. vt supra. Hoc omnipoten­tiae non stibditur non propter de­fectum diuinae potentiae, sed quia non potest habere ratio­nem factibilis vel possibilis. is not for any defect of power in God, as Thomas saith, but because the same is not capable of the condition of a thing possible to be. I speake hereof with trem­bling and feare, abhorring the words that may carry any appearance or shew to be vnreuerently vttered of the ma­iesty of God; but yet the truth of God must be iustified a­gainst the headstrong importunity of malitious and wil­full men. If then any of ours haue vsed any speeches to that purpose, that God cannot doe that, that is the impea­ching of his eternall wisedome and truth, and haue hence inferred that therfore he cannot set a body in the world with­out a circumscribed place or any one body continuing but one in many places at once, they haue not hereby denied the om­nipotency of God, but only challenged the power of God from being made a cloake or shrowding place for mens presumptuous fancies against God. To take away the essentiall condition of a thing, and yet to leaue it the same that it was, is a meere contradiction, and importeth a thing absolutely vnpossible in it selfe. Now it is the essential con­dition and property of a body to be circumscribed and bounded within a place, so as not to remooue to another place without leauing that, and to take away this proper­ty is to destroy the nature and condition of a body. There­fore to say that a body may be without a circumscribed place, is to say that it may be at once both a body and not [Page 52]a body, circumscribed and not circumscribed, which being a thing repugnant to the truth of God, to say that a thing is and yet it is not; it is that which it is not, and it is not that which it is, the deniall thereof is not a deniall of Gods omnipotency, but a reproofe of mens folly, who to vphold their owne deuises, sticke not to broach paradoxes and strange opinions iniurious vnto almighty God. They who affirme the vbiquity of the body of Christ, they likewise pretend for their defence the omnipotency of God. And what will M. Bishop, I maruell, answer them thereof? Is not their allegation of Gods almighty power as strong a­gainst him as his is against vs? And will he be taken to de­ny the omnipotency of God because he subscribeth it not to be a matter of Gods omnipotency to make a finite crea­ture of like infinity with himselfe! If not, let him yeeld the same measure to vs that he doth to himselfe; and acknow­ledge his own temerity and rashnesse in charging vs that we limit the infinit power of God within the compasse of mans weake vnderstanding, and in effect make him no God at all, only because we will not betray Gods omnipotency to be the releefe of their fancy. He telleth vs of some who were so blind and bold as to auouch God not to be able to conceiue or vnderstand how that is possible which he hath spoken of, and this he noteth to haue been in a conference at Paris; but who they were, or when this conference was, he telleth vs no­thing: and for my part I take it that he doth therein but vse his liberty (he knoweth what I meane) as he is wont to do. Albeit I doubt not but some man in some forme of words might allude to that which Thomas Aquinas saith, who hauing affirmed the impossibility of Gods doing those things which absolutely in themselues are vnpossible, ad­deth; Tho. Aqu. vt supra Nesp hoc est contra verbū angeli dicentis, Non erit impos­sibile deo omne vertū Id enim quod contra [...]i­ctionem impli­cat, verbum esse non potest, quia nullus intelle­ctus potest illud concipere. Neither is this contrary to the word of the Angell, saying, No word shall be vnpossible to God; for that which im­plieth contradiction, can be no word, saith he, because no vnder­standing (speaking vniuersally) is able to conceiue it. Yet M. Bishop telleth vs that very naturall Philosophy teacheth that [Page 53]that which they say, hath no repugnancy in it selfe, as in his place, saith he, I haue prooued; but where that place is we doe not yet find. As for the Philosophy which they teach their naturals, we doe not well know what it is, but we well thinke that neuer any wise Philosopher was so vnrea­sonable a naturall as to hold it a matter of naturall reason, that a body should be without circumscription and yet re­maine a body or be in many places at once being but one and the same body; and that the ancient Fathers were of another reason I haue Sect. 2. before shewed. And if by naturall Philosophy it may be made good, why doth he a little be­fore blame mans weake vnderstanding as vnable to conceiue it? why doe their writers of naturall Philosophy alwaies passe it ouer as a matter beyond their element and without the compasse of their rules? yea why doe they all rest it vpon so extraordinary an act of Gods omnipotency, if there be nothing but what the light of naturall Philosophy can enable vs to comprehend? To conclude this point, be­fore M. Bishop any more question Gods power in this matter, we wish him to resolue vs of Gods will; and if he can approoue to vs the will of God, we will doubt no far­ther of his power. If he cannot so doe, he doth but reason as Praxeas the Heretike did; Tertul. adu. praxcam. Ergò inquiunt diffi­cile non fuit deo ipsum se & pa­trem & fiiium facere &c. sed si tam abruptè in praesumptio­nibus nostris hac sententia v­tamur, quiduis de deo confinge­re poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere po­tuerit. It was not hard or vnpossible to God to make himselfe both the Father and the Sonne, his heresie standing in the confounding of the persons, and making them all one. But, saith Turtullian, if in our owne pre­sumptions we so abruptly vse that sentence (that nothing is vn­possible to God) we may feigne of God what we list, and say that he hath done it because he could doe it: M. Bishop then must not maruell that in his presumptions we likewise resist him. As Tertullian required the Heretikes, so doe we him to prooue to vs Ibid. Probare debebis ex scrip­turis, &c. by Scripture that which he affirmeth to be beleeued vpon the power of God.

9. W. BISHOP.

If they were enemies to Gods omnipotencie alone, it might [Page 54]be somewhat excused, because that might seeme to proceed ra­ther from the weaknesse of their vnderstanding, then out of any ill affection towards God: but if they doe further oppose them­selues against the goodnesse, mercy, and iustice of God; that must needs discouer very great impietie to lie festring in their bowels. Who seeth not, that it doth highly attaint the inesti­mable goodnesse of God, and his tender loue towards mankind, to impute the reprobation of man, and his eternall damnation, not vnto mans owne wickednesse and deserts, but vnto the meere will and pleasure of God himselfe: and yet this is too too com­mon an assertion amongst the Protestants. In colloq. Monpelgar. pag. 522. Let Beza one of their brauest champions, speake for the rest: God (saith hee) in his secret counsell, hath set downe an vnremooueable decree, that he will not haue the greater part of men saued, nor to beleeue in Christ, and come to the knowledge of trueth; but hath created, ordained, and predestinated them to euerlasting damnation. Pag. 336. To whom M. PERKINS in this booke draweth neere, affirming it to proceed from the verie will of God, that he shewes mercy to some, and forsaketh others. Mercy (indeed) God of his meere goodnesse doth powre out vpon vs abundantly: but to imagine that hee of his owne will and prime choise, without any foresight of our sinnes, doth forsake vs, and appoint vs to hell fire, is heinous impiety, most contrary vnto the very nature of God; whose goodnesse is so pure and sincere, that it doth good to all things, and wisheth euill to none; vnlesse they doe first greatly deserue it. What an vngodly opinion then is it, to hold that hee of his owne free choise ordained man (a creature made to his owne Image and likenesse) to most grieuous and endlesse torments, without fore­sight of any offence of his? As though he should take a singular pleasure, to see a principall worke of his owne hands, frie in hell fire.

R. ABBOT.

Here M. Bishop going about to discouer impiety in vs, bewraieth exceeding great ignorance in himselfe, not ha­uing [Page 55]yet learned to put a difference betwixt reprobation & damnation. We say and we therein say the truth, that there is no cause of damnation but only sinne, and yet we say as truly, that there is no cause of reprobation, The will of God the true cause of re­probation. but only the wil and pleasure of almighty God. Damnation is Gods sen­tence of iudgement whereby he assigneth the reprobate to eternall punishment for sinne. Reprobation is the counsell and decree of God whereby he leaueth men in the state of sinne wherein he found them that they may iustly be con­demned. Bernard. de aduent. dom. ser. 1. Omnes in Adam peccaui­mus, & in eo sententiam damnationis accepimus om­nes. We haue all sinned in Adam, saith Bernard, and in him we haue all receiued the sentence of damnation. From this state of damnation God freeth some, the rest he leaueth and forsaketh. What is the cause hereof, M. Bishop, we would gladly heare it of you? If you looke to sinne, both sorts are sinners alike: there is no more cause to condemne the one, than to condemne the other, no more cause to saue the one, than to saue the other. Tell vs M. Bishop what it is whereby God is mooued to make so great difference be­twixt them, betwixt whom according to themselues there is no difference at all? Surely we in our learning can find no other reason hereof but that which the Apostle setteth downe, Rom. 9.18. so then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. And what? did M. Bishop neuer read these words of the Apostle? If not, how came he I maruell to be a doctor of Diuinity? If he euer read them why then doth he here blame M. Perkins for speaking so directly ac­cording to those words that it proceeedeth from the very will of God that he sheweth mercy to some and forsaketh others? But let him yet further heare the Apostle more fully cleer­ing this matter by example, as namely of Iacob and Esau, two brethren, borne of the same parents, begotten at the same time, brought foorth at one birth: vers. 11. Before the children were borne, when they had yet done neither good nor euill, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serue the yonger: I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau. Looke to [Page 56]them in nature, they are both men; looke to them in con­dition, they are both sinners. Whence ariseth the diffe­rence? If M. Bishop will say that God dealt herein accor­ding to foresight of the workes that they should doe, the one good, the other bad, S. Austen derideth him saying, Aug. ep. 105. Quisistum acu­tissimum sen­sum defuisse Apostolo non miretur? Who would not wonder that this sharpe conceit should bee wanting to the Apostle? Nay Idem Enchir. c. 98. Qua in re si futura opera, vel bona huius, vel mala illius, quae vti (que) deus praesciebat vel­let intelligi, ne­quaquam dice­ret, Non ex ope­ribus, sed dice­ret, Ex futuris operibus, eo (que) modoistam sol­ueret quaestio­nem, immò nul­lam quam solui opus esset face­ret quaestionem. if the Apostle would haue had vs to vnderstand future workes, either the good of the one, or the euill of the other, he would not haue said, Not of workes, but would haue said, because of their workes to come, and thus would he haue cleered the question, or rather haue made no question that should need cleering. It remaineth then that there is no other reason to be giuen, as Bell. de Amiss. grat. & stat. percati. l. 2. c. 12. Huius discreti­onis nulla causa assignari potest nisi dei volun­tas. Bellarmine also confesseth, but only the pleasure of him who sheweth mercy to whom he will, and whom he will he hardneth, that is Aug. de praed. & grat. c. 6. quasi diceretur, cui vult donat, & à quo vuit a debitum po [...]it. remit­teth the debt to whom he list, and where he list, requireth it. And surely if this matter of election and reprobation were to be decided out of the difference of workes, there were no cause for the Apostle to sticke vpon the difficultie there­of, whereas now to humane iudgement he stutteth and stammereth, and knoweth not what to say to giue reason of that he saith. He is content to rest vpon this, that Rom. 9.14. there is no iniquity with God. To them that will not be satisfied herewith, but go forward contentiously to wrangle, he an­swereth, vers. 20. O man, who art thou which pleadest against God? shall the thing formed, say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? In the end of all that discourse, as it were a man amased, he crieth out; Rom. 11.33. O the deepnesse of the riches of the knowledge and wisedome of God; how vnsearchable are his iudgements, and his waies past finding out? What needeth all this a-doe if all might so easily be dispatched, as M. Bishop pretendeth, by allegation of the free will and workes of men? But the Apostle well vnderstood that this would not serue the turne: he saw a depth which he could not diue into; a secret which he could not search, and therefore by checking and admiring, he represseth the curiosity and pre­sumption [Page 57]of them whom by answering he cannot satisfie. Yet in a word this is enough to stop the mouthes of all men that all being in Adam lost and cast away, it was free for God to saue out of this condemned multitude whom it pleased him, and to leaue the rest at his will to be disposed to other vse. Albeit if M. Beza and some other doe rest this point of reprobation vpon a prime and absolute decree of God, to which the fall of Adam is not in order prece­dent but subsequent, will M. Bishop dare to say that the iustice of God is hereby impeached or attainted? will he say that God dealeth vniustly therein if that be supposed to be true? Surely S. Austin was of another mind, and ac­knowledgeth in this behalfe Gods absolute soueraignty ouer his Creature to doe therewith whatsoeuer it pleaseth him. Aug. de praedsi & grat. c. 16. humanum ge­nus quod crea­tum primitus constat ex ni­hilo non cum debita mortis et peccati origine nasceretur, & tamen ex eis creator omnipo­tens in aeternum no [...]nullos dam­nare vellet in­teritum, quis omnipotenti creatori dice­ret, Quare feci­sti sic? Qui enim cum non essent, esse donauerat, quo fine essent habuit potesta­tem: nec dice­rent caeteri, cur paribus omnium meritis diuinum discreparet ar­bitrium, quia potestatem ha­bet figulus luti ex eadem massa facere aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud veròin contumeliam. If mankind, saith he, created at first of nothing, were borne without the debt and due originall of death and sinne, and yet the almighty creatour would of them condemne some to euerlasting destruction, who would say to him, why hast thou so done? for he who when they were not, gaue them to be, had it in his power for what end they should be, neither might the rest aske, why the merits of all being alike, the iudgement of God should differ, because the potter hath power ouer the clay to make of the same lump one vessell to honour and another to dis­honour. So doth Oecumenius bring in Photius chalenging vpon the same ground the same prerogatiue vnto almigh­ty God. Phoc. apud Oecumen. in Rom. 8. Dato quòd deus ita te formauerit ne (que) ita iustum est deo contradicere illum (que) accusare. Nam etsi nihil aliud praerogatiuae illi tribuere velis, qui supra omnem est & mentem & sermonem, at saltem quod omnibus commune est figu­lis quomodocun (que) rem effingentibus admodum absurdum est et impium ab eo tollere. Quid igitur illud est? Quòd nullum figmentum suum plasten accusat, aut redarguit, sed liberam habet vo­luntatem quis (que) opifex operari prout libuerit & fingere & accusatione racat, potissimum au­tem apud ea quae finxit, ita (que) & tu etiamsi vt dicis, formatus sis, non debes indignari aut con­tradicere iuxta communem figmentorum legem ac modum. Graunt, saith he, that God hath made thee thus, yet is it not iust for thee to speake against God, or to accuse him. For albeit thou wilt yeeld no greater prerogatiue to him who is aboue all vnderstanding and speech, yet were it absurd and im­pious [Page 58]that thou shouldest take from him that that is common to all workemen who in any sort frame or fashion any thing, name­ly that no worke accuseth or reprooueth the maker, but euery workeman is at his liberty to worke and fashion as he will, and is not blamed, specially by the things which he hath made. There­fore although thou be so made as thou saiest, yet according to the common rule and condition of things made, thou art not to repine or gainsay thy maker. Thus did these fathers see in the Apostles words how to free the maiestie of God from all attainder of iniustice euen in the supposall of that whence M. Bishop deriueth the same attainder. Beza then and his followers may haue their reasons for that they say, and yet so as to leaue the iustice of God without impreachment or challenge. Yet we for our parts doe not therein assent to them nor see in their reasons any such waight as that we should be mooued thereby to vary from the common re­ceiued iudgement of the ancient Church. Gods fore­sight of mans fall precedent in order to his decree of re­probation. We therefore resolue as most consonant and agreeable to the course of Scripture, that God purposing to doe a worke for the set­ting foorth of his owne glory, did consequently determine the maner therof in the creation of Angels and men, whom he would leaue in the hand of their owne counsell, and suf­fer them, the one in part, the other wholly, both by their owne default, to fall from the state of their originall. Yet for mankind, he thought it most fit in respect of the end whereat he aimed, to prouide a Redeemer and Sauiour, and for that end purposed the incarnation and death of Iesus Christ his only begotten Sonne, in whom and for whose sake he elected out of the generations of men a remnant to­wards whom he would make the riches of his mercy most abundantly to appeare and be glorified in them; the rest he deputed to be vessels of his wrath, and instruments to serue his purposes both for the executing of his iudge­ments, one of them vpon another, and for the vse and be­nifit of his elect. These counsels and purposes we vnder­stand to be without difference of time with him who at [Page 59]one sight beholdeth all things from the beginning to the end, but the naturall processe and subordination thereof we hold to be in this sort most rightly described, euen in the same maner as God hath executed and manifested the same vnto vs. Neither doe we conceiue how it can stand good to haue this connexion framed otherwise, for it is ab­surd to thinke that God would decree what to doe with man before he had decreed to create man; and how should he elect if they were not first in his purpose out of whom he should elect? Election maketh men Rom. 9.23. the vessels of mer­cy, and L [...]rnard. de conuers. ad Cle­ric. ca. 10. Mise­ricordiae prepria sedes miseria est. the proper seat of mercy is misery, as S. Bernard saith. How then should God elect men to be vessels of mercy, but that we must first presuppose misery in respect wherof he would shew mercy? In a word, how should we be said to be Eph. 1.4.6. elected in Christ and accepted in Christ, if Gods pur­pose of our election be by order of causes antecedent to Christs mediation? Now if Gods purpose of the creation and redemption of man be in order precedent to election, we must conceiue the like of reprobation that it presup­poseth the fall of man, whereby the iustice of God is ac­quited, God finding mankind in state wherein he might iustly condemne all, and it being his only meere mercy that he saueth some. Albeit whether way soeuer we determine this point, God is alike made subiect to those prophane wranglings which M. Bishop hath heere expressed, and froward men vnstring their tongues to quarell and questi­on with him, why he should suffer Adam to fall when it was in his power to hold him vp? why they should be con­demned in Adam who in themselues haue done nothing against him? why he should giue men ouer to lie frying in hell fire for that which they could not helpe, nor had any meanes for the auoiding of it? But against all such excepti­ons we answere with the former words of the Apostle, There is no vnrighteousnesse with God, and O man who art thou that disputest against God? As for Gods inestimable goodnesse and mercy, which M. Bishop withall alleageth it is [Page 60]not to be measured by his vaine fancy but by the rule of God himselfe, who though he be good and mercifull in some sort generally to all, yet of his speciall mercy hath made a limitation saying, Exo. 33.10. Rom. 9.15. I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy, and will haue compassion on whom I will haue com­passion. For the rest, let him take that which the Scripture pronounceth of them, that Rom. 9.22. they are vessels of wrath prepa­red to destruction,1. Pet. 2.8.ordained to this selfe same thing, 2. Pet. 2.12.made to be taken and destroied, Iude vers. 4.written of old to this condemnation. Let him heare what Salomon saith; Pro. 16.4. The Lord hath cre­ated all things for himselfe, euen the wicked against the day of euill. If he like not these things, let him enter his action against God; let him not repine at vs who doe no more but report them from the mouth of God.

10. W. BISHOP.

Another opinion some of them hold, which is yet much more blasphemous then the other, to wit: that God, who hath beene alwaies by good men esteemed the author of all good, and so meerely good in his owne nature and will, that he cannot pos­sibly doe or thinke any euill: that this Ocean (I say) of good­nesse, is become the author, plotter, promoter, and worker of all the wickednesse and mischiefe, that is, or hath beene committed in the world. De prouid. dei. pag. 365. This is the doctrine of Zwinglius a great Rabin among the new gospellers, who auoucheth that whē we commit either adultery, murder, or any such like crime, that it is the worke of God, he being the authour, mouing and pushing vs on to doe it. Againe, that the theefe by Gods motion and perswasion, murthereth, and is often­times compelled to sinne. In cap. 1. ad Rom. With him agreeth Bucer some­times a professer of diuinity in the Vniuersity of Cambridge; censuring him to deny God flatly, who doth not firmely beleeue, that God doth worke in man, as well all euill, as all good. Of the same accursed crue was Melancthon, who vpon the 8. chapter to the Romanes, saith: Euen as we confesse Paules vocation to haue beene Gods proper worke: so doe [Page 61]we acknowledge these to bee the proper workes of God, which are either indifferent, as is to eate and drinke; or that are euill, as the adultery of Dauid, and such like. For it is euident out of the first to the Romanes, that God doth all things mightily (as Augustine speaketh) and not permis­siuely: so that the treason of Iudas is as properly the worke of God, as the calling of Paul. Lib. 1. Inst. c. 18. ss. 1.But the principall proctor and promoter of this blasphemy is Caluin, who of set purpose be­stowes a whole chapter of his Institutions, to hell, to prooue and perswade it. There he auoucheth boldly, that the blinding and madnesse of Achab, was the will and decree of God: that Absolon indeed defiling his fathers bed with incestu­ous adultery, committed detestable wickednesse; yet this was Gods owne worke: briefly, that nothing is more plaine then that God blindeth the eies of men, striketh them with giddinesse, maketh them drunke, casteth them into madnes, and hardneth their hearts. And whereas the poore Papists were wont to interpret such textes of Scripture, as seeme to at­tribute these things to God, by saying, that God doth indeed iustly permit and suffer such things to be done, but is not the author of them: this, Caluin will not in any wise admit of, but in the same place confutes it; saying. These things many re­ferre to sufferance, as if in forsaking the reprobate, he suffe­red them to be blinded by Satan: but that solution (saith he) is too fond: and so goeth on, proouing that God doth not onely suffer, but actually effect and worke all the euill that any man commiteth: yea, he addeth that which is more horrible: that God doth worke this euill in man, Ibid. sess. 17.1. by Satans seruice as a meane; yet so as God is the principall worker of it, and the Diuell but his instrument. Is not this blasphemy in the highest degree, to make God a more principall author, and worker of all wickednesse, done in the world, then the Diuell himselfe? this is much wrose then flat Atheisme: for it is the lesser impiety of two to hold that there is no God at all, then to beleeue that God worketh more effectually all mischeefe, then the infernall spirits doe. But some of our Protestants will perhaps say, that they [Page 62]hold not this opinion: be it so, for I thinke better of many of them: yet, be not these men that so teach, as it were the founders of the new Gospell, and men of chiefest marke among them? Now what force such principal authors (as they take Melancthon, Zwing­lius, Bucer, and Caluin to be) may haue, to carry the rest away into the same errours, I know not. Sure I am, that Caluins In­stitutions (wherein this matter is so vehemently vrged) is translated into English, and in the Preface commended to all students of Christian diuinity, as one of the most profitable (the holy Scriptures excepted) for the sound declarations of truth in articles of religion.

R. ABBOT.

This matter of horrible blasphemie and impiety, God not made by vs the author of sinne. M. Bi­shop hath formerly charged vs with in his epistle Dedica­torie to the King, and in the Answer to the epistle. sect. 14. answer to the same epistle it is fully cleered. Now hee being enraged and madde in his minde, that he cannot tell how to gainsay that that is there answered, and yet being loth to loose the aduantage of such a slander, renueth it heere againe; and to giue it some better colour, bringeth the names of diuers principall writers of our part, Zuinglius, Bucer, Melancthon, and Caluin, whom he affirmeth to haue beene authors and mainteiners of this accursed and damnable heresie. And herein his master Bel­larmine as well as he, egregiously plaieth the Sycophant, taking vpon him by a more then Alchimisticall extraction to draw out of some sentences of the forenamed authours, that God Bell. de Amiss. grat. & statu peccats. li. 2. cap. 4.5.6.7. is the author of sinne, that God truely and pro­perly sinneth, yea, that it is God onely which sinneth and not man, and that sinne is but a matter of false opinion; from which wicked assertions, those woorthy men were as farre, as the Iesuite was farre from honesty, as hee was farre indeed, in the obiecting of them. They say nothing but what S. Au­stin of old resolued against the Pelagian heretikes; their words, their phrases, their sentences are in effect the same, and with the answers wherewith he shifteth off the sayings [Page 63]of Austin: he may also put off the words of Caluin and the rest, and say, that indeed they make nothing against him. Yea, & it is woorthy to be noted, that what these men now obiect against vs, the very same did the Pelagians obiect against S. Austin, Aug. ad ar­tic. sibi falsò im­positos. art. 5. Quod peccato­rum nostrorum author sit deus. & quòd malam hominum faciat voluntatem. that by his doctrine God was made the authour of our sinnes, and did make the will of men euill. As he was free from any cause of such calumniation, so are we also, and so much the more resolute are we in our defence, for that wee see that Bellarmine labouring to bee contrarie vnto vs, yet by the very euidence of trueth, whilest hee answereth our arguments, is forced in a maner to acknow­ledge as much as we say. Wee all teach with one consent, that mans sinne is wholly of himselfe by corruption of na­nature, and that from his owne heart as from a poisoned roote proceedeth al the wickednesse of his life: to God we attribute no more but that hee voluntarily permitteth, and wisely ordereth, and iustly vseth to his purposes the sinne of man. He caused not Adam to fall; hee did nothing ei­ther within him or without him, whereby to supplant him or to ouerthrow him; but knowing that being thus created though it were in his power to stand, yet he would certain­ly fall, it was his will and decree to suffer him so to doe, because Aug de cor­rept. & grat. ca. 10. sciuit. magis ad omnipoten­tissimam boni­tatem suam pertinere etiam de malis benefa­cere quàm malae esse non sinere. he knew that it did appertaine to his almighty good­nesse, rather out of euill to do good, than not to suffer euill to be at all. Was it not fit that God by his decree should deter­mine whatsoeuer is iust and good? Gre. Moral. l. 11. c. 2. Omnipo­tens deus quod fieri prohibet iustum est vt fieri sinat. It is iust, saith Grego­ry, that the almighty God suffer that to be done which not­withstanding he forbiddeth to be done; and Aug. Enchir. c. 96. vt non so­lum bona, sed etiam sint & mala bonū est. it is good, saith Austen, that there be not good only, but also euill; not in re­spect of the euill it selfe (which God hateth and detesteth, and Greg. Moral. lib. 16. cap. 23. Inultum abire non sinit iniu­stum quod iuste fieri permisit. suffereth not that iniustice to goe vnreuenged which he iustly suffered to be done) but because out of euill there is much good wrought which could not be without euill. And by this meanes Ibid. l. 6. c. 12. Miro modo sit v [...] & quod sine voluntate dei agitur, eius vo­luntati contra. rium non sit, quia dum in bonum vsum mala facta vertuntur, eius consilio militant etiam quae cius cousilio repugnant. it commeth strangely to passe saith [Page 64]Gregory againe, that that which is done without the will of God, yet is not against his wil, because whilst euill deeds are tur­ned to good vse, those things serue the counsell and will of God which notwithstanding are repugnant vnto it. For that all sinne and wickednesse is contrary to the will of God we know vndoubtedly, and yet we also know and are assured that in the world Aug Enchir. c. 96. Non fit a­liquid nisi om­nipotens fieri velit, vel sinen­do vt fiat vel ipse faciendo. nothing is done vnlesse the almighty will haue it done, either himselfe doing it or suffering it to be done. But it is one thing to speake of Gods will in respect of his approbation and liking whereby he willeth only that that is good; another thing to speak of his will in respect of his prouidence, whereby all things are subiect to his power and gouernment, and nothing can be if he say nay to the being of it. It is one thing to say what God willeth pro­perly for it selfe, another thing to say what he willeth acci­dentally for the good vse that he can make of it. In regard of which vse though he suffer euill to be in the world, yet he suffereth no confusion of euill, but Greg. Moral. l. 18. ca. 17 Ab iniquis factane inordinatè eue­niant, ipse di­sponens. disposeth the doings of wicked men that they may not befall vnorderly, because Aug. Enchir. c. 11. Illud quod malum dicitur ordinatum & suo loco positum eminentiùs commendat bo­na. euill being ordered & put in his due place, doth the more emi­nently grace and set foorth the things that are good.Idem. de prae­dest. sanct. c. 16. Est ergò in ma­lorum potestate peccare, vt au­tem peccando hee vel hoc illa malitia faciant, non est in eorū potestate sed dei diuidentis tene­bras & ordina­tis eas, vt hinc etiam quod fa­ciunt contra voluntatem dei non impleatur nisi voluntas dei.It is then in the power of euill men to sinne, as S. Austen saith, but in sinning to doe by their wickednesse this or that, is not in their power but in the power of God, who seuereth the darknesse from the light, and ordereth the same, so that by that which they doe against the will of God they doe nothing but what God will. The wickednesse then issueth wholly out of mans heart, but God by his secret hand guideth it to goe this way ra­ther than another: he obiecteth to it the persons that it shall worke vpon; he ministreth occasions to it to shew it selfe now more then at another time, and here rather then otherwhere. By meanes whereof the thing that is done is diuersly to be considered, and the author thereof is di­uersly reputed. For if we consider the act of sinne in it self, it is properly and only the worke of man: but if we consi­der it in the circumstance and order, it is rightly called the [Page 65]worke of God. And so the man by whom the sinne is committed, if he be considered in the thing it selfe which he hath done, he is thereby a sinfull man: but if he be consi­dered according to the order and direction of Gods ouer­ruling hand, disposing him this way rather than another he is therein as Nebuchadnezzar, though vnwittingly Ier. 25.9. & 27.6. the Lords seruant, as a toole wherewith he worketh, and as a staffe wherewith he striketh. To which purpose we may obserue how the euill spirit which vexed King Saul is ter­med 1. Sam. 16.14.15. & 18.10. an euill spirit of the Lord, the euill spirit of God. A man may demand, if it were an euill spirit, how could it be a spi­rit of God; or if it were a spirit of God, how should it be an euill spirit? Gregory answereth rightly: Greg. Moral l. 2 ca. 6. vnus idem (que) spiritus et domini appel­tur & malus: domini per li­centiam pote­statis iustae, ma­lus per defideri­um volllntatis iniustae. It was a spirit of the Lord by leaue and licence of iust power, but an euill spirit by desire of vniust will. It is true which the same Gregorie elsewhere saith; Ibid. lib. 18. ca. 3. Omnis dia­boli voluntas iniusta est, & tamen permit­tente deo, omnis potestas iusta. that the will of the Diuell is altogether vniust, but his power, which of Gods permission only he hath, is altogether iust. He is desirous alwaies to doe mischiefe, but is not at his owne liberty to doe all that he desireth: to God it belongeth to moderate and determine the course and ef­fect of his desire. Th. Aquin. p. 1. q. 114. art. 1. in corp. Impug­natio ipsa ex daemonum mali­tia procedit, &c. sed ordo impugnationis ipsius est à deo. The diuels impugning of men, saith Aqui­nas, is of the malice of the diuels themselues, but the order of their impugning is of God. His power then being directed and limited to whom, and in what, and how far it shall ex­tend is of God, and according to these circumstances in all that he doth, he doth the will of God: but the euill it selfe which he doth by the power thus giuen him, is of himself, and no part thereof is to be ascribed vnto God. Euen so it is with all the wickednesse of man; his sinne is only of him­selfe, and God hath no part in it; but to God notwithstan­ding belongeth the ordering and disposing of it. By which order as somtimes he restraineth it & letteth it lie as it were a sleep, so sometimes also he giueth it way, exciteth it and prouoketh it, and without working any wickednes in him maketh it to appeare what before lay hid in the wicked hart of man. For as the beames of the sunne doe draw from the [Page 66]filthy cation a noisome stincke, whereof the sunne cannot be said to be the cause, which with the same beames causeth from the violet and the rose a pleasing and delightsome smell, but the whole matter thereof ariseth from the dead carkesse it selfe: euen so God, by the secret operation of his vnsearchable power, findeth meanes to draw foorth the sin and wickednesse of man, which yet he in no sort worketh in him, but the whole contagion and filth thereof ariseth from the corruption of man himselfe. And this we conceiue that God doth three manner of waies, by motion, by occasion, and by destitution, in all which he yet still remaineth pure and cleere. Thomas Aquinas saith very rightly, that, Th. Aquin. 1. 2 q. 79. art. 2. in [...] Deus est causa omnis actionis quate­nus est actio & q 80. art. 1. ad 3. Deus est vni­uersale princi­pium omnis in­terioris motus humans. God is the cause of euery astion as it is an action, and the vniuersall beginning of euery inward motion of man. In sinne therefore whatsoeuer belongeth to motion or action, God is truly af­firmed to bee the cause thereof. But as in the halting of a lame leg we are to distinguish betwixt the act of the soule whereby it mooueth, and the defect of the leg whereby it halteth, so are we also in sinne to seuer by vnderstanding the worke of God whereby man mooueth, and the default of man himselfe in the same motion whereby hee sinneth. Which notwithstanding albeit in minde and consideration they be seuered, yet in the subiect goe together; and as the motiue faculty of the soule exercising it selfe, the legge foorthwith by halting bewraieth it owne lamenesse and imperfection, euen so it commeth to passe by corruption of nature in the whole man, that whilest God moueth nature, man acteth sinne, whilest God cherisheth nature, man che­risheth sinne, and of Gods giuing strength of nature, man gathereth strength of sinne. And thus the more God mini­streth vnto men either health and strength and vigour of body, or dexterity and sharpnesse of memory and minde and vnderstanding, so much the more doth he discouer the poison that is within them, without any default of his, but to the iust condemnation of man himselfe that so disgraceth and abuseth the worke of God. Neither is it to be obiected [Page 67]that God being, the cause of the cause, must needes be also the cause of the effect, because as lamenesse and halting is not an effect of going, but a defect; nor is to bee imputed to the motiue faculty of the soule as the cause of it, but to the default and debility of the leg; so neither is sinne the effect of the act and motion which God worketh, nor is he the cause of it, but it is the prauity and obliquity of man who is the subiect of that motion. Now as by maintaining and moouing of nature, so also by ministring occasions, God laieth stumbling blockes before the wicked whereat they fall and purchase further damnation to themselues: Occasi­ons I say, not as if they did giue occasion, or were of them­selues inducements to euill, but because the iniquity of men euen of good taketh occasion of euill, and turneth the righ­teousnesse of God to it owne sinne. Thus Aquinas well obserueth that Tho. Aquin. in Rom. c. 9. sect. 3. Ad malum di­citur inclinare occasionalitèr, inquantum sci­licet deus homi­ni aliquid pro­ponit, vel inte­rius vel exteri­us, quod quan­tum est de se est inductiuum ad bonum, sed ho­mo propter su­am malitiam peruersè vtitur ad malum. God is said to incline men to euill by way of oc­casion in that he setteth before man somewhat either inwardly or outwardly which of it selfe tendeth to good, but man by his wickednesse crosly vseth it to euill. He strengthneth in Pharao the care of the benefit of his people, and Pharao turneth it to the oppressing of Gods people and to the resisting of the message which from God was sent vnto him. August. in Psal. 104. Non cor illorum ma­lum faciendo, sed populo suo benefaciendo cor illorū sponte malum conuer­tit ad odium. By doing good to the Israelits Psal. 105.25.he turned the heart of the Aegyptians a­gainst them, so that they hated his people and dealt vntruely with his seruants. Thus God sendeth the preaching of the Gos­pell to vnbeleeuers, and it becommeth to them 2. Cor. 2.16. the Sau­our of death vnto death. SoPsal. 69.22.their table (where God giueth them plenty and abundance) becommeth a snare vnto them and their prosperity is their ruine, or as we commonly reade it, the things that should haue beene for their wealth, become vnto them an occasion of falling. But of this see what hath beene said in the place before named, the fourteenth secti­on of the answer of the epistle to the King. By destitution God draweth foorth mans sinne whilest he forsaketh him and leaueth him to himselfe and to the power and tyrany of Satan to be holden of him at his will. For as in the depar­ture [Page 68]of the soule the corrupt body groweth to more putri­faction and corruption, so when God withdraweth him­selfe from sinfull man, his sinne increaseth more and more: and as a house, the pillars whereof are taken away falleth with violence, so doth he runne headlong and without any stay to all excesse and obstinacy of sinne. Yea and as a man being left naked and forlorne amidest his cruell enemies be­commeth a prey and a spoile vnto them, so heere being for­saken of God, Satan and his angels presently seaze vpon him, they blinde him, they binde him as it were hand and foot, and carry him vp and downe whethersoeuer it plea­seth them. We must vnderstand that God, though in the beginning he suffered man to fall away from him and there­by to deface in himselfe the glorious image of God accor­ding to which he was created, yet vouchsafed of his good­nesse so far to vphold in him both light of vnderstanding and touch of conscience as might serue to direct him in some sort for morall and ciuill life for the preseruation and maintenance of society amongst men. This direction of our life, God increaseth and strengthneth much by education and instruction, more by the knowledge and vnderstan­ding of true religion, most of all by the grace of spirituall re­generation. Were it not that God in mercy had set these bounds & bankes to restraine and hold in the rage and fury of vnlawfull and wicked lust, the fall of man had carried him into all importunity and extremity of wickednesse and abhomination, and the state of men had beene much worse then the state of bruit beasts. When God therefore taketh away these props and staies both of grace and nature, and leaueth lust to it owne vnbridled and vnruly passage, and to the spurres of Satans malicious prouocations, what must needs follow, but that as the water vpon the rupture of the bankes breaketh foorth with all force, and violently beareth downe all that commeth in the way, so man setting a side all respect of conscience, of modesty and honesty, most wretchedly demeaneth himselfe; and the further God go­eth [Page 69]from him, so much the more betaketh himselfe to all most vngodly and reprobate courses. When God left2. Sam. 11.4.14.Da­uid a while to himselfe, how fearefully, how beyond all ex­pectation did he fall? The like we see in Solomon, in Eze­chias, in Peter, and other holy men and seruants of God. Now Luk. 23.31.if these things befall in the greene, what shalbe done in the drie? If it haue beene thus with them who haue beene neere to God, what shall bee expected of them who are strangers to God and haue no part in the spirit of grace? What other waies and meanes God hath for that purposeAug. cont. Iu­lian Pelag. l 5. cap. 3. siue dese­rendo siue alio quocun (que) vel explicabili vel inexplicabili modo quo facit haec summè bo­nus & ineffa­biliter iustus.either explicable, as Saint Austin speaketh, or vnspeakeable, we know not; onely this we know, that he carieth a most potent and mighty hand both inwardly and outwardly in moouing and directing the wickednesse both of infernal spirits & men, continuing himselfe both most perfectly good and vnspeakeably iust. Now the ends and vses whereto God ordereth and disposeth sinne, are partly reduced to mercy, and partly to iudgement. In the former respect Saint Austin saith, that Idem de nat. & grat. cap. 27. Etiam necessa­rium fuisse ho­mini ad aufe­rendam super­biae vel gloriae occasionem vt abs (que) peccato esse non posset.it was necessary for man, for taking away occasion of pride and vaineglory, that he should not be in case to be with­out sinne, andIdem de ciu. des. l. 14. ca. 13. Audeo dicere superbis esse vtile cadere in aliquod aper­tum manife­stum (que) peccatū vnde sibi displi­ceant qui iam sibi placendo ceciderant.that it is profitable for the proud to fall into some open and manifest sin, that they may be displeased at themselues who by too well liking of themselues did fall. So saith Basil, thatBasil. serm. Quòd deus non sit author malorum. Ille sapiens & prouidentissimus rerum humanarum dispen­sator diaboli vtitur ad nost [...]am exercitationem malignitate, qu [...]mad modum medicus viperae ve­neno ad salutarem medicamentorum praeparationem.as Physicians vse the poison of the Serpent to make thereof a healthfull medicine, so God the most wise and prouident disposer of humane things vseth the malignity of the diuell for the exer­cising of vs:Ambros. de paenitent. lib. 1 ca. 13. Ma­litiam eius nobis ad gratiam conuertit.he turneth his malice, saith Ambrose, to be a fur­therance of grace vnto vs. And thus Saint Austin again saith, thatAugust. de praedest. & grat. ca. 20. Probatur deum vti cord [...]bus etiam [...]nalorum ad laudem & adiumentum bonorum, sic vsus est Iuda tradente Chri­stom; sic vsus est Iudais crucifigentibus Christum, & quanta inde bona praestitit populis cre­dituris?God vseth the hearts of euill men to the praise and to the helpe of good men, as he vsed Iudas to betray Christ, as he vsed [Page 70]the Iewes to crucifie Christ; and what great benefites did he thereby performe to them that should beleeue in him?Idem in Psal. 93. Illi qui mar. tyres persecuti sunt, persequen­do in terra, in caelum mitte­hant, & scientes quidem praesen­tis vitae dam­num inferebant sed nescientes futurae vitae lu­crum confere­bant.They which persecuted the Martyrs, saith he, by persecuting them vpon earth, sent them to heauen: they knew that they caused them the losse of this present life, but they knew not that they yeel­ded them the gaine of the life to come. For execution of iudge­ment, he maketh vse of sinne both in that he punisheth the sinne of one by the sinne of another, and in that he puni­sheth a man himselfe by his owne sinne, former by latter and greater sinnes.Greg. Moral. lib. 2. cap. 6. Deo ad vsum iusti iudicij & iniusta diaboli voluntas seruit.The vniust will of the diuell, saith Gregory, serueth God for the vse of iust iudgement. The wicked, in holy scripture, are calledEsa. 10.5.15.the rod of Gods wrath, his axe, his saw, his stafe, Ier. 51.21.his hammer and weapons of war, because he vseth their malice and fury to chasten his people for their sinnes, and to bring destruction vpon other that are his enemies, vntill hauing finished his worke which he hath intended to doe by them, he giueth way to the malice of others to be re­uenged vpon them also. And heere it is duly to bee obser­ued that in these vses of sin, the act that is committed ther­by is not alwaies sinne in it selfe, but becommeth sinne to him that doth it only by the minde wherewith he doth it. When the murtherer killeth a man, as touching the act he doth nothing but what in due course may lawfully be done. Doth not the magistrate put a man to death and is guiltlesse therein? Did not the Israëlits without offence slay the Ca­naanites, and Samuell slay Agag the King of the Ama­lechites? The murtherer of a cruell minde practiseth the death of another man. God hath iust cause why to deliuer the same man to death, and therefore giueth way to the o­thers cruelty against him. God is herein free, but man is guilty: and albeit he doe the thing which God intended, yet his wicked and cruell minde remaineth iustly to bee puni­shed.Aug. in Psal. 93. si traditio Christi & non tradentis ani­mus consideran­dus est hoc fecit Iudas quod fe­cit deus pater, &c. quod fe­cit ipse dominus &c. & Ep. 48. Cur in hac tra­ditione deus est pius & homo reus nisi quia in re vna quam fecerunt causa non vna est ob quam fecerunt.If the deliuering of Christ, saith Austin, and not the minde of the deliuerer be to be considered, Iudas did the same that the father did, and that Christ himselfe did. Why then in all this is God iust, and man guilty, but because in one thing [Page 71]which they both did, it was not one cause for which they did it? Thus in many other cases God vseth mans sinne, and yet iustly condemneth him when he hath so done. But that is the most admirable iudgement of God and most dreadfull of all other, whenGreg. Moral. l. 25. ca 9. Agi­tur hoc vt culpae culpis seriantur quatenus sup­plicia peccanti­um fiunt ipsa incrementa vi­tiurum. Et pau­lo prius: Quod agitur dispositi­one superiùs or­dinata sed inse­rius iniquitate confusa vt ex praecedens culpa causa sit subse­quentis & rur­sum culpa causa sit subsequens paenà sit praece­dentis.he taketh course that sinne is striken with sinne, so as that the increase of sinne is the punishment of the sin­ner, it being ordered by disposition aboue, but yet by reason of the confusion of iniquity beneath both that the former sinne is the cause of the latter, and the latter the punishment of the former. This iudgement Saint Paul noteth to haue befallen to themRom. 1.21.24. &c.who when they knew God, did not glorifie him as God, nor were thankefull but turned the glory of the incorruptible God, to the similitude of the image of a corruptible man. There­fore God gaue them vp, saith he, to their owne hearts lusts, vn­to vncleannesse, to defile their owne bodies betweene them­selues; for this cause God gaue them vp to vile affections. As they regarded not to know God, euen so God deliuered them vp to a reprobate minde to doe those things which are not conueni­ent: they receiued in themselues such recompence of their error as was meete. A heauyAug cont. ad­uers. leg. & pro­phet. l. 1.24. Ira dei qua non pa­titur quod acri­tèr dolet sed fa­cit quod turpi­tèr libet.wrath of God, as saith Saint Austin, whereby a man suffereth not any thing painefully to greeue him, (so to mooue him to repent) but doth that that filthily liketh him, whereby he is hardned the more to goe forward in it. Of this iudgement God speaketh concerning the Israëlites.Psal. 81.12.My people would not heare my voice, Israel would not obey me; so I gaue them vp, or left them to their owne hearts lust: they walked in their owne counsels. Thus God requiteth the wilfulnesse of men who shut their eies and will not see, and stop their eares that they may not heare, and harden their hearts as not willing to vnderstand; he surpriseth them in their owne errour and obstinacy that they may not open their eies againe which they haue shut, nor make vse of their eares which they haue stopped, nor relent with their hearts which they haue hardned, that soPsal. 69.28.they may fall from one wickednesse to another and not come into his righteousnesse. In all which notwithstanding God worketh no sinne in [Page 72]man, but that which God in iust iudgement doth by meanes either explicable or vnspeakeable as I said before out of Austin prooueth in man to the increase of sinne; it be­ing so, that as sore eies are offended and become more fore by the most comfortable shining of the sunne: and as con­traries per antiperistasin doe one strengthen themselues a­gainst the other, the heate against the cold, and the cold against the heat, euen so the very light of God and that that is pure and holy in him prouoketh the sores of mans wick­ed heart more and more to fester and corrupt, and his sinne to strengthen it selfe more and more in rebellion against God. Now heere againe this increase of sinne must vnder­goe a double consideration. If we consider it as sinne, then is it mans onely worke arising wholly of that that is his owne. But if we consider it as a punishment, it is of God who by iust iudgement prouoked it, from whom all punish­ment is iust, because it is iustly deserued by him vpon whom it is inflicted. And so generally consider sinne in it selfe, it is of man: but consider it in his vse, and there God hath a hand in it. Thus haue I truely declared the doctrine of our Churches concerning this point: and without the compasse of that that I haue said there hath nothing beene deliuered by any writers of our side, and in all this God is fully ac­quitted and cleered, and the blame of sinne resteth wholly either vpon man, or vpon him by whose procurement man first committed sinne. Now then to come to those parti­culars which by M. Bishop are obiected, we will first begin with Caluin, whom he nameth for the principall proctour and promoter of that blasphemy. He pretendeth proofe heereof out of his Institutions, calling the same by the name of his Institutions to hell, the wretch not knowing himselfe to be vnder the power of darkenesse and in the bonds of hell, by seruing him who is the agent for the Prince of hell, and for that cause hath set it downe for a law thatDist. 40. si Papa suae & fraternae salutis negligens, &c. innumerabiles populos cater­uatim secum ducit primo mancipio Ge­hennae cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapu­laturus, huius culpas istic re­darguere prae­sumit mortali­um nullus, &c.though he carry with him innumerable soules to hell, yet no man may presume to reprooue him for so doing. But what saith Caluin in his Insti­tutions? [Page 73]Forsooth he auoucheth boldly, that the blinding and madnesse of Ahab, was the will and decree of God. And did he so? And what? Did M. Bishop read the storie, and did he doubt whether the blinding and madnesse of Ahab were the will and decree of God? There was a Canon of Florence, who being asked whether hee read the Bible or not, an­swered, thatSphynx Phi­losoph. cap. 1. se­mel perlegi li­brum istum & nunquam collo­caui peius vllum tempus.he had read it ouer once, and that hee had ne­uer bestowed any time woorse. M. Bishop haply hath beene of the same minde, and thought it but time lost that is be­stowed vpon the reading of such paltry and fruitlesse bookes. He neuer read the storie, and therefore out of his owne mother wit he thought it to bee a blasphemie that Caluin should speake so. Marke I pray thee gentle Reader, the narration of this matter, as it is set downe by the holie Ghost. The Prophet Michaiah is brought in saying thus;1. Kin. 22.19.I saw the Lord sit on his throne, and all the host of heauen stood about him on his right hand and on his left hand, and the Lord said, Who shall entise (or deceiue) Ahab, that he may go and fall at Ramoth Gilead? Heere is the originall and beginning of all, where God being highly offended at Ahabs wilfull rebellion and obstinacie in sinne is brought in resoluing to take course to haue him further blinded and deceiued, that so he might goe a way, wherein iust destru­ction should light vpon him. Which resolution is hereby most cleere, for that God is set foorth as of himselfe, ma­king enquirie for one who might doe that that he had de­termined to be done. What, doth God aske Who will de­ceiue him, and yet was it not his will and decree, that hee should be so deceiued? Well, the text goeth on and telleth, that while one saied one thing, and another another thing, there came foorth a spirit and stood before the Lord and said, I will entise him. And the Lord saied vnto him, wherewith? And the spirit saied, I will goe out and be a false or lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets. Then the Lord said; Thou shalt en­tise him, and shalt also preuaile; goe foorth and do so. Heere needeth no declaration at all. God enquireth for one to [Page 74]deceiue Ahab. The spirit offereth himselfe, and telleth which way hee will effect it. God assenteth, and assureth him to preuaile; he biddeth him goe and doe as hee hath said. And what, will M. Bishop say, that God is heereby made the author of sinne? God indeed ordereth and vseth the sinne of the diuell to punish the sinne of Ahab, but here is nothing whereby it may appeare that God wrought a­ny sinne in Ahab or in the diuell. The diuell is alwaies for­ward to deceiue men, but being vnder the checke of the power and prouidence of God, hee can doe nothing but when and where it pleaseth God to giue him leaue. When God then being prouoked by the contempts and de­spights of men, letteth Satan loose, and in iust furie and wrath directeth him to doe to such a one that which hee so much desireth to doe: shall wee heereupon draw an en­ditement against God, and take vpon vs to arraigne him as guilty of trespasse and sinne? If the text it selfe bee not sufficient to informe M. Bishops conceit in this behalfe, let him take S. Austins obseruation vpon it, who vrging it a­gainst the Pelagians as wee doe against the Papists, saieth thereupon to Iulian:Aug [...]ont. Iu­lian li. 5. cap. 3. Quid ad ista dict [...]rus es? Nempe re [...] ipse peccauit falsis credend [...] Pro­phetis. At haec ipsa erat & poe­na peccati, deo iudicante, deo m [...]ttente ange­lum malum, vt intelligeremus apertius quo­modo in Psal­mo dictum est, misisse iram in­dignationu sua per angelos ma­ [...]s, sed nunquid errando? nun. quid imustè quicquam vel temcrè fa [...]iendo vel i [...]di [...]aodo? Absit, sed non frustra illi di­ctum est; Iudi­cia tua sicut a­byss [...]s multa.What wilt thou say to this? surely king Ahab sinned in beleeuing the false Prophets, and yet this was also the punishment of sinne, God iudging him, God sending the euill angell, that wee might vnderstand how it was saied in the Psalme, that he sent the wrath of his indignation by euill angels. But did he thus by error, or by iudging or doing any thing vniustly or rashly? God forbid. But it was not for nought said vnto him, Thy iudgements are like the great deepe. And againe,Ibid paulo post. Quis enim d [...]cat non p [...]c­casse s [...]ritui credendo men­daci? Quis dicat hee peccatū poe­n [...]m non suisse pec [...]ati, venten­temde iudi [...]io dei, ad quam le­git spiritum mendacem siue missum, siue permissum?Who will say that Ahab sinned not in beleeuing the lying spirit? and who will say that this sinne was not a pu­nishment of sinne, comming of the iudgement of God, for which he made choise of the lying spirit, whether sent (as he him­selfe saied) or permitted and suffered (as Iulian saied)? Be­hold M. Bishop; God sent the euill angell; God made choise of the lying spirit, it came of the iudgement of God [Page 75]that Ahab was seduced, and therein sinned to his owne destruction. In another place also, nolesse plainly he saieth,Idem. in Psal. 77. Quem falla­ciae spiritus ex dei voluntate seduxit vt ca­deret in bello.that by the will of God it was that the lying spirit deceiued Ahab that he might fall in the battell. But haply he will not be tried by S. Austin in this matter, because hee wrote a­gainst the Pelagians the very naturall brethren of the Pa­pists, and heerein wholly consorted with them. Well, bee it so; yet wee hope hee will haere their owne An­gelicall doctour Thomas Aquinas.Th. Aquin p. 1. q. 114. art 1. ad 1. Mali an­geli impugnant homines dupli­citer. Vno modo instigando ad peccatum, & sic non mittuntur à deo ad impug­nandum, sed a­liquando per­mittuntur se­cundum dei iu­sta iudicia. Ali­quando autem impugnant ho­mines puniendo & sic [...]ttun­tur à deo. sicut missus est spiri­tus mendax ad puniendum A­hab regem Isra­el. Poena enim refertur in deū sicut in primum actorem. Et ta­men daemones ad puniendum missi alta inten­tione pun unt quâm mittun­tur. Nam ipsi puniunt ex odio vel muidia; mittuntur autem à deo propter iustitiam eius.The euill angels impugne men two maner of waies; one way, by prouoking to sinne, and so they are not sent of God to impugne, but sometimes they are permitted according to the iust iudge­ment of God. But sometimes they impugne men in punishing, and so they are sent of God, as the lying spirit was sent to punish Ahab the King of Israel, for punishment is referred to God as the first authour. And yet the diuels punish with another intent then they are sent; for they punish of hatred or enuy, but they are sent of God because of his righteousnesse. If all punishment be of God, and the lying spirits were sent of God by way of punishment to entise and to deceiue Ahab that he might madly goe a course to his owne confusion, why doth it of­fend M. Bishop that Caluin should say that the blinding and madnesse of Ahab was by the will and decree of God? The like folly hee committeth in the next point by him mentioned, that Absolon defiling his fathers bed with incestu­ous adultery committed detestable wickednesse, yet this was Gods owne worke. The words of Caluin are; yet this doth God pronounce to be his worke. Let vs then see whether he doe so or not. The wordes of God, as Caluin alleageth, are these; 2. Sam. 12.12.Thou hast done it secretly but I will doe it openly and before this sunne. When God saith, I will doe it, doth he not pro­nounce that it is his doing? doth he not make it his owne worke? Why doth M. Bishop quarrell with Caluin? Why doth he not looke into the words of the text, I will doe it? If God himselfe say that it is his worke, will M. Bishop say [Page 76]that it is not so? If he be afraid that God is heereby made the author of sinne, it is but his want of vnderstanding that causeth him that feare. Let him remember what before hath been said and the matter is very cleere. Absolon was of himselfe viciously and licentiously disposed; and this leud disposition of his, God vseth to punish Dauid. If we respect heere the sinne, it is of Absolon himselfe; but if we respect the ordering of the sinne whereby Dauid was made the ob­iect of it, this as Caluin wel noteth, God pronounceth to be his worke. And this is all that Caluin intendeth, who saith thatCa [...]uin. Instit. l. 1. c. 17. sect. 5. Coucedo sures et homicidas & a­li [...]s ma [...]est [...]oss diuinae esse pro­ [...]dentiae instru­in [...]uta qu [...]us d [...]minus ipse ad ex [...]quenda quae apua se consti­ta [...]t [...] c [...]a vti­tu [...]. Atq [...]i eorū malu vllam in­de excusationem deberi nego. Quid enim? an ve [...]eadem s [...]cum iniquitate deum inuoluent vel suam prauita­tem illues iusti­tia operient? neutrū p [...]ssunt: Quominis se purgent, pro­pr [...]a conscientia redarguuntur: quominus deum insimulent to­tum in se ma­lum deprehen­dunt; penes ip­sum nounisi le­g [...]timum mali­tiae suae vsum.theeues and murtherers and other malefactours, are the instruments of Gods prouidence which he vseth for the execu­ting of those iudgements which he hath decreed with himslfe. But I deny, saith he, that thereby any excuse belongeth to their sinnes. For what? will they wrap God in the same iniquity with them, or will they by his righteousnesse couer their owne naugh­tinesse? They can doe neither. That they may not cleere them­selues they are reprooued by their owne conscience: that they may not accuse God, they finde the euill wholly in themselues, but with God no other but the lawfull vse of their wickednesse. I will end this matter with that which Saint Ambrose no­teth of it, who expoundingAmbros. in Psal. 37. Manum dei virtutem intelligimus puntendi, &c. Hanc manum Dauid in seipso ex­p [...]rtus & liberis, alterius incestum, alterius parricidium deplorauit. &c. sed forte aliqui [...] dit [...] Quomodo in paricidio vel in incestu manus dei fuerit ùm opusillud inimicisit. Cognoscamus igi­tur quoni [...]m et vb [...] diabolus vulnerat, sagittae domini vulnerare dicantur, &c. Cum diabelu [...] vulnerat domini sunt sagitiaequs vulnerandi permisit d [...]olo potestatem. Deni (que) si mandes vt t [...]s [...] seru [...]us verberetur, nonnè etiamsi ab alio astante cadatur, à te dicitur ver­beratu [...]?the hand of God to be his power in punishing, and saying, that of this hand Dauid had experi­ence when he bewailed the incest of one of his sonnes and the o­thers murther and paricide, he bringeth in one asking, How was the hand of God in murther and incest, seeing that is the worke of the enemy? But let vs know, saith he, that where the diuell woundeth, the arrowes of the Lord are said to wound. He giueth example heereof in Iob, from whom also he bor­roweth that phrase, and by and by concludeth, when the di­uell [Page 77]woundeth, the arrowes are the Lords who gaue the diuell power to wound. And if, saith he, a man giue charge to haue his seruant beaten, is not he said to beat him albeit he be stricken by another stander by? In which words he plainely teacheth that albeit incest and murther and such like be the workes of the Diuell and of wicked and vngodly men that are led by him, yet that in their acting and committing of these wickednesses God hath his hand so as that neither diuels nor men effect the same at their owne pleasure, but by his secret prouidence euen as it were by a charge expresly gi­uen them are guided therein as it shall seeme good to him either to punish sinners by them or to exercise and trie Godly and faithfull men. Further M. Bishop obiecteth that Caluin saith, that nothing is more plaine then that God blindeth the eies of men, striketh them with giddinesse, maketh them drunke, casteth them into madnesse, and hardeneth their hearts. But did not M. Bishop know that these are scrip­ture phrases? that the holy Ghost himselfe speaketh in that sort?Deutr. 28.28.The Lord, saith Moses, shall smite thee with mad­nesse, and blindnesse, and with astonying of heart.Exod. 4.21.I, saith God, will harden Pharaohs heart. Esay 19.14.The Lord, saith the Pro­phet, hath mingled amongst them the spirit of errours. Rom. 11.8.God, saith the Apostle, hath giuen them the spirit of slumber, euen as the Prophet had said before,Esay 29.10.The Lord hath couered you with a spirit of slumber, and hath shut vp your eies. God saith,Esay 63.6.I will make them drunke in mine indignation; Iere. 51.57.I will make drunke her Princes and her Wisemen, her Dukes, and her No­bles. The Apostle againe saith, 2. Thes. 2.11 God shall send them strength of illusion that they may beleeue lies. Infinite other such pla­ces of scripture there are; and although M. Bishop himselfe be little acquainted with the text, yet the very place of Caluin which he impugneth might haue giuen him occasi­on to take aduertisement thereof. Well, he will seeme so to haue done, but what doth he say to such speeches? The poore Papists, saith he, were wont to interpret such textes of Scripture by saying that God doth indeed iustly permit and suf­fer [Page 78]such things to be done, but is not the authour of them. In­deed it seemeth that the Papists are very poore in interpre­ting the Scriptures, who in so cleere a light cannot see that albeit God be not the authour of any sinne, which the Pro­testants beleeue and confesse as fully and faithfully as they doe, yet that God doth more than barely permit and suffer it to be done. When Ioshuah saith of the Canaanites go­ing foorth to battell against the Israelites that Ios. 11.20. it came of the Lord to harden their hearts to goe against Israel in battell to the intent that they should vtterly destroy them: and when God saith of the Assyrians going with all malicious fury against the same people, Esay 10.6. I will send him, I will giue him a charge against the people of my wrath to take the spoile and to tread them downe as clay in the streets: and when Dauid saith; 2. Sam. 16.10.11. The Lord hath bidden Shimei to curse Dauid, will M. Bishop in these and many other such like places vnder­stand nothing but bare permission? The Pelagian heretikes of old vsed the same shift against the euidence of scripture, and Saint Austin then reiected it, and will the Papists now haue vs to admit it for a truth? When Iulian the Pelagian said, Aug. cont. Iu­lian li. 5. cap. 3. Ditis cum dest­derijs suis tra­diti dicuntur, relicti per diui­nam patientiam intelligendi sunt, non per po­tentiam in pec­cata compulsi, quasi non simul posuerit haec duo idem Apostolus, & patientiam & potentiam vbi ait, si autem volens deus estendere iram. &c. when men are said to be deliuered ouer to their owne lusts they must be vnderstood to be left by Gods sufferance and permission, not by his power to be forced into sinne, Saint Austin answereth, As though the Apostle had not set downe both these together, both Gods sufferance and his power, where he saith, If God would, to shew his wrath and to make his power knowen, suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath prepared to de­struction. But he goeth yet further: Idid. Quid tamen horum dicis esse quod scriptum est, Et prophetasi erra­uerit, &c. pati­entia est an po­tentia? An & hic dicturus es quòd, Ego do­minus seduxi Prophetam illū, intelligendum est, deserui vt pro eius merit [...]s seductus erra­ret. Whether of these wilt thou say it is which is written, Ezec. 14 9.If that Prophet be deceiued when hee hath spoken a thing, I the Lord haue deceiued that Prophet, and I will stretch out my hand vpon him, and I will destroy him out of the middest of my people Israel, is this Gods permission or his power? Wilt thou heere say, that, I the Lord haue deceiued that Prophet, must be vnderstood, I haue forsa­ken him, that according to his deserts being deceiued he might erre? Saint Austin thinketh it strange that where God [Page 79]saith, I The Lord haue deceiued that Prophet, Iulian should construe it, I haue forsaken that Prophet and suffered him to be deceiued; and why then doth M. Bishop taxe Caluin for reiecting the same construction? Caluins words fully accord with the words of Austin. Caluin. Instu­tut. lib. 1. cap. 18. sect. 2. Haee etiam ad per­missionem multi reijciunt atsi d [...]screndo repro­bes à satana ex­caecari sincret; sed cum disertè exprimat spiri­tus iusto dei iu­dicio i [...]fligi cae­citatem & a­mentiam nimis friuola est illa solutio. These things many refer to sufferance, as if by forsaking the reprobate he suffered them to be blinded of Satan: but seeing the holy Ghost plainly expres­seth, that blindnesse and madnesse is inflicted by the iust iudge­ment of God, that solution is too fond. In the censuring of which words M. Bishop through Caluins side woundeth Saint Austin, and the whole Church which tooke part with him against the Pelagian heretikes. But heere it is to be no­ted how guilefully Master Bishop suppresseth the reason which M. Caluin alleageth for the reiecting of that soluti­on, and whereby he maketh good that it is to be reiected. For Gods iudgements are not matters of permission left to the diuell or to men to doe if they will, but passe from God by sentence and decree that thus or thus it shal be. And therefore Saint Austin expresseth this iudgement by such termes as goe far beyond the words of permission or deser­tion. As where the Apostle saith of idolaters, Rom. 1.27. They recei­ued in themselues such recompence of their errour as was meet,Aug. cont. Iu­lian. lib. 5. ca. 3. Dicit vtique damnatos vt tanta operaren­tur mala & ta­men ista dam­natio reatus est quo grauius im­plicantur.he meaneth, saith he, that they were condemned to the work­ing of so great sinnes, and this damnation notwithstanding is a guilt wherewith they are more grieuously intangled. Surely to be condemned to the committing of sinne, is a far greater matter euen in all mens cies then to be only permitted and suffered to sinne. But he noteth it as a thing Ibid. Et quod est mirabilius, etiam oportuisse dicit eos istam mutuam merce­dem recipere. more strange that the Apostle saith, it was behoouefull or meet that they should receiue this recompence one of them by another. This is much against Master Bishops minde that God did not only condemne them to sin, but therein did that that was meet and behoueful to be done. Yea he saith afterwards of Ahab: Ibid Inius̄tū erat qui non crediderat deo vero, decipere­tur à falso. It stood not with iustice but that he who beleeued not the true God, should be deceiued by a false diuell. Againe, sundry pla­ces he alleageth to such purpose as haue beene before cited [Page 80]and saith thereof: Ibid. In quibus liquidò apparet occulto dei iudi­cio fieri peruer­sitatem cordis [...]t non audia­tur verum quod dicitur & inde pe [...]cetur, & sit ipsum peccatum praecedentis eti­am poena pecca­ti. Nam credere mendacio & now credere ve­ritati vtique peccatum est, venit tamen ab ea caecitate cor­dis quae occulto iudicio dei sed tamen iusto eti­am peccati paena monstratur. By these, manifestly it appeareth that by the secret iudgment of God there is wrought a peruersnes of heart not to heare the truth and thereby to sinne, and this sinne is the punishment of former sinne. For it is sinne, saith he, to be­leeue lies, and not to beleeue the truth, and yet this commeth of that blindnesse of heart which by the secret, but iust iudgement of God is declared to be the punishment of sinne. So againe els­where he saith, that Idem de grat. & lib. arbitr. c. 21. Quis non ista iudicia di­uina contremis­cat quibus agit deus in cordibus etiam malorum hominum quic­quid vult, red­dens eis tamen secundum meri­ta ipsorum. Et Paulò post: Agit omnipotens in cordibus hominum etiam motum voluntatu ec­rum vt per eos agat quod per eos agere ipse voluerit qui omnino iniustè aliquid velle non no­uit. God worketh in the hearts of euill men whatsoeuer he will, rendring to them notwithstanding according to their deserts: that hee stirreth in their hearts the motion of their will to doe by them what he will doe by them, who vniustly can will nothing. He goeth on, and for proofe heereof allea­geth sundry texts of scripture, and in the end concludeth: Ibid. His & talibus testimonijs satis, quantum opinor, manifestatur operari deum in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluntates quocun (que) voluerit, siue ad bona pre sea misericordia siue ad mala pro meritis eorum, iudicio vti (que) suo, aliquando aperto aliquando occulto, semper autemiusto. It is heereby manifest enough, as I suppose, that God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoeuer he will, ei­ther to good for his owne mercy sake, or to euill for mens owne merits, and that by his iudgement sometimes manifest and appa­rant, sometimes secret, but alwaies iust. And thus had he said before, of that it is said, that the Lord spake to Shimei to curse Dauid, that Ibid. cap. 20. Non iubendo dixit vbi obedientia laudaretur, sed quòd voluntatem eius proprio suo vitio malam in hoc peccatum iudicio suo iusto & occult [...] inclinauit, ideò dictum est; Dixit ci Dominus. he did not speake to him by (vocall) bidding him so to doe as that his obedience therein should be commended, but because by his iust and secret iudgement he inclined his wil to this sinne, which will was euill by it owne default, therefore is it said, The Lord hath spoken to him. In all which places it is to be noted, what phrases Saint Austin vseth to set foorth Gods power and worke in the sinnes of men, and how much different from Master Bishops deuise of permission and sufferance, when he saith that God worketh in their hearts, stirreth the motion of their will, causeth in them frowardnesse [Page 81]of heart not to beleeue the truth, inclineth their wills to euill: which yet God doth not directly and properly, but though indirectly and accidentally, yet he doth it, Idem. cont Iu­lian. vt supra. facit haec mitis & ineffabilibus modis qui nouit iudicia sua non solùm in corpo­ribus hominum sed & inipsu cordibus operari by wonderfull and vnspeakable meanes and waies as Austen saith, and his iudgement therein is to be feared and trem­bled at. Now to some of these testimonies of Austen, Bel­larmine giueth no answer, because they are such as he could not well deuise what to say to them; to the rest as to some texts of Scripture he so answereth as that in effect he iustifieth all that we say. He affirmeth that Bellar. de A­miss grat. &c. l. 2. c. 13. praesidet ipsis voluntati­bus malis, eas (que) regit & guber­nat torquet & flectit inuisibi­liter in eis ope­rando, vt licet proprio vitio malae sint tamen a diuina proui­dentia ad vnum potiùs malum quàm ad aliud non positiuè sed permissiuè ordi­nentur. God hath a moderation and presidency ouer the euill wills of men, that he ruleth and gouerneth them, wresteth and boweth them by working inuisibly in them, so that albeit they be euill by their owne corruption, yet by Gods prouidence they are ordered ra­ther to one euill than to another, not by the position of the euill it selfe, but by the permission of it. The explication hereof he borroweth from Hugo de S. Victore who amongst o­ther words hath these: Ibidem ex Hugone. Volun­tati malae viti­um est ex ipsa quo mala est, ordo autem ex deo est quo per velle siue ad het siue ad illud est. In voluntate ergò vitium est & ipsum malum est, & ex ipso voluntas mala est. In velle autem & vitium est, inquantum velle ex mala voluntate est, & ordo est inquantum ad hoc vel hoc ex disponēte est. Et cùm ipsum velle ad hoc aliquid est, malum est quod ad hoe est quia mala voluntate est: quod au­tem ad hoc potiùs quàm ad illud est, bonum est quia ordo est & ex benè disponente est. The euill will of man hath of it selfe the corruption whereby it is euill, but the order whereby in willing it tendeth either to this or that, is of God. In the will then is the corruption and that is euill, and thereby the will is euill: but in the act of willing there is both the corruption, for that it proceedeth from the will being euill, and there is order, for that of him that disposeth it, it commeth that it tendeth to this or that. And when the act of willing is to this certaine thing, it is euill as it is to this, because it commeth of an euill wil, but that it is to this rather than to that it is good, because this is order, and commeth of him that well disposeth it. Which words of Hugo doe notably illustrate and confirme that which hath been before said of a difference alwaies to be made of the sinne it selfe which is of man only, and the circumstance and order of it which may not be denied to [Page 82]be of God. Furthermore Bellarmine in the same place approoueth that which before hath been alleaged out of Thomas Aquinas, that God inclineth to euill Bellar. vt su­pra. Non solum permittendo, &c. sed etiam positiuè, &c. non quidem per se & physicè mouendo, sed oc­casionaliter vt S. Thomas lo­quitur &c. positiuely by way of occasion, whilst he offereth to the inward or out­ward man those things, which being good, yet man by his corruption turneth to sinne. So much also he confesseth in the next Chapter, and there denieth not but that God Ibid. ca. 14. Occasione tali­um rerum dici­tur deus ex eca­re vel indurare per accident. is said accidentally to blind men & harden them by such occasi­ons. In another place he saith rightly, and we say the same, that Ibid. cap. 16. Neque enim deus fens est vnde turbulenti scelerum torren­tes manant, sed artifex est mi­rabilis qui ad vsum suum torrentes illes per se fluentes contorquet, & ordinat ad bo­num aliquod perficien [...]um. God is not a fountaine whence the troubled streames of wicked acts doe flow, but he is a workman of admirable skill, who can force and turne to his own vse those streames flowing of themselues, and ordereth them to the doing of some good. And in the same Chapter he saith further, Ibid. Deus non solum dese­rit peccatores cùm eas tradit d [...]siderijs cordis corum, sed corū malas voluntates &c. ita mirabiliter torquet, regit, ordinat, vt ex eis bonum eliciat & faciat vt etiam inuitae & nolentes. sibiseruiūt & hoc ipso quod libenter faciunt, iusto dei iudicio grauissime puniantur. Et mox Mirabili potentia regit corda etiā impiorū & impedit ne aliud perficiant, co­nentur, vel nt, cogitent, quā quod ipse permittit, ipsam (que) culpā eu vertit in paenā & ad multa bona, malis corum voluntatibus ipse sum [...] è potens summe (que) bonus vtitur. that God doth not only forsake sinners when he giueth them vp to their owne lusts, but doth so wonderfully turne and wind, gouerne and or­der their euill wills, as that out of them he draweth some good, and causeth them perforce and against their wills to serue him, and by the iust iudgement of God they are grieuously punished for that which in the meane time they willingly doe; that by his wonderfull power he ruleth the hearts euen of wicked men, and hindereth them that they may not doe, indeauour, will or thinke any thing but what he permitteth and suffereth, and turneth their sinne to be their punishment, and being most mighty and most highly good, vseth their euill wills to many good purposes. I need not alleage any thing from him to shew that God concurreth to all the actions and motions of men, for that is a thing confessed on all sides; only he excepteth that whereas God concurreth only Ibi. cap. 5. Deus non so­lum [...]t causa vniuersalu, sed etiā vt particularu ex doctrina Caluini & Bezae cōcurrit ad actio­nes malas. as a cause vniuersall, we make him in respect of sinne a cause particular, wheras the [Page 83]blinde Iesuit if he had not been blinde might easily haue seene that we make God in wicked & sinfull actions only a cause vniuersall in respect of the sinne, though in respect of the order and vse thereof we make him a cause particu­lar, as who doth particulate and determine the same to this or that, as by the words of Hugo Victorinus hath been be­fore said. And doth not the Iesuit himselfe confesse as much in the words which I haue alleaged? For if God do wrest and turne the wils of sinfull and wicked men to his vse; if he hinder them from doing or thinking any thing but what he will permit them to doe or thinke; if he so gouerne and rule them as that he maketh them euen against their wils to serue him, then he leaueth not the particulating of sinfull actions as touching their order, to men themselues, but he directeth them in particular to serue the counsell of his will. He then that will weigh these speeches of Bellarmine, and compare them with that that hath beene before discoursed of our assertion in this point, will plainly see that the very euidence of the truth made him subscribe that doctrine, a­gainst which he professeth to dispute; and that he did but maliciously wrest the speeches of our writers, to make to himselfe matter of controuersie, where by plaine dealing he could finde none. This is the triumph and glory of truth, that shee aduanceth her selfe, and displaieth her banners euen amidest the tents of them that are in armes to fight a­gainst her. M. Bishop is a true scholer of his, and out of the very same malice saith further, that Caluin goeth on proouing that God doth not only suffer, but actually effect and worke all the euill that any man committeth, where he putteth those words, actually effect and worke all the euill in a distinct letter as if they were Caluins words, whereas Caluin in that that followeth hath no such words. The like treachery and falsehood he vseth in the recitall of the other words, that God doth worke this euill in man, by satans seruice as a meane, yet so as God is the principall worker of it, and sat an but his in­strument, whereas the words of Caluin truely reported are [Page 84]these. Cal. Inst. l. 1. c. 18. s. 2. fateor interposita sata­nae opera deum saepe agere in re­probis, &c. Di­citur verò ipse dare homines in reprobum sen­sum quia iustae suae vindictae praecipuus est author, satan verò tantum minister. That God by satans seruice doth often worke in the reprobate, but yet (as by and by it followeth) that God is said to giue men ouer to a reprobate sense, and to cast them into fil­thy lusts, because he is the chiefe authour of his iust reuenge or punishment, and satan only the minister or instrument thereof. In which words, what is it wherat M. Bishop is offended? Surely Saint Austin attributeth to God Aug. de grat. & l. arbit. c 21. potēs est fiue per angeles, vel bo­nos vel malos si­ue quocun (que) a­lio modo operari etiam in cordi­bus malorum pro meritis eo­rum. a power to worke in the hearts of wicked men, according to their deserts, either by good or euill angels, and saith, that Idem in Psal. 77. Deus vtitur angelis ma [...]is ad puniendos ma­los sicut in istis [...]mnibus, &c. Et post: Eu tribue re sine dubitati­one p [...]ssumus ob­duration [...]m cor­du illorum. God vseth euill angels to punish euill men, as he did to punish the Aegyptians by hardning their hearts, and therefore calleth them, Ibid per illes velut militiae caelestis carnifi­ces. the hangmen or executioners of the warfare of heauen. So where in another Psalm, God is said Psal. 105.25. to haue turned the hearts of the Aegypti­ans so that they hated his people,Ibid. Benè creditur deus fecisse per illos angelos malos, &c.we may wel belee [...]e, saith he, that God did this by the euill angels. Now then why doth M. Bishop doubt but that satan and his angels are rightly tear­med the ministers and instruments of Gods vengeance, the hang-men and executioners of his wrath against wicked and vngodly men? Is hee offended to heare that God is the chiefe authour of this vengeance? But that wee haue heard before out of Thomas Aquinas, whom I trow hee will not gainesay, Tho. Aquin. supra. poena re­fertur in deum sicut in primumactorem. that punishment is re­ferred to God, as the chiefe authour of it. The truth is, that if hee had reported Caluins words aright, he had had nothing to say against them, but leudly and vnhonestly he falsifyeth them, that hee may seeme to haue some colour for this slanderous imputation, where indeed he hath none. Now to goe on with the rest in the same order as I haue be­gun from the last to the first, there foloweth Melancthō. Of the same cursed crue was Melancthon, saith he; whereas he himselfe rather here carieth the mark of an accursed wretch, in that hee so wilfully belieth and slandereth Melancthon. He citeth him vpon the 8. to the Romans, where no such are: and vpon the 9. of the same Epistle there are words [Page 85]words directly contrary to that forwhich he citeth them. Melanct. ad Rom. c. 9. Etsi deus impertit vitam malis, ta­men deus non est causa peccati sed voluntas ip­sa in malis, in diabolo & ho­mine transfe­rens agitatio­nem ad obie­ctum prohibi­tum à deo est causa peccati. Haec sententia & tuta & [...]e­ra est ac sacris literis consenta­nea. Quod au­tem in scriptu­ris legitur, Ego indurabo, &c. & Tradidit eos &c. & similia, haec figura ser­monis facilè po­test explicari siquis obseruet naturam He­braici sermonis. Certum est e­nim, has figu­ras habere quandam signi­ficationem per­mittendi. Tra­didit, &c. non significat positiuè deum efficaciter seu proprio quodam motu rapere animos ad explendas cupiditates sed significat desertionem. Deus deserit impios & sinit eos surere; non cohibet eorum furorem. Ego indurabo, &c. id est, sinam indurari; non flectam genuinam im­pij cordis duritiam. Cum autem buius desertionis mentionem facit, poenam significat qua punit impi [...]s. Haec est vera Grammatica interpretatio & nihil habet absurdi. Though God, saith he, giue life to the wicked, yet God is not the cause of sinne, but the will it selfe in the euill, whether the diuell or man, transferring the cogitation to an obiect for­bidden of God, is the cause of sinne. This opinion is safe and true, and agreeable to the holy Scriptures. And whereas, saith he, it is read in the Scriptures; I will harden Pharaoh his heart, and, He gaue them ouer to their owne lusts, and such like; this figure of speech may easely be expounded, if a man obserue the nature of the Hebrew tongue. For certaine it is, that these figuratiue speeches haue a signification of permissi­on. God gaue them ouer, &c. doth not signifie positiuely that God efficiently or by proper motion draweth mens mindes to fulfill their lusts, but it signifieth the forsaking of them. God forsaketh the wicked, and suffereth them to rage; hee doth not restraine their furie. I will harden, &c. that is, I will suffer to be hardened; I will not bow the naturall hardnesse of the wic­ked heart. Now when the Scripture maketh mention of this desertion, it signifieth a punishment wherewith hee punisheth the wicked. This, saith hee, is the true Grammaticall inter­pretation, and hath nothing absurd in it. This I haue set downe at large, that the Reader may see, that Melancthon was so farre from speaking, as M. Bishop chargeth him, as that contrariwise he expoundeth those places of Scripture which import how farre God interposeth himselfe in the sinfull actions of men, much more mildly then Bellarmine himselfe doth, being forced by euidence of truth, as wee haue before seene, to admit more then Melancthon saith. Bucer indeed saith, that Bucer. in Rom. cap. 1. Nisi fateamur eum omnia in nobis efficere deum esse negamus. vnlesse we confesse that God work­eth all things in all men, we deny him to be God: but he speak­eth of motions and actions, and not of the sinne that clea­ueth [Page 86]vnto them, and very perfidiously doth M. Bishop adde, aswell all euill as all good. Which appeareth by that that he saieth in the same place; Ibid. Verba domini haec duo simul testantur, siquid peccamus culpam nostram esse non dei; cui perhibet testi­monium & no­stra ipsorum conscientia, tum à deo omne bo­num venire vt quod ille non dederit impossi­bile sit à quo­quam vel cogi­tari nedum fi­eri. The words of God doe te­stifie these two things, that if we sinne, the fault is ours, not Gods, whereto our owne conscience beareth witnesse; and then that all goodnesse commeth of God, so as that what he giueth not, it is impossible for any man to doe or thinke. The words of Zwinglius are; Zwingl. de prouid. dei. ca. 6. Vnumat (que) idem fa [...]mus puta adulterium aut homicidium quantum dei est author [...]s, moto­ris ac impulsoris opus est, crimen non est; quan­tum autem ho­minis est, cri­men ac se [...]us est. One and the same deed, as adultery or murther, so farre as it is of God, the author, moouer, and pusher forward thereof, it is a worke, and not a sinne, but so farre as it is of man it is sinne and wickednesse. Where wee see that for the act it selfe, meerely as an act or worke, he ascribeth it to God, who is the true authour of all motions and actions; but the sinne thereof he ascribeth onely to man, to whom onely it doth belong. The latter words which he citeth I doe not finde, and I doubt not but hee hath plaied a part of his little honestie in them, as wee see in the former he hath done.

11. W. BISHOP.

But to proceed on with this discourse: the Protestants do not onely impugne the power and goodnesse of God▪ but they doe al­so peruert his iustice. For to omit their last p [...]sition, that God is the worker of all sinne in vs, compelling (as Caluin speaketh) the reprobate to obedience; and therefore cannot in iustice punish the poore wretches, for being obedient vnto his owne will and working: and not to vrge their former assertion, that God of his owne will and decree, hath predestinated the greater part of men to hell, without any foresight of their euill de­serts: which if it were true, should it not be intclerable wronge, to torment so rigorously innocents, that neuer offended him? To let passe these points (I say) how can they defend the iustice of God, who hold that he hath tied vs to such lawes, as are impos­sible to be kept by any man? For Christ (as he testified himselfe) will condemne men to hell fire for transgressing of these lawes, by working of iniquity: Matt. 7.23. depart from me you that worke iniqui­tie: [Page 87] and what equity should there be in that sentence, if it had neuer beene possible for these men to haue done otherwise? For no reasonable Iudge condemneth any man for not doing of that, which he knew well, lay not any way in his power to be done. So that nothing is more plaine and euident, then that the Prote­stants doctrine trotteth apace towardes open Atheisme, by im­pugning the power of God: by defacing his goodnesse, mercy, and iustice, which in our vnderstanding are the chiefe properties of his diuine substance: and by calling into question the blessed Trinity it selfe, which their of-spring and progeny the Trinitari­ans in Poland doe already deny flatly. Thus much of their A­theismes against God.

R. ABBOT.

Whether we make God the worker of all sinne in vs, ap­peareth by that that hath beene already said. As touching the phrase of Cōpelling the reprobate to obedience, the words of Caluin are, Cal. Instit. l. 1. cap. 18. sect. 2. that the prouidence of God doth not onely shew his power in the elect, but also, Reprobos in obsequium cogit. Which M. Bishop should haue rather translated, he forceth or compelleth the reprobate to serue him, to do what hee will. The word obsequium doth not alwaies import obedience, but noteth somtimes a mans doing of that which another would haue done though the dooer haue no meaning to o­bey him therein. Obedience is a voluntary submission, and a man cannot be said to be compelled to that that volunta­rily he doth; and Caluins meaning onely is, that reprobates amidst all their furie and rage and rebellion against God, yet are so holden in, and guided, by the bridle of his proui­dence, that they can do nothing but what he according to his good pleasure thinketh fit and conuenient to be done. Because then this seruice is only intended as touching the thing done, not for any minde or will that they haue to o­bey or serue God in the doing of it, therfore they are by M. Bishop absurdly tearmed, obedient to Gods will and working. As for Caluin, he speaketh no otherwise in this behalfe then [Page 88]Gregory Bishop of Rome doth, when he saith of Iosephs brethren: Greg. Moral. l. 6. ca. 22 Inde coacti sunt dei voluntatem peragere vnde hanc moliti sunt astutè commu­taere. Thereby were they compelled to doe the will of God whereby they subtelly thought to defeat the same, and of the Iewes Ibid. Cum se aestimant eius miracula perse­quendo abscin­dere, haec nimi­rum compulsi sunt nesciendo dilatare. that by persecuting they thought to cut off the miracles of Christ, but were compelled vnwittingly to spread the same further. yea and by the word obsequium he saith, that Ibid. Hoc ad pietatis suae ob­sequium redigit quod contra il­lum humana crudelitas exar­sit. God forceth that ad pietatis suae obsequium, to the seruice of his piety wherein humane cruelty burneth or rageth against him. In a word, Ibid. Cui cog­nitae debet no­stra actio de­uotè famulari ne ei etiam no­lens seruiat si hanc superbieus declinat. our action, saith he, euen against our will serueth the heauenly will of God, when in our pride it shunneth the same. And thus Bellarmine saith, as wee haue seen before, that Bellar. de A­miss grat. &c. c. 16. supra sect. 10 God so gouerneth the wils of wicked men as that he maketh them perforce and against their will to serue him. And wher­as M. Bishop inferreth so learnedly that therefore God can­not in iustice punish the poore wretches for being obedient, as he dreameth, to his will and working, Bellarmine answereth that Ibid. by the iust iudgement of God they are greeuously punished for that which in the meane while they willingly doe. For albeit God by his wisedome and power doe turne their euill to his good purpose and vse, yet they doe it not as with any purpose therein to serue God, but to follow the sinfull lust of their owne wicked hearts, and therefore are iustly puni­shed for the doing of it. Now, are those speeches tolerable and true in Gregory and Bellarmine, and doth Caluin of­fend in the vsing of them? We should greatly condemne M. Bishop heerin, but that we know he must doe as his ma­ster teacheth him, who is wont one-where, to make absurdi­ties of those things, which he is forced otherwhere to ap­prooue. As touching the other point of Gods predestinating men to hell, it is heere very idlely repeated, and I haue before sufficiently answered him thereof. But letting these things passe, The Com­mandements how affirmed possible or vnpossible. he commeth in heere with another question: How we can defend the iustice of God, who hold, that he hath tied vs to such lawes as are impossible to be kept? where I answere him briefely, that we doe not hold that God hath tied vs to such lawes as are impossible to be kept, and yet we do hold, that [Page 89]it is impossible for vs in that state as we are, to keepe those lawes which are possible to be kept. For as we hold that it is not vnpossible to see the Sunne, and yet it is vnpossible for a blind man to see the sunne, euen so we hold that it is not vnpossible to keepe the commandements of God, and yet it is a thing vnpossible for sinfull man to keepe them. Iob 14.4. Who can make him cleane, saith Iob, that is conceiued of vn­cleane seed?Ier. 13.23.Can a black-Moore change his skin, saith Iere­my, or a leopard his spots? No more can yee doe good that are accustomed to doe euill. Rom. 8.7.The wisedome of the flesh is enmitie against God, saith Saint Paul, for it is not subiect vnto the law of God, neither indeed can be. Doe you heare it, M. Bishop? the wisedome of the flesh cannot be subiect to the Law of God, and therefore it is vnpossible that it should keepe the commandements of God. But yet he wil say that by the grace of God it is not vnpossible to keepe them. And so say we that when the grace of God shal haue his perfect work we shall perfectly and fully keepe the commandements of God; and in the meane time all that are partakers of the be­ginnings of grace, doe begin to keepe them, which shew­eth that they are not vnpossible to be kept. Yet neuerthe­lesse so long as we haue receiued Rom. 8.23. but the first fruits of the spirit of grace, and Gal. 5.17. the flesh yet remaineth lusting against the spirit, so that we cannot doe the things that we would, So long it shall be vnpossible for vs perfectly to keepe the comman­dements of God, which yet are possible to be kept. And what? will M. Bishop say the contrary? If he doe, we will insult and triumph ouer him, because his owne conscience shall condemne him. As for that which he further saith, that Christ shall condemne men for transgressing his lawes, and what iustice shall that be if it were not possible for them to doe other­wise? I answer him that the iustice of Christ needeth none of his lies for the defence of it. Christ shall iustly condemne the transgressours of his lawes, because the impossibility of keeping those lawes ariseth not from the lawes, but wholly from themselues. Againe, their owne thoughts shall accuse [Page 90]them, that they haue left many things vndone, which they might haue done, and haue done many things which they might haue forborne to doe. To driue out one naile with another, let vs aske M. Bishop how he maketh it good in the iustice of God, that an infant dying vnbaptised, in whose power it lieth not to helpe it selfe, should be con­demned euerlastingly to hell fire? Let him resolue vs how this is iust with God, and wee shall easily answer him for the rest. As for vs, we say in all these things that Iob 33.13. God gi­ueth not account of all his matters, that Aug. ep. 99. Alitèr se habet sensus huma­nus, aliter iusti­tia creatoris. the conceit of man it one thing, and the iustice of God another, and Lactant. Insti. l. 1. c. 1. Nihil in­ter deum homi­nem (que) distaret, si consilia & dispositiones il­lius maiestatis aeternae cogitatio assequeretur humana. there should be no difference betwixt God and man, if the vnderstanding of man could reach to the counsels and dispositions of his eternall maie­stie. But of these things enough hath beene said Answer to the Epistle. sect. 19. Of free will. sect. 17.18. Of Iustificati­tion. sect. 38.39. &c. before, and M. Bishop if he would not yeeld, should rather haue applied himselfe to answer that that hath beene there said, then thus simply to sing ouer the same song againe. Now of misconstruction followeth an idle conclusion, consisting of vaine repetition, seruing to lengthen his booke, but in no sort touching vs.

12. W. BISHOP.

Now to those that be against our Sauiour Christ Iesus: I haue before touched their errors concerning his Godhead; here I will speake of those that be against his Man-hood and Media­torship. First, it must needes argue in them a great want of good affection towards our Sauiour, that they are so backeward in his blessed Mother the holy Virgins praises, not hearing, with pacience, any body that would so much as salute her with the Haile MARY, Luk. 1. which notwithstanding is recorded in the Gos­pell: and are besides so ready vpon euery litle occasion, to speake in her dispraise, that we may with good reason reprooue them, as men either wanting iudgement (which they will not indure of any thing) or else voide of due respest vnto the Sonne, who are such aduersaries to the Mother: whom if they would not reue­rence for her owne vertues, which were most rare and singular; [Page 91]yet for her Sonnes sake (who loued her so tenderly) they should shew themselues better affected towards her,The virgin­mother ho [...] worshipped in Popery.and more forward in her praises, if they did indeede loue and honour her Sonne, as they pretend to doe.

R. ABBOT.

Our affection towards our Sauiour Christ, consisteth not in the approouing of old wiues dreames, but in the keeping of his word. We finde not that any of the Apostles or Euangelists, either vsed themselues or instructed others to salute the Virgin-mother with the Haile Mary. It is re­corded in the Gospell indeed, that an Angell sent from hea­uen did so salute her vpon the earth; but it is not recorded in the Gospell that we on earth, should so salute her being now in heauen. As for that which M. Bishop saith of our dispraising her, it is vntrue; we dispraise her not; we Luk. 1.48. call her blessed, as we are taught to doe; we acknowledge her a fingular instrument of Gods mercy towards vs in the in­carnation of Iesus Christ; we mention her as becommeth vs, with due remembrance of the vertues and graces that God hath bestowed vpon her, but yet wee will make no Leo 10. apud Pet. Bembum. ep. l. 8. epist. 17. Ne Deam ipsam inani lignorum inutilium dona­tione lusisse vi­deamini. Goddesse of her, as the Pope hath done, nor commit Ido­latry to doe her vndue honor, as the Collyridian heretickes did of old, and as the Papists now doe. Christ loued her tenderly, but yet hee meant not to put her in place of him­selfe, nor appointed vs to seeke at her hands that blessing and grace which God hath giuen vs in him alone. And therefore we will not be partakers with the Church of Rome in those sacriledges and blasphemies wherein they call her Ioan. Michae. Enchir. quotidi­an. exercit. pag. 120. O nostra singularis ma­ter & Aduoca­ta; suscipe nos in maternam tu­amcustodiam e [...] directionem, adopta in filios tibi deuotissi­mos, purga et praeserua ab omnibus vitijs; ex orna tua hu­militate, casti­tate, charitate, obedientia, cae­teris (que) virtuti­bus. their mother and aduocate, praying to her that shee will receiue them into her motherly custody and direction, to a­dopt them to be her deuout children, to purge them and pre­serue them from all vices: to adorne them with her humility, chastity, charity, obedience and other vertues;Cap 7. p. 346. suscipe etiā per idem cor filij tu [...] vniuersum n [...] ­strae seruitutis obsequium, & tuis meritis il­lud adiungen [...] supple, emenda, perfice et offer.that for her sonnes sake, or as they speake, by the heart of her sonne, she will receiue all the duty of their seruice, and adioining it to her me­rits, [Page 92]will supply it, amend it, perfect and offer it;Cap. 4. pa. 158. per te accessum habeamus ad fi­lium vt per te nos suscipiat, purget, sane & liberet, &c. Ex­cuset apud ip­sum tua puritas & integritas culpam nostrae impuritatis & corruptionis, hu­militas tua no­strae veniam impetret vani­tate, sobrietas gulositati, &c. copiosa tua cha­ritas nostrorum cooperiat multi­tudinem pecca­torum. Domina nostra, Media­trix nostra, Aduocata no­stra, tuo filio nos commenda, tuo filio nos re­praesenta, tuo filio nos recon­cilia & incor­pora.that by her they may haue accesse to her sonne, that by her he may receiue them, purge, heale and deliuer them: that her purity and inte­grity may with him excuse the fault of their impurity and eor­ruption, her humility may obtaine pardon for their vanity, her sobriety for their gluttony, that her abundant loue may couer the multitude of their sinnes. O our Lady, say they, our Medi­atresse, our Aduocate, commend vs to thy sonne, represent vs to thy sonne, reconcile vs and incorporate vs to him. Thus what Christ came to doe for vs towards God, because none could doe it but he, that haue they set vp the Virgin Mary to doe for vs towards Christ, who notwithstanding needed Christ as well as we. But because we tender the honour of Iesus Christ, and for the loue wherwith he hath loued vs. do hold our selues bound in loue to yeeld him entirely the glo­ry of that that he hath done for vs, therefore we renounce all such deuotions, which indeed are no deuotions but im­pieties and prophanations of the faith and religion of Christ, whereby the mediation of Christ is either excluded as needlesse, or impeached as vnsufficient to doe that for which he was appointed and sent of God. But as touching this point of M. Bishops blinde and doting superstition, I re­fer thee, gentle reader, to the examination of his answer to M. Perkins epistle dedicatory, the last part thereof.

13. W. BISHOP.

But let vs come to Christs owne person. Whereas the first Adam was (at the first instance of his creation) replenished with perfect knowledge: Ioh. 1. In cap. 2. Luc. v. 52. Col. 2. v. 4.and it is also in holy writ said of the second, that the word was made flesh, full of grace and truth: Yet they commonly teach, that our Sauiours soule was subiect to ignorance, euen as other mens soules are: and that he was in his youth ignorant of many things. But what and they spare him not (in whom all the treasures of wisedome and know­ledge were hidden) when he came to ripe yeares, and began now to preach? let vs for a taste, heare some of Caluins sweete [Page 93]obseruations vpon the text of the Gospell;Ex Caluin. Turcismo. lib. 7. cap. 13. Luc. 16. Matth. 7. Iohn 1. In cap. 7. Luc. v. 29.because the purer brethren complaine much, that M. Caluins workes are in no greater request. Christ (saith he) * speaketh improperly, Matth. 6. vers. 18. he vseth harsh and far-fetched simili­tudes: hee wresteth the Prophets words into a strange sense: he vseth triuiall and vulgar prouerbs, as probable coniectures, not as sound arguments, which he willeth vs to beare in minde, as a thing often practised by our Sauiour, in Matth. cap. 12. vers. 25. Luc: 11. vers. 17. he speaketh af­ter the manner of men, not out of his heauenly cabinet, Mat. 11. vers. 21. which is no lesse in plaine English, then that he spake vntruly as men doe. Matth. 26.39.And very sutable to this he noteth else where, that Christ could not get any other to be his Dis­tiples, then some certaine poore fellowes of the refuse and dregges of the people. Seeme not these execrable notes to is­sue from the pen of some malicious Iew, or ranke Atheist? yet are they but fleabitings in comparison of those which follow. In his commentary vpon these words of our Sauiour: Father, if it be possible, let this chalice or cup passe from me. He obser­neth first, that this praier of Christ was vnaduisedly made: secondly, that he ouercome with griefe, had forgotten the heauenly decree, not remembring for the time, that he was sent to be the redeemer of mankinde: thirdly, that he with­stood as much as in him lay, & refused to execute the office of a mediator. See Caluin also vpon these words of Christ: Ioh. 12.27. Father saue me from this houre: where he saith, that Christ was so strucken with feare, and so pinched on euery side with perplexed pensiuenesse, that he was forced through these boisterous waues of temptation, to wauer and fleet too and fro in his praiers and petitions. Is not this pitifull impiety? Whereas our most louing redeemer, of set purpose tooke that feare vpon him, and most willingly both suffered, and caused that bloudy agony and conflict, by representing vnto him­selfe, both the shame and paine of his dolorous passion, and the causes thereof (which were the innumerable most grieuous sins of the world) that he might in euery part both of minde and bo­dy, [Page 94]endure what hee possibly could, for the time; and spake no­thing rashly, but repeated that his praier ouer three seuer all times, as is set downe in the text it selfe; to shew vs how natu­rally he (as all other men) did abhorre such a cruell and ignomi­nious death: and yet withall to instruct vs, that we should be content with it, and pray to God for strength to beare it, if it were his blessed will to put vs to the like. This holesome doctrine, and Godly instructions, are by the ancient holy Fathers gathe­red out of that praier of Christ: what a venemous spider then was Caluin, to sucke such poison out of it? If Christ so wauered, where was his constancy? If he were so frighted (as Caluin fals­ly imagineth) where was his fortitude? If he strugled so against his Fathers decree, where was his obedience? If he refused to redeeme vs, what was become of his charity towards mankinde? If the first motions to euill be deadly sinnes in vs (as the Prote­stants hold) what will they make of such tumultuous, and vn­bridled passions in him, that had a greater command ouer them, then we haue?

R. ABBOT.

We doubt not but that Adam so far as the condition and state of humane nature required, Christ as man ignorant of some things. was replenished with perfect knowledge, and yet little did he know what the serpent went about in tempting the woman, or what the end would be of the womans tempting him. It is true also that the second Adam was full of grace and truth, so as that nothing came from him but grace and truth; so as that he fully effected to vs the grace of God, and exhibited the truth of all that God had promised, and yet it followeth not that therefore no­thing from his infancy was vnknowen to him. The Ro­mans also are said Rom. 15.14. to be filled with all knowledge, and yet it was not knowen to them, I warrant you, how wise and ho­nest a man M. Bishop should shew himselfe in the writing of this booke. The holy Ghost teacheth vs that, Heb. 4.15. Heb. 2.17. sinne ex­cepted, Christ was in all things like vnto vs. The Papists out of their fancy say, except sinne and ignorance: but why doe they [Page 95]adde an exception of their owne heades which the holy Ghost hath not added? The holy Ghost saith in all things except sinne; by what authority doe they adde ignorance where ignorance may be without sinne? Surely the ancient father Cyrill gathereth thereof, that Christ as man was ig­norant of some things, as namely that Cyril. Thesau. l. 9. cap. 4. Quod diem & horam illam ignoraret: verè ab illo di­citur vt ab ho­mine; fratribus enim in omni­bus similis fuit sec [...]i dum Pau­lum. he knew not the day and houre of his second comming, wherefore he saith in the Gospell, Mark. 13.32. Of that day and houre knoweth no man, no not the Angels which are in heauen, neither the sonne himselfe, but the father onely. Ibid. Infirmi­tates nostras omnes accepits hac de causa ig­nerasse sedixit.He tooke vpon him all our infirmities, saith he, for this cause he said he knew it not. Yea he teacheth vs heere­in Ibid. Miseri­cordiam eius admirari opor­tet quòd non re­cusauerit prop­ter nos ad tan­tam humilita­tem descendere vt omnia nostra & ipsam etiam ignorantiam humanam sus­ciperet. to admire the mercy of Christ, for that he would so much abase himselfe for our sakes, as to take vpon him, as al the rest, so namely the ignorance of humane nature. He alleageth against the heretickes, that it is no more preiudice to Christ to say according to his manhood, that he knew not that day, Ibid. Interro­gandi sunt hae­hetici quid fa­cient quando saluator dicitur esurijsse, siti [...]s­se, &c. situt ergò voluit tanquam h [...]mo fame ac siticaeteris (que) huiusmodi laborare, sic e [...]am vt ho­nodiem illum ignorat.then to say that he hungred, thirsted, slept, was weary, and such like. He saith againe, that when Iesus being come to Bethany and finding Lazarus dead, asked of Mary, Ioh. 11.34. Where haue yee laied him? Ibid. Locum ignorabat vbi corpus Lazarierat. vt homo ign [...]rauit.he knew not as man, in what place the body of La­zarus was. His conclusion is, that Ibid, i [...] fine. perspicuum est vniuersa sciri à filio dei non minus quâm à patre, quamuis dispensatiue vt homo multa se ignorare dicat. Christ though as the sonne of God he knew all things no lesse then the father, yet as man, by way of dipensation, said himselfe to be ignorant of many things. And what? shall Cyrill now be an hereticke with M. Bishop who so long agoe in behalfe of the Catholicke faith disputed these things against heretickes? The like Origen gathereth out of the words of the Gospell, Luk. 2.52. And Iesus in­ [...]reased in wisedome, and stature and in fauour with God and men.Origen. in Ierem. hom. 1. Iesus necdum vir, sed adhuc infans quia se exinaniuit formam serui excipiens proficiebat. Ne­mo autem proficit qui est perfectus, sed illo proficit qui indiget profectu &c. Quid indignum est rera de eo esse quae dicta sunt; priusquam cognoscat puer bonum aut malum.Iesus not being a man, but as yet an infant, because he humbled himselfe to take the forme of a seruant. did grow. But [Page 96]none doth grow, saith he, or increase who is already perfect, but he groweth that wanteth grouth. Why then is it vnlikely to be truely saied of him: Before the child knew good or euill. He ap­plieth to Christ those words of the Prophet Esay, as diuers other writers doe, though perhaps amisses, but hence, as from the other words, he gathereth that Christ for the time was subiect to that ignorance and infirmity, which by the condition of humane nature belongeth to that tender age. And out of the same words of the Euangelist he obserueth as touching Christs not knowing the day and houre of the end of the world Idem. in Math. tract. 30 Proficiens profi­ciebat quidem super omnes sci­entia est sapien­tia, non tamen vt iam veniret quod perfectum est, priusquam propriam dispē ­sationem imple­ret. Nihil ergò mirum si hec nesciuit. &c. that Christ grew in wisdome and knowledge aboue all other, but yet so as that that which is perfect should not come till he had fulfilled the dispensation that belonged to him, and therefore that it was no maruell if he knew it not. Now these things touch not only the infancy of Christ, but also his riper yeeres, and therefore take away that exception which M. Bishop will seeme to ground vpon that distincti­on. And albeit the Apostle doe now set foorth Christ vnto vs as Col. 2.4. Sundry ca­uillations a­gainst Caluin declared. in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge (which words nowithstanding belong to other purpose then M. Bishop heere produceth them) yet this nothing hindreth but that something might be hidden to the manhood of Christ, till the time should come that the diuine nature should fully explicate and lay open the glori­ous perfection of those endowments, which by vnion and felowship therewith should redound vnto it. But to come to his sweet obseruations which he noteth out of Caluin, hee citeth for the collectour of them his fellow Gifford, in his Caluinc-Turcismus, a sweete youth, and a master very fi [...] for such a scholer; yet he thinketh himselfe to haue this ad­uantage heerby, that if there be any knauerie or foolerie in these collections, the blame thereof shall light vpon Gif­ford and not vpon him. And first it is alleaged, that Caluin in one place saith, that Christ Caluin in Math. ca. 6.18. speaketh vnproperly. A high point in a low house: as if it were any strange matter to note in many places of the scripture some impropriety of [Page 97]speech. Saint Austin saith, that August. de doct. Christ. l. 3. cap. 29. sciant literati modis omnibus locuti­onis quos Grā ­matici tropos vocant authores nostros vsos esse. the writers of the scriptures haue vsed al manner of tropes and figures, and what are tropes and figures, but the excusing and saluing of such impropri­eties? Of that which Saint Paul saith, The flesh lusteth a­gainst the spirit, Cyprian speaketh as Caluin doth, Cyprian. de cardinal. Christi operib. in pro­log Quòd caro aduersus spiri­tum, &c. con­tendere dicitur, improprie arbi­tror dictum. I thinke it to be vnproperly spoken: and will Master Bishop make Cypriano-Turcismus of this, as Gifford doth a Caluino-Turcismus of the other? The next matter is, that Christ vseth harsh and far-fetched similitudes. The words are spo­ken by occasion of the parable of the vnrighteous steward, concerning which, Caluin aduertiseth that Caluin. in Luc. 16.1. Christ thereby admonisheth to deale friendly and kindely with our neighbours, that when we shall come to the tribunall seat of God, the fruit of our liberality may returne to vs. Heereupon hee addeth: Quanquam autem dura & longè petita vi­detur similitu­do, clausula ta­men ostendit non aliud fuisse Christi consiliū. And albeit the similitude seeme to be hard and far-fetched, yet the conclusion sheweth that the purpose of Christ was no o­ther. Where we may see what a speciall skill these fellowes haue in multiplication. Caluin saith, this similitude seemeth to be harsh and far-fetched, and they turne it to, he vseth harsh and far-fetched similitudes. But Hierome saith of Saint Paul, Hieron. Apo­log. pro lib. adu. Iouiniam. ad Pammach. Vi­dentur eius quaedam verba simplicia & quasi innocentis h [...]minis & ru­rusticani; sed quocun (que) [...] eris, sulm [...] sunt. some of his words seem to be but simple, and as the words of a silly country man, who neither hath skill to snare another, nor to auoid the snare himselfe: and yet hee did not hold them to be so indeed, for he addeth, yet whithersoeuer thou lookest they are very thunder. Where Caluin then saith, that the similitude seemeth to be hard and farre fetched, will M. Bi­shop straight waies conclude that hee saith it is so? And what; doth it not so much as seeme to be hard and farre fet­ched, that by the similitude of an vniust steward, who to prouide for himselfe, vsed his witte to deceiue and robbe his master? Christ should teach vs liberalitie and almes­deeds? S. Austin saw it to be such, as that he gaue it for a speciall caueat, that Aug. q Euang. l. 2. q. 34. In villico quem dominus eijciebat, &c. non omnia debe [...] [...] dū sumere, &c. et paulò post: E cōtrario dicūtur stae similitudine; vt intelligamus [...] ille à domino qui fraudē faciebat, quantò ampliùs placent dom. deo qui secun [...] [...] illa faciunt. We are not to take all things heere to [Page 98]imitate, and that it is to be taken by way of contrarietie, that if he were commended of his master that deceiued, much more doth he please God, who according to his commandement doth such things. And that commending of the vniust steward, Ori­gen interpreteth, Grigen. apud Th. Aquin. Ca­ten Euang Luc. 16. Non secun­dum veram cō ­mendationem se [...] abusi [...]è di­ctum est. not to be spoken as touching any true com­mendation, but by abuse of speech. It should seeme therefore that all things are not heere so currant, but that the simili­tude may at least seeme to bee hard and far-fetched. And doth M. Bishop thinke that there are no similitudes in the Scriptures that are hard and farre fetched? If there bee none, then we hope that he is able very easely to giue rea­son of them all. Which if he say he can doe, we shall thinke him scant a wise man; and if he say he cannot, we shall thinke him as wise that will reprooue that for a lie in Cal­uin, which he himselfe must confesse to be a trueth. Againe he obiecteth to Caluin, that he saith, that Christ wresteth the Prophets words, into a strange sense. The place is noted in the margent, to be vpon the seuenth of Matthew, but it is vpon the eight chapter. The words which he meaneth, are the words of the Prophet Esay there cited: Esay 53.4. Hee tooke our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. Of which, Caluin there saith thus; Cal. in Math. 8.17. videtur parum appesitè citari, immò in alienum sensum torquerthoc va­ticinium. This prophecie seemeth to be amisse or vn­fitly cited, yea to be wrested to a wrong meaning, or to a strange sense. Which words he vseth not as of his owne opinion, but propoundeth them by way of obiection, and addeth a reason of some doubt made as touching the application of the Prophecie. He presently answereth; Ibid. solutio non difficil [...] est modò expen­dant lectores nō tantùm exponi quid Christus contulerit aegro­tis, sed in quem finem sanaueris ocrum morbos. The solution is easie, so that the Readers doe weigh that it is not heere de­clared onely, what Christ did to the sicke, but to what end hee cured their sicknesses. What M. Bishop? no more truth, no more honestie, but to cite Caluins obiection, as if it were his resolution, when hee himselfe answereth it in the same place? Well, yet againe Caluin saith, that Idem in Mat. 12.25. Memo­ria tenendum est vulgò recep­tis prouerlijs ita vsum Chri­stum vt tantùm essent probabi­les coniecturae, non autem vt solidè proba­reut. Christ vseth triuiall and vulgar prouerbes, as probable coniectures, not as sound arguments. And what if hee say so? What, doth M. Bishop thinke the contrarie? Will hee imagine, that sound [Page 99]arguments may be drawen from triuiall prouerbes? We take it for a memorable obseruation which Caluin giueth anone after vpon the same chapter, that Ibid. ver. 34. Prouerbiales sententias non exigi debere ad perpetuam nor­mam quia tan­tum docent quid accidere vt plu­rimum soleat. Prouerbiall sentences must not be drawen to a perpetuall rule; but do only teach what for the most part falleth out. A prouerbiall speech it is as he there alleageth, vttered by our Sauiour Christ, Matt. 12.34. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, and yet we know, that some there are Psal. 62.4. Who giue good words with their mouth, and curse with their heart. It hath beene a Prouerbe amongst vs, a Friar, a liar, but will M. Bishop hereby prooue as by an infallible argument, that euery Friar is a liar? It hath beene commonly said concerning the church of Rome, The neerer the church, the farther from God; and doth he hold it a good argument, that therefore the Pope is in the high way to the diuell, because he is so neere the church? Shall euery slanderous rumour be holden for a conuiction, be­cause it is commonly vsed for a Prouerbe, that there is no smoke, but there is some fire? If not, then let him acknow­ledge according to Caluins rule, that Prouerbiall sentences are good inducements to that which a man will perswade by them, but necessary probations they are not. And in that nature were they vsed by our Sauiour Christ, who would draw on the Iewes by such dictates, commonly re­ceaued and approoued amongst them, to consider the bet­ter of those things which otherwise by firme arguments of truth he made good vnto them. Another matter is, that where Christ saith to Corazin and Bethsaida, and to Ca­pernaum, that Matt. 11, 21.23. if the myracles that were done in them, had beene done in Tyre and Sidon, yea in Sodome, they had repen­ted in sackcloth and ashes, and Sodome had still remained. Caluin saith, that he speaketh after the maner of men, not out of his heauenly cabinet, which, saith M. Bishop, is no lesse in plaine English, then that he spake vntruely as men doe. Iust, for so the Apostle S. Paul when he saied to the Romanes, Rom. 6.19. I speake after the maner of men, because of the infirmitie of your flesh, did thereby meane to tell them that hee did lie, that [Page 100]he spake vntruely as men doe. Caluins words vpon the former verse concerning Corazin and Bethsaida are these; Cal. in Math. 11.21. Ne quis spinosas de ar­canis dei iudi [...]ijs quaestiones mo­neat, tenendum est ad commu­nem humanae mentis captum accommodari hunc domini sermonem. Com­parans ciues Bethsaid a & eorum vicinos cum Tyrijs & Sidonijs non disputat quid Deus praeuide­rit futurum de ijs vel il [...]is, sed quid facturi fuerint alteri quatenus ex re ipsa per [...]pi po­terat. That no man may here mooue any curious questions, touching the secret iudgements of God, we are heere to resolue, that the speech of Christ is applied to the cōmon conceit of mens minds: for comparing the Citizens of Bethsaida and their neighbours with the Tyrians and Sidonians, he doth not dispute what God did foresee should be either in the one or the other, but what the other would haue done so farre as by the very thing it selfe might be esteemed. Afterwards comming to the other verse concerning Capernaum, he saith again; Ibid. ver. 23. supra admonui­mus Christum humano more loqui, non au­tem ex caelesti adyto proferre quid deus prae­uiderit futurum si Sodomitis prophetam ali­quem mississet. We haue be­fore admonished, that Christ heere speaketh after the maner of men, and doth not out of the heauenly sanctuarie declare what God did foresee would haue come to passe if he had sent a pro­phet to the Sodomites. Caluins minde is plaine, that when he saith, that Christ spake after the maner of men, he mean­eth that he spake as men might morally esteeme the signes and wonders that he had done in these cities, being so ad­mirable and strange, as that no man might probably ima­gine the Tyrians and Sidonians, yea the very Sodomites to be so barbarous and gracelesse, but that at the sight ther­of they would haue repented; no lesse then the Niniuites did at the preaching of Ionas. And that M. Bishops owne Latin interpreter tooke this to bee the true meaning of the words, appeareth plainly by that hee translateth as touch­ing the Sodomites; Fortè mansis­sent vsque in hanc diem. Perhaps they had continued till this day. He would not haue said, perhaps, if he had spoken out of the counsell of God, but because he spake out of the conceit of men, therefore he saith perhaps. Why then doth he picke a quarrell against Caluin in that, wherein by their owne authenticall text, he is forced to subscribe that which Cal­uin saith? But if he will needs vnderstand these words, as spoken out of the secret of the counsell of God, foreseeing what would haue followed if such meanes had beene vsed, then let him heerein acknowledge the secret of Gods de­cree of reprobation, of farre other nature then he hath be­fore [Page 101]deliuered it, that August. Quibusaā quos nonit acturos poenitentiam non exhibet pa­tientiam. to some who he knoweth (if meanes be vsed) that they will repent, yet he doth not yeeld patience that they may repent, as S. Austin gathereth according to that construction: and because hee will not grant them to beleeue, therefore denieth them that whereby they should beleeue. Let him leaue the Rhetoricall expostulations of humane wise­dome, why God being iust and good should abiect men to hell without foresight of their euill works, because hee seeth that God abiecteth men notwithstanding the fore­sight of the good works which they would haue done, if hee would haue vouchsafed them the meanes thereof. I speake not this as approouing that construction, but onely to whip M. Bishop with his owne rodde, and to shew that he careth not what he saith, so that it serue his present turn, howsouer it crosse him otherwhere. Yet further Caluin noteth elsewhere, that Christ could not get any other to be his disciples, then some certaine poore fellowes of the refuse and dregges of the people. Marke the text, gentle Reader, vpon which Caluin giueth that obseruation; Luk. 7.29. Then all the peo­ple that heard, and the Publicanes iustified God being bapti­sed with the baptisme of Iohn; but the Pharisees and the inter­preters of the law despised the counsell of God against them­selues, and were not baptised of him. Heereupon hee saieth; Calu. ibid. Hoc quidem primo aspectu Euan­gelij gloriam valde obscurat, immò deformat quòd discipulos Christus nō nisi ex faece populi & quisquilijs colligere potuit: qui autem san­ctitate vel do­ctrina praesta­bant, ipsum re­pudiabant, sed dominus hoc in­itio specimen e­dere voluit ne vel illius aetatis homines vel po­sters Euangeli­um aestimarent humana proba­tione. This at first sight obscureth the glory of the Gospell, yea disgraceth it, that Christ could get no other disciples but of the dregges and refuse of the people, and that they, who ex­celled in learning and holinesse, did refuse him. But God by this beginning would giue token that neither they then, nor others afterward should esteeme the Gospell by humane approbation. Now why doth M. Bishop dislike of this obseruation? What? doth he finde that Christ had Popes to be his Disci­ciples, or that like a Pope he had Cardinals, fellowes to Kings and Emperours, to attend him? The Pharisees could say by way of preiudice against him, Ioh. 7.48. Doth any of the Ru­lers or of the Pharisees beleeue in him; but this people which know not the law (contemptuously pointing at them which Idem de bono perseuer. ca. 14. Quoniam vt crederent non e­rat eis datum etiam vnde cre­derent est nega­tum. [Page 102]followed him) are cursed. Yea our Sauiour Christ himselfe saith to his father, Matt. 11.25. I thanke thee, O father, Lord of heauen & earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise, and pru­dent of this world, and hast opened them to babes. See heere, the wise, the Prudent, the Rulers, the Pharisees, they all refuse Christ, but the people, the poore babes, sinners, Matt. 9.10. & 21.32. publi­cans and harlots, they are noted to receiue him. And is M. Bishop offended that these are tearmed dregges and re­fuse? or whatsoeuer they were, doth not his wit serue him to vnderstand that Caluin speaketh comparatiuely accor­ding to the conceite of the world, which held these to be but refuse and dregges in comparison of the other? Had he neuer read the words of the Apostle, 1. Cor. 1.26. Brethren, yee see your calling, that not many wisemen after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weake things of the world to confound the mighty, and vile things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are, that no flesh should reioice in his presence? Harken heere, M. Bishop; foolish things, weake, vile, despised, things that are not, what are these in account but dregges and refuse? God hauing so disposed, that it might appeare that the cal­ling of his grace is not afforded according to any degrees of worldly titles. What shall we then hold it, but a pange of a distempered braine which M. Bishop sheweth in his cen­sure following: seeme not these execrable notes, to issue from the pen of some malicious Iew, or ranke Atheist? Yea but these he telleth vs are but flea-bitings in comparison of those that fel­low. And what are those? forsooth vpon the words of our Sauiour, Matt. 26.39. Father, if it be possible let this cup passe from mee, Caluin obserueth, first that this praier of Christ was vnadui­sedly made. But that is first, according to M. Bishops woont, a meere vntruth. Praier vnaduisedly made is a matter ofer­rour and sinne; but this Caluin calleth, Caluin. ibid. Votum abrup­tum fuisse fate­mur. Votum il­lud subitò elap­sum castigat ac reuocat. a desire abruptly conceiued, which by and by more plainely he tearmeth, a [Page 103]desire sodeinely passing from Christ, which may be without sin, and so was in Christ, being drawen out of his pure and vndefiled soule, only by horrour of his passion, and extreme importunity of his greefe. Mat. 26 37. He began, faith Saint Mathew, to be sorrowfull, and grieuously perplexed; Mar. 14.33.He was afraid, saith Marke, and in great heauinesse, and said, My soule is ve­rie heauy, euen vnto death. Now being thus infinitely sur­charged with griefe euen vnto deathes doore, his agony be­ing such, and so crushing the whole power of nature, as that Luk. 22 44. his sweat was like droppes of blood trickling downe to the ground, he praieth, as Saint Marke speaketh, that if it were possible that houre might passe from him: Abba Father, all things are possible vnto thee, take away this cup from me. O my Father, if it be possible let this cup passe away from mee: thus by instinct of vncorrupted nature shrinking backe from the feeling and experience of that, to which notwith­standing by voluntary obedience he both before, and then present, did submit himselfe, saying, Neuerthelesse not as I will but as thou wilt, be done. Caluin. ibid. Eadem vehe­mentia praesen­tem coelestis de­creti memori­am illi abstulit, vt non reputa­ret in ipso mo­mento se hac le­ge missum esse generis humani redemptorem.The same vehemency of griefe, saith Caluin, tooke away from him the present remembrance of the heauenly decree, so that in the very moment hee did not weighwith himselfe that vpon this condition (namely with condition of drinking this cup) hee was sent to be the Redee­mer of mankinde. By which words Caluin doth not import that Christ had habitually forgotten Gods decree, but that by meanes of the excesse of his griefe, hee did not for the present actually fixe his minde vpon it, Ibid. sicut sae­pegrauis anxie­tas caliginem oculis obducit ne simul in mentem veni­ant omnia. as, saith he, great heauinesse doth often cast a mist before the eies, so that all things come not to minde at once. Now M. Bishop reporteth these words, as if Caluin had said that Christ absolutely had for­gotten the decree; then which hee intended nothing lesse; and not contented therewith, hee addeth another falsifi­cation, that he remembred not for the time, that he was sent to be the Redeemer of mankinde, whereas Caluin addeth, with this condition, namely, with condition of vndergoing that heauy burden. So far was Christ heere from forgetting that [Page 104]he was sent to be the Redeemer of mankinde, as that his words may well be taken to imply the contrary, sounding as Origen expoundeth them, Origen in Mat. tract. 35. si possibile est vt sine passione mea illa omnia bona proueniant que per passionē meam prouen­tura sunt, tran­seat à me passio ista. If it be possible that those be­nefites which shall come by my passion, may be effected without it, let this cup passe from me. But if Christ had at that instant actually and fully weighed the vnremoueablenesse of Gods decree in this behalfe, and that it was vnpossible that it should be otherwise, how is it likely that he should pray in this sort; If it be possible, let this cup passe frō me? Which is the same as to make him say, I know well that it is not pos­sible that this cup should passe from me, but if it be possible let it passe, so to make an if of that which at once he know­eth to be absolute without if or and. It remaineth therefore true which Caluin saith, that oppression of griefe according to sense of nature wrested this if from our Sauour Christ, not attending, for the instant, to the irreuocable decree of God, that thus it should be and no otherwise. Now in the third point M. Bishop dealeth yet more grossely, because hee alleageth that for an assertion, which Caluin setteth downe by way of obiection. He mooueth the question, if the affections of Christ were well and orderly caried, how then he correcteth himselfe; and subdueth his desire to the obedience of God, as if he had gone beyond compasse? Surely saith hee, there appeareth not in the first request, that moderation which we haue spoken of, because so much as in him lieth he refuseth and shunneth to doe the office of a Mediatour. Now hauing answered the first part of this obiection, hee repeateth the latter againe, and answereth it; Calu. vt supra siquis excipiat primum motum quem sranari oportuit ante­quam longiús excurreret non fuisse tempera­tum [...]t decebat, respendemus non posse in hac naturae nostrae corruptione per­spici affectuum feruorem cum temperie qualis in Christo fuit, sed hunc dandū honorem filio dei ne eum aesti­memus ex nobis. Nam sic in no­bis aeftuant om­nes carnis affe­ctus vt prosili­ant in contuma­ciam, aut saltem aliquid faecis admixtum habeant; sic autem & metus & doloris seruore aestuauit Christ [...]s [...]se tamen continuerit in sua mensura. Immò sicuti varij cautus & inter se discrepantes ade [...] [...] dissonum habent vt potiùs concinnam suauem (que) harmoniam conficiant, ita in Christo insigne ex­titie symmetriae exemplar inter dei & hominis voluntates vt absque conflictu est repugnantis inter se differant. If any man except that the first motion which was to be restrained before it went any fur­ther, was not of that temper and moderation as it ought to be; I answer, that in this corruption of nature, we cannot see the heate [Page 105]of affection with the due temper thereof as it was in Christ, but that we are to giue this honour to the sonne of God, that we doe not esteeme him by our selues. For all affections of the flesh doe so boile in vs, as that they breake foorth to rebellion, or at least haue some dregges mingled therewith: but Christ was so af­fected with the feruour both of feare and griefe, as that not­withstanding, he conteined himselfe within his bounds. Yea, as notes of song being sundry, and different ech from other, yet haue no dissonancie or discord, but doe make a goodly and pleasant harmony; so was there in Christ a notable patterne of concord betwixt the wils of God and man, so as that they differed with­out any conflict or repugnancie betwixt the one and the other. In which words when we see how holily Caluin accordeth those differences which through agonie and anguish seem­ed to bee in Christ, so as that though they seemed by his praier to draw backe from that whereto the Father had sent him, yet indeed there was nothing in him repugnant to the will of God: what euill spirit may we thinke it was, that led M. Bishop to report out of the same Caluins ob­iection, that he affirmeth that Christ withstood, so much as in him lay, and refused to execute the office of a mediatour? By this that hath beene said, we may discerne what cause there was for Caluin to say that which M. Bishop alleageth out of the other place; that Christ was so stricken with feare, and so pinched on euery side with perplexed pensiuenesse, that hee was forced through these boisterous waues of temptations to waue and fleete too and fro in his praiers and petitions. Hee corrupteth Caluins words, for Caluin saith nothing of forc­ing, but acknowledgeth the contrary, that Christ Calu. in Ioan. 12.27. fuerunt voluntarij isti in eo affectus, quia non co­aclus timuit, sed timori spon­te subiccerat. did not feare as being forced to it, but because voluntarily he did sub­mit himselfe vnto it, and so that other affections were volunta­rie in him. Neither doth he make Christ to wauer, as an vn­setled man, doubtfull what to doe, but describeth him though by sense of nature tending one way, yet by firme and constant obedience subduing all passions of nature, and yeelding himselfe another way. And doe not M. Bishops [Page 106]eies see him in this sort, fleeting too and fro? By sense and affection of nature he saith, Father, saue me from this houre, and yet by obedience he addeth; But therefore came I into this houre. By sense of nature he saith, Father if it be possi­ble let this cup passe from me; but by obedience hee yeeld­eth, Neuerthelesse, not what I will, but what thou wilt bee done. Now though this be as cleere as the light, yet this wisard like the dogge barking at the Moone, crieth out, Is not this pitifull impietie? and so bewraying his owne pitifull folly, hee goeth on to tell vs how all this agonie came to passe. And first he telleth vs that Christ of set purpose tooke that feare vpon him, and most willingly suffered that bloudie agonie. But this is none of M. Bishops note, he borrowed it of Caluin; for Caluin saith as much, as wee haue seene before: onely let it be remembred, that heere hee ac­knowledgeth that Christ did feare. Then he telleth vs, that Christ caused to himselfe that bloody agony and conflict, by representing vnto himselfe the shame and paine of his dolo­rous passion. But when we see the martyrs with so admira­ble patience and resolution, to haue endured so exquisit tortures, and farre beyond the bodily sufferings of Christ, can wee imagine that the very conceit of his passions could driue Christ himselfe into so great anguish and perplexity as in the Gospell is described? And what? did Christ ne­uer before represent vnto himselfe the dolours of his passi­on? not when he so often forewarned his Disciples thereof? not when Luk 9.31. Moses and Elias talked with him of his departure which he should accomplish at Ierusalem? If he did, how came it then to passe that hee was not feized with the same sor­rows? We doubt not but the bodily passions of Christ were exceeding great, and yet we doubt not but that M. Bishop therein alleageth too slender a cause of so great an agonie. Well, somewhat to enlarge this, hee addeth, that he repre­sented to himselfe the causes of his passion, which were the in­numeral le most grieuous sinnes of the world. But I aske a­gaine, is it likely that Christ Ioh. 2.25. who knew what was in man, [Page 107]did neuer before represent to himselfe the sinnes of men? Or shall we thinke that the bare representing of mens sins to himselfe could cause him so great affliction and distresse? Yea and we would gladly know how to this representation of mens sins he will fit the praier that Christ vseth, Father if it be possible let this cup passe from me. Hee saith, that heereby Christ would in euery part both of minde and body endure what he possibly could for the time. But what a vaine dreame is he in, that will talke of so great a passion in Christ, and yet make the ground thereof to be onely ima­gination? Yea, but he telleth vs further, that Christ would shew how naturally hee (as all other men) did abhorre such a cruell and ignominious death. What, and was the cause of his agony then no other but what other men might haue as well as he? And did Christ so greatly shrinke backe from death, who knew that within three daies he should rise a­gaine? Surely S. Austin though hee expresse not the true cause thereof, yet wholly disclaimeth this, willing them, to whom he spake, August in Psal. 21. Nist sortè tutatis fratres quiae quando dixit dominus, pater, &c. mori time­bat. Non est fortior miles quàm Impera­tor, sufficit ser­uo vt sit sicut dominus eius. Paulus dicit miles regis Chrisli; concu­piscentiam ha­bens dissolui, &c. Ille optat mortem vt sit cum Chrisio, & Chrisius ipse timet mortem? not to thinke that Christ was afraid to die when he said, Let this cup passe from me. The souldiour, saith he, is not of greater courage then the captaine. It sufficeth the seruant to be as his master is. Paul saith, I desire to be loosed, and to be with Christ. He wisheth to die, that hee may be with Christ; and is Christ himselfe afraid of death? No, no, a grea­ter mater it was, that when no bodily violence was yet of­fered to him, did so oppresse his soule to the verie gates of death, and drew from him blood in steed of sweat, and made him so earnestly againe and againe to pray that he might escape drinking of that cruelly distastefull and bit­ter cup. It was not death, but the wrath of God in death; not the conceit of our sinnes, but Esa. 53 12. the bearing thereof, and 2. Cor. 5.21. being made sinne for vs, that caused the Sonne of God that great agonie and feare. But of this shall be spoken further in the next section, where it shal appeare, God willing, that the ancient holy fathers gathered out of the Gospel this selfsame for wholesome doctrine, and godly instruction, and therefore [Page 108]that Caluin did not play the venemous Spider to sucke poison from thence, vnlesse M. Bishop meane poison to poison, as Christ was a Serpent to the serpent; and as a poison to him that poisoued vs: for as the spider, they say, is poison to the toad, and killeth him, so the saith and religion of Christ which Caluin hath taught out of the Gospel, hath beene and shall be a poison to the poison of the church of Rome, to bring it to nought, as hitherto it hath done. He goeth on with diuers idle questions, onely to find his Printer worke, but to doe his aduersarie no harme. If Christ so wauered, where was his constancie? I answer him, Christ wauered not, but by inuincible constancie of obedience ouercame that drawing backe which the pure affection of vndefiled na­ture motioned vnto him. If he were so frighted, where was his fortitude? But the greater his feare was, the greater his fortitude appeareth in ouercomming that feare, because great fortitude is not mooued with small feares, but passeth them with contempt: and M. Bishop should know that vertue consisteth not in being void of passions as Stoickes held, but in the subduing & conquering of them. And doth not hee himselfe tell vs before, that Christ tooke vpon him feare? If he thinke that Christ did so indeed, why doth he not put the same in question to himselfe? where then was his fortitude? If he thinke this feare to be some light matter, what place leaueth he for those words of the Apostle, Heb. 5.7. who in the daies of his flesh did offer vp praiers and supplications with strong crying and teares to him that was able to saue him from death, and was heard in that which he feared? Hee will say that wee translate amisse, in that which he feared. Yet Gregory Nazianzen so vnderstood it, reckoning out of this place Greg. N [...]zi. de filio orat 2. Ad hanc consi­derationen per­tinet quò obe­dientiam ex ijs didicit quae pas­sus est; item cla­m [...]r, lachrymae, supplicationes, exauditiones, metus, &c. Christs crying, his teares, his supplications, the hearing of him and his feare. But leauing that to his selfe­wit and wil, the text it selfe doth otherwise sufficiently con­firme what wee say, because they must needs be euen whole armies of terrors and feares that must wrest from him those praiers with strong crying and teares. Yea and [Page 109]when it is said that in those praiers he looked vnto God, as able to saue him from death, manifest it is, that out of horror and feare it was that he so praied. Feare, I say still, as a pas­sion of nature, not any distrust of vnbeleefe, not whereby he was dismaied, but yet whereby he was in the highest de­gree affected with that dreadfull sight, which his eies then were bent vpon. Againe he saith; If he strugled against his Fathers decree, where was his obedience? His obedience was in this, that Ambros. in Heb 5. Qui non venit facere vo­luntatem suam sed eius qui mi­sit illum, volun­tatem paternae dispensatienis praetulit vo­luntati carnis suae. Whereas he came not to doe his owne will, but the will of him that sent him, he preferred the will of his fat hers ordinance before the will of his owne flesh. By the will of his owne flesh then he willed somewhat otherwise then his fa­ther had decreed, else why doth he say, Not what I will? yet he doth not by this will of his flesh, struggle against his fa­thers decree, but submitteth this will with all patience to his fathers wil. And heereby appeareth what a friuolous questi­on he mooueth in the next words, if he refused to redeeme vs, what was become of his charitie towards mankinde? for he ne­uer refused to redeeme vs, and therefore neuer failed in his loue towards mankinde. But in the last question he most of all plaieth the wretch, and vnder colour of an imputati­on to vs, vttereth a wicked blasphemie of his owne. If the first motions to euill be deadly sinnes in vs, as the Protestants hold, what will they make of such tumultuous and vnbrideled passions in him who had a greater command ouer them then wee haue? The Protestants doe hold indeed, that the first mo­tions to euil are deadly sinnes, if God weigh them in iudge­ment as they are; but the Protestants doe not hold in Christ any first motions to euill, and much lesse any such passions as are woorse then those motions, that this ab­surd man should thus argue as from the lesse to the greater, from euill motions in vs to tumultuous and vnbrideled passi­ons in him. We acknowledge a difference of will in Christ, testified by most passionate and effectuall words, and wee acknowledge it as the Fathers did out of the same words, against the heretikes the Monothelites, but in this diffe­rence [Page 110]we deny any thing to haue been tumultuous or vnbrid­led, but all dulie composed and ordered; so that the discord was a concord, and the difference made no other but har­mony and conformitie as before was said.

14. W. BISHOP.

But we are not yet come vnto the height of his blasphemies, which he powreth foorth more abundantly vpon those our Sa­uiours words, Matt. 27.46. My GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsa­ken me! saying: when this kinde of temptation was propo­sed to Christ (as though God being auerted from him, he had beene appointed to vtter destruction) hee was seised with horror. Li. 2. Instit. c. 16. sess. 11. And in his Institutes treating of the same sub­iect, saith, Christ feared to haue beene swallowed vp of death as a sinner: And there can be no more dreadfull bot­tomelesse gulfe, then for a man to feele himselfe forsaken and estranged from God, and not to be heard, when he cal­leth vpon him, euen as if God had conspired his destructi­on: euen thither we see that Christ was throwne downe, so that by enforcement of distresse he was compelled to crie out, my GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me. In the Paragraffe before, he speaketh more plainly, that Christ did hand in hand wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternall death: finally, that in his soule he suffered the torments of the damned, and all those punishments that are due to wicked men in hell: He then (belike) was the tray­tour Iudas companion: for the while he was in the Diuels hands to be tormented he dispaired and fared, as men doe in these hellish torments. What greater blasphemy can bee inuented, then to condemne the King of heauen, that came to redeeme vs all from hell, euen to the very pit of hell it selfe? Beza not willing to come behinde his master Caluin in this kinde of impiety, whereas Caluin craftily admitted onely, that Christ then de­spaired,In cap. 5. ad Heb. vers. 7.he affirmeth plainely: that from Christ (stroocken with the horror of Gods curse) escaped the word of despe­ration. And else-where, that Christ was (with the huge hea­uy [Page 111]burden of Gods wrath, ouerwhelmed and adiudged to the flames of hell: yea, In c. 27. Mata & 22. Luc. buried and drowned in the bottome of the infernall gulfe: This man (you see) desires to lodge Christ low enough, that would haue him drowned in the very bottome of hell. This their pestilent venime, they might haue sucked out of theire good grandsire Luthers writinges, who vpon the very same wordes, doth make this goodly commentary. What shall we therefore say? In Psal. 22. v. 1. Christ to haue been together both the most iust, and greatest sinner: both the most noto­rious lier, and truest teacher: at the same instant, both the most highly glorying, and deepely despairing: both hap­py in the highest degree, and most miserably damned. Vn­lesse we say this, I see not (saith this Oracle of the new Gospel) how Christ was forsaken of God. See him also vpon the third chapter to the Galatians, where he vttereth yet more detesta­ble speeches of Christ, to wit: that all the Prophets did in the spirit foresee him to be the greatest theefe, robber, murthe­rer, adulterer, sacrilegious person and blasphemer, that e­uer liued. I could cite you diuers others of the same opinion, but I had rather note their extreame blindnesse, who neglecting the ancient Fathers learned expositions of the holy Scriptures, were led away with such horrible extrauagant conceites of our Sauiour, vpon so small occasion. For he at that very time hang­ing on the Crosse, declared himselfe to be most farre off from all such hellish torments: yea, he shewed all possible signes of a most quiet and peaceable minde, praying for the saluation euen of his persecutors (he was not then belike in doubt of his owne) promising also to the good theefe that the same day he should be with him in Paradise; wherefore hee doubted nothing of being there himselfe: recommending his Mother vnto his beloued Disciple, and him likewise to her; and to fulfill the Scriptures, both saying I thurst, and citing euen those very words, that they are scandalized at, out of one of the Psalmes of Dauid: And fi­nally, aduisedly considering all things belonging to his passion to be accomplished, commended his spirit vnto his Fathers hands; so that there could not possibly be more calme setled iudgement, [Page 112]more valiant constancy and resolution, then there was. But what meant he then to say, My GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me? Forsooth nothing else, but to signifie, that in all these torments which he suffered, he had not any comfort or consolation at that time from God, who is wont to giue extraor­dinary aide and comfort to all those, that suffer for his names sake: but that Christ might (as he himselfe desired) be put to suffer all kinde of extremity, all manner of inward consolation was wholly with-holden from him; which it pleased him then to expresse by manner of complaint in those most pittifull words: Christ suffe­red for vs both in bodie and soule. My GOD, my GOD, &c. the more to mooue vs to compas­sion. Thus much of their impieties against Christs person: now to those that they teach against the office of his mediatorship.

R. ABBOT.

Theodoret citeth it as a memorable sentence out of Ire­naeus, that Theodoret. dialog. 3. ex Iren. adu. haer. lib. 5. C [...]ergò proprio sangui­ne nos Christus redemerit & a­nimā suam pro animis nostris dederit & car­nem suam pro nostru carni­bus, &c. Christ gaue his soule for our soules, and his body for our bodies. So doe we hold that by Christian faith we are bound to beleeue, that Hieron. in E­sai. 53. li. 14. Ex quo perspicuum est sicut corpus flagellatum & laceratum signa in [...]uriae in vibi­cibus & liuore portabat, [...]ta & animam verè doluisse pro no­ [...]is ne exparte veritas, ex par­te mendacium credatur in Christo. as the scourged and rent body of Christ did carry the markes of wrong done to him by stripes and blewnesse of wounds, as Hierome saith, so that his soule did ve­rily endure griefe for vs, lest partly a truth, and partly a lie, should be beleeued in Christ. If we say that Christ suffered for vs in body onely, it shall be a lie to say of Christ as touch­ing his soule, that he suffered for vs: but therefore doe we beleeue, that both in body and soule he suffered that it may be wholly a truth which we beleeue, and Christ may be ac­knowledged to be a perfect Redeemer both of body and foule. Now it is true indeede that the soule suffereth by the body, because the body of it selfe hath no sense or feeling whereby to suffer: but when we speake of Christs suffe­ring in soule, we meane not that which the soule suffereth by the body, but whereby it suffereth properly and imme­diately in it selfe. For inasmuch as it was a part of punish­ment due to our sinnes to suffer in this sort, therefore we be­leeue that Christ taking vpon him to suffer for vs, did suffer [Page 113]in the same fort, Because Hieron. vt su­pra. Quod nos pro nostris de­bebamus scele­ribus sustinere, ille pro nobis passus est. he suffered for vs what we ought tesuffer for our owne sinnes. And accordingly doth the Pro­phet say of him, Esa. 53.10. He shall giue his soule an offering for sinne, which he verifieth in the Gospell, when yet there was no passion but of the soule; Matt. 26.38. My soule is heauy, euen vnto the death. Wee beleeue therefore that not in body onely, but in soule also, Christ 2. Cor. 5.21. was made sinne for vs; that not in bo­dy only, but also in soule, Gal. 3.13. he was made a curse for vs, to de­liuer vs from the curse;Ambros. in Orat. con. Aux­ent. ep. li. 5. Non maledictus ille sed in te male­dictus.not accursed himselfe, but accursed in vs, as saith Saint Ambrose, blessed in August. cont. Faust. Manith. l. 14. c. 6. Bene­dictus in sua iu­stitia, maledi­ctus autē prop­ter peccata no­stra, & cap. 7. Maledictum e­um dixit ex cō ­diti: ne poenae nostrae ex qua in ligno suspen­sus est.his owne righteos­nesse, but accursed for our sinnes, and by condition of our punish­ment wherby he was hanged vpon the tree. Now in that he, ac­cording to his humane spirit and soule, Amb. vt supr. Maledista no­stra suscepit. tooke vpon him our maledictions, and curses, it followeth that the effects of those maledictions tooke place in his soule, horror, anguish, vex­ation, astonishment, wrastling with dispaire, with hell, death, damnation, and the whole power of darkenesse, and whatsoeuer else may be reckoned in the vnknowen sorrowes of Christ, as the Greekes tearmed them in their Litany. For putting himselfe into our place and condition, he stood lia­ble to all that was due to vs, and therefore Hilar. in Psal. 68 Vs (que) ad mor­tis profundae de­scendit & om­nis in eum ter­ror desaeuientis in nos tempesta­tis inculuit. he descended into the depths of death, and all the terrour of that tempest that ra­ged against vs lighted vpon him. Therefore doth Saint Peter attribute vnto his passion, Act. 2.24. the sorrowes of death, that is to say, the sorowes that appertaine to death; of which Dauid by Prophecy bringeth him in complaining, Psal. 18.4. The paines of hell came about me, the snares of death ouertooke mee. Psal. 69.1.Saue me, O God, for the waters are come in euen vnto my soule; I sticke fast in the deepe mire, where no ground is, I am come in­to deepe waters, and the streames runne ouer me. Whereof he praieth anon after, ve. 15. Let not the water floud drowneme, nei­ther let the deepe swallow me vp, and let not the pit shut his mouth vpon mee. What are these floods, this deepe, this pit, wherat he standeth thus, as it were amated, as fearing ther­by to be swallowed vp? Surely the Prophet foresaw herein [Page 114]more then bodily passion, euen a sea of spirituall afflictions, hell and destruction opening her mouth wide at him, and threatning to deuoure him; the wrath of God & his indig­nation furiously marching against him, to require of him, as who had vndertaken it, the full recompense and satisfa­ction for our sinnes. In respect whereof the Prophet saith; Esay 53.10. The Lord would breake him; v. 6.the Lord hath laid our ini­quities vpon him: as to note that we are not to consider only what was done by men, but to behold God himselfe also wreaking his anger vpon him, braying him as it were in a morter, and beating him in pieces as the Hebrew word im­porteth. Therefore Athanasius saith, that the Prophet Dauid in another Psalme saith Athanasale interpret. Psal. Dicit ex perso­na eius, In me constitutus est furor tuus &c. Iram contra nos conteptam ob praeuaricati­onem in se su­stinuit. in the person of Christ, Thy wrath is bent against me; because, saith he, he did beare in him­selfe the wrath that was conceiued against vs for sinne. We read the words, Psal. 88.6. vulgat. 87. Thine indignation lieth hard vpon mee, and thou hast vexed me with all thy stormes. Which Hierome in like sort applieth to Christ in this sort; Hieron in Psal. 87. Iram & procellam macellationis suroris tui quas in gentibus ef­fusurus eras su­per me induxi­sti qui peccata corum suscepi. Thou hast brought vp­on me the wrath and storme of thy fury, which thou shouldest haue powred foorth vpon the nations, because I haue taken vp­on me their sinnes. Againe, in the Psalme it followeth; Lord why reiectest thou my soule, and hidest thou thy face from me? Thine indignations goe ouer mee, and the feare of thee hath vn­done me; They come about me daily like water, and compasse mee together on euery side; that is, as Lyra saith, Lyra in eund. Psal. sicut aqua tangit intran­tem ipsam Cir­cumqua (que), ita punitiones tuae tegiterunt me in anima & corpore. As the water on euery side toucheth him that entreth into it; so thy pu­nishments haue touched me both in soule and body. Now these things duely considered which are hitherto set downe, it will easily appeare that the speeches of Caluin, and the rest heere mentioned, truly reported, are so farre from blasphe­my, as that they lay before vs a most firm and sure founda­tion of Christian hope. In the first place Caluin hauing af­firmed, that Christ did not onely giue his body to be a price of our attonement with God, but that in his soule also he suffered the punishments due to vs: and that they are too sottish, who set­ting a side this part of our redemption, doe stand onely vpon the [Page 115]outward punishment of the flesh, because it behoued that Christ to the end he might make satisfaction for vs, should stand as guilty before Gods tribunall seat, and that there is nothing more horrible then to feele God as a iudge, whose anger goeth beyond all manner of deaths, he addeth heereupon; Calu. in Mat. 27 46. Ergò cum species teu­tationis Christo obiecta esset quasi deo ail­uerso iam esset exitio deuotus herrore correp­tus est, quo cen­ties cuncti mor­tales absorpti fuissent, ipse autem mirifica spiritus virtute victor emersit. When there­fore an appearance or shew of temptation was obiected to him as, if God being against him he were now deuoted to destruction, he was stricken with horrour, such as wherewithall mortall men would haue beene swallowed vp a hundred times, but he by the woonderfull power of his spirit, became the victour and conque­rour of it. The very repeating of Caluins words is sufficient to acquit them from the silly cauiling of this idle-headed wrangler. For what doth he dislike in them? Doth he dis­like that Caluin should say that a semblance or appearance of such a temptation was obiected to Christ? But who doubteth thereof when Christ himselfe saith, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken mee? Is it amisse with him that he should say that Christ was stricken with horrour? Why more, then that Arnob. Hier. Cassiodor. in Psal. 87. Arnobius, Hierome, Cassiodorus and o­thers expounding the Psalme before mentioned of Christ, should make him to say as the vulgar Latine hath it, Terro­res tui conturbauerunt me; Thy terrours haue troubled mee? Will he heere put a difference betwixt terrour and horrour? will he tell vs that Christ might well be troubled with ter­rours, but he could not be taken with horrour? Indeed it may well become a Romish wit to babble so, because many shifts they haue as rediculous as that; but what will he say then to that which we reade in another Psame; Psal. 55.4.5. which to be a prophecie of Christ, see vers. 13. com­pared with Psal. 41.9. and is so taken by Austin, Hie­rome, Basil, Theodoret, &c. My hart trem­bleth within me, and the terrours of death are fallen vpon me; feare and trembling are come vpon me, andSo transla­ted by Arias Montanus.horrour hath co­uered me? Heere is Christ himselfe, confessing himselfe [...] be couered with horrour: and why then doth M. Bishop dislike Caluin for vsing the same phrase? In the next words of Cal­uin he dealeth as honestly as he hath done in these. Calu. Institut. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 11 Christus cum lachrymis & clamore valido orans a metu suo exauditur, non vt à morte sit immunis, sed ne absorbeatur vt peccator, quia illie personam nostram gerebas. Christ praying with strong crying and teares, saith Caluin, is heard [Page 116]out of his feare; not so as to be free from death, but not to be swallowed vp as a sinner, because there he bare our person. M. Bishop concealeth that that he saith, of bearing our person, because if he had expressed that, his cauilling would haue beene discerned. He himselfe in likely hood did not doubt but that without absurdity, yea truely it might be said, that to Christ, bearing our person, the horrour of that temptation might bee obiected of being swallowed vp as a sinner. Which if he acknowledge for a truth, why doth he blame Caluin? If hee will not acknowledge it, yet the former words of the Prophet, vttered in the person of Christ, wher­in that horrour is expressed, shall serue to stop his mouth; Psal. 68.16. Let not the water floods drowne me, neither let the deepe swal­low me vp, and let not the pit shut her mouth vpon me. Caluin goeth on further saying, Ibid. Et certè nulla fingi po­test magis for­mid abilis abys­sus quàm sen­tire se à deo de­relictum & a­lienatum & cùm inuocaue­ris non exaudi­ri, perinde a [...]si in tuam porni­ciem ipse con­spirasset. Eò Christum vide­mus fuisse deiectum vt coactus fuerit, vegente angustia excla­ma [...]e, Deus me­us, &c. And verily there cannot be imagi­ned a more dreadfull bottomelesse gulfe, then for a man to feele himselfe forsaken and estranged from God, and not to be heard when he calleth vpon him, as if he had conspired to his destructi­on. And to that passe we see that Christ was throwen downe, that anguish vrging him, he was constrained to cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken mee. In which words, if M. Bishops discretion had beene as great as his malice, he would haue conceiued nothing to finde fault with. But now his squint eies see nothing aright, & therefore he ima­gineth a knot in euery rush, and thinketh nothing well spo­ken because he is offended with the speaker. To the pro­position we know his quarrell is not, but onely to the ap­plication. But if Christ, to sense and feeling were not forsa­ken and estranged from God, why doth he so cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? To sense and feeling, I say, but not to faith, for by faith he still saieth, My God, my God. If to sense and feeling it did not seeme to him as if God did not heere him when he praied, why is he brought in saying in the next words of the Psalme, Psal. 22.1. Why art thou so farre from my health (or from sauing me) and from the words of my complaint? O my God, I cry in the day, and thou hearest [Page 117]not, and in the night, and I cease not. And in another Psalme; Psal. 69.3. I am weary of crying, my throate is drie, mine eies faile whilest I waite for my God. And what is all this to sense and feeling but as if God had conspired his destruction? He saieth only, as if it were so; he saieth not that Christ him­selfe esteemed it so to be. Doth it trouble him that Caluin saith, that Christ by enforcement of griefe was compelled so to cry out? But why doth hee doubt but that as Christ by hunger was compelled to eate, by thirst to drinke, by wea­rinesse to sleepe: so by paine and griefe hee was also com­pelled and forced to complaine and seeke for ease? Did not Christ vndergoe all the necessities and enforements of our nature? It was voluntarily indeede that he did so, but yet so he did: and though he were able by his diuine power to saue himselfe, yet putting himselfe into that condition, that Cyril. de rect. fide ad Reg. lib. post. Opus habe­re alterius ma­nu vt seruetur. he needed the hand of another to be saued, as Cyril speaketh, he was forced by anguish and extremitie to crie and call to him that should saue him. The next point is, that Caluin. vt su­pra. Oportuit e­um cum infero­rum copijs, aeter­ne (que) mortu hor­rore quasi con­sertis manibus luctari. Christ did hand in hand wrastle with the armies of hell and the horror of eternall death. We professe so much, and denie it not, because there is no conquest without battell, and therefore Christ hauing Col. 2.15. spoiled principalities and powers, and trium­phed ouer them, must needs bee supposed to haue had en­counter and combate with them. There followeth in Cal­uins next words the sentence of the Prophet, that Esay 53.5. the cha­stisement of our peace was laied vpon him, that hee was woun­ded for our transgressions, and broken for our iniquities. Here­by, he saith, is giuen to vnderstand, that he was put in the place and steed of wicked men, as a surety or a hostage, yea and as if he had been himselfe a partie guiltie, to make good and to paie all the punishments that were to be required of them; this onely excepted, that he could not be holden of the sorrowes of death. By and by after hee saith, that wee are to know that not onely the body of Christ was giuen for a price of redemption, but that it was a greater and more excellent price that he suffered in soule the cruell tortures that belong to man, damned and cast a­way. [Page 118]In which words, if wee consider what hath beene be­fore said, we shall peceiue that there is nothing said amisse. For what is there in damnation it selfe, greater then the vn­dergoing of Gods curse? what are all the torments thereof but the effects of the same curse? and if Christ haue borne the curse that was due to vs; if the wrath of God that should haue beene powred vpon vs, were laid vpon him; if he haue suffered for vs that that we should haue suffered for our selues, as hath beene before said out of Athanasius, Ambrose and Hierome, why doth it seeme strange that Christ should be said to suffer for vs the tortures of dam­nation? If Athanas. de passione & cru­ce dom. Amari­tiemirae ex prae­uaricationem le­gis obortam in quae omnes deti­nebat accipiens absumpsit & euacuauit. he tooke the bitternesse of the wrath that rose by the transgression of the Law, and made it voide, as Athana­sius againe saith; if all the terror thereof did fall vpon him, that should haue befallen to vs, as Hilary before hath said, then Caluin hath said nothing but trueth, that hee made good, and paied all the penalties and punishments that were to be required of vs. I say not, that he suffered all pre­cisely in qualitie and kinde, but in quantitie and measure I say with Caluin all that should haue beene required of vs. And therefore albeit wee affirme that Christ suffered the very anguish of hell, yet we doe not thereby condemne him to the very pit of hell it selfe, as M. Bishop wrangleth; be­cause it was the suffering it selfe, not the place of suffering whereby satisfaction was to be made to God. Now then taking it as wee say, it is no blasphemie to say that hee that came to redeeme vs from hell, did suffer for vs the paines of hell, because hee was therefore to suffer the same for vs, that he might redeeme vs therefrom. Yea what a silly collection of blasphemie hee hath heere made will plainly appeare, by a little change of words, because it is all one, as if he should haue said; What greater blasphe­mie can be inuented, then to condemne the Lord of life, that came to redeeme vs from death, euen to the very suffering of death it selfe? As for that which hee saith of Christs be­ing heereby made the companion of Iudas the traitour, I [Page 119]passe it by as the speech of a wicked wretch, who out of the poison of a malicious and wicked heart, dareth of his owne wretched collection to say what hee list, dishonora­ble to the Sonne of God. From Caluin he cōmeth to Beza, albeit in the first point hee mistaketh Beza for Caluin; for Beza in the place by him cited, hath not the words which he alleageth. Caluin hath them indeed: but so, as that M. Bishop I trow will blush, if at least he can blush, when he shall heare in what sort he hath them. He maketh a questi­on or obiection in these words; Calu. in Mat. 27.46. sed ab­surdum videtur Christo elapsam esse desperatio­nis vocem, solu­tio facilis est quanquam sen­sus carnis exiti­um apprehende­ret, fixam tamē sletisse fidem in cius corde, qua deum praesentē intuitus est de cuius absentia conqueritur. But it seemeth absurd that from Christ should slippe or escape a speech of despaire. Here­to he saith, The answer is easie, that albeit the sense and feeling of the flesh apprehended destrustion, yet his faith abode sted­fast in his heart, whereby he beheld God present with him of whose absence he complaineth. By and by he saith againe; Ibid. In hoc diro cruciatu illaesa fuit eius fides; ita vt re­lictum se deplo­rans, propinquo tamen dei auxi­lio confideret. Cum desperatio­ne luclatus est, non fuit tamen victus: ne (que) e­nim qui despe­rati sunt, pos­sunt deum ap­p [...]llare suum. Cum dicit Deus meus, trium­phum agit de tentatione. In all this cruell torture his faith was vntouched, so as that crying out that he was forsaken, yet he trusted to Gods helpe as hard at hand. He wrestled with despaire, but was not ouer­come: for they who are desperate, can not call God their God. When he saith, My God, he triumpheth ouer that temptation. Marke I pray thee gentle Reader, how whilest hee tender­eth thee an obiection in steed of a resolution, hee seeketh to abuse thee with a shamefull vntruth, affirming of Caluin though vnder Beza his name, that he saith, that Christ de­spaired, whereas Caluins words are expressy to the con­trarie, that his faith was still inuiolate, and continued firme and stedfast in his heart. And euen as impudently doth hee behaue himselfe in the next words; for Beza hath no such as he allegeth, no, not in any of the places by him cited, that Christ was ouerwhelmed or adiudged to the flames of hell: He doth not say, that Christ was buried & drowned in the bot­tom of the infernal gulf. His words are, that Beza. Annot. noui Testam. Heb. 5.7. Quum i [...] se derelictum vociferatur, cogitemus animum noniam in cogitatione & metu impendentis mali prorsus eccupatum, sed in profundo summae calamitatis gurgite sepultum, qui ad emer­gendum maxima cum difficultate luctetur, whē Christ crieth out that he is forsaken, we are to conceiue his minde, not now oc­cupied [Page 120]with the conceite or feare of euill at hand,Christ how termed a sin­ner.but euen buri­ed in the deepe gulfe of extreme calamity, so as that with great difficulty he wrestieth or striueth to swimme out. Where are the flames of hell, M. Bishop? where is the infernall gulfe? for shame, man, leaue this lying, this grosse lying, lest the liers meed befall you, that no man beleeue you when you say truth. Luthers words haue their christian & godly meaning if a maleuolent minde haue not the construing of them. I haue before shewed how the Fathers sticke not sometimes to tearme Christ See heereof the question of Iustificati­on, sect. 5.11.a sinner, yea as Oecumenius speaketh,Oetumen. in Heb. 9. vehe­mentèr peccator erat. &c. vt su­pra.a very great sinner, for that, as he expoundeth it, he tooke vpon him the sinnes of the whole world, and made them proper to himselfe. Thus doth Luther say, thatLuther. in Gal c. 3. Et quidem omnes prophetae vide. runt hoc in spi­ritu quod Chri­stus futurus es­set omntum maximus latro, homicida, adul­ter, fur, sacrile­gus, &c. quo nullus maior vnquam in mū ­do fuerit, quia existens hostia pro peccatis to­tius mundi iam non est persona innocens & sine peccatis, non est natus de virgi­ne dei filius, sed peccator, qui habet & portat peccatum Pauli &c. & Petri &c. & omnia emnium peccata in corpore suo, non quod ipse cōmiserit ea, sed quòd ea à nobis commissa susceperit in corpus soū.Chrst was the grea­test sinner, because he bare all our sinnes: the greatest liar, because he bare the person of all men, of whom it is said, All men are liars: that the Prophets did in the spirit foresee him to be the greatest thiefe, robber, murtherer, &c. that euer liued, because he did take vpon him the thefts, robberies, mur­thers, adulteries and all other sinnes of all men liuing. He speaketh thus to set foorth the more effectually the impu­tation of our sinnes to Christ, and that which the scripture saith, that2. Cor. 5.21.he was made sinne for vs, Esa 53.6.that the Lord laid vpon him the iniquities of vs all: and though we forbeare thus to speake for auoiding offense, as I haue formerly said, yet in this sense what can Momus himselfe picke out to speake against it? As for that which he saith of Christ deepely des­pairing, and most miserably damned, M. Bishops wit might haue serued him to conceiue that it was not absolutely meant, because he maketh Christ withall most highly glori­ing and happy in the highest degree: His meaning then was, as hath been before expressed, that to sense of flesh and pre­sent feeling he was in state of despaire and damnation; al­beit by faith and hope he still gloried in God as his God, and remained the heire and Lord of blissefull peace. It ap­peareth then, that in all those allegations of his, there are no [Page 121]horrible extrauagant conceits, nor any other but what the ancient fathers of whom he speaketh, haue gathered out of the holy scriptures, as well as we. As for that which hee gathereth out of sundry particulars by him set downe, that Christ in the middest of his passions retained a calme setled iudgement and most valiant constancy and resolution, Christs af­fections in his passion kept within com­passe and measure. I answer him, that he saith nothing therein but what he hath learned of vs who acknowledge, as hath been before declared, that notwithstanding all these extremities, yet all his affections were kept within compasse and measure, and are not to be esteemed by those exorbitancies and outrages which we in our passions are woont disorderly to runne into. Yea by set­led iudgement did he rightly weigh the heauy burden that lav vpon him, & accordingly complained therof, and with valiant constancy and resolution hee waded through the middest of that horrible tempest vntill he was retired into safe harbour. Of vs also hath M. Bishop learned that a great aggrauation of the griefes and sorrows of Christ, was by the fathers withholding from him all inward comfort and consolation, but yet together with vs he should learne out of the word of God, that it was not only a priuation of spiritual comfort, without which we see what tortures men euen of obstinacy & vain-glory do oftentimes with inuin­cible courage vndergo, but it was a position of spiritual an­guish and distresse that drew from Christ those effects which hitherto we haue spoken of, as by the discourse ther­of sufficiently doth appeare.

15. W. BISHOP.

They hold first, that whatsoeuer our Sauiour did, Molineus in harmonia, part. 51.or suffered before his passion, was of smal value for our redemption. For as a noble Protestant said, the Monkes, Priests, and Papisticall Doctors did erre, when they vrged Christs incarnation and natiuity: for all these things profited vs nothing; could do nothing: but onely the death of Christ, which alone was accepted of God for our sinnes. Secondly, Caluin goeth fur­ther, [Page 122]and doubteth not to say, Lib. 2. Instit. ca. 16. c. 16 ses. 10. that Christes passion and cor­porall death would not serue the turne, and had profited vs nothing at all, had hee not in his soule suffered the very paines of the damned in hell. This doctrine of theirs is not on­ly contrary to an hundred places of expresse Scripture, that doe assigne our redemption vnto the blood-shedding and passion of Christ: but it also derogateth very much from the dignity of our Mediator. For not that which he suffered, made the merite of our redemption: but it was his exceeding charity, with which he suffered it, and principally the very dignity of his diuine per­son, which gaue that value, price, and estimation to his suffe­ringes, that the very least thing that euer he suffered in his life, was of infinite value; and therfore sufficient to pay the ransome of all mankinde: yea, to haue redeemed a thousand worlds. But let vs proceede on with the Protestants opinion: did Christs sufferings of the torments of hell deserue of God in iustice, there­demption of man? not so, if we may beleeue one of Foxes Mar­tirs, Acts and Mo­numents, pa 487. who held (as he recordeth) that Christ with all his workes could not merit heauen for vs. But for that little credit is to be giuen to such a Martyr, and such a Martyr-monger, let vs heare what some of the learnedst amongst them say. I truely confesse (saith Caluin) that if a man will set Christ singly and by himselfe, against the iudgements of God, there will be no roome for merit. And after: Christ could not deserue any thing, Lib. 2. Insti. cap. 17. ss. 1. In abster. ca­lumni. Heshu. but by the good pleasure of God, which is defended by his disciple Beza, against Heshusi­us: so that briefly, all Christs sufferinges in hell and out of hell, in true Protestant reckoning, amount to no higher a value, then that by the good pleasure and acceptance of God, they deserued our redemption; therefore in rigour of iustice they were not of sufficient worth to redeeme vs, but were only of grace, by God accepted for such. Is not heere a faire reckning? so might any other man indued with grace, haue redeemed all mankinde as well as Christ, if it had pleased God to haue so ac­cepted it; seeing no equall recompence was to be expected. But to helpe him heere by the way, that could not vnderstand how [Page 123]we were saued by the mercy of God, if Christs merites did in iu­stice deserue our saluation, it is to be noted that both be true, if they be duely considered. For we are saued by Christs merits in rigor of iustice, he satisfying of God as far-forth fully, as we of­fended him: and yet we be saued freely by the mercy of God too; both because he hath of his meere mercy without any desert of ours, giuen vs Christ his Sonne to be our Sauiour: and also for that he hath (out of the same his mercy) freely applied vn­to euery one in particular that is saued, the merits of Christ, through which he is saued.

R. ABBOT.

The value of our redemption is not to be rated by the wilfull conceits of men, Christs other sufferings not sufficiēt vvith­out his finall suffering and death. but by the estimation and ordi­nance of God himselfe, who doth nothing superfluously, nothing idlely and without cause, and therefore would not haue decreed the death of Christ, but that Luk. 24.46. it behooued Christ to suffer (death) and to rise againe from the dead the third day that repentance and remission of sins might be preach­ed in his name. As the Apostle saith, Gal. 2.21. If righteousnesse be by the law, then Christ died in vaine: so may we also conclude, If the least thing that Christ suffered in his life, were sufficient to redeeme vs, as M. Bishop dreameth, surely then Christ di­ed in vaine. It is not for man to take vpon him to be wiser then God, nor for vs to say that this or that had beene suf­ficient to redeeme vs when we see what God hath decreed and done in that behalfe. It is true in deed that the dignity of Christs person gaue worth to his sufferings, but we are to learne of the wisedome of God what it was conuenient those sufferings should be to which the dignity of his per­son should giue that woorth, so that not the dignity of his person howsoeuer, but the dignity of his person in such and such sufferings, certainely before determined of God, was to be the merit and purchase of our redemption and saluati­on. So then necessary it was that Christ should die for our redemption, though his death had beene no sufficient price [Page 124]therefore, but by the infinitenesse of his person. Moli­neus therefore might very iustly and truely say, not that the incarnation and birth of Christ profited vs nothing, or could doe nothing, but that without the death of Christ they had profi­ted vs nothing, or could haue done nothing for vs, because it was by his death, that God had appointed to redeem vs, euen as M. Bishop against himslfe confesseth, though his eies were not open to see it, that an hundred places of ex­presse scripture doe assigne our redemption to the bloudshedding and passion of Christ. The Papisticall Doctoures then, their Monkes and Priests are to be condemned, who vrge Christs incarnation and birth onely as a sufficient price for vs, or doe stint the same as did Campian, that Campian. Rot. 8. Cutus cruoris vna quaeuis gut­tula propter dignitatem bo­stiae mille mun­dos redimere potuisset. Christ suffer­ed for vs in soule also. one drop of his bloud had sufficed to redeeme a thousand worlds; not but that his in­carnation and birth were profitable to vs, but because what­soeuer Christ did or suffered otherwise, all concurred in his death as being preparations thereunto, and in his death the fruit and effect thereof doth redound vnto vs: not that we deny the value of any drop of the blood of Christ, but be­cause we hold no lesse needfull to redeeme vs, then God deemed needfull that he should shead, for vs. The words of Caluin, which he translateth at randon are these; Caluin. Instit. l. 2. c. 16. se. 10. Nihil actum e­rat si corporea tantúm morte defunctus fuis­set Christus, sed operae simul pre­tium erat vt di­uinae vltionis se­ueritatem senti­ret quo & irae ipsius intercede­ret & satisface­ret iusto iudicio. It had beene to no effect if Christ had died onely a corporall or bodily death, but it was withall needfull that he should feele the scueri­ty of Gods reuenge, that so he might appease his wrath, and sa­tisfie his iust iudgement. For disproofe of which assertion he vseth the words a little before mentioned, that an hundred places of expresse Scripture doe assigne our redemption to the passion of Christ. Full wisely I warrant you, as if the scrip­ture when it assigneth our redemption to the passion of Christ, did not assigne it to those spirituall sufferings which Caluin there intendeth, when as it describeth those suffe­rings to be a part of the same passion, and the same are by Caluin so vnderstood to be. If he will say that his meaning is, that the scripture assigneth our redemption to the death of Christ, let him vnderstand death in his true nature as he [Page 125]ought to doe with the complements and furniture thereof, that is, the wrath and curse of God, and sorrowes of death, as hath beene before said, and then we answer as the truth is, that the Scripture in assigning our redemption to the death of Christ doth consequently assigne the same to those spirituall anguishes and sufferings, because those spirituall agonies are also a part of the same death. Now seeing the Father sent his Sonne Esay 53.10. to giue his soule an offering for sinne, as the Prophet teacheth vs, and is before declared, surely Caluin rightly concludeth, that if he had died onely a bodi­lie death he had done nothing for vs, because he had not done that that the father had required; nay he had not done that which the worke of redemption did require: for Athanas. de incarnat. Chri­sti. Ne (que) potuit aliud pro alio in redemptionem praestari sed cor­pus pro corpore, anima pro ani­ma, & integriū aliquid pro in­tegro homine. &c. one thing, saith Aathanasius, might not for redemption bee paied for another, but the body was to be giuen for the bodie, and the soule for the soule, and the whole for the whole man. From hence he proceedeth and telleth vs of one of Foxes martyrs, as he tearmeth them, Who held that Christ, with all his workes could not merit heauen for vs. Thus like a madde dogge, he runneth vp and downe snapping at one and biting at ano­ther, and seeking in this man and that man, to fasten his ve­nemous tooth of slander and reproach. Who this was, he nameth no: tand whereas he citeth Acts and monuments pag. 487. I finde not in the edition that I haue, which is the last, any matter tending to that purpose. Wheresoeuer it is that he meaneth, I doubt not but hee hath plaied his part in it with like fidelity as he is wont to doe. As for the Martyrs and the Martyr-monger of whom he speaketh, let him not doubt but the Prophets words are verified in them; Esay 57.2. peace shall come; they shall rest in their beds, euery one that walketh before him; and therefore that of him and his fellowes that deride them the words following haue their iust constru­ction, But you witches children, come hither, the seede of the adulterer and of the whoore; On whom haue yee iested; vpon whom haue yee gaped and thrust out your tongues? are yee not all rebellious children, and a false seed? But from these he [Page 126]goeth to some of the learnedst amongst vs, citing Caluin and Beza. Christ truely and properly merited for vs by Caluins doctrine. I truely confesse, saith Caluin, that if a man will set Christ singly & by himselfe against the iudgement of God, there will be roome for merit. Where that thou maiest see, gentle Reader, that it was not without cause that I suspected him for the former citation, I pray thee first to obserue that the very argument of the chapter whence he alleageth these words, is thus set dowee; Caluin Instit. l. 2. c. 2. Rectè et proprtè dici Christum nobis promeritum esse gratiam dei & salutem. That it is rightly and properly said that Christ hath deserued for vs the grace of God and sal­uation, which he purposely disputeth against some Sect. 1. sunt quidam perpe­ram arguti qui etsi fatentur sa­lutem nos per Christum conse­qui, nomen ta­men meriti au­dire non susti­nent quo putant obscurari de [...] gratiam. who although they confesse that we attaine saluation by Christ, yet cannot endure to heare the name of merit, because they thinke the grace of God to be obscured thereby. Secondly, albeit he set downe Caluins tearmes of qualification, Ibid. Equidē fateor siquis Christum sim­pliciter & per se opponere vel­let iudicio dei, non fore merito locum, quia non reperietur in ho­mine dignitas quae possit deum promereri. simply and by himselfe, yet very treacherously he leaueth out the end of the sentence whereby those tearmes are to be vnderstood, which is this; because there can bee found no worthinesse in man that can deserue at Gods handes. For heereby it is manifest that Caluin in those wordes respecteth Christ as man, and onely in that respect denieth merit; if Christ meerely as man be opposed against the iudgement of God. And this further appeareth by that which he addeth to his purpose out of Austin, which M. Bishop dissembleth, be­cause hee thought he could not so honestly cauill against Austin, as he might against Caluin. August. de praedest. sanct. cap. 15. Est etrā praeclarissimum lumen praedestinationis & gratiae ipse saluator, ipse mediator dei & homin [...], homo Christus Iesus, qui vt hoc esset quibus tandem suis vel operum, vel fidei praecedentibus me­ritis natura humana quae in illo est comparauit? Respendeatur quaeso, ille hon [...]o [...]t à verbe patri coaeterno in vnitatem personae assumptus filius dei vnigenitus esset vnde hee meruerit? There is, saith Austin, a most notable and cleere light of Predestination and grace, e­uen the man Christ Iesus, the Sauiour, the Mediatour be­twixt God and men; who to bee so, by what former merits of his, either of workes or of faith, did the nature of man in him atteine vnto? Tell mee, I pray, saith he, that that man taken into vnitie of person with the word coeternall to the Father, should be the onely begotten Sonne of God? whereby did he me­rit [Page 127]or deserue it? By which words S. Austin giueth vs plain­ly to vnderstand, that the man Christ Iesus did not by me­rits atteine to become our Sauiour, to become the Media­tour betwixt God and man, but it was by Gods predesti­nation and grace, by his decree and ordinance, that it so came to passe. Heereupon then Caluin inferreth, that Calu. vt supr. Cùm ergò de Christi merito agitur non sta­tuitur in eo principium, sed conscendimus ad dei ordinationē quae prima cau­sa est quia mero beneplacito mo­diatorem statu­it qui nobis sa­lutem acquire­ret. when we speake of the merit of Christ, we are not to place it as the first beginning, but we ascend to the ordinance of God, which is the first cause, because he meerely of his owne good pleasure appointed him the Mediatour to purchase saluation for vs. In which words he acknowledgeth that Christ did verily and indeed purchase saluation for vs, but yet that it came of the good pleasure of God, and his meere grace and mercy, to giue him vnto vs for a Mediatour to merit and purchase our saluation. His drift is not in any sort to impeach the merit of Christ, but onely to shew that the merit of Christ is no impeachment of the free mercy of God, because of that free mercy it is that we haue him to merit for vs. And to that purpose it is that he saith, Ibid. Nam Christus nonnisi ex dei benepla­cito quicquam mereri potuit: sed quia ad hoc destinatus erat vt iram dei sa­crificio suo pla­caret, sua (que) obe­dientia deleret transgressiones nostras. that Christ could not me­rit any thing but by the good pleasure of God, because but by the good pleasure of God, he could not be Christ, he could not be man, he could not bee the Mediatour betwixt God and man. In a word, hence it came that he merited for vs, as it is added in the next words, because hee was destinated and appointed that by his sacrifie he should appease the wrath of God, and blot out our transgressions by his obedience. To the same effect it is also added, which M. Bishop thirdly men­tioneth, Ibid. Ex sola dei gratia (quae hunc nobis con­stituit salutis modum) depen­det meritum Christi. that the merit of Christ dependeth vpon the onely grace of God, which, saith he, hath appointed for vs this means of saluation. Not so then, but that Christ did indeed merit saluation for vs, but it was the grace of God that gaue him to merit for vs, and so to bee the meanes of our saluation, which is the thing that Beza also defendeth against Heshu­shius. And what is there in all this for M. Bishop to dislike? He will not say that Christ as a meere man could haue me­rited at Gods hands; because he hath before confessed, that [Page 128]the value and dignitie of Christs works arose from the dig­nitie of his person, in that hee was the Sonne of God. Hee will not denie that it was the good pleasure and grace of God, that gaue Christ to merit in our behalfe, for that the texts of Scripture cited by Caluin for proofe thereof, doe manifestly shew; Ioh 3.16. God so loued the world that hee gaue his onely begotten Sonne, to the end that euery one that beleeueth in him, should not perish but haue euerlasting life; 1. Ioh. 4.10.Not that we loued God, but that hee loued vs first, and sent his Sonne to be the attonement for our sinnes: by which it appeareth, that the sending and giuing of Christ is deriued from the loue of God, as from a precedent and former cause. What is the matter then of M. Bishops quarrell? Marrie, whereas Caluin and Beza by the good pleasure and grace of God, doe meane in that sort a precedent cause of the giuing of Christ to merit for vs, and doe expresse it by other termes of the ordinance of God, of his appointing Christ to be our medi­atour; of appointing vnto vs this meanes of saluation, and such like, M. Bishop maliciously wresteth the same to a posteri­or cause of the acceptation of the merit of Christ; as if they had said that God of his good pleasure and grace had accepted for merit that which Christ did, when indeed there was no merit, and so falleth to his termes of a faire reckoning, and that so any other man endued with grace might haue redeemed all mankind as well as Christ; woonderfully bestirring himselfe with his woodden dagger, and though hee fight but with his owne shadow, yet being strongly perswaded that hee hath killed a man. And yet to see the arrogancie of this vaine-glorious wisedome, he taketh vp­on him here by the way to helpe Caluin, that could not vnder­stand how we were saued by the mercies of God, if the merits of Christ in iustice deserue our saluation; whereas Caluin purposely there disputeth against them who could not vn­derstand that accord betwixt the mercies of God and the merits of Christ, and telleth them that which this silly So­phister will seeme to teach him, that Ibid. Inscitè opponitur meri­tum Christi mi­sericordiae dei. Regulaenim vulgaris est, quae subalterna sunt non pugna­re; ideo (que) nihil obstat quomi­nus gratuita sit hominum iusti­ficatio ex mera dei misericordia & simul inter­ueniat Christi meritum quod misericordiae dei subijcitur. it is ignorantly done [Page 129]to oppose the merit of Christ to the mercy of God; for it is a common rule, saith he, that things subordinate are not repug­nant one to the other, and therefore nothing hindereth but that the iustification of men may be free by the meere mercy of God, and yet the merit of Christ may come betweene, as being con­teined vnder the mercie of God. Learne more wit M. Bishop; though you will not learne more honesty, yet learne more wit; for there is none of your owne fellowes that shall exa­mine these things, but must needs take you for a leud man, but that Bernard. de Consider. lib. 1. vitiosas consci­entias vitiosorū non refugit, & vbi omnes sor­dent, vnius fae­tor mimmè se [...] ­titur. naught cares not to be knowen of naught, and where all stinke alike, no one mans stinke is discerned from other.

16. W. BISHOP.

To returne to our purpose, and to discouer yet more of the Protestants disgraces offered to our Sauiours mediation. Con. Hesh p. 39. Sup. Ioh. pa. 39. In locis. fol 361. 1. Ioh. 2. v. 2.Did Christ suffer his passion for the redemption of all mankinde, or did he die onely for some few of the elect? let Caluin answer you. Christs flesh was not crucified for the vngodly, nei­ther was the bloud of Christ shed to clense their sinnes. With him agreeth brother Bucer: Christ by his death did onely redeeme the sinnes of the elect. Musculus will beare a part in that consort: Christs death is a satisfaction only for the sinnes of the elect; all as contrary to the plaine text of Scripture, as can be. Christ is a propitiation for our sinnes, (where he spake in the person of the elect) and not for ours onely, but also for the whole worlds. Let vs goe on yet one steppe further. What effect doth the bloud of Christ worke in the small number of these elected brethren? Doth it clense their soules from all filth of sinne; and powre into them the manifold gifts of the holy Ghost, whereby they may afterwards resist sinne, and serue God in holinesse of life? nothing lesse. Pag. 31. For in the Regenerat as M. PERKINS with al the rest of them doth teach) there remaineth originall sinne, which infecteth e­uery worke of man, and maketh it a mortall sinne. So that inwardly in their soules these clected Protestants be voide of iustice, and full of all maner of iniquity: marry, they haue [Page 130]created in them the rare instrument of a new deuised faith, by which they lay hold on Christs iustice, & so by reall imputation (to vse M. PERKINS words) of Christs iustice to them, they on the sudden become exceeding iust: therefore Frier Lu­ther had some reason to say, that whosoeuer was borne againe of this Euangelicall faith, was equall in grace vnto both Peter and Paul; and vnto the Virgin MARY Mother of God; Supra 1. Pet. 1. In actis disput. Tigur. Fox Act. fol. 1335 & 1138. Nay it seemes that Luther came to short, and Zwing­lius stroke home when he said: that God the Father did no lesse fauour all the faithfull, then he did Christ his owne Sonne. And out of the confidence of the same liuely-feeling faith, proceeded these speeches of our new Gospellers in Eng­land. And wee haue as much right to heauen, as Christ hath; we cannot be damned, vnlesse Christ be damned: neither can Christ be saued, vnlesse we be saued. Christ (belike) could not liue in blisse without their holy company. What audacious companions, and saucy Gospellers were these? Yet their reason seemeth sound in the way of their owne religi­on: for if they were most assured of the benefit of Christs owne iustice to be imputed vnto them, they could not be lesse assured of their owne saluation, then they were of Christs owne. To conclude this point, consider (good reader) how the Protestants (who would be thought to magnifie Christes sufferings excee­dingly) doe in very deede extreamly debase them. For (as you haue heard) they esteeme very little of all the rest of his life, besides his passion: secondly, they make his passion without suffering of hell torments, not sufficient to redeeme vs: thirdly, that all those sufferings put together, doe not in iustice merit the remission of our sinnes, but onely that of grace and curtesie God doth accept them for such: fourthly, that when all is done, they deserue fauour onely for a few of the elect, and that not to purge those few, neither from all their sinnes, but only to purchase them an imputation of iustice, to be apprehended by a strong imagi­nation or rather presumption, falsly by them tearmed faith. Is not heere a huge great mill-post, fairely thwited into a poore pudding pricke (as they say) by them, who after so high exalta­tions [Page 131]of the all-sufficiency of Christs suffering, doe in fine con­clude, that in a very few persons it worketh onely an imputation or shadow of iustice:How Christ died for all.but it agreeth very well and hangeth hand­somely together, that by the merits of Christs sufferings in hell, (which are meere phantasticall) these men should haue created in them a phantasticall faith, neuer heard of before their daies, to lay hold vpon a vaine shadow of an imputatiue and phantasti­call iustice.

R. ABBOT.

None of our writers denie, but that Christ in his death intended a price sufficient for all, the power whereof in the ministery of the Gospel should extend to all; but as touch­ing the effect of his death, we say truly that which M. Bi­shop heere obiecteth, that Christ intended to die for the elect onely. For Aug. ad Ar­tic. sibi falso im­positos. art. 1. Christi mers non impensa est humano generi [...] vt ad mortem eius etiam qui regenerandi non erant pertine­rent. Christ did not bestow his death vpon man­kinde, saith S. Austen, that they who were not to be partakers of regeneration, should appertaine to his redemption: Idem. in Psal. 87. solis praede­stinatis ad aeter­nam salutem, non autem om­nibus hominibus cius bona opera profuerunt.the things which he wrought were not beneficiall to all men, but to them onely that were predestinate to eternall saluation. The words of S. Iohn which he alleageth as contrarie to our as­sertion, make nothing against vs. Iohn did not say, 1. Ioh. 2.2. He is the propitiation for our sinnes, as speaking in the person of all the elect that then were, but of himselfe and the elect to whom hee writeth; and by the other words he ioyned to them all the rest of the elect that then were or after should be throughout the whole world; Not for our sinnes only, but for the sinnes of the whole world. In the same sort hath he left the same words by occasion to be vsed of vs, the former part of them to whom or amongst whom they shall be spo­ken; the other of the rest of the members of the body that are or shall be wheresoeuer throughout the world. Thus doth Saint Austin vnderstand them, Aug. epist. 48. Christus propi­tiator est pecca­torum nostro­rum, non solum nostrorum sed totius mun­di propter triti­cū quod est per totū mundum. that Christ is the pro­pitiatiō of the sins of the whol world, because of the wheat that is through the whole world, so writing vpō that epist. of S. Iohn he expoundeth it to be, Idem. in 1. Ioan tract. 1. Ecce habes Ec­clesiam per totū mundum, &c. totius mundi quem suo san­guine compa­rauit. the church throughout the whole [Page 132]world, the whole world which he hath gotten by his blood. And thus where Christ saith, Ioh. 3.17. God sent not his sonne into the world to condemne the world, but that the world thorow him might be saued: and the Apostle, 2. Cor. 5.9 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe, he restraineth the name of Aug. Collat. 3. cum D [...]natist. Mundi no [...]en in [...]ono; vt sal­netur mundus, &c. Non salua­bitur nisi Eccle­sia in mundo, &c. vide mun­dum in bono omnes fideles et spem vitae aeter­nae gerentes per vniuersas gen­tes: Deus erat in Christo, inquit, mundum recon­cilians sibi fi re­conciliari potest deo detestatus ille mun [...]us iu­dicent qui lo­quuntur. the world to the Church of God in the world, to all the faithfull and such as beare the hope of eternall life throughout all nations, because the Church only shall be saued in the world, and the detested or detestable world cannot be reconciled vnto God. Thus he di­stinguisheth Idem in Ioan. tract. 110. Mū ­dus non perma­nens in [...]micus qualis est mun­dus damnatio­ni prae [...]estina­tus, sed ex ini­mico amicus ef­fectus propter quem deus erat in Christo, &c. the world that abideth an enemy to God which is predestinated to damnation, from the world that doth not a­bide an enemy, but of an enemy is made a friend, for which saith he, god was in Christ, reconciling the world to himselfe. In like sort therefore Saint Iohn saith, that Christ is the propitiati­on for the finnes of the world, that is Ibid. tr. 111. Mundus recon­ciliatus ex ini­mico liberabi­tur mundo. of the reconciled world, of all the faithfull ouer the whole world, that haue beene from the beginning, and shall be to the worldes end. But of this point I referre the Reader to see more before in the question of iustification, the fifteenth section. M. Bishop heere will go one step further, and we must follow him in his step. What effect, saith he, doth the bloud of Christ worke in the small number of these elected brethren? But what, doth he iest at the smalnesse of the number of these elected brethren? What, did he neuer reade in the Gospell, Matth. 22.14. Many are called, but few elected? Hath he not heard Christ comforting this Luk. 12.32. small number, feare not, little flocke, for it is your fathers will to giue you a kingdome? Doth he glory in the multitude of his consorts without remembring that fearefull sentence of Christ, Matth. 7.13. The effect of Christs bloud to clense vs from sinne. Wide is the gate and broade is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that goe in thereat: but strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth vnto life and few there be that finde it? Well, let vs leaue him to his greater number; but as touching the effect of the bloud of Christ, I answer him that it doth clense our soules from the filth of [Page 133]sinne, and shall fully clense them from all filth of sinne. It giueth vnto vs now Rom. 8.23. the first fruits of the spirit, whereby we fight against sin, and serue God in holinesse of life: and it shall giue vs the full measure off the spirit, whereby we shall vtterly ouercome and put of the body of sinne, and shall serue God in most full and perfect holinesse for euer. In the meane time there remaineth in the regenerate a blot of originall sinne, by reason whereof euery faithfull man complaineth as the Apostle doth; Rom. 7.14.23. I am carnall, sould vn­der sinne, holden captiue to the law of sinne, which is in my mem­bers. This blot of sinne defileth and infecteth all our do­ings, so that Greg Moral. li. 35. c. 16. Ma­la nostra pura mala sunt, & bona quae nos habere credimus pura bona esse nequaquam possunt. our good workes cannot be meerely or purely good, and therfore being stained and blemished they should be vtterly reiected, if God in rigour of iudgement should esteeme of them. But our beleefe and comfort is this, that God Rom. 3.25. hauing set foorth Christ to be our attonement through faith in his bloud, doth therein vouchsafe to wash away all our blots and staines, and for his sake through the imputati­on of his merits doth accept for iust both vs to life, and our workes to reward; and notwithstanding those imperfecti­ons, giueth the crowne of righteousnesse to all them that feare him. Is not this, M. Bishop, a most gracious and glo­rious effect of the bloud of Christ? Can you say any thing to magnifie the power of Christs death further then we do? If you will say truth, M. Bishop, you can say nothing: for as for that which you do say, that the bloud of Christ doth now in baptisme fully clense our soules from al the filth of originall sinne, your owne heart telleth you that it is a ve­rie lie. And because that is a lie, therefore for iustice and rigteousnesse before God, you must betake your selfe to that which now in mockery you call, because you know it not, the rare instrument of a new deuised faith; and to the reall imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ, who really com­municateth vnto vs whatsoeuer he hath done for vs. And impious it is to thinke Rom. 4.3.5.6. the imputation of righteousnesse, which the Scripture expresly teacheth, to be as you seeme [Page 134]to imagine it only mentall and phantasticall. But of all these points heere girded at by M. Bishop, Answer to D. Bishops E­pistle sect. 7.17. Of origi­nall sinne. per tot. of the remainder of originall sinne, Answer to the Epistle sect. 19. Of Iustification. sect. 44. of the staine and imperfection of our workes, Of the cer­taintie of Sal­uation. sect. 2.3. &c. Of Iu­stification. s. 15.16. &c. of the nature of faith, Of Iustifica­tion. sect. 3.4. &c. Luther af­firmeth not equalitie of grace. of the imputation of righteousnesse, so much hath beene said before, as that it shall be but tedious both to the Reader and me to goe ouer the same againe. And surely we can take all this speech of his to be no other but wild and carelesse babling, so long as we see him vnable to defend that which to the same pur­pose he wrote before. But vpon that mention of faith and imputed iustice he quarelleth at Luther, for saying as he re­porteth, that whosoeuer is borne againe of this Euangelicall faith is equall in grace both to Peter and Paul, and to the Vir­gin Mary. But he therein belieth Luther who in the very place confesseth difference of faith, and therefore cannot be said to affirme equality of grace. His words are; Luther. in 1. Pet. c. 1. vnam Christiani om­nes fraternita­tem babemus. &c. See the vvhole place Answer to the Aduer­tisement. sect. 15. All we that are christians haue one brotherhood, which we haue attai­ned in baptisme, of which no saint hath more then thou & I. For with what price he was redeemed, with the same was I redee­med also. It cost God no lesse for my sake, then for any the grea­test saint, saue that he hath perhaps better embraced this trea­sure, that is, hath stronger faith then I. This Luther spake rightly of the common condition and calling of Christiani­ty, wherein no man hath more interest then other, which yet hindereth not but that in particular gifts of grace accor­ding to diuers measures of faith one man may farre excell another. But what conscience he vseth in these citations it may easily appeare, for that whereas heere he citeth this place of Luther to charge him with affirming equality of grace in this world, he alleageth the very same in Sect 15. Hod God is said to fauour vs no lesse then his Son Christ. the trea­tise following, to charge him with affirming equality of glo­rie in the world to come. From Luther he goeth to Zwing­lius, albeit the words, which he biteth at, be not the words of Zwinglius, but of Conradus Fabritius another Mini­ster of that Church: which yet containe nothing amisse, but that a venemous spider hath the sucking of them. [Page 135] Act. Disput. 2. Tigur. apud Zwinglium. Deus pater om­nibus Christia­nis qui vera spe, fide & cha­ritate Christo nituntur non minus sauet necminus pro­pitius est quam Christo filio suo proprio: fidelem huiusmodi non minus quàm fi­lium suum tue­bitur; nec mi­nus quàm fili­um suum ab ae­terna morte e­undem libera­bit: non minùs ab aeterno incen­dio illum eripi­et: non minùs caelum illi pate­re faciet &c. Quid n [...]u tis? aeternam vitam non minus illi quàm filio suo largietur. Testi­monium nobis huius certitudi­nis est locuple­tissim [...]m, quod est ipse Christus aeterna veritas. &c. God the Father, saith Fabritius, no lesse fauoureth all Christians who rest vpon Christ by true faith, hope and charitie, nor is lesse gracious to them then to Christ his owne Sonne. No lesse will hee defend such a faithfull man then his owne Sonne: no lesse will hee saue him from e­uerlasting death: no lesse will hee deliuer him from euer­lasting fire: no lesse will hee cause heauen to bee open vn­vnto him then to his onely begotten sonne. What should I vse many words? He will no lesse giue him euerlasting life then he will to his sonne. He addeth further: We haue a most abun­dant testimony of this assurance, which is Christ himselfe the eternall truth, &c. By which words it plainely appeareth, that that which he saith, no lesse, no lesse, is not referred to intension and quantity, but to assurance and certainty. He no lesse fauoureth the one then he doth the other; that is, he as certainely fauoureth the one as he doth the other; no lesse will he giue eternal life to the one then to the other, that is, he will giue it as certainly to the one as to the other. And what is this other in effect then that which Christ himselfe saith of the elect, to his father; Iohn 17.23. Thou hast loued them as thou hast loued me? which manner of speech as Saint Austin no­teth, August in [...]an. tract. 110. Neque enim semper aequalitatem significat qui dicit, si [...]ut illud, ita & illud; sed aliquando tantum quia est illud, est et illud, aut quia est illud vt fit et illud. doth not alwaies signifie equality, but sometimes signifi­eth onely, because the one is, the other also is; or that the one is that the other also may be. In the same sort and no otherwise are the words of Fabritius to be vnderstood, as M. Bishop himselfe knoweth, but shift he must to say somewhat. The words which he citeth as of some of our Martyrs out of M. Foxe I cannot finde by his quotation. I remember that long since I haue red some such kinde of words, but he is so false that I dare not presume that he hath reported them al­together truely as they are. The meaning of him that spake the words, was this, that we haue the same right to heauen that Christ hath, because Christ hath giuen vs his right. It is written of Saint Bernard, that being in a time of sicknes [Page 136]much vrged with Satans accusations, he answered for him­selfe; Vita Be [...]nar­di l. 1. cap. 12. fateor non sum dignus ego, nec proprijs possum meritis regnum obtinere caelo­rum; caeterúm dupliet iure il­lud obtinens do­minus meus, haereditate scili­cet patris & merito passionis, aeltero ipse con­tentus alterum mihi donat, ex cuius dono iure illud mihi ven­dicans non con­fundor. I confesse I am not woorthy, neither can I by mine owne merits obteine the kingdome of heauen: but my Lord Iesus ha­uing obteined it by double right, both by inheritance from the fa­ther, & by the merit of his passion, being himselfe contented with the one, he giueth me the other, by whose gift I am not ashamed to chalenge it for my right. In the same maner did the godly martyr speake of right, not to distinguish a right in him­selfe from the right of Christ, but to signify that Christ hath made ouer his right to vs, and thereby wee hold as fast as Christ himselfe can hold. From hence the other words are deriued by imitatiō of that which the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 15.16. If the dead rise not againe, then is Christ not risen againe; by which he signifieth, that there is that strait and inseparable bond betwixt Christ and his members, as that to deny to them any thing which Christ hath wrought and purchased for them, is to deny the same to Christ himselfe; to affirme the failing of any thing to them, is to affirme the failing of it to him also. And as by allusion to that place of the Apo­stle Tertullian saith; Tertull. de Resurrect car­nis. securae esto­te caro & san­guis, vsurpastis & caelum & dei regnum in Christo, aut si negent vos in Christo, negent & in caelo Chri­stum qui vobis caelum negaue­runt. Care not, flesh and blood, yee haue in Christ taken possession of heauen, and of the kingdome of God; or if they deny you to be in heauen in Christ, let them also deny Christ himselfe to be in heauen, who haue denied heauen to you. What, will M. Bishop here tearme Tertullian, and Bernard, together with the Apostle himselfe audacious and sawcie Gospellers? Because the Apostle denieth Christ himselfe to be risen vnlesse the faithfull also rise againe, will hee re­turne him a scornfull iest, as heere hee doth; Christ belike could not liue in blisse without their holy company? But their reason saith he, seemeth good in the way of their owne religion. Well, if it be so, it is sufficient; for the way of their religion hath beene so farre approoued, as that neither M. Bishop, nor any other aduersaries haue beene able to disprooue it. And because he cannot disprooue it, therefore let him con­fesse, as the truth is, that the firme and stedfast apprehensi­on of the merits of Christ, and of being by faith made one [Page 137]with him, doth minister vnto the faithfull this sacred reso­lution, that so long as Christ perisheth not, they cannot pe­rish, and therefore shall bee preserued for euer. That that followeth is but an idle repetition of the same matters, one­ly set out with a bold face and bigge looks, and some inke­horne termes, and therefore I passe it ouer, not maruelling that any thing on our part seeme phantasticall to so vaine a man, whose intellectuall parts serue him not to prooue a­ny thing substantially for his owne.

17. W. BISHOP.

But to returne to Christs mediatorship and merits. Is it not moreouer a great disparagement vnto them, to maintaine (as the Protestants doe) that his best beloued spouse the Church, should continue but a small time, at least in any sight, and should bee penned vp in corners: yea, and during that time too, it should not bee free from many foule grosse errours, in the very foundation of faith? Furthermore, that hee left his holy word (the onely rule and square (as they hold) of Christi­an religion) to bee vnderstood of euery man as his owne know­ledge and spirit should direct him? and if any doubtfull questi­on did arise thereabout (as he fore-sawe thousands should doe) yet he tooke no other order for the deciding and ending of them, but that euery one should repaire vnto the same his word, and doing his diligence to vnderstand it, might afterward be his owne iudge. As this later opinion would argue our blessed Sauiour, who was the wisedome of God, to bee the weakest and most improuident law-maker that euer was: so the for­mer doth mightily blemish the inestimable price of his most pretious bloud, making it not of sufficient value, to purchase vnto him an euerlasting inheritance, free from all errours in matter of faith, and abounding in all good works.

R. ABBOT.

The Protestants doe not maintaine, that the Church, the beloued spouse of Christ should continue but a small time, but [Page 138]doe all absolutely affirme the continuance thereof from the beginning to the end. The Church how it is visi­ble or inuisi­ble. As for the visibilitie and sight of the Church, we speake diuersly thereof, as we speake diuersly of the Church it selfe. Where the Church is a matter of faith, there it is not subiect to sight, for Greg. Dialog. l. 4. c. 4. Hoc re­racitèr dicitur credi quod non potest viders; nam quod iam videri potest, credi non potest. that is truely said to be beleeued, saith Gregorie, which cannot be seene, and that which may now be seene cannot be said to be belecued. The Church then which wee professe to beleeue in the articles of our faith, is inuisible, because as Aug in Psal. 56. Caput sepa­ratum est à vi­sione. the head is inuisible 1. Pet 1.8.we beleeue in him, but we see him not, so is the body also, Greg. in Psal. poenitential. 5. Tota Ecclesia siue quae adhuc versatur in ter­ris, siue quae cum eo iam regnat in coelis, &c. one part thereof raigning in heauen with the head, another part yet vnborne, Aug. vt su­pra. pertinenti­bus ad eam eti­am his qui fue­runt ante nos, & his qui futn­ri sunt [...]ost nos, vs (que) ad finem seculi. because to it belong they also that shall be af­ter vs to the worlds end; the third part though visible as they are men, yet inuisible according to that they are members of this Church, because Luk. 17.21. the kingdome of God is within, and Aug de Bapt. cont. Donat. l. 5. c. 28. Mamfe. stū est id quod in ecclesia dici­tur intus & fo­ris, in corde non in corpore cogi tandum. to be in the Church, is not to be conceiued in the bodie but in the heart, 1. King. 8.39. 2 Tim. 2.19.which God only knoweth, and therefore only knoweth who are within, according to that seale as the A­postle calleth it of the foundation of God, i The Lord know­eth who are his. To speake of the Church accordingly as men take notice and knowledge of it, it is said to be visible two maner of waies; either as touching the persons pro­fessing the seruice and worship of God; or as touching the congregating and assembling of the persons for the perfor­mance of that seruice. The Church may be visible the for­mer way, when it is not visible the latter, because it may be seene and knownen that there are many persons of such deuotion though they be not seene in any assembly for the practise of their deuotion. In this sort there haue beene al­waies some either few or moe, either one where or other, who to the world though with perill and losse of their liues haue giuen testimony of the truth of God. If we will vn­derstand visible the latter way, we must consider that the church it selfe may be spoken of diuersely: either as touch­ing the title of outward vocation and calling; or as touch­ing [Page 139]the sinceritie and truth of profession and faith. There may be a church as touching outward calling visible to the world, which yet doth not preserue that integrity, truth of faith whereby it first became a church. There may be a people tied by couenant vnto God and by Sacraments pro­fessing in their assemblies to serue him, who yet vnfaithful­ly peruert the seruice of God, and depart from that way of religion which he hath taught them. In this outward state and condition of the Church it is to be remembred which our Sauiour Christ saith, Math. 22.14. Many are called but few are cho­sen, the multitude generally taking vpon them to be called the people of God, when few of them are so indeed, in so much that the Prophet Esay cried out concerning the Church of Israel, Esay 10.21. Rom. 9.27. Though the number of the children of Is­rael were as the sand of the sea, yet but a remnant shall be saued. For euen in the profession of true religion, and where the word of God hath publicke maintenance and state, yet how few are there commonly who care to bring foorth the fruits thereof in holy conuersation? Albeit it falleth out further also many times that this outward face of the church is be­raied with the filth of manifold superstitions and idolatries, that true doctrine is reiected, and in place thereof humane traditions and inuentions are set vp and magnified, whilest men neglect and forget the couenant of God and will needes vse their owne wits for seruing him. Yea so far they proceed in the admiration and liking of their owne doings as that they hate the truth, and become persecutours of them who continue constant therein, and refuse to ioine with them to be partakers of their sinne. Thus it came to passe in Israel by the sinne of Ieroboam, and much more by the sinne of Ahab, and in Iudah by the Apostasie of Manasses, who brought abhomination into the temple of God, and set vp idols there to be worshipped instead of God. At which time the case so stood as that Israel and Iudah hauing both cast off the yoake of the law of God, & broken the bounds that he appointed them, there was no [Page 140]publike state of true religion throughout the whole world. The publike state and gouernement of the same church of the Iewes, the onely visible church refused the preaching of Christ, preferred their owne traditions before Gods commandement, and pronunced sentence of death against the Sonne of God. They onely were the people of God, the Church of God, but perfidiously they rebelled against God and refused to be guided by his word. But yet amidst all this Apostasie and defection of the church the calling of God did not become vaine, neither was his couenant of circumcision without effect, but still he had a remnant in whom he was glorified, 1. King. 19.18. seuen thousand in Israel, though vnknowen to Elias, who had not bowed their knee vnto Baal, in Iudah many who continued stedfast in the testi­mony of God, in the pursute of whom Manasses is said 2. King. 21.16. to haue shed innocent blood exceeding much, and to haue repleni­shed Ierusalem therewith from corner to corner. In a word, at the comming of Christ amongst a huge heape of chaffe there were some graines of wheat; some few faithfull that Luk 2.38. & 23.51. waited for redemption and for the kingdome of God. Now then where the church importeth them only that are pro­fessours of Gods true religion, there the church is some­times visible and somtimes inuisible, visible one where, an­other where inuisible. For true religion sometimes hath publike state & maintenance, and the assemblies and con­gregations for exercise thereof are apparant to all mens eies that whosoeuer will may resort vnto them. But sometimes hypocrisie getteth the vpper hand, and vnder the name of the Church challengeth to it selfe the places of publike as­semblie, driuing out from thence synceritie and truth, and suffering nothing to be done there but for it owne behoofe. Heere then the professours of truth are faine 1. King. 18.4. Heb. 11.37.38. to hide their heads and to keepe themselues in corners, and by stealth onely to assemble and meete together. It falleth out heere many times that they are forced with Elias 1. Kin. 19.3. to flie for their liues, and because they are watched and waited for to be [Page 141]drawen to death, therefore doe betake themselues to places where so neere as may be, they may, saue each to other, nei­ther be knowne nor seene. In this case therefore the church, that is, the professours of the true faith and religion of the Church are said to be inuisible, not for that they are meere­ly to mens eyes inuisible, as is the Church in the first sense before named, but because it is not to bee seene in publike state and assembly, in free & open profession, as in times of peace and liberty it is woont to be. For that otherwise they are visible appeareth plainly in that they liue continu­ally subiect to the malignity of their aduersaries, to indig­nity and reproch, to bonds and imprisonment, to cruell massacrees, tortures and death, all which they should auoid if they were wholly out of sight. But this inuisibility of the church, is not to be considered onely in the church perse­cuting the church, the worse part thereof the better, August. de doct. Christ. l. 3. cap. 32. Corpus domini verum at (que) simulatum. the counterfeit body of Christ, as Saint Austin calleth it, the true, but also when by foreiners and strangers attempt is made against the whole church. For so it is sometimes that the whole name of the church of God is impugned, and the aduersary vseth all his might vtterly to extinguish the me­moriall thereof, God by this meanes making triall of his, and exercising their faith and patience, and bringing iust reuenge vpon hypocrites, who abuse his calling and grace to the doing of their owne will. Heere then God giuing way to the enemy the outward state of the church is wholy ouerthrowen, the publike exercise of religion is altogether interrupted and broken off, and the members of the church though they be seene and knownen as such a people, yet are not seene in the condition of the church, that is, assembling themselues together to performe religion and seruice to their God. This was the state of the church in the captiui­ty of Babylon, when Ierusalem was burnt to the ground, the temple destroied, the people of God carried away into strange lands and heere and there dispersed amongst the heathen nations. The like befell them by the tyranny of [Page 142]Antiochus euen in their owne land, their temple being de­filed, their religion interdicted, and euery one commanded to be slaine that would not renounce the law of God. Now to apply all these things to the state of the church of Christ, it was first oppugned by professed enemies, who sought wholly to root out the name of Christians, and to abandon the faith of Christ vtterly out of the world. Thus did the Iewes first, and after them the Heathens, persecute the whole profession of Christianity, and by the importunity of their cruelty did many times so obscure and darken the face of the church, as that for the most part it was hardly to be seene. Whosoeuer were found to giue open testimony to the name of Christ were martyred and slaine; the rest for feare of the like danger either fled into wildernesses and so­litary places, or else had their meetings very couertly and secretly that they might not be espied. Yea their sauage and barbarous fury so far preuailed as that they seemed to themselues to haue gotten a perpetuall victory ouer the name of Christ, and did set vp pillars of marble as trophees thereof, whereof it is said that some monuments are yet re­maining vntill this day. Thus albeit many thousands there were who heere and there dispersed and scattered continu­ed steadfast in the faith of Christ, and in many places co­uertly gathered themselues together for the exercise of their faith, yet the Church to the sight of the enemies ther­of was inuisible, neither could they in a manner take know­ledge of any against whom their malice might any further proceed. But when by the prouidence and mercy of God the sword of those tyrants was wrested out of their hands, this inuisible church soone came to light againe, and began to enioie outward state and honour, and the Saints who seemed to haue beene dead and buried in euerlasting re­proch and shame, became renowmed and glorious in the world, and as they were indeed, so began they in the opi­nion of men to be exalted vnto heauen. From thencefoorth we affirme, that the church hath neuer ceased to be eminent­ly [Page 143]and apparantly visibly to al the world, so far are we from saying that which Bellarmine as the master, and M. Bishop here as the scholar do impute vnto vs B [...]llarm. de notis eccl. cap 9. Ecclesiam visi­bilem a multis seculis perijsse &c. docent omnes. that the visible church for many ages was quite perished out of the world. How can we be taken to say that the church was perished for many a­ges, who doe hold that for those many ages whereof we speake, Antichrist according to that that was prophecied of him did 2. Thess. 2.4 sit as God in the Temple, that is to say, the church of God? If we say that Antichrist sate, that is, dominated and tyrannized in the church, the visible church, then sure­ly we deny it not to be the visible church wherein Anti­christ did sit. We confesse that the church in all that time hath beene apparant to the eies of all men, the whole world saw it: Turkes and Saracens fought against it, and did their vttermost to root it out, that the name of Christians might no more haue beene heard of amongst men. But we say withall; that the visible church by the vsurpation of Anti­christ was become for the most part as the temple of God in the daies of 2. King. 2 [...] 4.7. Manasses replenished with idolatries and abhominations, or as the church of the Iewes at the com­ming of Christ, euen Mat. 9.36. like sheepe without a shepheard, burde­ned with humane traditions and wanting the free aire of the word of God whereby hee ministreth the breath of euerlasting life. As Ierem. 3.20.the wife that is rebellious and vnfaith­full to her husband,Prou. 2.17.which forsaketh the guide of her youth and forgetteth the couenant of her God; so was the state of the Church, shamefully polluting her selfe with manifold fornications whiles she proftituted herselfe to the em­bracings of the Romane adulterer, and yeelded to him the obedience and seruice which she should haue reserued vn­to Iesus Christ. Shee was the mother indeed by whom God through baptisme brought foorth children to him­selfe; but being though by nature a mother, yet by affecti­on a step-mother, when she had brought them foorth shee poisoned them, or else hated and put them from her, if any refused to drinke of her cup, and to approoue those adulte­ries [Page 144]and sorceries wherewith their father her husband and Lord was dishonoured by her. And many such were there through the whole decourse of the desolations of Anti­christ, whose eies God opened, some more, some lesse, to see the filthinesse of their mother, who though happily by education they were not wholly without some aspersion of the errors and superstitions of their times, yet abhorred those Idolatries and abhominations whereby the Church had broken her faith to God, and made way, so much as in her lay, for her full diuorce and separation from him. For God forbid that we should thinke that the spirit of trueth was wholly departed from the Church, or that the coue­nant of Baptisme was voide on Gods behalfe, sealing none vnto him, but that amidst those ruines he had still his rem­nant, which not in name onely, but in trueth were the Church of Christ. For as in a common pestilence, though it rage neuer so sore, yet it infecteth not all, and many whom it doth infect, yet are not deadly infected, but ma­ny by preseruatiues escape, and others by strength of na­ture expel the venime in botches and sores, so as that life is still preserued: euen so in that generall pestilence and infe­ction which the breath of Antichrist had blowen abroad through the church, howsoeuer it were vniuersally disper­sed, yet it tainted not all, and many that were touched with it, yet drunke not so deepe of the whore of Babylons cup as to surfet and die thereof, and albeit they might seeme in a maner to bee drowned in common errours, yet reteined that fundamentall doctrine of true faith in Christ whereby they keept the head aboue water to receiue the breath of life, and through the fire of repentance by harty praier vn­to God for remission of all their sinnes and ignorances whe­ther knowen to them in their end, or remaining vnknowen, passed vnto eternall life. See Simon Goulart. Cata­log. test. veri­tatis. Many such there were in the bosome of their church, euen in their monasteries and reli­gious houses to whom God reuealed the light of his truth, Who Ezech. 9.4.mourned and cried for all the abhominations that were [Page 145]done in the middest thereof, who imparted to other what they themselues saw; and liued and died in the comfort of that faith which we now maintaine against the Church of Rome. But many there were who did professedly separate themselues from the assemblies of the church because of the abominations that were exercised therein, being carefull according to the knowledge which God had giuen them to keepe themselues vndefiled, that with pure conscience they might serue him. Yea sometimes and in some places there wanted not publike profession and exercise of Gods truth, and whole countries and townes and cities, followed the religion of Christ, with expresse renouncing of the a­bominations of the church of Rome. Which seuering of themselues notwithstanding not being absolute and vniuer­sall, but onely respectiue, because of the intolerable enormi­ties and corruptions preuailing in the church, made not them that thus diuided themselues a new, or another church, but onely freed them from the default of the church whereof they were members. For to vse the for­mer comparison, as when the pestilence rageth in a city they that for auoiding the infection doe forbeare the com­mon assemblies and meetings doe not thereby depriue themselues of their interest in that corporation & state, but doe still continue citizens and members thereof; euen so they who for manifest idolatries and abominations did for­beare the communion and fellowship of their owne or o­ther churches, did not thereby disable or impeach their right and title of being members of the church, but rather maintained the same so much the more by eschuing the corruptions wherby the church was in danger to be cut off & to become no church. But vpon al these the eie of malice was continually cast, and Antichrist pretending Aug. de Ciuit. Dei, li. 20. c. 19. In templum dei sedet, tanquam ipse sit templum dei quod est ec­clesia, &c. Ad eum pertinen­tem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso intelligi volunt, &c. himselfe and his onely to be the church of God, waited and tooke all oc­casions and opportunities for the destruction of them. By the stories it is plaine how they were hated and persecuted in England, France, Italy, Germany, Bohemia, Poland and [Page 146]other countries vnder the names of Waldenses, Albigenses, Wicleuistes, Hussites, Taborites, Carmelites, Leonistes, Lollardes, and such like. It is memorable which Bellar. de notis eccl. cap. 18. Bellar­mine reporteth out of Paulus Aemelius the French Chroni­cler, that of them there were a hundred thousand slaine at one time in France, which was done by the procurement of Hospinian. de Origine Mo­nach. l 6. c. 4. Frier Dominicke, who hauing long time laboured in the countrie of the Earle of Tholouse to bring them to the obedience of the sea of Rome, when bringing nothing out of Gods word to perswade them, hee could not preuaile, plaied the butcherly wretch, and caused so great a number of poore innocent soules, by an army sent in amongst them miserably to be slaine. In like sort by Matthew Paris it ap­peareth, reporting the matter according to the conceit and report of that time, that in Spaine and Germany, there were Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. anno 1234. per­emptus est infi­delium haereti­corum (Albi­gensium) nume­rus infinitus. an infinite number of them murthered, some of them, he saith, for rebellion, but indeed all for conscience sake. Such tragedies they acted in diuers and sundrie places from time to time, for the space of three hundred yeeres and more; they proscribed, they killed and burned the profes­sours of our religion; the earth was died with their bloud and strawed with their ashes; their stories mention them, their registers name them, their writers of heresies doe testi­fie what their opinions were, (albeit in some points thereof it appeareth by some of them that the rest lie, fathering vp­on them, as Idem ibid. Asserebant con­stanter fidem Christianam et praecipuè incar­nationis myste­rium friuolum esse & penitus abrogandum. Matthew Paris doth, things impious and ab­surd which they neuer dreamed of) and yet with impudent faces they aske of vs, where our church, where our religion was before Luthers time, as if the same had neuer beene heard of in the world before. As touching the persons then, our church was manifest enough to them by whom it was thus persecuted, which yet were not another church, but children of one mother, and members of one church with them that persecuted them; I meane not of the church of Rome, but of the Catholicke visible church, which for the most part the church of Rome had brought in subiection [Page 147]to it selfe. Their mother had plaied the harlot, and with the whoore of Babylon had prostituted herselfe to Anti­christ, and because they would not approoue her fornica­tions, therefore shee condemned them; therefore Esay 66.5. their brethren who said, Let the Lord be glorified, yet did cast them out for the names sake of the Lord, and they had occasion to complaine as doth the Spouse in the Canticles, Cant. 1.5. The chil­dren of mine owne Mother are risen vp against mee. But if these persecutours glory that the churches and places of assembly were in their hands, they doe no more but what the Arians of old did when they had gotten into their possession the churches thorowout the whole world, & we answer as Hilary did to them; Hilar. cont. Auxent. Malè vos parietum amor cepit: ma­lè ecclesiam dei in tectis aedifi­cijs (que) venerami­ni. Annè ambi­guum est in his Antichristum esse sessurum? Montes mihi & syluae & lacus & carceres & voragines sunt tutiores: in his enim prophetae aut manentes aut demersi dei spiritu prophe­tabant. You doe amisse to be in loue with walles: ill doe you honour and admire the Church of God in houses and buildings. Is there any doubt but that An­tichrist shall sit in them? Mountaines and woods, and lakes, and prisons, and caues are safer to me; for in them the Pro­phets abiding or sticking did Prophecie by the spirit of God. The case is alike: Arianisme had then ouerspred the whole face of the Church, and the heretikes had the Churches in their hands, the true professors of the faith were driuen in­to corners: yet Hilary thought this to be no preiudice vn­to them; nay, he held it to be the right picture of the true Church. Euen so Poperie since hath preuailed and gotten the vpper hand; what preiudice is it to the professours of true religion, that in the meane time they haue vndergone the same condition that the Prophets and other faithfull in former times haue done? Yea S. Austin expresly testifi­eth, that Aust. epist. 80 Ecclesia non ap­parebit impijs tunc persecuto­ribus vltra mo­dum saeuienti­bus. the Church in the time of Antichrist shall be inuisi­ble, because wicked persecutors shall then practise their cruel­tie beyond measure. Let it bee the question then, whether Antichrist be come; but that the Church according to the true members thereof, shall be inuisible in the time of An­tichrist, it is without question. Now that the Bishop of Rome hath beene and is that very Antichrist of whom the Scripture hath foretold, and the Church of Rome the [Page 148]whoore of Babylon, hath beene otherwhere plentifully shewed, and in some part hath beene also handled former­ly in the second part of this worke. The time then hath been already for the Church to bee inuisible by the meanes of the furie of Antichrist, maliciously and cruelly persecu­ting all that came to light, that refused to drinke of his poi­soned cup. Now hauing thus at large instructed M. Bi­shop what our doctrine is of the visibility of the Church, I will answer him briefly as touching the other point of this cauill, The Church subiect to er­rour. that by the ancient monuments of the Church it plainly appeareth, that many foule errors entred into the Church soone after the Apostles times; that whilest Matt. 13.25.the watchmen and husbandmen were sometimes sleepie, the enemie came and sowed tares amongst the wheat; that the builders built much 1. Cor. 3.12. hay & wood and stubble; but yet so, as that for the most part they reteined the only true foundatiō, which is Iesus Christ; so as that by the foundation they thēselues are saued, but the fire of the Lord shall consume that trash which they haue builded thereon. I haue Answer to the Epistle sect. 13. ex Euseb. hist. ec­cles. l. 3. c. 29. before shewed out of Eusebius, how Egesippus limited the Virginitie of the Church to the age of the Apostles, and that generation which with their owne eares heard the preaching of truth from them. I haue there shewed how the shifts and subtil­ties of Satan for corrupting of the truth which he began to practise euen in their daies, though they were then check­ed by their authoritie, yet preuailed mightily when they were gone. The errours which then were, how farre they extended, and whether they were in other places the same that we finde them to haue beene in some, it is not appa­rant to vs; but manifest it is, that so cunningly and effectu­ally Satan conueied that poison into the Church, as that it hath neuer since perfectly recouered those wounds that it receiued then: Yea Antichrist the man of sinne, the master of abominations, finding many of those corruptions in the Church, hath bound them together as it were in a bundle, and by his edicts and lawes, hath obtruded and forced [Page 149]them to be receiued as articles of true faith. But this, saith M. Bishop, doth mightily blemish the inestimable price of the most precious bloud of Christ. And why so? Forsooth it ma­keth it not to be of sufficient value to purchase vnto him an e­uerlasting inheritance free from all errours in matters of faith, and abounding in all good works. But the effect of Christs purchase is to be determined by the wil of Christ himselfe, and not by M. Bishops wilfull and witlesse dreames, by which it may as wel be prooued, that man is wholly with­out sinne, as that the Church is without errour. But I an­swer him briefly out of his owne words, that as the Church which Christ hath purchased doth not so abound in all good works, but that it is subiect to many sinnes, so neither doth the same Church so abound in knowledge and truth, but that it is subiect to many errors. Christ intended not by his mediation to bring his Church in this life to full perfe­ction: So long as she continueth a pilgrim from her bride­grome and Lord, she shall still carie the marks of mortali­tie and corruption. The Church in this world is like vn­to the Moone, which is neuer so cleere but that some fret or spot of darknesse is to bee seene in it, and howsoeuer it seeme bright in one part, yet is obscured in another. But it is worth the while to see to what issue M. Bishop wil bring this conceit of his, if he be vrged to reueale the secret of it. For let vs question with him: If the Church cannot erre, how is it that the Church of Ephesus hath erred and quite fallen away, Act. 20.28. which God purchased with his owne blood, and of which it was immediately that the Apostle said, that 1. Tim. 3.15 it was the pillar and ground of truth? Did not the Church of Gal. 1.6. Galatia erre? The Churches of Corinth, of Philippi, of Thessalonica, of Colossa, of Pergamus, Thyatira and the rest, haue they not all gone astray? Yes, will hee say, these particular Churches may erre, but the whole Church vniuersall cannot erre. But if euery part of the Church may erre, then surely the whole Church may erre, because all the parts make the whole, which can be no other than [Page 150]the parts are. We haue heereof example in the Exod. 32.1. Israelites, when the whole Church erred in setting vp the golden calfe, and in the Christian Church, which was in a maner Vincent. Liri­nens. Arianorū venenum non iam portiuncu­lam quandam sed penè orbem totum contami­nauerat. wholly corrupted with the heresie of Arius; Hieron. adu. Lucifer. Inge­muit totus orbis & se esse Aria­num miratus est. the whole world groning, as Hierome saith, and woondering that it was become Arian. Well, he will say that the Church seuered and sundred in the parts thereof may erre, but being as­sembled together by her Pastors and Bishops in a generall Councell it cannot erre. But this the former instances dis­prooue; for the whole Church of the Israelites was gathered together to Aaron, & the Christian Church was assembled together by her Pastors and Bishops in the Councell of Ariminum to the number of foure hundred, who were moe than before had beene in the Councell of Nice, and yet decreed for the Arian heresie. So was there a second general Councel holden at Ephesus, which affirmed & ap­prooued the heresie of Eutyches, as there were also sundry other, of which M. Bishop will not say but that they did erre. True, saieth he, generall Councels may erre if they be not congregated by the authority of the Pope, but being the Popes Councels they cannot erre. But the Councels of Constance and Basil were both assembled by the Popes call, and both these Councels decreed that the Councelis of greater authority than the Pope, and the Pope subiect thereto, which M. Bishop for the Popes sake will say is an errour, and by the Popes procurement the contrary hath beene since determined in other Councels. He will answer vs, that the Councell though it be assembled by the Pope, yet may goe awry if it become diuided from the Pope, but being assisted and directed by him, it cannot conclude a­misse, because the Pope cannot erre. But we bring exam­ples of diuers Popes that haue erred, as Liberius by the he­risie of the Arians, Honorius by the heresie of the Monothe­lites, and such like. Well, the Pope then, saith he, as he is a priuate man may erre, but as Pope, and in his consistory and iudiciall sentence hee cannot erre. But what, is the [Page 151]church now become an asse to carry a priuiledge for the Pope onely? To returne vpon himselfe the skiruie terme that he hath vsed in the former section, Is not heere a huge great mill-post fairely thwited into a poore pudding pricke, that whereas we are told that it was the effect of the inestimable price of Christs bloud to purchase a church free from all errours in matter of faith, The word of God the rule and square of Christian re­ligion. we haue this great prerogatiue of the Church resolued finally into a drunken dreame concerning the Pope, that it is he onely that cannot erre? This is the vpshot of all, and to this issue the matter commeth, that the church may erre, the general councell may erre, be the per­sons neuer so learned, neuer so faithfull, neuer so holy; onely the Pope though hee bee an ignorant beast, a very he hound and incarnate diuell, yet sitting downe in his chaire of Pestilence to decree a sentence, receiueth present­ly like the Prophets of Apollo some Enthusiasticall impres­sion, whereby he pronounceth infallibly a truth, howsoeuer he himselfe in his owne priuate opinion bee perswaded o­therwise. Which being a ridiculous presumption, a meere nouelty, most impudently deuised by sycophants and para­sites, a matter which hath no shadow of defense from the beliefe or practise of the ancient church, deserueth rather to be reiected with scorne, than to haue any question made of it. As for that other matter which he adioineth concerning the word of God, and interpretation thereof, he saith right­lie that we hold, for so we doe, the holy word of God to be the onely rule and square of Christian religion. Iren adu. hae­res. lib 3. cap. 1. Euangelium per dei volunta­tem in Scriptu­ris nobis tradi­derunt funda­mentum & co­lumnam fidei nostrae futu­rum.For it was the will of God that the Apostles should commit the Gospell to writing, To be the pillar and foundation of our faith, and Aug. in epist. Ioan. tract. 3. contra insidio­sos errores pone­re voluit deus firmamentum in Scripturis sanctis. in the scrip­tures to appoint vs a fortresse against deceitfull errours; so as that Chrysost. op. imperfect. hom. 49. Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes acci­pere firmi­tatem fidei ad nullam rem ali­am fugiant nisi tantummodo ad scripturas. Christians being desirous to receiue assurance of their faith are no whither else to flie but onely to the Scriptures. But wheras he affirmeth, that we say that Christ hath left his ho­ly word to be vnderstood of euery man as his own knowledge and spirit shall direct him, and that in doubtfull questions arising he hath taken no order for the deciding of them, but that euery one [Page 152]may be his own Iudge, they are but silly deuices of obiection against vs, to colour the nouelties & absurdities which we in the same behalfe iustly condemne in them. Wee euery man vnderstand the Scriptures as his owne knowledge and spirit doth direct him; and why? Because we reiect that course of vnderstanding the Scripture, which they facti­ously and partiallie haue of late deuised for the seruing of their owne turne. Hosius de ex­presso dei verbe: Siquis habeat interpretatis­nem ecclesiae Ro­manae de loco a­liquo scripturae, etiamsi nec sci­at nec intelligat an & quomodo cum scripturae verbis conueni­at, tamen habet ipsissimum ver­bum dei. If a man forsooth, haue the interpretati­on of the church of Rome concerning any place of Scripture, albe­it he seeth not how it accordeth with the words, yet he hath the very word of God. We leaue euery man in doubtfull questi­ons to be his owne Iudge; but why? Because we refuse the triall of a Iudge presumptuously aduanced and authorised by them. Forsooth the Pope being accused of hainous abominations and sacriledge against God, must sit as Iudge whether he be guiltie or not, and whether they doe iustly that haue accused him. But what Scripture, what Councell, what Father or storie, or practise of the Church hath tied the interpretation of the Scriptures to the church of Rome, or the deciding of controuersies to the Bishop of Rome? And whereas their course in this behalfe hath no maner of iustification from the ancient Church, I chal­lenge him on the other side to alleage any course entertai­ned by the same Church for the interpretation of Scrip­tures, and iudgement of controuersies, which is not appro­ued and practised by vs. Which because he cannot do, he doth but waste his wit by trifling in this sort, and renuing idle cauils, which Of Traditi­ons. sect. 21.22. before haue beene troden vnder foote, being not able to relieue them with any further defense or strength.

18. W. BISHOP.

To fold vp this part, let me entreate thee (courteous reader) to be an vpright Iudge betweene the Protestants doctrine and ours, in this most weighty matter of Christs dignity, vertues, and mediation; and if thou see most euidently, that ours doth [Page 153]more aduance them, why shouldest thou not giue sentence on our side? They make Christ ignorant many yeares of his life: we hold him from the first instant of his conception, to haue beene replenished with most perfect knowledge. They, that he spake and taught now and then, as other men did; and was subiect to disordinate passions: We, that he was most free from all such, and that he taught alwaies most diuinely. They make his very death not sufficient to redeeme vs: we hold that the least thing that euer he suffered in his life, deserued the redemption of ma­ny worlds. They, that he died onely for the elect: we, that he di­ed for all, though many through their owne fault, doe not re­ceiue any benefit by his death. They, that thereby we are not purged from our sinnes, but by imputation: we, that all are by the vertue thereof inwardly cleansed. They, that Christ pur­chased a Church consisting of few, not to continue long, and sub­iect to many errours: we, that he established a Church, that should be spread ouer all the world, and that should continue to the end of the world: visibly, and alwaies free from any errour in any matter of faith. Finally, they hold that Christ left his holy word to the disputation of men, not taking any certaine or­der for the ending of controuersies, that should arise about it: we teach, that he hath established a most assured meanes, to de­cide all doubts in religion, and to hold all obedient Christians inperfect vniformity, of both faith and manners. And because I am entred into these comparisons, giue mee leaue to persist yet a little longer in them. Consider also (I pray you) who goe neerer to Atheisme, either we, that thinke and speake of the most sacred Trinity, as the blessed Fathers in the first Councell of Nice taught: or they, who directly crosse them, and by the nouelty of their phrases, doe breed new, or rather reuiue old he­resies against it. Againe, who carry a more holy conceit of God, either they, who vpon light occasion doe rashly deny God to be a­ble to doe that, which they doe not conceaue possible: or we, that teach him to be able to do tenne thousand things, that passe our vnderstanding. Whether they, that affirme God of his owne free choise, to cast away the greater part of men: or we, that [Page 154]defend him to desire the saluation of all men, and not to be wil­ing that any one perish, vnlesse it be through his owne default. Either they, that hold him to be the authour of all euill done in the world, and the Diuell to be but his Minister therein: or we that maintaine him to be so purely good, that he cannot possibly either concurre to any euill, or so much as once to thinke to doe any euill. Finally, whose opinion of him is better, either ours, that hold him to haue beene so reasonable in framing of his lawes, that he doth by his grace make themeasie to a willing minde: or theirs, that auouch him to haue giuen lawes impos­sible for the best men to keepe? If some Protestants doe say, we doe not maintaine diuers of these positions. I answer, that it is, because they doe yet in part hold with vs, and are not so farre gone, as they doe wholly follow their new masters: For if they did, then should they embrace all the afore-said damnable posi­tions, being so plainely taught by their principall preachers and teachers. These therefore are to warne my deere Country-men to looke to it in time; and then (no doubt) but that all such as haue a sufficient care of their saluation, considering maturely whether the current & stream of the new Gospel carrieth them, will speedily disbarke themselues thence, lest at length they be driuen by it, into the bottomelesse gulfe of flat Atheisme.

R. ABBOT.

Heere M. Bishop intreateth the curteous Reader to be Iudge in a most weighty matter, Euerie man required to iudge for his owne assu­rance in mat­ters of faith. who in the former section hath giuen him a checke for taking vpon him to be his own Iudge. His teeth sometimes bite his tongue, and put him in minde to tell truth, which commonly he is very loth to doe. In­deed it concerneth euery man so farre as toucheth his own saluation, to be a Iudge in these matters, and by knowledge and vnderstanding to satisfie himselfe concerning his faith and hope towards God, and not be led, as in Popery they are accustomed, like dumb beasts wholly at the will & dis­cretion of them by whom they are led, not able to iudge of that which they doe whether it be right or wrong. The [Page 155]holy Ghost commendeth it as a thing pertinent to all the faithfull Phil. 19.10 to abound in knowledge and in alliudgement, that they may discerne things different (from the truth,) 1. Thes. 5.21.to try all things, and to hold that that is good: 1 Ioh. 4.1.to try the spirits whe­ther they be of God or not:Heb. 5.14.to haue their wits exercised to dis­cerne both good and euill. Which ability how it is atteined vnto, Saint Ambrose declareth; Ambros. in Heb. 5. Quomo­do poterunt sensus nostri exercitati esse? vti (que) ex vsu & frequenti lecti­one scripturarū; vnde beatum virum Psalmi­sta dicit, qui in lege domini me­ditabitur die ac nocte: sic Pri­mas. ibid. How may our wits be thus exercised? Marry by vse and often reading of the holy scrip­tures; whence the Psalmist calleth the man blessed, who day and night meditateth in the law of the Lord. Euen so it is, howso­euer there seeme difficulty at the first, yet vse of reading and often meditation of the Scriptures, with a religious and care­full heart, maketh a man able to iudge of truth so farre as is needfull for himselfe vnto eternall life. Now the matters whereof M. Bishop will haue his Reader to be Iudge are no other but what haue beene handled hitherto, whereof for the enlarging of his preface, and to make the Printer some more worke, he maketh heere a long and needlesse repetiti­on. I list not to follow him in his idle veine, but referre thee, gentle Reader, to the seuerall examinations of all his obie­ctions, in which thou shalt see him one where leudly bely­ing and slandering vs, another where wilfully misconstru­ing, another where ignorantly condemning those things which he is not able to disprooue. Onely to shew the great discretion of the man, thou maiest note in his first cauil how he deliuereth their opinion, that Christ from the first instant of his conception was replenished with most perfect knowledge, whereas, if hee had had his owne head at hand hee would haue remembred that that which was of Christ from the first instant of his conception, was not as yet endued with the reasonable soule, and therefore was not as yet capable of knowledge at all. Thus in the very first point he giueth his Reader occasion to preiudicate him in all the rest, & to ac­count him too silly a man to giue aduertisment, as in the end of this section hee doth to others, who in the beginning sheweth so little skill to looke to himselfe. As for his coun­trimen, [Page 156]to whom specially he directeth his warning, they are much to be pitied in that so simply they commit them­selues to such blinde guides by whom and with whom they must needes fall into the ditch. Albeit if he were blinde in this case, his sinne were the lesse; but because wittingly and willingly hee lieth and chargeth vpon our principall Preachers and Teachers, some of his damnable positions, whereto they in the very places by him cited haue iustified the contrarry, as in the processe of our answer hath appea­red, therefore as he is branded in conscience with God, so he deserueth with men also to be branded in the face with the stigme of a perfidious calumniatour that all men may know that there is no trust to be giuen to him.

19. W. BISHOP.

And is it any great maruell, that the common sort of the Protestants fall into so many foule absurdities touching reli­gion, when as the very fountaines, out of which they pretend to take their religion, be so pittifully corrupted? I meane the sacred word of God. Master Gregory Martin a Catho­like man, very skilfull in the learned languages, hath discoue­red about two hundreth of their corruptions of the very text of Gods word: and after him one Master Broughton a man of their owne (esteemed to be singularly seene in the Hebrew and Greeke tongue) hath aduertised them of more then eight hundreth faults therein. And the matter is so euident, that the Kings Maiestie, in that publike conference holden at Hampton-Court, in the first of his raigne, confesseth him­selfe not to haue seene one true translation of the Bible in English; and that of Geneua, which they were woont to esteeme most, to be the woorst of all others: and therefore com­manded them to goe in hand with a new translation; about which, fiftie of the most learned amongst them in both Vni­uersities (as it is crediblie reported) haue this three yeeres trauailed, and cannot yet hitte vpon, or else not agree vpon, a new sincere and true translation. Heere is a large field of­fered [Page 157]me to exclaime against such corrupters and deprauers of Gods sacred word: but I will leaue that to some other time, because I haue beene too long already. But what a lamenta­ble case is this! they hold for the most assured piller of their faith, that all matters of saluation must bee fished out of the Scriptures, and crie vpon all men to search the Scrip­tures: and yet are the same Scriptures by themselues so per­uersly mangled, that their owne pew-fellowes crie out shame vpon them therefore: whereunto (if it please you) ioyne, that the Protestants haue no assured meanes to be resolued of such doubts and difficulties, as they shall finde in the same word of God. For they must neither trust ancient Father, nor relie vpon the determination, either of nationall or generall Councell; but euerie faithfull man (by himselfe) examining the circumstances of the text, and conferring other like places vnto it together, shall finde out the right meaning of all ob­scure sentences, as they most childishly beare their fellowes in hand. Briefly to conclude this point, a great number of them hauing Gods word corrupted, for the lantcrne to their feete; and their owne dimne sight, for their best guide: no maruaile, though they stumble at many difficulties in these high mysteries, and fall into very absurd opinions, concerning the principall parts of them.

R. ABBOT.

It is a true note that Tertullian gaue of heretikes, that they Tertul. de re­surrect. carnis. Haeretici scrip­turarum luci­fagae. shunne and flie the light of the Scriptures, and like Battes and Owles, because the Sunne discouereth them to be vncouth and vglie creatures, delight altogether in the darke. Amongst the rest, the Papists are specially of this humour, Our transla­tions of the Scriptures vniustly bla­med. detesting nothing more than that the people should be at liberty to read the Scriptures. Now because they want meanes, thankes be to God, to pull the bookes out of their hands as heeretofore they haue done, therefore they betake themselues to other shifts, and by diuers pre­tences and colourable deuices, they seeke to discourage [Page 158]and terrifie so many as they can from the vse thereof, but one thing specially they haue laboured aboue others, to breed in them a iealousie and suspicion of our translations of the Scriptures, as if the Scriptures themselues meant nothing lesse than by our translations they seeme to doe. Now as the yoong fox learneth of the old, so doth M. Bi­shop learne of his good masters to take this vp as a special weapon to fight against vs, and heere telleth his Reader, that it is no meruaile that Protestants fall into many scule ab­surdities, because the very fountaines out of which they take their religion, are pitifully corrupted. Pitifully corrupted, saith he; but how doth he know so much? for wee are out of doubt that he himselfe neuer made triall of it. Forsooth Gregory Martin a Catholike man hath told him so. O pi­tifull proofe! Iannes hath told Iambres, that Moses doth but delude and deceiue the people. Gregory Martin, saith he, a man very skilfull in the learned languages hath discoue­red about two hundred of their corruptions of the very text of Gods word. We doubt not but Gregory Martin with them was a learned man if he did write for them; but yet he must giue me leaue to tell him that Gregory Martins discouery was so discouered, as that neither he himselfe nor any other for him, had euer any ioy to meddle with it againe. His presumptions and ignorances, and trifling childish follies were so laid open, though I know much more might haue beene done than was done, as that his learning failed him to make that good which he would needs haue to be takē for a discouery of our euil. Which I do not speak as if there were no faults iustly to be found in our translations, but the faults that are to be found are Grammatical, not Doctrinal; such as wherin the translatours haue erred sometimes by not gi­uing exactly & duly the signification of words, not wherby they haue brought in any new points of faith; such as tran­slatours themselues finde in the new perusing of their tran­slations, as our Iunius hath done, and yet see no cause of altering their religion in the amending of those faults. Such [Page 159]were the faults of which M. Broughton spake, who as M. Bishop well knoweth, neuer found any cause by those faults to depart from vs, or to ioyne with them; a man as he saith, singularly seene in the Hebrew and Greeke tongues: but it had beene to be wished, that he had vsed that learn­ing rather humbly and profitably to doe good to the Church, than curiously and proudly to gaine opinion to himselfe. They are much distressed we see in the finding of faults, when they are faine to seeke testimony thereof from him whose reprehensions are matters of disaduan­tage to vs, but no benefit at all to them. And no other was his Maiesties intention, when out of his high and Princely vnderstanding, hee censured our translations in the confe­rence at Hampton-Court. It is true that his Maiestie there Summe of the Confe­rence, pa. 46. professed that hee had neuer seene a Bible well translated in English, and the worst of all he thought the Geneua translation to be, and therefore wished that by the best learned in both the Vniuersities, some speciall paines should be taken that one vni­forme translation might be had. But why did not his Maiesty thinke our Bibles well translated? Was it because hee thought that if they were well translated, we should ac­knowledge some points of Popery which now we reiect, or should alter some points of our owne religion which now we hold? Surely nothing lesse, and therefore M. Bishop doth but vainely spend his breath to talke of that which is no aduantage to him. And yet much adoe do these wrang­lers make hereof, and babble of it no lesse than as if a new translation should bee the very copy of the Councell of Trent, and with it the Pope with all his trinkets were to be brought into the church. Especially a Sophister of the Ie­suites, a notable dawber, taking vpon him so farre as his owne and his fellowes learning would serue him to answer M. Bels challenge, for the preparing of his Reader in his preface insisteth vpō this matter, where hauing mentioned the order taken for a new translation, he speaketh to his Countrimen in this sort; What goodnesse can there be in that [Page 160]faith which is builded of an euill foundation as by your owne iudgements your Bibles hitherto haue beene? Yea what faith at all can there be in this meane time whilest the old Bibles are condemned as naught, and a new not yet made? If these Mini­sters had once deceiued you in a money matter, you would be­ware how you trusted them againe, and will you beleeue them still, they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceiued you, both in your Church seruice & Bible, cōmending the one to you as diuine seruice, and the other as Gods pure word, and now condemning them both? Which words of his, doe carry some colour to blinde the ignorant, but he himselfe well knew that he did but play the Sicophant, and made only a shew of great matter against vs, wherein in truth there is no waight at all. For wold the sorry fellow haue argued thus against the faith of the whole church that had been for the space almost of foure hundred yeeres when Hierome tooke in hand to translate the Bible anew, and to reforme the de­fects and imperfections both of the Septuagint, & of other translations which the Church had vsed till that time? It appeareth by Hierome that Hier. ad Pau­lam & Eustoch. Praefat. in E­saiae translat. Qui scit me ob hoc in peregrinae linguae eruditi­one sudasse ne Iudaei de falsita­te scripturarum ecclesiis e [...]us diutiùs insulta­rent. the Iewes insulted ouer the Christian Church for their false translations of the Scriptures, for the auoiding whereof he protesteth it was that he tooke that paines to learne the Hebrew tongue, that he might himselfe more perfectly translate them, and so Idem. Praefat. in Iosue. Dolere Iudaeosquòd calumniandi eis & irridendi Christianos sit ablata occasio. take from them all occasion to calumniate and mocke the Christians. Will our Iu­daizing Iesuite heereupon say, of all the time before, that there could be no goodnesse in their faith, that it was built vp­on an euill foundation, that their Bibles were naught, because there were so great defaults in their translations? What, had so many Churches beleeued in vaine; so many Mar­tyrs and Confessours suffered persecution and death for a faith of which they had no certaine or assured ground? But to come somewhat neerer to him, when Hierom had more perfectly translated the Scriptures, his translation grew in the Latin Church to bee much respected, and hath beene since in speciall name aboue any other. The Councell of [Page 161]Trent hath decreed that that translation (if at least it be that which now carieth his name, wherof there is iust cause to doubt) Concil. Tri­dent. sess. 4. c. 2. shall stand for authenticall and good in all publike lectures, disputations, preachings, expoundings, and that no man vpon any pretence shall presume to reiect it. Yet of that translation it is confessed by See D. Rai­nolds Thes. 5. § 30. where he citeth Bu­daeus, Valla, sir T. Moore, ac­knowledging so much in the new Te­stament; Pagnine, Gala­tinus, and Ma­sius in the old; Isidorus Clari­us, Andradius and Arias Montanus in both. sundry the most learned of his side, that there are many defaults and slippes wherein the interpreter hath swarued both from the words and from the right and true meaning of the holy Ghost. Yea in­to that translation there were also crept by neglect manie grosse corruptions acknowledged by themselues, and ther­fore Biblia excusa Romae anno do­mini 1590.92.93. reformed first by Sixtus Quintus, and afterward by Clement the eighth, such as whereby the meaning of the text in many places was wholly altered. And will this ca­uilling Sophister giue vs leaue to conclude heereof, that there hath beene all the while that those errors and corrup­tions haue continued, no goodnesse in the faith of their church of Rome, that their Bibles by themselues haue been condemned for naught, that their religion hath beene built vpon an euill foundation, because there haue beene errors and imperfections in their translations of the Scrip­tures? If hee thinke that this is no argument against them, we must needs thinke him to be that that he is, that would go about to blinde simple men by such a cauillation against vs. For thy better satisfaction gentle Reader, thou maiest consider, that translations of the Scriptures are the same to the Church, as are glasse-windowes to a house. The glasse neuer yeeldeth the light altogether so cleere as it commeth immediately from the Sun, and the interleadding of it hin­dereth that there is not fully and thorowout a perfect transparence of the light, and yet it giueth light so as ser­ueth abundantly for the discerning of euery thing, and for the directing and doing all the businesse of the house. E­uen so translations can neuer so cleerely and fully expresse the things that are translated, as they are to be seene imme­diately in the originall from whence they are deriued. By [Page 162]the vnperfect apprehension of the translatours it com­meth to passe that they haue their ouersights, as it were traces and barres of lead, thorow which the light of the originall text perfectly shineth not, which notwithstand­ing doe compact and hold together the body of the text, as it were the glasse thorow which the Sunne of righte­ousnesse most comfortably shineth vnto vs, and by which we haue vndoubted and certaine direction for the whole worke and seruice of the house of God. There is in euerie language some special proprietie, the grace and significan­cy whereof, no other language by any industrie of the translator can atteine vnto. There are in the originals, but specially in the Hebrew tongue, many words of doubt­full and diuers significations, of which it is very hard ma­nie times to say which best fitteth to expresse the meaning of the place. Sometimes though the signification of the words be knowen, yet the phrase and composition breed­eth ambiguitie of translation. By this meanes the wordes being subiect to diuers constructions, one interpreteth them one way, another another way, and neither can con­troll other, because it is hard to say which is the truest way. Yea S. Aust. doubteh not to say, that Aug. de dect. Christ. li. 3. cap. 27. Certè dei spiritus etiam ipsam (alteram sententiam) oc­cursurā lectori vel auditorisine dubitatione praeuidit, imò vt occurreret quia & ipsa est veritate sub­nixa prouidit. Nam quid in diuinis eloquijs potuit largius & wherius pro­uideri quam vt eadem verba pluribus intelli­gantur modis, &c. the holy Ghost for more large and plentifull instruction, did not onely foresee but pro­uide, that of the same words diuers meanings might be made, which notwithstanding both or all should bee agreeable to the truth. But there are furthermore many allusions, many al­legories, many prouerbiall and figuratiue speeches, the reasons whereof are not alwaies easily discerned, and ther­fore they are coniectured diuers waies. Sometimes it fal­leth out, that the words of themselues seeme to the transla­tour to leane one way, and the expositour seeth that by the drift and intendement of the text they are to goe ano­ther. By these and other occasions, translatours according to the gifts that God hath giuen them, vse their iudge­ments diuersly, one seeing that which another seeth not; one comming neerer to the truth in one place, and another [Page 163]in another; one hauing greater vnderstanding in the origi­nall tongue; another greater felicitie and dexteritie to ex­presse his conceit in the tongue into which hee doth translate; another hauing greater knowledge in the li­berall Sciences, in Histories and Antiquities, in naturall and morall Philosophie, whereby he is able to iudge of some things more probablie or certainely than others can. And heerein the incomprehensible wisedome of God most liuely appeareth, that hee hath so disposed and ordered the Scriptures, as that this variety of tran­slations enforceth no difformity of religon, but all tend to the maintaining of one and the same faith, contained manifestly in those places of Scripture wherein all transla­tions agree, and which without manifest and wilfull impie­tie cannot be translated otherwise. Whereby we see in our owne experience and continual exercise of the Scriptures, that though the exact meaning of a place be mistaken, yet commonly it conteineth nothing in matter but what is warranted by another place rightly translated, and there­fore in that place can bee taken for no other but the true word of God. Or if any wickedly minded do vpon aduan­tage of ambiguity translate them somewhere partially in fauour of errour and against the truth, yet is he circumuen­ted in his purpose by the euidence of other texts, which e­uery man discerneth to make plainly for the iustification of the truth. By meanes whereof it hath come to passe, that those translations which haue beene made of the old Testa­ment by Samaritans and Iewes, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, who all carried a sting against the Christian faith, yet Hier. Praefat. in Iob. Iudaeus, Aquila & Iu­daizātes haereti­ci, Symmachus & Theodotio sunt recepti, qui multa mysteria saluatoris sub­dola interpreta­tione celarunt, & tamen in [...] ha­bentur apud ec­clesias & ex­planantur ab ecclesiasticis vi­ris Idem prae­fat. in Esdram & Nehem. ad Domn. & Ro­gat. were receiued and vsed as helpfull and profita­ble to the Church, because by their industry they cleered many things, and made that truth good in other places which they concealed in some. And woorthy it is in this case to be remēbred how the heretikes of old notwithstan­ding their mangling and Tert. de prae­script. adu. haer. Ista haeresis non recipit quasdā scripturas, & siquas recipit, adiectionibus & detractioni­bus ad dispositi­onem instituti sui interuertit. Et cont. Marci­on. lib. 4. Emen­dauit quod cor­ruptum existi­mauit. &c. Co­tidiè reformant illud (Euange­lium) prout à nobis cotidiè re­uincuntur. dismembring of the Scriptures, and either altering or racing what they saw to be against [Page 164]them, as Tertullian declareth; yet could not preuaile, but that they were still put to their shifts from day to day, and forced still to be changing somewhat, because there was still somewhat left for their conuiction and reproofe. The grand signors of the students at Rhemes thinking good in their traiterous policy not long since to put foorth for the time a translation of the new testament, albeit vnder a most hypocriticall pretence of religious care not to swarue from their copy, they sought by strange words and phrases, and by dismembred sentences, to obscure and darken the text the vttermost that they could, yet in those places which for shame they could not otherwise translate, haue left the same so apparant to iustifie our doctrine, as that they dare not suffer it to goe freely abroad without the poison of their annotations; and commonly they that doe reade the annotations must by no meanes presume to touch the text. And hereby it appeareth what the cause is of their quarrell against our translations, not for that they thinke them so faulty, as they pretend, but onely because they cannot a­bide the vulgar reading of the Scriptures. Or if that be not the cause, why doe they not put foorth a true translation of their owne, if ours be false, that all men hauing free vse thereof may plainly discerne what the truth is? But the Reader vnderstanding but the Latin tongue shall easily sa­tisfie himselfe in this behalfe if hee compare our English translations with those which some of their owne men, Pagnine, Arias Montanus, and others haue published in Latin, because he shall plainly discerne that there is onely sycophancy, and not any solidity or waight, in those cauil­lations whereby they shew themselues agrieued at our Bi­bles. As for the obiection of vncertainety of faith which the Iesuit vrgeth by reason of many translations, experi­ence conuinceth the folly thereof, because wee haue had sundry translations by Tindall, by Couerdale, by the Ge­neuians, by the Bishops, and yet by them all we haue main­teined but one faith. Euen so in the primitiue church there [Page 165]were many translations in Greeke, & the Latin translations, as Austin testifieth, Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 11 Qui scripturas ex Hebraea in Graecam verte­runt linguam numerari pos­sunt; Latini au­tem interpretes nullo modo. were without number, euen Hier. praefat. in Iosue: Apud Latinos tot ex­emplaria, quot codices.as many, saith Hierome, as there were bookes; and yet we suppose that the Iesuit wil say that by them all there was taught but one Christian faith. Yea there is a benefite to bee made of many translations; if we rightly deeme thereof, because they are a great confirmation to a man in that wherein they all agree, and Aug. vt supra cap. 12. Quae quidem res plús auiuuat intelli­gentiam quàm impedit. si modò legentes non sint negligentes; Nam nonnullas obscuriores sen­tētias saepe plu­rū codicum ma­nifestauit in­spectio. the looking vpon many bookes, saith Au­stin, often cleereth many obscure sentences wherein they differ. When therefore our new translation shall come foorth, the doctrine of faith shall continue the same by the new, as it hath been hitherto by the old: and thou shalt see, gentle Reader, that the old Bibles are not thereby condem­ned as naught, as this Friar leudly suggesteth, but as they haue beene commended vnto thee for the sacred word of God, so thou shalt haue cause to acknowledge them still, and shalt finde that a new translation, is not the making of a new Bible, as hee maliciously termeth it, but a iustifying and cleering of the old. As for the condemning of our di­uine seruice it belongeth not to this place to speake thereof. It is true indeed, that some of our Ministers, by misconstru­ction of things haue vndiscreetly found great faults where they needed not. But yet to stop the mouth of this vpstart Iesuit, let him remember, that Pope Pius the fift reformed their Missall, their Breuiary and other offices, and generally all their diuine seruice, acknowledging the same Summar. Cō ­stitut. praefix. Offic. Beat. Ma­riae reformat. Omnia ferè hu­iusmodi officiae reserta esse va­nis erroribus superstitio [...]um. to haue beene stuffed with vaine errours of superstitions. Lindan and Espenceus confesse, that Lindā de opt. gen. interpret. scrip l. 3. ca. p 3. Espenc. Digres. in 1. epist. ad Timoth. lib. 1. cap. 11. apud Rainold. Thess. 5. there are many Apocryphall things thrust thereinto out of the Gopell of Nicodemus and other toies; that there is a false beginning shamefully and ignorantly set before the lecture of the Gospell; that the canon of the Masse and the secrets are beraied with most foule faults; that there are the festiuals of some saints whose names happily are scantly well warranted. And what; doe they now condemne the diuine seruice which they haue commended to the [Page 166]people, & haue set foorth for holy & good for so many for­mer ages? Of their Bibles we haue heard before, and shall I now say to them to whom he spake before, If these Popes and Popish Bishops and doctours had once deceiued you in a mony matter, you wold beware how you trusted them againe; and will you beleeue them still, they hauing by their owne confession so long deceiued you, both in your Church-seruice and in your Bible, commending the one to you as diuine seruice, and the other as Gods pure word, and since condemning them both? If he will thinke vs fooles to argue in this sort, let him put his hand to his owne nose and returne the imputation of this folly to himselfe, remem­bring that it is an ill bird that beraieth his owne nest: and that hee should first haue looked at home before hee had made this wise reason against vs. This only by the way, as being impertinent to this place, but by that that hath beene said of translations we may beforehand perceiue how faint and spiritlesse M. Bishops voice will be when the time shall come, which so manfully he threatneth, that he shall ex­claime against vs as corruptours and deprauers of Gods sacred word. At the most, it will be but as the crie of a gander a­mongst the geese, which thrusteth out the necke and his­seth, and happily shaketh a man by the gowne, and backe againe he runneth with a great noise, and is applauded by all the flocke as if he had done some valiant & worthy act. It will then appeare further that it is rather for forme than for matter that hee thus bableth of, peruersly mangling the Scriptures, Of expound­ing Scrip­tures and resoluing doubts.and of our owne pew-fellowes crying out shame vpon vs. Of resoluing doubts and difficulties I haue answered him the section last saue one. I will not say, as there, onely of the ancient church, but setting aside the foolish and idle dreame of a priuiledge resting in the Pope, which is no o­ther but an ambitious vsurpation, and a meere Antichristi­an tyrannie subiecting the whole faith of the church to the will and fancy of one wicked man, what meanes hath the Church of Rome for resoluing of doubts, but that we haue [Page 167]in any respect as good as they? Yea there are not so many difficulties or doubts in very materiall points vnresolued amongst vs as at this day remaine questioned & vndecided in the Church of Rome. As for ancient Fathers and Coun­cels they are more truely regarded with vs than they are with them. With vs they are made to yeeld onely to God and to his word; but with them they must giue place to all their sacrilegious and abominable deuices. Let the Fathers and Councels say what they will, yet Bellar. de Sa­cram. li 2. c. 25. Omnium conci­liorum veterum & omnium dogmatum fir­mitas ab autho­ritate praesentis ecclesiae depen­det. the authority of them all, and the certainty of all Doctrines must depend vpon the au­thority of their church. As touching that which he saith, that we beare our followers in hand that euery faithfull man by him­selfe examining the circumstances of the text and comparing o­ther like places, shal find out the right meaning of al obscure sen­tences, how impudēt a lie it is hereby appeareth, for that we do not attribute so much to the industry or learning of any mortal man. We say with Aust. that Aug l [...]b. 83. quaest. 69 solet circumstantia scripturae illu­minare senten­tiam. the circumstance of the scripture is woont to giue light of the meaning of it: & with Hi­lary, that Hilar. de Tri­nit. li. 9. Dicto­rum intelligen­tia aut ex prae­positis aut ex consequentibus expectatur. the vnderstāding of the sayings (of Scripture) is to be expected either from that that is gon before, or that that follow­eth after. We say with Origen, that Origen. cont. Cels. l 4. Ex ip­sius Scripturae locis inter se col­latis verum sensum elici­mus. by comparing places of Scripture together, we gather the right sense. But yet neither doe we make these the onely necessarie meanes for vnder­standing of Scripture, neither doe attribute to euery faith­full man the abilitie of doing these things; neither doe we affirme of any man whatsoeuer, that by these or any other meanes hee can attaine to the vnderstanding of all obscure sentences. And yet we say, that a vulgar faithful man hauing by plaine and euident texts learned the substance of true faith, exercising himselfe in the reading of the Scriptures, and being assisted by the ministery of the word, may by comparing of places, and examining of circumstances, much further himselfe for the increase of his knowledge, to his comfort and soules health. Many are there of that great number of which M. Bishop speaketh, who by such exercise of Scripture, are able to stoppe his mouth, and to [Page 168]giue him good instruction in the mysterie of true faith. Ps. 119.105. The word of God is indeed the lanterne to their feete, and the light to their steps, and so farre are they from stumbling and falling thereby, as that they vers. 104. gaine by it vnderstanding to hate and abhorre all wicked waies.

20. W. BISHOP.

Now to make vp an euen reckoning with M. PER. Atheism, I must come vnto their diuine seruice and worship of God, the third point that I promised to handle; because he spared not to speake his pleasure of ours. First then, whereas a true, reall, and externall sacrifice, is among all externall works, the most excellent seruice that can be done to the diuine Maiestie, as shall bee prooued in the question of the sacrifice; which also hath euer since the beginning of the world, beene by the best men practised, to acknowledge and testifie, aswell the soueraigne dominion that God hath ouer vs, as our dutifull subiection vn­to his almightie goodnesse: the Protestants to make knowne vnto the wiser sort, that they are not Gods true loy all people, will not vouchsafe to performe to him any such speciall seruice, as to sacrifice in his honour: nay they are fallen so farre out with this principall part of Gods true worship, that they do in despight of it, powre out most vile reproches against the daily sa­crifice of the Catholike Church, which conteineth the blessed body and most pretious bloud of our redeemer IESVS Christ. Secondly, of seauen Sacraments (instituted by our Sauiour, both to exhibite honour to God, and to sanctifie our soules) they doe flatly reiect fiue of them: And do further (as much as in them lieth) extinguish the vertue and efficacy of the other two. For they hold Baptisme not to be the true instrument all cause of remission of our sinnes, and of the infusion of grace in our soules; but only to bee the signe and seale thereof. And in steade of Christs sacred body, really giuen to all Catholikes in the Sacra­ment of the Altar, to their exceeding comfort and dignity, the Protestants must be content to take vp with a bitte of bread, and with a sup of wine: a most pittifull exchange, for so heauenly a [Page 169]banquet. They doe daily feele (and I would to God they had grace to vnderstand) what a want they haue of the Sacrament of Confession, which is the most soueraigne salue of the world, to cure all the deadly and dangerous woundes of the soule. Ah how carelesly doe they daily heape sinne vpon sin, and suffer them to lie festring in their breasts euen till death, for lacke of laun­cing them inseason by true and due confession! Besides, at the point of death, when the Diuell is most busie to assault vs, la­bouring then to make vs his owne for euer, there is amongst them no anointing of the sicke with holy oile in the name of our Lord, (as S. Cap. 5. vers. 14. Iames prescribeth) joyned with the Priests praier, which should saue the sicke, and by meanes whereof his sinnes should be forgiuen, and he lifted vp by our Lord, and inwardly both greatly comforted and strengthned: these hea­uenly helpes (I say) & many others, which our Catholike reli­gion affords vnto all persons, and by which rightly administred, God is highly magnified, are quite banished out of the Prote­stant territories, and consequently their religion for want of them, is mightily maymed. They haue yet remaining some poore short praiers to be said twise a weeke: for fearing (belike) to make their Ministers surfet of ouer much praying, they will not tie them to any daily praiers: Mattins, Euensong, and other set houres they leaue to the Priests, sauing that on the Sab­boath they solemnely meet together at the Church, to say their seruice, which is a certain mingle-mangle, translated out of the old portaise, and Masse booke, patched vp together with some few of their owne inuention. And though it be but short, yet it is (the Lord he knowes) performed by most of them so slightly, that an indifferent beholder, would rather iudge them to come thither to gaze one vpon another, or to common of worldly busi­nesse, than reuerently there to serue God. Now as concerning the place where their diuine seruice is said: if goodly stately Churches had not beene by men of our religion built to their handes, in what simple cotes (trow you) would their key-cold deuotion haue beene content to serue their Lord? if one Church or great steeple, by any mishap fall into vtter ruine, a collection [Page 170]throughout all England for many yeeres together, will not serue to build it vp againe: which maketh men of iudgement to per­ceiue, that their religion is exceeding cold in the setting for­ward of good workes, and that it rather tendeth to destruction, than to edification. Againe, whereas our Churches are furni­shed with many goodly Altars, trimmed vp decently, and garni­shed with sundry faire and religious pictures, to strike into the beholders a reuerent respect of that place, and to draw them to heauenly meditations: theirs haue ordinarily bare wals, han­ged with cob-webs, except some of the better sort, which are daubed like Ale-houses, which some broken sentences of Scrip­ture. Besides, the ancient custom of Christās being to pray with their faces toward the Sunne-rising, to shew the hope they haue of a good resurrection, and that by tradition receiued euen from the Apostles, as witnesseth Saint Basil: their Ministers in their highest mysteries, De Spiritu sancto. 27.looke ouer their Communiontable into the South: to signifie (perhaps) that their spirituall estate is now at the highest, and that in their religion there is no hope of rising towards heauen, but assurance of declining.

R. ABBOT.

Our Diuine seruice and worship of God is not such as the Church of Rome and the followers thereof would haue it, but it is sufficient for vs, that it is such as God himselfe hath commanded. Of true, reall and externall sacrifice, I haue answered him before, both in the confutation of his Sect. 27. Epistle more at large, and briefly heere in the Sect. 3. answer of this Preface. Here I answer him againe in a word, with the words of Iustin Martyr, that Iustin. Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph. [...].prayers and thanksgiuings are the onely perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God, and that Christians haue learned to doe these onely, euen in the memori­all of their dry and moist foode, (the bread of the Eucharist, and the cup of the Eucharist, as hee hath before called it) in which is the remembrance of the passion, which God by God himselfe suffered for vs. So then we doe not denie all sa­crifice, but we say as we haue beene taught by the Apostle [Page 171]S. Peter, according to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome, 1. Pet. 2 5. We are made a spirituall house, a holy priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices (the sacrifice Psal. 4.5.of righteousnesse, the sacrifice Ps. 50.14.23. Heb. 13.15.of praise and thankesgiuing, the sacrifice Psal. 51.17.of a broken and contrite heart, the sacrifice Phil. 4.18.of almes, the sacrifice Rom. 12.1.of our own bodies) acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. By these sacrifices we doe all loialtie and seruice to God, and we doe not doubt but that we please God therein. If we please not that wiser sort of which M. Bishop speaketh, the reason is, because they take vpon them to bee wiser than God. For that propitiatory sacrifice which he driueth at, is beyond Gods deuice; God neuer taught it, Christ neuer ordeined it, the Primitiue Church neuer intended it, there is no rea­son at al for it, because the bloud of Christ once shed for vs, is a sufficient propitiation and attonement for all our sinnes. And because by Heb. 1.3. & 10.14. once offering of himselfe, hee hath purged our sinnes, and made vs perfect for euer, therefore it is no de­spight to Gods true worship, but a iust assertion thereof, to hold that the pretence of any further sacrifice for sinne, is an impious and blasphemous derogation to the crosse of Christ. As for his seuen Sacraments, Seuen Sacra­ments a late deuice. if he can prooue them to bee, as he saith, instituted by our Sauiour, we are very readie to acknowledge the same. But it is worthy to be no­ted, that Bellarm. de effect. sacram. cap. 25. Bellarmine standing vpon the proofe thereof, cannot bring so much as one man within the compasse of eleuen hundred yeeres after Christ, that euer reduced the Sacraments to that number. And shall not we well deserue to bee written vpon the backe-side of the booke of Wise­dome, if we shal take that for a principle of Christian religi­on, which came first out of their schoole, & for the space of more then a 1000. yeres was neuer so knowē in the church of Christ? The Apostle 1. Cor. 10.1.2. &c. when he wil shew the Church of the Israelites to haue beene equall to vs in grace of Sacra­ments, instanceth the same only in our two sacraments, be­cause he knew no more. And no more did the ancient Fa­thers know, who vniuersally holding the same mysterie [Page 172]of the creation of the woman out of the side of Adam be­ing asleepe; namely, that Aug. in Psal. 56. Dormienti Christo in cruce facta est coniux de latere: per­cussum est enim latus pendent is de lancea et pr [...]fluxerunt Ecclesiae Sacra­menta: & in Ioan. tract 15. thereby was figured the fra­ming of the Church by Sacraments out of the side of Christ being dead, when being pearced, there issued out of it Ioh. 19.34. 1. Ioh. 5.6. water and bloud, doe name those Sacraments as we doe, Aug. de sym­bol ad Catechū. lib. 2. c. 6. San­guis & aqua quae sunt Eccle­siae gemina sa­cramenta. Chrysost. in Ioan. hom. 84. Theophy. in Ioan. 19. Cypri­an. de passione Christi. Of the effects of the Sacra­ments. two onely and no more. Whereas he saith that we extin­guish the vertue and efficacy of those two sacraments, it is only his blinde conceit. We deny not but that the Sacraments are instruments of grace and of remission of sinnes, and yet we deny them to bee so in that sort as is affirmed by the church of Rome, namely, as to giue grace ex opere operato, for the very worke wrought, as the Schoolemen speake. It is worthily obserued by Saint Austin, that Aug. in Ioan. tract. 80. A [...]ce­dat verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramen­tum, etiam ip­sum tanquam visibile verbū. a Sacrament is as it were a visible word, because by it in way of signification, God as it were speaketh the same to the eie & other senses, which by the word he soundeth to the eare. Yea hee affir­meth that the outward element of it selfe is nothing, but it is by the word that it hath whatsoeuer power it hath. Ibid. Quare non ait, Nunc mundi estis propter baptismum quo loti estis, sed ait, propter verbum quod locutus sum vobis, nisi quia & in aqua verbum mundat. Detrahe verbum & quid est aqua nisi aqua? & mox [...] Vn­de ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat & cor abluat nifi saciente verbo? Non quia di­citur, sed quia creditur. Why doth not Christ say. Now are yee cleane by the baptisme wherewith yea are washed, but by the word which I haue spe­ken to you, but because in the water it is the word that clenseth? Take away the word, and what is water but water? Whence is it that the water hath so great power to touch the body and to wash the heart, but that the word doth it? and that, not because it is spoken, but because it is beleeued? Now if the Sacrament haue all his vertue and efficacy from the word, and the word haue his power, not for that it is spoken, but for that it is beleeued, we must conceiue the same of the Sacrament also, that the effect thereof standeth not in being applied by the hand of the minister, but in being beleeued by the faith of the receiuer, God both by the one and by the other mi­nistring and increasing faith, and the holy Ghost accom­panying [Page 173]both the one and the other to doe that that is be­leeued. Thus is baptisme a signe of representation to the vnderstanding, and seale of confirmation to faith, effe­ctuallie deliuering to the beleeuer through the holy Ghost the grace of God and the remission of all his sinnes. And why doth it trouble M. Bishop that wee make bap­tisme in this sort onely a signe and a seale, when as though signes and seales be not the things themselues, yet by signes and seales men are woont to be entitled and inuested to the things signified and sealed? And hath not the Apostle him­selfe taught vs thus to speake? Gregory Bishop of Rome saith, that Greg. Moral. lib. 4. c. 3. Quod apud nos vales aqua Baptisma­tis, hoc egit apud veteres vel pro paruulis sola fi­des, vel pro ma­ioribus virtus Sacrificij, vel pro his qui ex stirpe Abrahae prodierant my­sterium circum­cisionis. what the water of baptisme doth with vs, the same did the mystery of circumcision with the seed of Abraham. But of circumcision the Apostle saith thus, Rom. 4.11. The reall eat­ing of Christ a grosse fan­cie. Abraham receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith. Baptisme therefore must be to vs, the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith. Their doctrine of reall eating the bo­dy of Christ importeth no matter of comfort and dignitie, but a carnall, rude and profane fancy. Cyril. ad Euopt. cont. re­prehens. Theo­dor. anath. 11. Num hominis comestionem nostrum ho [...] sa­cramentū pro­nuntias, & ir­religiose ad crassas cogita­tiones vrges eo­rum qui credi­derunt mentem, & attentas hu­manis cogitatio­nibus tractare quae sola pura & inexquisita fide accipiun­tur? Doest thou, saith Cyril, pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man, and irreligiously vrge the minds of them that beleeue to grosse imagi­nations, and assay to handle by humane conceits those things which are to bee receiued by only pure and vndoubted faith? Christ indeed is not the foode of the belly, but of the minde, and therefore, Cyprian de caena dom. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide syncerae panem sanctum frangim us & partimur. we doe not whet our teeth to bite, but with syncere faith we breake and diuide the sacred bread, saith Cyprian; because August in Ioan. tract. 26. Credere in Christum, hoc est menducare paenem viuum. to beleeue in Christ, saith Austin, that is to eate the bread of life; and Iohn 6.54.56. he that thus eateth the flesh of Christ and eternall life, and Christ shall raise him vp at the last day. And because we thus teach that spritually and by faith we eate the very body of Christ and drinke his blood, as alwaies, so specially in that speciall helpe of faith which God hath mi­nistred [Page 174]vnto vs in the supper of the Lord, and that thereby we grow more and more into communion and fellowship with him to become partakers of the riches of his grace to immortality and euerlasting life; therefore we doe not take vp with a bit of bread and asuppe of wine, as this tauerne-com­panion prophanely speaketh, but very truely and faithful­ly we deliuer the fruit and effect of this heauenly banquet. Which is not a heauenly banquet, as he teacheth it, but a grose Capernaitish error & earthly fancy, nor any matter of comfort to vs, because it is no comfort to haue Christ in our bellies but in our hearts, nor any dignity to vs, but a horri­ble indignity to Christ himselfe, who by this meanes is made subiect to be eaten of dogges and swine and mice and other vile creatures, as they most damnably affirme, as hath beene Answer to the epistle. sect. 14. Auricular confession a meere super­stition. before declared. Confusion of our sinnes wee make daily to God, and wee teach men in trouble of conscience to ease their wounds by opening them, as to other men when occasion requireth, so specially to the minister of Gods word, to receiue instruction and com­fort towards God. As for their Popish confession deuised by the Schoolemen, requiring a necessary and particular enumeration of all sinnes, it is meerely superstitious, and serueth either to snare and halter the consciences of men, or to nourish and harden them in sinne. M. Bishop mag­nifieth the effect thereof, but indeed plaieth the hypocrite therein, because he well knoweth that there is no where lesse piety and deuotion, no where more profanenesse and filthines than in Spaine and Italy, where confession is most strictly & seuerely required. What fruits it bringeth foorth amongst them he must giue vs leaue to thinke, though we are loth to speake, onely I say with the words of the A­postle; Eph. 5.12. Extreme vn­ction deuised by heretikes. It is a shame euen to name the things that are done of them in secret. Their extreme vnction, which hee mentio­neth next, was the deuice of the Valentinian heretikes and Aug. haer. 16. feruntur suos morientes nouo modo quasi re­dimere, per ole­um, balsamum & aquam; & inuocationes quas Hebraicis verbis dicunt super capita eo­rum. Epiphan. haer. 36. vt qui has inuocatio­nes in vitae exi­tu accipiunt, cum aqua & oleo aut vn­guento permix­tis incompre­hensibiles fiant & inuisibiles supernis pote­statibus & principatibus. Heracleonites, who tooke vpon them in the like sort by anointing at the point of death, to giue men expiation of [Page 175]their sinnes, and to arme them against the aduersary pow­ers. He alleageth Saint Iames for the proofe of it, whereas the vnction of which Saint Iames speaketh, was the resto­ring of the party to health by 1. Cor. 12.9. the gift of healing, according­ly as is said of the Apostles, Mark. 6.13. They anointed many that were sicke with oile, and healed them. But their vnction hath no in­tendment of healing, being onely administred when no o­ther is expected but certaine death. Let them shew vs what warrant they haue to apply that to one end that was appointed to another. It was a miraculous gift proper to that time, and idlely should we retaine the signe when we haue no power to doe the thing. Next he commeth to our praiers, in derogation wherof, considering their owne prai­ers, he would haue bene ashamed to say any thing, Our prayers and seruice more holie than the Pa­pists. but that it is a shame with them to bee ashamed. Our praiers are so disposed as is most conuenient for publike order in the Church. We pray in our owne tongue, as the 1. Cor. 14.15. Apostle teacheth vs, that we may vnderstand what we pray. Wee know that God respecteth not the length of our praiers but our deuotion and faith; and therefore our praiers are many and short, like those of Aug. ep. 121. cap. 10. Dicun­terfratres in A [...]g [...]pto cre­l [...]at qu [...]d [...]m habere oralio [...] n [...] sed eas ta­men [...]uissi­mas & [...] quodammodo [...]aculata [...] [...] ­per productiores moras euanes­cat at (que) hebete­tur intentio. the Christian Moonkes in Egypt which Saint Austin mentioneth, wherein were few words, but abundance of spirit; and these are intermingled with reading of the word of God, in such sort as may best serue for the continuance of our intention and affection. As for Popish praiers they are in a tongue which the people vnderstandeth not; they sit present at them mute and brute; they heare a sound, but they know not whether hee that speaketh doe blesse or curse; whether hee speake to God or the diuell; and because they aske nothing of God, they depart empty as they come. Their Mattins, their Euen­song, and other set houres, they merit ex opere operato; whe­ther they haue deuotion, or no deuotion, God is beholding to them for their very paines. They pray to Saints in stead of God, and make them their Mediatours, and haue more hope to preuaile by them than by the true Mediatour Iesus [Page 176]Christ. Such praying wee are content indeede to leaue to their Priests, and what they win thereby they shall haue our good will to weare. Whereas he saith that our seruice is a mingle-mangle translated out of the old Portaise and Masse-booke, he forgat to vse his words aright. For the Portesse and the Masse-booke are in truth the mingle-mangle; wher­in they haue packed together religion and superstition, pie­ty and idolatry, and with the ancient seruice of the primi­tiue Church haue blended many absurdities and abomina­tions of their owne deuice. Therefore the composers of our Church seruice, because they minded not to set vp a new Church, but only to reforme the Church, did take a course accordingly, not to set foorth another Seruice, but to re­forme that that was, and to expunge those corruptions which the abomination of desolation had brought into it. They gathered the pearles out of the mucke whereinto they were throwen: what was consonant to the word of God and agreeable to the example of the purest antiquity, that they made choice of, and haue translated it into our booke, the other filth they left for swine, that will needs so be, to wallow in. The performance of our Seruice, I doubt not, wanteth much of that deuotion and thankefulnesse which wee should yeeld to God, who so graciously hath vouchsafed vs the light of his truth; but yet ill doth it be­seeme a cripple to vpbraide another with a lame leg. Let Platina tell vs with what reuerence and deuotion diuine ser­uice is done in the Church of Rome. Plat. de vit. Pont in Ste­phano. 3. Nune adeò refrixit pietas & reli­gio, non dico nu­du pedibus, sed caligati & co­thurnati vix supplicare dig­nantur. Non Flent inter eun­dum vel dum satrificatur, sed rident, & qui­dem impuden­ter: de his eti­am loquor quos purpura insig­niores facit. Non hymnos canunt, id enim seruile videtur, sed iocos & fa­bulas ad risum concitandum inter se nar­rant. Quid plu­ra? quò quis dicacior est & petulantior, eò maiorem in tam corruptis mori­bus laudem me­retur, seueros et graues viros re­formidat hic noster clerus. Now is piety and re­ligion waxen very cold, I will not say barefooted, but hauing on their hose and buskins they scant vouchsafe to kneele downe to pray. They weepe not as they goe, or whilest the Sacrifie is in hand, but they laugh, and that impudently; euen of them I speak whom their purple robes make more eminent than others. They sing not the hymnes; for that seemeth too base a matter, but they tell iests and tales to make one another laugh. What should I say any more? the more pratling and wanton a man is, so much the more commendation hath he in this corruption of [Page 177]maners. This Clergie of ours is afraid of staid and graue men. Now if the Clergy of Rome be such, M. Bishop, I trow, of his courtesie will beare with vs, if some such vngracious and retchlesse people be found amongst vs. The best is, he is not present to see any such matter, and therfore vpon his owne surmise may be likly to tel a lie. If he were present in our cō ­gregations, specially in townes & cities, I doubt not but he should see examples enow of them, who say of the Church as Iacob did of Bethel; Gen. 28.16.17. How fearefull is this place! this is no other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heauen: surely the Lord is in this place; and therefore addresse themselues as Cornelius did when he was to heare the preaching of Pe­ter; Act. 10.33. We are all heerepresent before God, to heare all things that are commanded thee of God. Concerning the place where our diuine seruice is said, he asketh; If goodly stately Churches had not beene built to their hands by men of our reli­gion, in what simple cotes, trow you, would their key-cold de­notion haue beene content to serue their Lord? And why their Lord? What, M. Bishop, is he not your Lord as well as ours? But it is true indeede that you haue another Lord, whom you haue stiled, Extrauag. Ioan. 22. Cum inter. in glossa. Dominus deus noster papa. Our Lord God the Pope, and must we thinke that your seruice is done to him? But if we had had no other but simple cotes wherein to serue God, we suppose our deuotion should haue beene as well accepted as in goodly and stately Churches. The time was when the Apostles and first Christians did serue God in simple cotes, and in the times of Arnob. cont. gent. lib. 6. Origen. contra Cel. l. 3. & 7. Arnobius and Origen, the Pa­gans vpbraided them with the want of stately Churches, and yet M. Bishop I thinke will not say but that they ser­ued God as religiously as now they doe in the church of Rome. Stately Temples, as they are sometimes the fruits of true deuotion, so they are sometimes matters of ambiti­ous ostentation, and sometimes the dotages of abominable superstition. Herod the King, euen hee that would haue murthered our Sauiour when hee was but new borne, to shew his roialty and magnificence, and to gaine fauour of [Page 178]the Iewes builded Ioseph. An­tiquit. Iuda [...]. li. 15. c. 14. the Temple of Ierusalem most glori­ously, and farre more neerely to the paterne of Salomons Temple, than when after the captiuity they restored it the second time, so as that we see the Disciples in the Gospell admiring Mar. 13.1. Luk. 21 5. the goodly stones and buildings of it. Origen men­tioneth, Origen. cont. Cels. li. 3. Splen­dida sana cum lucis & templa cum vestibulis & porticibus eximia magni­tudine at (que) pul­chritudine mi­randis: intro­gressus autem videbit adorari felem aut simi­am, &c. the goodly Chapels and Temples of the Aegyptians with thier entries and porches, admirable for thier maruellous greatnesse and fairenesse, into which when yee were come, yee should see them worship a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dogge. The Temple Act. 19.27. of Diana was a most goodly thing and renowmed thorow the whole world. And sure­ly what M. Bishop now saith to vs, the same might the Pa­gans haue said to our forefathers when they were first Christians. They might haue asked them in what simple cotes they would haue serued Christ, if men of their religi­on had not builded to their hands goodly Temples, which by Greg li. 9. ep. 71. Fana idolo­rum in eadem gente aestrui minin è debent &c. si fana ea­dem benè con­structa sunt, necesse est vt à cultu dae monum in obsequium veri dei debe­ant commutari. Gregories aduice were turned to Christian Churches, as in other places also Lib. 2. indict. 11. ep. 19. Loca quondam execrandu errori­bus deputata in Catholicae reli­gionis reueren­tiam dedicare. he signifieth they did the like. Now if Pagans in this respect were not inferiour to Papists, then it is not to be a question by whom Churches were built, but by whom they are rightly vsed. By whomsoeuer they were built, we now vse them for the exercise of true religi­on to the glory of God; neither is our religion so cold in the setting forward of good workes, but that whether by collections or otherwise wee maintaine and vphold both Church and steeple, thankes be to God, to that vse, and we hope shall so doe to their griefe and sorrow vntill the worlds end. Neither is it any disgrace to our times that col­lections are now generally made to such ends and purpo­ses, but rather a commendation that so many are now found so ready to contribute to such acts of piety, which M. Bishop will haue vs thinke were done in former times only by some few. The widowes Mar 12.42. two mites were more with God than the great offerings of the rich men; and we hope that the small helpes which we seuerally giue according to our ability for the maintenance of Gods seruice, are as well [Page 179]accepted with God, as the magnificence of them, who out of their abundance and superfluity haue performed so great acts thēselues alone. These mites being put together doe that, thankes be to God, that is necessary to be done: and I thinke it is more than M. Bishop can iustifie, that they did not in those times wherof he speaketh, vse such general collections for the doing of the like things. Whether they did or not, it skilleth not; we know that Exo. 35.5.21. the Tabernacle of God was built in effect by such collections, and God pro­mised to dwell in it; and we doubt not but he is also present with vs in our Tabernacles which by such meanes are mainteined to serue him. To be short, that they by whom churches were built since the faith of Christ heere receiued were all of their religion, is but a vaine presumption of M. Bishop, and a meere vntruth, as in part hath beene decla­red Answer to the Epistle. sect. 31.36. before, and heereafter, if God will, vpon another oc­casion shall appeare further. As for his other quarrell, that we haue in our churches neither Altars nor Images, it plea­seth vs the better, for that we finde the same also obiected to the first Christians by Celsus apud Origen. cont. Cels. l. 7. Non ferunt templa & aras & sta­tuas inspicere. & lib. 8. Celsus ait, nos ararum, statuarū, tem­plorum (que) dedi­cationes fugere. Celsus the Pagan. We like well to be vnlike to the Church of Rome, so that we may be like to them. For M. Bishop we know him to be a man much delighted with babies, a trimme gilded Rood, and a good­ly faire Lady, they are the ioy of his heart. Let God say what he will, that Esay 44 10. the Image is profitable for nothing, and that Ierem. 10.8. the stocke is a doctrine of vanity, yet he will not be per­swaded but that the sight of these goodly Idols is the only way to procure heauenly meditation. As for sentences of Scripture to be set vp vpon the Church walles, that is but dawbing; it is but Ale-house fashion, and no heauenly me­ditation groweth thereof. But may we not thinke that he came from the Ale-house when he wrot this, and that he is indeed fitter for an Ale-house than for the Church? What, must we thinke that the looking vpon a dumbe and dead stocke is fitter to mooue heauenly meditation than the liue­lie word of God? But we see his meaning well enough; it [Page 180]is this Scripture that troubleth him; his stomacke can by no meanes brooke this Scripture; to haue Gods comman­dement written vpon the church wals, as by order it is ap­pointed: Exod. 20.4. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image, nor the likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue, or in the earth beneath, &c. Thou shalt not bow downe to them, nor worship them, &c. This is it that galleth him to the soule; this is it that vexeth him in behalfe of his faire and re­ligious pictures, that no bowing downe, no holy and religious worship may bee done to them. But it is no­thing to vs that wee offend him. God himselfe, who said of his Commandements, Deut. 6.9. Thou shalt write them vpon the postes of thine house, and vpon thy gates, did not thinke it Ale-house fashion to haue them written vpon Church-walles: but that we should set vp Altars and Ima­ges in our Churches, wee doe not finde any warrant to haue come from him. His last exception is very idle. It was the ancient custome of Christians to pray with their faces towards the East. So is it ours also, as appeareth vsually in all our Churches. Yea but our Ministers in their highest mysteries looke into the South. Well, and so is it alleaged by Bishop Iewell, that Bish Iewel. Replie. art. 3. Diuis. 26. at this day in the great Churches at Millaine, Naples, Lions, Mentz and Rome, and in the Church of Saint Laurence in Forence, the Priest in his seruice standeth towards the West, hauing his face full vpon the people, and that heere­upon Durand saith, that in such places the Priest needeth not to turne himselfe round when he saith, Dominus vobiscum, and saluteth the people, as otherwise hee is woont to doe. And why not our Ministers towards the South, as well as theirs towards the West? Will he haue vs to conclude heereof, that their religion is now declining and going downe? If not, let him acknowledg then the folly of his owne collecti­on, that our spirituall state is now at the highest, and that in our religion there is no hope of rising towards heauen, but assurance of declining. Albeit I must aduertise him briefely, that true religion, wherby the Sunne of righteousnesse shineth vnto [Page 181]vs, and whereby we rise to heauen, hath beene subiect to such condition, to bee sometimes rising, sometimes at the height, and sometimes declining againe, yea sometimes woonderfully eclipsed and hidden in a maner quite out of sight; yet notwithstanding it neuer had such a fall, but that, as the sunne, it hath had a time to rise againe. But the whore of Babylon, the persecutour of true religion, albeit she haue flattered herselfe in the security of her state, and said of her­selfe, Reuel. 18.7. I sit like a Queene and am no widow, and shall see no mourning; yet shee hath begun to fall, and notwithstanding the props and staies that her louers vse to hold her vp, shall fall daily more and more, neuer to rise againe, God hauing so foretold vs, that Vers. 21. as a milstone, shee shalbe cast with violence into the sea, thencefoorth to be found no more.

21. W. BISHOP.

I may not heere omit, that of late yeeres they haue caused the Kings armes to be set vp in the place, where Christs armes the Crucifix was wont to stand: the which I confesse would haue graced their Church better, if it had beene elsewhere placed. But I hope they will giue mee leaue to aske them, how they durst set vp any such Images in their Churches, as be in that armes. For they haue taught hitherto, that it is expresly against the se­cond commandement, and a kinde of Idolatry, not only to wor­ship Images; but also to set them vp in Churches: and yet now (as it were) cleane for getting themselues, they fall into that fault themselues, that they haue so much blamed in others. Neither will it helpe them to say, that they reprooued only the setting vp of holy pictures, but not of others. For the second commande­ment (as they expound it) is aswell against the one as the other, forbidding generally the making of any kinde of Image. And is it not a pitifull blindnesse to thinke, that the pictures of Lions; and Liberts, do better become the house of God, than the Image of his owne Son, and of his faithfull seruants? And may not sim­ple people thinke, when they see Christs armes cast downe, and the Princes set vp in their place, that there dwell men, who make [Page 182]more account of their Princes honour, then they doe of Christs? And that their meeting in that place (call it what you will) is rather to serue their Prince, than to serue Christ. But I haue beene longer in their place of praier than I thought.

R. ABBOT.

The King is a great mote in M. Bishops eie, and there­fore he could not heere passe by without a quarrell to the Kings armes. The Kings armes lawful­ly set vp in our Chur­ches, and not popish ima­ges. We haue placed, hee saith, the Kings armes where Christs armes the Crucifixe was woont to stand. But who made M. Bishop a herauld to assigne armes to Christ, and that without any priuity or liking of Christ himselfe? Did Christ euer tell him or any man else that he meant to giue a Crucifixe for his armes? This is a fantasticall imagi­nation, neither did Christ take course by a picture but by the word of the Gospell, to be Gal. 3.1. described before our eies as crucified amongst vs. But if the Crucifix be but Christs armes, why doe they worship the Crucifix, See of Ima­ges, sect. 14. as Christ himselfe? Were it not a thing absurd, for a man to giue the Kings honour to the Kings armes? We haue therefore pul­led downe the Crucifix, as being made an Idoll and wor­shipped in stead of Christ, and in place therof for the orna­ment of our Churches we haue set vp the Kings armes, as being the defender of the faith of Christ. But we haue taught that it is against Gods commandement to set vp in Churches any such Images as are in the Kings armes. But therein he saith vntruly, for we haue alwaies taught, that the commande­ments of the first table concerne matter of religion and de­uotion, and require the same to be performed to God only. The second commandement therefore condemneth all Images that are made or set vp for exercise of religion; but historicall and ciuill vse of Images it condemneth not, neither doth he finde any one of vs so to expound it, as ge­nerally to forbid the making of any Image, as he hath be­fore vnderstood by our consent set down by M. Perkins in the beginning of that question. Further, he questioneth out [Page 183]of his sweet womanly deuotion, is it not a pitifull blindnesse to thinke that the pictures of Lions and Libberts doe better be­come the house of God, than the Image of his owne Sonne and of his faithfull seruants? But doth his wisdome thinke that Sa­lomon was blinde when he made in the Temple of God the pictures and Images of Lions and Buls, of Flowers and Palme-trees, and made no Images of Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, and other holy men that were before him? It was neuer seene, but in times notoriously condemned See of Ima­ges sect. 17. for Idolatry, that euer the Image of any man was set vp in the Temple of God: and is not this poore man in a pitifull case, that holdeth all those iust and righteous Fathers that liued in those times to haue beene but blinde men, because they would not be partakers of his folly? They are therefore such wise men as hee himselfe is that make the collection that he doth: but as for vs we yeeld such honour and seruice to our Prince as God requireth vs to do, not setting vp our Prince in the place of God as they do the Pope, but obey­ing him vnder God and for Gods sake, whom God hath placed ouer vs, and who seeketh no otherwise to gouerne vs but by the word of God.

22. W. BISHOP.

I come now to the men that are elected to serue the Lord there. Be not many of them (for the whole corps I will not touch) such as Ieroboam was glad to choose, when he made a Schisme in Israel: to wit, de extremis populi, qui non erant de filijs Leui: not lawfull successors of the true Priests, but o­thers of the baser sort of the people, and them commonly that are notable, either for ignorance or some other odde qualitie? and must they not also fill their good patrons hands with some feeling commoditie, before they can get a benefice? And so be­ginning with simonie, linked with periurie (for the poore fel­lowes must neuerthelesse sweare, that they come freely to their benefice) are they not like to proceed on holily? As for the vow of chastitie, the daily seruice and often fasting, which Ca­tholike [Page 184]Priests are bound vnto; they by the sweet libertie of the new Gospell, doe exchange into solacing themselues with their yoke-fellowes: this of the common sort of their Ministers. With their preachers I will not meddle for feare of offence▪ yet if any desire to know how they behaue themselues in other coun­tries, they may read the censure of a zealous learned preacher, one of their owne companions; who amongst many other things writeth thus of them. Menno l. de Christ fide. ti­tul. de fide mu­lieris Cananeae. When you come to preachers, who bragge that they haue the word of God, you shall finde certaine of them manifest liars, others drunkards, some vsu­rers and foule-mouthed slanderers, some persecutours and betraiers of harmelesse persons. How some of them behaue themselues, and by what meanes they get their wiues, and what kinde of wiues they haue, that I leaue to the Lord and them. They liue an idle, slothfull and voluptuous life: by fraud and flattery they feed themselues of the spoiles of Antichrist (he meaneth the benefices taken from the Pa­pists) and doe Preach iust as the earthly and carnall Magi­strate desireth to heare, and will permit, &c. So much, and not a little more, speaketh one great Master of the late refer­mation, concerning his Euangelicall brethren. Are not these goodly lampes of the new Gospell, and likely persons to be chosen by Christ, to giue light to others, and to reforme the world [...] But peraduenture they haue in some secret corners, certaine deuout religious soules, who in an austere retired life, doe with continuall teares bewaile the sinnes of the rest, and make inces­sant sute vnto the Almighty, for a generall pardon of the whole. Would to God they had, but I feare me that they be of their in­uisible congregati [...]o, or rather none such to be found amongst them. For those neligious houses, which our Ancesters had built for such godlyrand vertuous people, who (forsaking both father, mother, all their kinne and acquaintance, and flying from all the pleasures and preferments, which this transitorie world could yeeld them) gaue themselues wholly to the holy ex­ercises of humilitie, chastitie, pouertie, and all sorts of morti­fication: these Monasteries (I say) and all that professed in them [Page 183]a retired religious life, the Protestants haue beaten downe and banished, and haue not in their places erected any other, for the singular godly men or women of their religion; Which doth most euidently argue, that there is in them small zeale, and rare pra­ctise, of any such extraordinary piety and deuotion. Surely it must needes be a strange Christian congregation, that holdeth them for no tollerable members of their common-weale, whom Christ specially chuseth to serue him day and night; and by whose holy example and most feruent praiers, all other Christi­ans do finde themselues much edified, and mightily protected. So that briefly, whether you consider the persons that serue God, or the place where hee is serued, or the manner of his di­uine sernice, the Catholike religion doth in euery point surpasse the Protestant by many degrees. Thus much in answer vnto Master PERKINS obiection of Atheisme against vs, the which I esteemed fittest for this Preface, being a matter of so great moment, and therefore most worthy to be examined and considered of apart, with mature iudgement. Now to the rest of his questions, according to his owne order.

R. ABBOT.

There hath beene an old fable of Plutarth. de curiositate. Lamia a Witch, who alwaies when she was at home put vp her eies in a box, & remained blind, but when she was to go abroad, she would alwaies put her eies in her head, that shee might see all things. M. Bishop is very like to that ill-fauoured witch, Comparison of the English and Romish Clergie. hauing his eies open abroad with vs, to see euerie default, but being blinde at home, and not discerning the abomi­nable filthinesse and beastly sluttery of the house wherein hee himselfe dwelleth. I doubt not, but hee is a man of a naughtie mind, to speak contrary to that that he thinketh; but I doe not hold him so very a foole, as that he thinketh any part of the Clergie of the church of Rome woorthy to bee compared to the Clergy of the Church of England. Somewhat happily he meaneth to that purpose when he saith, The whole corps I will not touch, thereby importing that he taketh his aduantage of some vnsufficient and euill [Page 184]disposed men, and by them seeketh to cast some aspersion of infamy vpon all the rest. But we know, that 2. Tim. 2.20. in a great house are not onely vessels of gold and of siluer, but also of wood and of stone, some to honor and some to dishonor: and that not onely in other callings, but in the ministerie it selfe, as Matth 10.4. Iu­das amongst the twelue apostles, as Act. 6.5. Reu. 2.15. Nicolas amongst the seuen Deacons, as the Act. 20.30. sect-makers which the Apo­stle foretold should arise from amongst the Elders of the Church of Ephesus; as in all times there haue beene not onely true Pastors which feed the sheepe, but also Ioh. 10.12. hire­lings, which Rom. 16.18. serue their owne bellies, and Ezec. 34.2. feed themselues; and Ioh. 10.1.10. theeues, who enter into the sheepefold, not by the doore, but by the window; and Esay 56.10. blinde watchmen, Matt. 15.14.blinde guides, who lead the blinde into the ditch. It is no maruell therefore if amongst vs there be some, euen de extremis populi, of the very basest of the people, who by stealth and sinister pra­ctise, through either the negligence or corruption of some, to whom the care thereof is committed, contrary to lawes & orders in that behalfe prouided, doe creepe into the Mi­nistery of the church, & make that their refuge for a liuing, because being idle beasts and slow bellies, they haue no o­ther meanes thereof, and therefore hauing the curse of the sonnes of Eli lying vpon them, are ready 1. Sa. 2.36. to bow downe for a peece of siluer, and for a morsell of bread, and for forty shil­lings a yeere to take vpon them the seruice of a Church. These are likely men for simoniacall patrons & cheaters of churches to deal withal, being most likely to fil their hands, as M. Bishop saith, with feeling commodity for the obteining of benefices, which by merit and desert they cannot atteine vnto. Yea & of Preachers also, with whom, he saith, he wil not meddle for feare of offence, yet we know & cōfesse that there are not wanting some, who haue more learning than con­science, & do dishonour the calling by which they receiue honour, 1. Sam. 2.30. whom God will despise, because they haue despised him. Menno therfore, whom he citeth, might see some cause to complaine of certaine or some preachers, accordingly as of old the Prophets taxed the enormities and abuses [...]sa. 56.10.11. Ier. 2.8. of [Page 185]the Priests and Prophets; albeit who or whence he was I know not, or what occasion there was of speaking that which he doth; he was of another countrey, and that that hee saith, appertaineth not to vs. But what are all these things to the botches and sores of the Church of Rome? how spotlesse is our Clergie in comparison of theirs? Hee that would pull their Popes out of their kennels, and lead them along in shew, should set foorth such a generation of mōsters, as the world, saue them, hath neuer seene the like. Their Cardinals were such as that Clemangis saith of them, that Clemang. de corrupto eccl. statu. Si artifex quis (que) vellet su­perbiae simula­chrū effingère, nulla congruen­tius ratione id facere posset, quàm Cardina­lis effigiem ocu­lis intuentium obiectando, &c. Quis immen­sam & inextri­cabilem vora­ginem ipsorum concupiscentiae verbis aequare valeat, &c. Be­neficia possident non quidem duo vel tria, decem vel viginti, sed centena, & du­centena, & in­terdum vs (que) ad quadringenta vel quingenta aut amplius, nec perua vel te­nuia, sed omni­um pinguissima & optima, &c. Quantumcun (que) ad numerum [...]ue summam venerint, ad ampliorem festinant. if a man would set foorth a picture of pride, he could not more fitly doe it, than by the picture of a Cardi­nal; that no man could by words expresse the vnmeasurable and bottomlesse gulfe of their couetous desire, not being con­tented with two or three benefices, or ten or twenty, but hauing a hundred, two hundred, yea foure or fiue hundred and aboue, and those not small ones, but the fattest and best, and how ma­ny soeuer they had, yet gaping still for more. Which insatia­ble couetousnesse of theirs, was so grosse and infamous, as that the Pope himselfe, Benedict the twelfth, being moo­ued to make more Cardinals, answered, Illyric. Catalog. test. verit. p. 447. Libentèr se [...]d facturum si modò nouum mundum creare posset; nam hunc qui iam existat vix praesentibus Cardinalibus sufficere. that he would so doe if he could make another world; but that this world was scant enough for the Cardinals that were made already. Cle­mangis further noteth, how Clemang. vt supra. Quis nesciat sectionis schismaticae horrendam pe­stem per nequitiam Cardinalium in ecclesiae gremium iniectam, &c. Transeo S [...]moniacas apud papam inter [...]essiones; patrocinia venalia; corruptiones aut promotiones turpissimas & dam­natissimas, quae omnes ferè istis authoribus & suasoribus fiebant, &c. Nec enumerare vo­lo corum adulteria, stupra, fornicationes, quibus Romanā curiam etiam nunc incestant, &c. Necrefero vsuras, &c. qua ex causa nummularios supremae tabulae non incongruentèr eos qui­dam vocant. by their wickednesse horrible chisme was brought into the Church; he mentioneth their Simoniacall intercessions to the Pope; their selling of their fa­uours for mony; their most shamefull and damnable corrupti­ons, the adulteries, whoredomes and fornications, wherewith they defiled the court of Rome; their vsury in the highest degree. [Page 186]As touching their Bishops hee reporteth, that Ibid. in s [...]q. Nalli eruditi virs, nulli probi, iusti, virtu [...]si ad suprema dign: tatum fa­fiigia veniebāt, se [...] ambitiosi qui (que), adulato­res, histrionici, ommbus vitijs imbuts. Quo­tusquis (que) bodiè est ad Pontifi­cale culmen [...] ­uectus qui sa­cras velperfun­ctoriè literas legerit, audie­rit, didicerit, imò qui sacrū codicem nisi te­gumento tenui vnquam atti­gerit, cùm ta­men iureiuran­do illas in sua institutione se nosse cōfirment. no learned men, none good, iust, vertuous, atteined to that high dignity, but ambitious persons, flatterers, stageplaiers, and men defiled with all vices; that there was scant a man preferred to be a Bi­shop that had but euen lightly read, heard, or learned the holy Scriptures, yea, that had so much as touched that holy booke, saue onely the couer, albeit they tooke their oath at their institu­tion that they had knowledge of them. Bernard also mentio­neth, that euen in his time Bernard epist. 42. Scholares pueri & im­puberes adolescentuli ob sanguinis dignitatem promouentur ad ecclesiasticas dignitates, & de sub ferula transferuntur ad principandum presbyteris; laetieres interim quòd virgas tuaserint, quàm quòd meruerint principatum; nec tam illis blanditur adeptum, quàm ademp [...]ū magisterum. Schoole-boies, and beardlesse youthes, were promoted to ecclesiasticall dignities, and from the ferula were exalted to beare rule ouer Priests; such as were more glad that they had escaped the rod, than that they had ob­tained their preferment; and ioied more that they were come from being vnder masters, than that they themselues were be­come masters. The behauiour of these Bishops Clemangis further describeth, that Clemang. vt supra. Non quidem ammarum sed crumenarum potius quaestum vbi (que) explorant &c. Nihil omnino agunt, nisi quod ad colligendam quacun (que) ex oceasione pecuniam suffragan posse crediderint, &c. Multò aequanimiùs laturi [...]acturam decem millium animarū quàm dece [...] aut duodecim solidorum, &c. Nullus ad cler [...]atum vel ad sacrum ordinem, vel ad quemcun (que) gradum ecclesiasticum nisi mercede accedit. Omnes quotquot aduenerint nullo aut paruo admo­dum discrimine ad eos quos petierint titulos admittunt, nisi fortè siqui adeò egestate pre­muntur vt soluendo non sint Nulla de anteacta vita percunctatio est, &c. De literis verò & doctrina quid loqui attinet, cùm omnes fere Pre [...]byteros sine aliquo captu aut rerum aut vo­cabulorum morosè syllabatim (que) vix legere videamus, &c. Si aliqua beneficia suae sint disposi­tions deuoluta pro quaestu ea conferunt, vel fuis ea spur [...]s & histrionibus donant. they euery where sought the gaining not of soules but of mony; doing nothing but what might serue their turne to gather mony, taking in much better part the losse of ten thousand soules, than of ten or twelue shillings, admitting none to sacred orders or to any degree of the church, but only for money; refusing none in a maner, but onely such as were so poore, that they could not pay money: (no question of their life, no question of their learning; so that their Priests for the most part could very hardly read, hauing no vnderstanding at all, either of the things which they reade, or of the words:) bestowing for money their benefices which they had to bestow, [Page 187]or vpon their bastards and [...]tage-plaiers.Specul. ec­cles. Pontif. ex Aluaro Pelag. de Planctu eccle­siae. Vix credo, maximè in Hispania, quòd de centum e­piscopis sit vnus qui non sit Simoni­acus in ordi­nibus & be­neficijs confe­rendu.I scant thinke, faith Aluarus Pelagius, that of a hundred Bishops, there is one that doth not practise simonie in bestowing of orders and be­nefices. And whereas M. Bishop twiteth our Ministers with solacing themselues with their Yoke-fellowes, Cleman­gis againe telleth, that Clemang. ibid. Rectores paro­chiarum in ple­ris (que) dioecesibus ex cer [...]o & condicto cum suis praelatis pretio passim & publicè con­cubinas te­nent. their Bishops for a certaine fee did giue licence to their parish Priests euery where and openly to keepe Concubines: which Sleidan. Com­ment. ii. 4 Scire se Germaniae Episcoporum hunc esse mo­rem, vt accepta pecu [...]ia scorta­tionem suis per­mittant. Cardinall Campegius also confessed, that the Bishops of Germany were accusto­med to doe: that Clemang. Passim & inuerecundè prolem ex meretricio susceptam, & scorta vice coniu­gum domi tenent.their Canons and Chaplaines openly and shamelesly kept their bastards and harlots in house with them. Yea Theodoric de Niem saith further, that Theodor. de Niem. In eisdem etiam partibus Hiberniae & Nor­wegiae iuxta consuetudines patriae licet Episcopis & Presbyteris tenere publicè concubinas, & eisdem visitantibus bis in anno subditos sibi Presbyteros &c. suam dilectam ducere secum ad domes & hospitia corundem subditorum presbyterorum; nec ipsa dilecta permittit episcopum [...]masium visitare sine ipsa, &c. Et penè idem modus quoad luxuriant circa Presbyteros Gasconiae, Hispaniae ac Portugaliae, &c. in omnibus obseruatur. in Ireland and Norway, as also in Gascoine, Spaine, Portugall, and other countries, it was lawfull by the custome of their countrey for Bishops and Priests openly to keepe concubines; and when the Bishops twice in a yeere did visit the Priests and Clergy of their iurisdiction, they led their minions about with them, who would not suffer their paramour Bishops to goe in visitation without them, because they would be partakers of their good cheere, and prouide that they should not fall in loue with other to their wrong. The glosse of the Canon law saith, that Dist. 81. Maximianus. in glossa. Pauci sine illo vitio inueniuntur. there were few Priests found without the sinne of fornication: so as that not without cause Gerson the Chancelour of Paris wished it to bee enquired of, as a matter worthy of reformation, Specul. eccle. Pontif. ex Io. Gerson. Scrutemini si alicubi sacerdotes in consuetudinem duxerunt sub praetextu antillarum habere concubinas. Whether that Priests any where had drawen it into custome vnder pretence of maide-seruants to keepe concubines: pointing at a thing which all men saw to be common euery where. Such was in a word the continency of those Romish Bi­shops and Priests, as that Aluarus Pelagius, before mentio­ned, [Page 188]saith, that Ibid ex Alu. Pelag. In pauco maiori numero sunt filij laico­rum quàm Cle­ricorum. in Spaine and otherwhere their bastards were almost as many as the children of lay men; Ibi. ex Theod. de Niem. Vnde quodammodo plures innatu­rales ex foedo complexu nati quàm filij, legi­timi ac natura­les in ecclesia­sticis titulis cō ­cedendis praefe­runtur, & plu­res legitimis a­pertissimè pro­mouentur.so as that in all those parts, saith Niem, speaking as before of Ireland, Nor­way, Spaine, Gascoine, Portugal and other countries, there were more such bastards preferred to ecclesiasticall dignities than there were of them that were lawfully begotten. Albeit they rested not heere, but Bernard. ser. in Synodo Re­mensi. Episcopi & Sacerdotes traditi in re­probum sensum faciunt quae non conueniunt: quae enim in occulto fiunt ab Episco­pis, turpe est dicere, &c. Masculi in ma­sculos turpitudi­nem operantes, &c. Vide eund. de Conuers. ad Clericos. ca. 29. being giuen ouer to a reprobate sense, saith Bernard, they doe the things which are not conuem­ent; for it is a shame, saith he, to name the things which are done in secret euen by the Bishops; men with men working fil­thinesse, and receiuing the recompence of their owne errour. Of this holy Clergy, Clemangis, to be short, saith, that he was Ibid. Nonest apud me dubiū plures nunc latrones in ecclesia repertum iri quam veros pastores. Et postea: Sacrorum eloquiorum studia cum suis professoribus in risum atque l [...]r brium omnibus versa sunt & praesertim pontificibus, qui suas traditiones diuinis longè man datis anteponunt. Iam illud egregium & praeclarissimum praedicandi officium solis quo [...] ­dam pastoribus attributum eis (que) maximè debitum, ita apud eos viluit, vt nihil magis indign [...] aut magis suae dignitatierubescendum existiment. Et post. Siquis bodie desidiosus est, siquis à la­bore abhorrens, siquis in otio luxuriari volens, ad sacerdotium conuolat, &c. out of doubt, that there were more theeues than true pastours; that the studies of sacred Scriptures, together with the profes­sours thereof, were with them become a matter of laughter and mockery, specially with their Popes or Bishops, who prefer their owne traditions far before Gods commandements; that the most excellent duety of Preaching, which was woont onely to belong vnto the Pastours, was become so vile and base with them, as that they thought nothing more vnworthy, nothing whereof they were to be more ashamed; that if there were a lasie fellow that would not worke, and did desire to liue idlely and riotously, he became a Priest, and being so, ioyned himselfe to the other vo­luptuous Priests, who liuing rather after the rule of Epicurus than of Christ, and diligently frequenting Ale-houses and Ta­uernes did spend their time in drinking, in feasting and banquet­ting, in playing at tables and tennise; and being full gorged and drunke, did fight and brawle and tumult, and with foule mouths blaspheme the names of God and his Saints, and thus ordered did come from their harlots company to the altar of God. Thus [Page 189]Clemangis, two hundred yeeres ago, described the state of the Popish Clergy: and it were infinite to set downe what others also haue written to the same effect: and may we not iustly returne M. Bishops words vpon himselfe; Are not these goodly lampes of the old religion, as they call it, and like­ly men to be chosen by Christ to giue light to others? As for de­uout religious soules, we neede not doubt to affirme that they are farre more with vs than either Clergy or Cloister euer bred with them; far moe remooued from the world, not by place, but by affection and conuersation, wherein is that true retired life which Christ hath commended vnto vs. And for their Monkish life, we are not desirous to be fol­lowers or partakers of it. The filthinesse thereof was such, as that it might well be said of their religious, which of old was said of the Canaanites: Leu. 18.25. The Land was defiled by them; therefore God visited their wickednesse vpon them, and the land spued them out. Clemangis noteth of their Monkes, that Clemang. vt supra. Quanto magis inter cae­teros ecclesiae fi­lios ex votis suae religi [...]nis per­fecti esse debe­bant, &c. tantò ab his omnibus rebus licet eos videre magis alienos, magis videlicet tena­ces, [...]agis aua­ros, magis secu­lari rei versis retrorsum ani­mis immixt [...]s; magis insuper lubricos, indis­ciplinatos, dis­solutes, inquie­tos, &c. nihil il­lis aequè odio­sum quàm cella & claustrum, lectio & ora­tio, regula & religio. Quocir­ca monachi sunt exteriori habitu, sed vi­ta, sed operibus, sed internae con­scientiae spur­citia à perfecti­one longissimè disiuncti. whereas by the vowes of their religion they should haue beene more perfect than other, more withdrawen from the world, more continent, more obedient, they were so much the further off from all these things, more holding, more couetous, more giuen to the world, as hauing their mindes turned quite backeward, more wanton, vnmannerly, dissolute, vnquiet: nothing so hate­full to them as their cell and cloister, as reading and praying, as their rule and religion; being Monkes in outward habit, but in life, in workes, by inward filthinesse of conscience far distant from perfection. Hee saith anon after, that Ibid. De monialibus plura dicere verecundia prohibet, ne non de coetu virginum deo dicatarū, sed magis de lupanaribus, de dolis & procacia meretricum, de stupris & incestuosis operibus pro­lixè sermonem trahamus. Nam quid obsecro aliud sunt hoc tempore puellarum monasteria, nisi quaedam, non dico dei sanctuaria, sed veneris execranda pros [...]ibula, sed l [...]sciuorum & impudico­rum iuuenum ad explendas libidines receptacula? vt idem sit hodie virginem velare, quod & publicè ad scortandum exponere. of their Nunnes he was a shamed to speake, lest he should make long speech, not of companies of virgins dedicated to God, but rather of stewes and brothell houses, of the wiles and bold impudency of harlots, of whoredome and incest. For what else are the Monasteries of virgins, saith he, but the accursed stewes of Venus, receptacles [Page 190]of wanton and vnchast yoong men for the fulfilling of their lusts, so as that it is all one at this day to veile a virgin, as to set her foorth to be a common whoore?Specul. eccle. Pont. ex Theo­dorico de N [...]em. Fornicantur quamplures hu­iusm [...]di Moni­alium cum eis­dem suis Pra­latis ac Mona­chis, & in ijs­dem Monaste­rijs plures par­turiunt filios & filias, quos ab eisdem Prae­latis & Mona­chis incestuoso coitu concepe­runt.They play the harlots, saith Niem, with their Prelats and Monkes, and bring foorth in their Monasteries or Nunneries, many sonnes and daughters, which are incestuously by them begotten. But let me giue ouer and not striue too long where there is such a filthy stinke. If this be the extraordinary piety and deuotion which M. Bishop commendeth, let him take it to him and his, we will content our selues with that ordinary course and condition wherein Christ and his Apostles and the first Christians did liue. And in conforming our selues to them, we doubt not but that we are to God a true Christian congregation, howsoe­uer to M. Bishop wee seeme strange, who should rather thinke strange of his owne dreame, that Christ hath special­ly chosen them of whom he neuer spake, and whose life hath beene and is no other but the dishonour of the name of Christ; whose example is pernicious vnto men, and whose praiers proceeding from so vncleane thoughts, cannot but be lothsome vnto God. Whether therefore wee consider the persons that serue God, or the place where he is serued, or the maner of his Diuine seruice, M. Bishop sheweth him­selfe to be a man of a leaud and dishonest tongue, that will make any comparison of the Church of Rome to our Church. And thus we are come to an end of his long pre­face: wherein, what mature iudgement he hath shewed con­cerning a matter of so great moment, it remaineth for the Reader to iudge: for my part I iudge he did very ill bestow his time in blotting so many papers with so much folly and vntruth. But his transition is woorthy to be noted; Now to the rest of his questions, saith he, according to his own [...]der; whereas of twelue questions, consequently handled by M. Perkins, he speaketh not a word, but onely passeth to an aduertisement in the end, where hee thought least harme might befall to him. Heere is some want of plaine dealing, which may iustly cause his Reader to bee suspicious and doubtfull of him.

A confutation to D. BISHOPS answer to Master PERKINS his Aduertisement.

W. PERKINS.

An aduertisement to all fauourers of the Roman re­ligion, shewing (as he weeneth) that the said Re­ligion is against the Catholike principles of the Catechisme, that hath beene agreed vpon euer since the daies of the Apostles, by all Churches: Which principles be foure. The Apostles Creed: the tenne Commandements: the Lords praier: the institution of two Sacraments, Baptisme and the Lords Supper. 1. COR. 11. v. 23.

1. W. BISHOP.

I Had once determined to haue wholly omit­ted this goodly post-script, because it con­taineth (in manner) nothing else, but an irkesome repetition of that, which hath beene (I will not say twice before, but more than twenty times) handled ouer and ouer, in this former small treatise: notwithstan­ding, considering both how ready many are, when they see any thing omitted, to say that it could not be answered; and also for that these pointes heere reiterated, are the most odious that he [Page 192]could cull out of all the rest to vrge against vs: I finally resolued to giue them a short answer; And further, also by prouing their new religion, to be very opposite vnto those old grounds of the true religion, to requite him with the like, that I die not in his debt. Thus he beginneth.

The Roman religion established by the Councell of Trent, is in the principall points thereof, against the very grounds of the Catechisme: the Creede: the tenne Commandements: the Lords praier: the two Sacraments.

THe Catholike religion embraced and defended by the Church of Rome, was planted and established there by the Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, fifteene hundred yeeres before the Councell of Trent, and hath been euer sithence, by the Bishops of Rome their lawfull successours, constantly retai­ned, and most sincerely obserued and maintained: some articles thereof, called into question by the Heretikes of this latter age, were in that most learned generall Councell of Trent, declared and defined. And great meruaile it were, if the principall points thereof, should be against the grounds of the Catechisme, which is in euery point most substantially expounded by the decree and order of the very same Councell. Or is it credible, that the Church of Rome (with which all other ancient Churches and holy Fathers, did desire to agree; and which hath beene euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolicall traditions) should in the principall points of faith, crosse and destroy the very principles of that religion, that hath been agreed vpon by all Churches euer since the Apostle daies, as he saith? Is it not much more likely and probable, that the Protestants, who slander all Churches, euer since the time of the Apostles, with some kinde of corrupti­on or other, and who hold no kinde of Apostolicall tradition to be necessary: is not not (I say) more credible, that they should shake those grounds of faith, which come by tradition from the Apostles, and haue beene euer since by all Churches agreed vp­on? I suppose that few men of any indifferent iudgement, can thinke the contrary.

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishop is desirous to seeme to haue omitted nothing, because many, saith he, are ready when they see any thing omit­ted to say, that it could not be answered; and yet he hath cun­ningly omitted the handling of twelue questions, as I haue already noted, which are more than the third part of the booke which he vndertooke to answer. In that which here he hath sent vs, he taketh vpon him, as to answer M. Our religion, and not Po­pery, is the old religion. Per­kins, so by way of requitall, to prooue that our new religion, (as he calleth it) is very opposite vnto the old grounds of the true religion. But if his eies were open, he would easily see that that new religion, and the true religion are all one; our new religon, as to him it seemeth, being indeed no other but that onely true religion whereby all the faithfull haue been saued from the beginning, and so shal be to the worlds end. And if he will haue our religion to be taken for a new religi­on, he must first impeach those grounds of antiquitie wher­by we haue hitherto iustified the same against his vaine and wilfull cauilations. As for that which he saith, that the religion now defended by the Church of Rome was planted and established there by the Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul: it is the begging of the question, a fond presumption, an idle headed dreame: who but fooles and madde men be­leeue it, when they see the writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and therein finde no mention of the religion that is now at Rome, neither of the Pope, nor of Purgatorie, nor Pardons, nor Iubilies, nor Masse, nor Images, nor any other of that filth? If the successors of that See had constant­ly reteined the faith that by the Apostles was deliuered, we should now haue that religion at Rome which is taught in the Epistle to the Romanes, which now is our religion, and was then the religion of the church of Rome. Of that reli­gion those heretikes (whom no otherwise he so nameth, but according to the Act. 24.14. Iewish phrase) called nothing into question; they only questioned & impugned those additions and al­terations [Page 194]wherewith the church of Rome hath defiled and disgraced that religion. The Councel of Trent a mockerie of the world. The Councell of Trent, which de­clared and defined against them, was neither learned nor ge­nerall. It was a base and a vile collusion, and meere mocke­rie of the world, partially assembled by the Pope, guileful­ly managed by his Agents, directed wholly by his intelli­gence, nothing there to bee concluded, but what hee first approued, & yet all in sine left at his will, by that damna­ble clause neuer heard of in any former Councel; Conc. Trid. sess. 7. in prin­cip. & sess. 25. cap. 21. de re­format. Salua semper in om­nibus authori­tate sedis Apo­stolicae. Sauing alwaies and in all things the authoritie of the See Apostolike. Some Diuines there were of qualitie and worth, who gaue their assistance in that businesse: but as for the Bishops, of which the greatest number were Italians, they deserued for the most part rather to bee accounted a heard of swine, than a Councell of learned men. His reason that the prin­cipall points of Poperie cannot bee against the grounds of the Catechisme, because the same is expounded by the decree and order of that Councell, maketh as much for vs as it doth for them. For the Catechisme is by order expounded and taught by vs: wee open to the people the Creed, the ten Commandements, the Lords Praier, the doctrine of Sa­craments. M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to say that our religion is opposite to those old grounds of true religion. If this argument auaile not for vs, then neither shall it auaile for him, but wee are still at libertie to conceiue, that not­withstanding their expounding of those grounds, they teach points of doctrine contrary thereunto. And indeed that expounding of theirs was no otherwise begun but in emulation of our doings in that kinde: for vntill it pleased God to stirre vp the spirits of some of our men to ende­uour the reformation of the Church, and to that end to bring the people, so much as in them lay, out of the thral­dome of blindnesse and ignorance, wherein they were then holden, the vse of Catechisme was quite abolished out of the Church; the people knew neither the Creed nor the Lords praier, but onely that they spake them like [Page 195]a charme in a strange and vnknowen tongue. But when they saw vs recalling them to the ancient order of Catechi­sing, and thereby training them to the knowledge of God, and of faith towards him, they held it necessarie for the sa­tisfaction of the world, that they themselues should make some shew of doing the like, and thereupon in the Coun­cell of Trent, tooke order for a Catechisme to bee publi­shed, though they neuer meant to make any great vse of it, but onely where necessitie should enforce them for the countermining of our labours, and the staying of manie, whom otherwise the desire of learning and of the know­ledge of God, would haue caried away from them. Into that Catechisme and the rest of theirs, how they haue foi­sted in matters of faith and doctrine, which the old expo­sitours of the Catechisme neuer knew nor haue deliuered, wee shall somewhat perceiue by examining the processe and particulars of this booke. In the meane time we answer M. Bishop, that it is verie credible, and ready enough to be beleeued of them that are carefull to vnderstand it. that the church of Rome, albeit while it continued sound in the faith, all ancient Churches and holy Fathers, did desire to agree with it; yet since, being gon out of her The church of Rome hath swaiued from the tra­dition of the Apostles. ancient way, doth indeed crosse and destroy those principles of religion, which formerly haue beene agreed vpon by all Churches. For whereas hee saith, that that church hath been euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolical traditions, it is a stale iest, & Bellarmine him­selfe perforce acknowledgeth it to bee a lie. For it being manifest by the testimonie of Anacletus an ancient Bishop of Rome, that De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Per­acta. Peracta consecratione communicent omnes qui nolin [...] eccleasisticis ca­rere liminibus: sic enim Apo­stoli statuerunt & sancta Ro­mana tenet ecclesia. the Apostles decreed and the church of Rome then obserued, that they should be excommunicate whosoeuer were present after consecration, and did not receiue the Com­munion; Bellarmine in the behalfe of the now-church of Rome, reiecteth the same as a thing Bellarm. de Missa. lib. 2. ca. 10. Cortum est decreta ista quae sine dubio non diuini sed humani iuris erant, si ad po­pulum pertine­bant, progressis temporis abro­gata fuisse. in processe of time abro­gated by the church, & being but a matter of humane only con­stitutiō & decree. So likewise we see in the Councel of Cō ­stance [Page 196]acknowledging that Concil. Const. sess. 13. Licèt Christus post coenam institu­erit & discipu­lis suis admini­stranerit sub vtra (que) specie panis & vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum, tamen hoc non obstante, &c. Et similitèr, quòd licèt in primitiua eccle­sia huiusmodi Sacramentum à fidelibus reci­peretur sub v­traque specie, tamen haec con­suetudo ad eui­tandum aliqua scandala & pe­ricula est ratio­nabilitèr intro­ducta quòd à laicis tantum­modo sub specie panis suscipia­tur, &c. vnde pro lege haben­da est, &c. Christ administred the holy Sa­crament to his disciples vnder both kindes, and that in the Pri­mitiue Church it was so receiued of the faithfull; and yet this notwithstanding they decree it for a law, that lay men shall re­ceiuc only in one kinde. Now when thus with our eies we see, and they themselues tell vs the contrary, will M. Bishop notwithstanding tell vs that the Church of Rome hath been euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolicall traditions? Surely if they had failed but in these two, they had not obserued al; but now how many other things are there, wherein they haue apparantly swarued from the example of the Apo­stles! How then can we beleeue M. Bishop any further, who doubteth not heere to affirme so grosse and manifest vntruth? And to this vntruth he addeth another, when hee saith, that we slander all churches since the time of the Apostles with some corruption or other. It is true, that we note the cor­ruptions of some churches, and of some men, accordingly as the history of the Church and the monuments of anti­quity doe lay the same foorth vnto vs: but wee cannot say that al Churches, or al the Fathers of those times were guil­tie of those corruptions. For many Churches were there, and many Bishops and Pastours of Churches, of whom no memoriall is come vnto vs; many whom we finde other­wise reported of than was true, by the corrupting of those writings which they left vnto the Church, and suborning other counterfets in their stead; many, who haue deliuered some exorbitant opinions, of which notwithstanding it ap­peareth not that they had publike approbation in the Church; many, who haue left so little in record as touching points of faith, as that it is hard by them to esteeme what the doctrine of the Church was. As for the corruptions whereof we speake, there are many of them such, as that I doe not thinke M. Bishop to be so impudent but that hee will acknowledge the same as well as we; there are none of them, but that either by the word of God, or by like war­rant [Page 197]of antiquity we prooue them to be such as we report them. His other tale, that we hold no kinde of Apostolicall traditions to be necessary, he himselfe knoweth to be vntrue, because he knoweth that we receiue the Creede as necessa­rie, which he saith came by tradition from the Apostles. It hath beene also Of Traditi­ons sect 4. before giuen him to vnderstand, that we reiect not Apostolical traditions, which appeare certainely so to be; and yet woorthily we reiect those vnwritten do­ctrines and counterfet traditions of the Papists, which are falsely fathered vpon the Apostles. It is by these vnwritten doctrines and counterfet traditions, that the grounds of our faith are impeached and shaken. We therefore cannot be said to shake the grounds of faith, who retaine the meere simplicity of those grounds, and refuse all other strange and bastard stuffe: but they shake the grounds of faith, who be­come patrons of such tradition, coloured with the names of the Apostles, when notwithstanding they plainely crosse the written doctrine of the Apostles.

2. W. BISHOP.

But let vs descend to the particulars, wherein the truth will appeare more plainely. Thus beginneth Master PERKINS with the Creede.

First of all it must be considered, that some of the princi­pall doctrines beleeued in the Church of Rome, are, that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, and head of the Catholike Church: that there is a fire of Purgatory: that Images of God and Saints, are to be placed in the Church, and worshipped: that Praier is to be made to Saints depar­ted: that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the Masse, for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead. These points are of that moment, that without them the Roman religion cannot stand, &c. And yet marke the Apostles Creed, which hath beene thought to containe all necessary points of religion to be beleeued, and hath therefore beene called the key and rule of faith: This Creede (I say) hath [Page 198]not any of these points, nor the expositions made thereof by the ancient Fathers, nor any other Creed or confession of faith made by any Councell or Church, for the space of many hundred yeeres. This is a plaine proofe to any in­different man, that these bee new articles of faith, neuer knowen in the Apostolike Church: and that the Fathers and Councels could not finde any such articles of faith in the bookes of the old and new Testament. Answer is made, that all these points of doctrine are beleeued vnder the ar­ticle, (I beleeue the Catholike Church:) the meaning whereof they will haue to be this, I beleeue all things which the Catholike Church holdeth and teacheth to be beleeued. If this bee as they say, wee must beleeue in the Church: that is, put our confidence in the Church, for the manifestation and the certainety of all doctrine neces­sary to saluation. And thus the eternall truth of God the Creatour, shall depend vpon the determination of the crea­ture: And the written word of God in this respect is made insufficient, as though it had not plainely reuealed all points of doctrine pertaining to saluation. And the ancient Churches haue beene farre ouer-secene, that did not pro­pound the former points to be beleeued as articles of faith, but left them to these latter times. Thus farre Master PER­KINS: Wherein are hudled vp many things confusedly: I will answere briefly and distinctly to euery point.

The first is, that in the Apostles Creede are contained all points of religion necessary to be beleeued: which is most ap­parantly false, as the Protestants themselues must needes con­fesse; or else grant, that it is not necessary to beleeue the King to be Supreame-head of the Church: or that the Church is to be gouerned by Bishops: or that we are iustified by Christs iustice imputed to vs: or that there be but two Sacraments: or that the Church seruice must be said in the vulgar tongue: or that all things necessary to be beleeued to saluation, are contai­ned in the Scriptures. To be short, not one article of their religi­on (which is contrary to ours) is conteined in this Creede, of [Page 199]the Apostles: therefore to affirme as he doth, all necessary points of religion to be contained in this Creede, is to cast their owne religion flat to the ground: and to teach, that not one point of it is to be beleeued: this Creede may neuerthelesse be called the key and rule of faith, because it containeth the principall points of the Christian religion, and doth open (as it were) the doore vnto all the rest, and guide a man certainely vnto the knowledge of them, by teaching vs to beleeue the Catholike Church, which being the pillar and ground of truth, 1. Tim. 3.15. Ioh. 16.13. directed and gui­ded by the spirit of truth, will alwaies instruct her obedient children, in all truth necessary to saluation.

Then, saith M. PERKINS: The eternall truth of God, the Creatour, shall depend on the determination of the creature.

Nothing lesse: for Gods truth is most sincere and certaine in it selfe, before any declaration of the church: but we poore creatures that are subiect to mistaking and error, should not so certainely vnderstand and know that truth of God, vnlesse hee had ordained and appointed such a skilfull and faithfull Mistris and interpreter, to assure vs, both what is his word, and what is the true meaning of it. Like as pure gold is not made perfect in it self by the Gold-smithes touch-stone; but other men are thereby assured, that it is true and pure gold: euen so the word of God doth not borrow his truth from the Church; but the true children of God are by the holy Church assured, which is the same his word. If we did hold (as we do not) that the writ­ten word containeth all points of doctrine necessary to saluation: yet were it most necessary to relie vpō the Catholike churches declaration, both to be assured which books of scriptures be Ca­nonicall, which not; (whereupon Saint Augustine (a man of far better iudgement than any of these daies) said, Con. Epist. Iud. cap. 5. that he would not beleeue the Gospel, vnlesse the authority of the church mooued him therunto:) as also to vnderstand them truly; because the words of holy Scripture, without the true meaning and sense of them, do but deceiue men and lead them into error; and to that end haue alwaies beene, and yet are, by Heretikes [Page 200] abused, to draw others after them into destruction.

The like may be said of other ancient Creeds, and confes­sions of faith, which holding the Apostles Creed, did adde some few points vnto it; namely, such as were in those daies called in­to question by Heretikes of greater fame, and who were followed of many, not touching in particular diuers other articles gene­rally beleeued of all true Christians, or else by so [...]e fewe and obscure men onely questioned. Wherefore, to argue that no other points of faith are to be beleeued, but such as are expres­sed in ancient Creeds, is to cut off a great part of our faith.

Lastly, it is most vntrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Councels knew not of these articles of faith by him men­tioned: for they haue most plainely taught them in their wri­tings: yea, and expresly condemned of heresie, most of the con­trary positions, now againe reuiued and holden by the Prote­stants; as in those seuerall questions I haue before prooued.

R. ABBOT.

How M. Pirkins vnderstood that all necessary points in religion to be beleeued are contained in the Creede, I doe not well conceiue: for my part I rather admit, that the Creed is therefore called the key and rule of faith, The Creed how the key and rule of faith. for that it is a sum­mary Briefe, containing the principall and fundamentall points of Christian faith, which doe as it weere open the doore to all the rest, and by which all preaching and do­ctrine of faith is to be esteemed, so as nothing may be ad­mitted but what holdeth correspondence with this rule, ac­cording to those vses which the Scripture teacheth vs to make of euery part therof. Which the scripture, I say, teach­eth vs to make; for if we draw any article of our faith to the maintenance of any doctrine which hath no warrant or te­stimony of the Scripture, we are corrupters of the faith, and doe but abuse the name thereof to the cloaking of our owne deuice. Thus M. Bishop and his fellowes corrupt the faith as touching the holy catholike church, first in wresting the name of the catholike church to the particular church of [Page 201]Rome: and secondly, in challenging a certain and vndoub­ted credit to be yeelded to that church for the infallible re­solution of all points of faith. For as touching the first, where hath the Scripture giuen vs any inckling, that the name of the Catholike Church should in any peculiar man­ner be vnderstood of the Church of Rome? We regard not their claime; we know they haue tongue at will to speake for thēselues; but let them giue vs one word of God, whereby it may appeare that by the name of the Church, we are directed in special maner to that church. We are not ignorant that amongst most ancient writers the name of Catholike church is sometimes giuen to the church of Rome: but we know withall, that it was no otherwise giuen to the church of Rome, than to any other church, euery Church being called a Catholike church, as hath been Answer to the Epistle. sect. 3. before shew­ed, that communicated in true faith with the church disper­sed thorow the whole world. And therefore, as Leo wrote himselfe Leo epist. 12. Leo papa eccle­siae Catholicae vrbis Romae. Bishop of the catholike church of the citie of Rome; so doth Constantine the Emperour write, Socrat hist. li. 1. ca. 6. Con­stantinus Ca­tholicae Alex­andrinorum ec­clesiae. to the catholike church of Alexandria; and Athanasius accordingly is entitu­led by his Clergy, Athanas A­polog. 2. Theog­nio. &c. Pres­byteri & diaco­ni sub reueren­dissimo episcopo Athanasio Ca­tholicae ecclesiae Alexandrinae. Bishop of the catholike church of Alexan­dria; and Austin nameth August. cont. Crescon. li. 3. ca. 13. Omnis A­phricana Catho­lica ecclesia. the catholike church of Africa; and Aurelius writeth himselfe Collat. cum Donat. cognit. 1. ca. 16 Aure­lius episcopus ecclesiae Catholi­cae Carthagi­nensis. Bishop of the catholike church of Carthage; and another Aurelius, Ibid. ca. 201. Aurelius epis­copus ecclesiae Catholicae Ma­comadiensits: & cap. 204. Nouatus episcopus ecclesiae Catholicae Sitifensis. Bishop of the catholike church of Macomodia and; Nouatus, Bishop of the catholike church of Sitif. So in the fift councell at Constantinople we reade, the holy Concil. Constantinop. 5. act. 1. Supplica­ti [...] à Clericis & Monachis Apostolici thront Antiochenae magnae [...]uitatis Catholicae sanctae eccle­siaecatholike church of Antioch; and in the sub­scriptions of the Councell, Dei. Act. 8. in subscript. Sextiltanus in sericordia Dei episcopus ecclesiae Catholicae Tum­ensiu Megethius gratia Dei episcopus sanctae dei Catholicae ecclesiae ciuitatis Heracleae, &c. Sextilianus Bishop of the catho­like church of Tunis; & Megethius Bishop of the holy catholike church of the city of Heracela; and Pompeianus Bishop of the holy catholike church of the city of Ʋictoria, and sundry other the like. By all which and many other examples it may ap­peare [Page 202]with how little discretion Dureus the Iesuit hath af­firmed that Duraeus cont. Whitak. li. 3. In nullum planè a­liam Catholicae nomen ecclesiae, & quaerun (que) de Christieccle­sia Prophetae praedixerunt, quàm in Roma­nam conuenire possunt. the name of the catholike church, and those things which the Prophets haue forespoken of the church of Christ, can agree to no other but to the church of Rome. And with this madde and witlesse fancy they are all caried away, so that there can bee no naming of the church or catholike church, but it soundeth in their eares vndoubtedly to haue refe­rence to the Church of Rome. According to this fancy it is that M. Bishop heere would haue his Reader to imagine, that by the beleefe of the Catholik church he is taught to beleeue the church of Rome. And by the same illusion hee wresteth to his purpose the words of the Apostle, that the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and the promise that Christ maketh vnto his, of his spirit to direct and guide them into all truth, as if therein were some speciall priuiledge meant to the Roman church. The Church how the pil­lar & ground of truth. But for the first place, if any one church might challenge a prerogatiue therby, it should be the church of Ephesus. For Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus, wished by the Apostle 1. Tim. 1.3. to abide still there, as speci­ally to take vpon him the charge of that place. He writeth to him purposely to instruct him how to carry himselfe in that charge; cap. 3.15. That thou maist know, saith hee, how thou oughtest to behaue thy selfe in the house of God, which is the church of the liuing God, the pillar & groūd of truth. The house of God then, wherin Timothie was to conuerse, & which he was to gouern, was the church of Ephesus; & as the church in general, so this church for it own part in particular is cal­led the church of the liuing God, the pillar and ground of truth. Yea these two goe hand in hand, to be the house of God, the church of the liuing God, and, to be the pillar and ground of truth. Now of euery church of the faithfull it is said, 1. Pet. 2.5. Yee as liuely stones are made a spirituall house; 2. Cor. 6.16.yee are the Tem­ple of the liuing God,Eph. 2.22.yee are built together in Christ to be Gods habitation. Which way then, I maruell, is it now brought about, that to be the pillar & ground of truth should be a peculiar dignity of the church of Rome more than of [Page 203]the church of Ephesus, or of any other particular church? To be the pillar and ground of truth importeth the office and duty of the whole church and euery part thereof, and not a speciall prerogatiue of any one church, as to bee alwaies found so in act and execution. The church is the pillar and ground of truth, as the Priest is Mal. 2.7.the messenger of the Lord of hosts. The Priest, though he be by calling the messenger of the Lord, yet sometimes neglecteth his calling, and forbea­reth to doe the message wherewith hee is sent: and so the church, though by duty it be the pillar and ground of truth, appointed to vphold and maintaine the same; yet some­times forgetteth this duery and followeth lies in stead of truth. For as the church is now, so hath it euer beene from the beginning, the pillar and ground of truth; and yet we finde that very often the church of the Iewes, in the time of the Iudges, and vnder the wicked Kings of Iudah and Israel, did forsake Mal. 2.6. the law of truth, which God had giuen vnto them, went a whooring after strange and false gods, and many waies prouoked him by their abominations. For no longer doth the church continue to be as it ought to be, the pillar and ground of truth, than it continueth built vpon the foundations of truth, Eph. 2.20. vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, as Saint Paul speaketh, Ambros. in Eph. 2. Hoc est, supra nouum & vetus teslamen­tum collocati. that is, vpon the new and old Testament, as Ambrose expoundeth it. If it once go awry from those foundations, truth falleth to the ground, and it becommeth a pillar and fortresse of errour and vn­truth. Thus hath it come to passe in M. Bishops church of Rome, which in her pride hath cast off the yoke which she at first tooke vpon her, and hath magnified herselfe to be a Queene to giue lawes of her owne in stead of the lawes of Iesus Christ. Shee is indeede by duety, as all other churches are, a pillar and ground of truth; but being become the minion of Antichrist, and prostituted to his adulterous desires, shee hath learned for his sake and for her owne sake by him 1. Tim. 4.2. to speake lies in hypocrisie, and 2. Pet. 2.3. through coue­tousnesse with feined words to make merchandise ofReu. 18.13.the [Page 204]soules of men. All which hypocrisie and feined words shee fairly gloseth and cōmendeth to men with this perswasion, that she can not erre, because she hath a promise of Christ to be alwaies directed and guided by his spirit into all trueth. But where hath Christ made any such promise to the Church of Rome? Whom and how the spi­rit of Christ leadeth into all truth. Wee read that Christ said to his Apo­stles, Ioh. 16.13. When he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all trueth: and wee beleeue, that what hee spake to his Apostles, he intended to the whole Church, and to all the faithfull: but neither doe we reade, nor haue any cause to beleeue, that Christ therein intended any thing in speci­all to the church of Rome, neither did euer any ancient Fa­ther or Councell gather any such thing out of those words. And surely no otherwise doe they alleage this Scripture for themselues, than the Manichees did for themselues, and the Montanists for themselues. For as the Manichees allea­ging these words to colour their heresies against the Scrip­ture, appropriated the spirit of truth here spoken of, to their Patriarch August. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 32. cap. 17. Dicere soletis, Ipse vos inducet in omnem veri­tatem, &c. de vestro Mani­chao esse praedi­ctum. Manicheus; and the Montanistes in like sort to Tertull. de Veland. virgi­nib. sub initio. Montanus, as if in them, and by them the spirit should direct the Church into all truth: Euen so the Pa­pists, howsoeuer they talke of the Church directed by the spirit, yet doe indeed put ouer the Church to the Pope, placing the residence of the spirit in him, that he may bee to the Church the infallible oracle of all truth. In which fancie, if they will expect to haue more credit than those heretikes had, they must bring better warrant for them­selues than those heretikes did. But because they can bring vs none, therefore we reiect them all alike, as coseners and deceiuers of the Church, pretending the spirit of truth, for the maintenance of lies; and claiming that credit to be gi­uen to an vsurping wretch, which our Sauiour reserueth as proper to the holy Ghost. The promise of the spirit, as I said before, belongeth to all the faithfull; and of them all, S. Iohn saith, 1 Ioh. 2.27. The anointing which yee haue receiued of him; that is, saith Austin, August. in 1. Ioan. tract. 4. Eadem vnctio, id est, ipse spi­ritus domini. the spirit of the Lord, teacheth you of [Page 205]all things. Albeit when it is said, all things, and all truth, we are not to vnderstand absolutely all: for the spirit doth not teach vs to know Idem. in actis cum Felice Manich. lib. 1. cap. 10. Si hanc doctrinam pu­tas ad illam ve­ritatem perti­nere, &c. inter­rogo te qunt sint stellae. Ibid. Ego tibi possum di­cere ea quae per­tinent ad do­ctrinam Chri­stianam. how many starres there be, as Austin op­poseth to Felix the Manichee, but he teacheth all things be­longing to the doctrine of Christ, as the same Austin there ex­poundeth. Yea, and yet further he excepteth by the words of the Apostle, Idem. cap. 11. Dicebat Apo­stolus, Ex parte scimus, &c. quia in ist a vi­ta homo cum est, non potest assequi omnia; sed ex parte as­sequitur in hac vita; ipse autem spiritus qui ex parte docet in hac vita, post hanc vitam in­troducet in om­nem veritatem. Vide eund. in Ioan. tract. 96. We know in part, and we prophecie in part, that whilest a man is in this life, he cannot attaine to all things, but attaineth onely in part; but the holy Ghost, saith he, which in this life teacheth in part, shall after this life bring vs into all truth. Hee therefore giueth vs to vnderstand, that not­withstanding this promise of the spirit of truth, it is inci­dent to them to whom the same appertaineth, to be igno­rant in this life of many truthes, to be subiect to mistaking and errour, albeit the same spirit faileth not to enlighten them to that necessary truth which serueth for introducti­on finally to all truth. And heerein the Apostle comfort­eth vs, that Phil. 3.15. that if any man be otherwise minded (than is right) God will reueale the same to him, so long as in that whereunto we are come, we proceed by one rule, that we may minde one thing. But wee are specially to note the reason which our Sauiour addeth to the words alleaged; When he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will leade you into all truth; for he shall not speake of himselfe, but whatsoeuer he shall beare, shall he speake: meaning thereby the same that he hath before said; Ioh. 14.26. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance that I haue told you: and which he saith presently after; cap. 16.14. He shall glorifie me; for he shall receiue of mine, and shall shew it vnto you. For hereby it is manifest, that the holy Ghost which shall leade vs into all truth, because he shall speake nothing of himselfe, shall therefore Thophylact. in Ioan. 16. Ni­hil docturus est extra ea quae Christus docuit. speake nothing but what Christ hath before spoken. As therefore when Christ saith of himselfe, Ioh. 14.10. I speake not of my selfe, hee would import that he spake nothing but what the father had before spoken in the Scriptures of the Law and the [Page 206]Prophets, as Chrysost. de sanct. & o­rando spiritu. Quia seductor est habitus, di­cit; Ego à meip­so non loquor, sed de lege, de Prophet is Chrysostome expoundeth it, euen so when he saith of the holy Ghost, that he shall speake nothing of him­selfe, we are likewise to conceiue, that the holy Ghost shall teach nothing but what Christ himselfe hath first taught in the Scriptures of the Euangelists and Apostles. Whereup­on we conclude as Chrysostome doth, Ibid. Siquem videritis dicen­tem, spiritum sanctum habee, & non loquen­tem Euangelica sed propria, is à seipso loquitur, & non est spiri­tus sanctus in ipso. Et paulò post: Siquis eo­rum qui dicun­tur habere spi­ritum sanctum, dicat aliquid à seipso, & non ex Euangelijs, ne credite, &c. Ex quo non le­git haec scripta, sed ex seipso lo­quitur, manife­stum est quod non habet spiri­tum sanctum. If yee see a man say­ing, I haue the holy. Ghost, and not speaking the things of the Gospell, but matters of his owne, he speaketh of himselfe, and the holy Ghost is not in him. If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost do speake any thing of himselfe, and not out of the Gospell, beleeue him not. For that he readeth not those things which he saith in the Scriptures, it is manifest that he hath not the holy Ghost. Now therefore seeing M. Bishops church, contrary to the ordinance of God, seuereth Esay 59.21. the spirit of truth from Eph. 1 13. Col. 1.5.the word of truth, and speaketh many things of her-felfe, whereof Christ hath said nothing, whereof wee reade nothing in the Scriptures, it is manifest that they play the Sycophants as other heretikes haue done, pretending to speake by the spirit of Christ, when they speake wholly either by their owne or by a woorse spirit. But M. Bishop not content with one corruption, in substituting his church of Rome in the place of the Catholike Church of Christ, addeth another, in saying, that that article of our Creede doth teach vs to beleeue the Catholike church. Which words, although being truely meant, they expresse the same in English, which wee say in Greeke and Latin, yet being by the drift of his speech caried to a verie partiall and false construction, doe shew him to be a leaud peruer­ter of our Christian faith. For whereas we saie, Credo san­ctam ecclesiam Catholicam, in the accusatiue case, the mea­ning is, I beleeue that there is a holy Catholike church; name­ly, that God the Father in all ages and at all times, and a­midst all the defections and corruptions of the world hath still had and shall haue his number of elect and chosen peo­ple, to whom the benefite of Christs death and resurrecti­on [Page 207]on standeth effectuall and good by the sanctification of the holy Ghost, and the same now not of one nation or people onely, but of all nations and peoples thorowout the whole world. But M. Bishop by the currant of his speech turneth the accusatiue case into the datiue, as if it were said in our Creed, Credo ecclesiae sanctae Catholicae; I giue credit to the holy Catholike church; I beleeue it to be true whatsoeuer is taught me by the holy Catholike church, that so his Reader thinkeing himselfe bound to beleeue the Catholike church, and taking this Catholike church to be meant of the church of Rome, may hold himselfe bound by the articles of his Creed in all things to beleeue the church of Rome. Thus he and his fellowes most treacherously and leaudly a­gainst their owne knowledge and conscience delude simple and ignorant soules, and make them slaues to their impious and wicked deuices, by bearing them in hand that they are bound thus to obey the Catholike church. Now heereof Master PERKINS iustly inferreth, that the eternall truth of God the Creatour is heereby made to depend vpon the deter­mination of the creature. For let God say what he will, wee shall not stand bound to take it for truth if the church shall say the contrary, or vnlesse that which he saith be approo­ned by the Church. Verily as Tertullian vpbraided of old the Senate of Rome, that Tertul. Apo­loget. cap. 5. A­pud vos de hu­mano arbitratu diuinitas pensi­tatur: nisi ho­mini deus pla­cuerit deus non erit. with them Godhead stood at the discretion of men, and vnlesse God did please man, he should be no God; so may it well be said now of the church of Rome, that with them the religion of God standeth at their discre­tion, and that onely shall be religion that pleaseth them. For the Bishop of Rome whilest hee taketh vpon him to make declaration of Christian faith, maketh what he list of Christian faith, and hath verified of himselfe that which Hierome said of Antichrist, that Hieron. in Da­niel. 7. Eleuatur supra omne quod dicitur deu [...], cunctam religionem suae subijciens pote­stati. he should subiect all religi­on to his owne power. For the colouring of which iniquity, M. Bishop according to their maner vseth guilefull words of notable hypocrisie, and with a faire tale gloseth a grosse indignity and damnable presumption against God. He tel­leth [Page 208]vs that Gods truth is sincere and certaine in it selfe before any declaration of the Church. Well, and what hath the church then to doe with this sincere and certaine truth? Forsooth, we poore creatures are subiect to mistaking and er­rour, and doe not so certainly vnderstand that truth of God. But who are those poore creatures, of whom he speaketh? Mar­ry M. Bishop, and such other petites, who are but dij mino­rum gentium, they are poore creatures; but the Pope and his Cardinals, and the Bishops that comply to him, they are rich creatures, they are the Church, they are exempted from mistaking and errour; we must thinke all perfection of wit to be lodged in their braines; and that they certaine­ly vnderstand and know the truth of God. But what assu­rance can they giue vs in this behalfe? Surely, the Scribes and Pharisees, the high Priests and Elders of the lewes had as much to say for themselues, and a great deale more than they. They could plead for themselues: Ioh. 8.33. We are the seede of Abraham; cap. 9.28.We be Moses disciples; vers. 41.We see; Ier. 8 8.We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with vs; ca. 18.18.The law shall not pe­rish from the Priest, nor counsell from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet; and yet they persecuted Christ the sonne of God, who only is the Truth. How then may we now be assured that the Church of Rome is not the same to the church of Christ, as they then were to Christ himselfe? How may we poore creatures certainely vnderstand, that those rich creatures are not subiect to error and mistaking as well as we? Well, if we will not beleeue it, we may chuse; but assurance M. Bishop can yeeld none. He can tell vs a discourse what Christ said to Peter: but that Christ euer spake either of Pope or Cardinall, he can shew vs no­thing. And yet as if this matter were cleere, he telleth vs of this church of theirs, that whereas we are subiect to mista­king and errour, God hath ordained and appointed the same to be a skilfull and faithfull mistresse and interpreter, to assure vs both what is his word, and what is the true meaning of it. But againe we aske him, where hath God so ordained and ap­pointed? [Page 209]in what Scripture hath he written it, or by what words hath he expressed it, that the church which he mea­neth should bee our mistresse to tell vs what is Gods word, & what is the true meaning of it? If he haue euidence & au­thority for it, let him shew it; if he haue not, what shall we thinke of him that dareth thus to bely the maiesty of God? But if he considered the matter aright, he would conceiue, that those rich creatures of his, haue no other or better meanes to assure what is Gods word, and what is the meaning of it, than other poore creatures haue. By what touchstone they can make triall thereof, by the same can we also as well as they. Which comparison of the gold-smith and the touch­stone, which he himselfe vseth, if it be rightly explicated, serueth notably to set foorth the fraud and falshood of that church, for which he pleadeth. True it is, that the church in this behalfe may rightly bee compared to the Gold­smith. Now the Gold-smith for the discerning of true and perfect gold, doth not take his owne fingers ends, but go­eth to the touch-stone, and no otherwise can hee either make triall himselfe, or giue assurance thereof to other men. In like sort therefore the church, which is the Gold-smith, must vse a touch-stone, for the assuring of that which it propoundeth to bee receiued and beleeued. Now then whereas M. Bishop saith, that we must rely vpon the churches declaration, to be assured which bookes of Scripture be Canoni­call; I answer him, that we cannot be assured thereof by the churches declaration, vnlesse the church declare it and ma­nifest it by the touch-stone. The touch-stone whereby we are to take assurance heereof, is the constant and perpetuall tradition and testimony of the former church. And this te­stimony we first deriue from the church of the Iewes, Rom. 3.2. to whom the words of God were committed, and to whose Scrip­tures, Luk. 24.44. the law, and the Prophets, and the Psalmes (and to no other) Aug. cont. Gaudent. lib. 2. cap. 23. quibus dominus testi­monium perhi­bet tanquam testibus suis. Christ himselfe hath giuen testimony as witnesses of himselfe, reckoning them for Luk. 24.27. all the Scriptures, and wher­of the Iewes in their dispersion giue acknowledgment vn­till [Page 210]this day; God so prouiding, that Aust. in Psa. 58. Per omnes gentes dispersi sunt ludaei te­stes iniquitatis suae & veritatis nostrae: ipsi ha­bent codices de quibus prophe­tatus est Chri­slus, & in Ps. 56. Codicem portat Iudaeus, vnde credat Christianus. Christian faith should be prooued out of those bookes which are acknowledged for true by them that are enemies thereto. This testimony the Chri­stian church receiued of the Apostles, and hath continued the same, together with the acknowledgment of those other bookes of the new testament, which by the Apostles and Euangelists were added to the former. What bookes then haue had this generall and vndoubted auerment and witnesse of the church continued from time to time, those and no other are to be holden for Canonicall bookes, and this is the true touch-stone for trial of certaine and vndoub­ted scriptures. By which touchstone the church of Rome is found to bee not a faithfull Mistresse but a false harlot bringing her bastards into the Church, and forcing men to take them for lawfully begotten. And whereas it is the tra­dition and declaration of the former church which hath beene from the beginning, by which both they and we are to be instructed as touching the true bookes of Canonicall Scripture, they force vpon vs the tradition of their owne church now deliuered vpon their owne word, howsoeuer contrary to that which the church formerly hath declared. If we follow the declaration of the ancient church, then are no other bookes to be taken for Canonicall, but what are now accknowledged and approoued in our Church, the same onely being testified concerning the old testament by the Church of the Iewes, concerning both new and old by the whole Christian church, both the Greeke and Latine, the Easterne and Westerne churches, as Of Traditi­ons, sect. 17. before hath been declared. But the church of Rome, perceiuing the authori­sing of some other writings to be likely to gaine credit to some broken wares whence her thrift and gaine ariseth, hath taken vpon her very presumptuously, as a Mistresse or rather a goddesse, to giue diuine authority to those bookes, reiecting the testimony of that church, which in this be­halfe should bee mistresse both to her and vs. In a word, whatsoeuer is to be attributed to the church in this respect, [Page 211]it is idlely by M. Bishop referred to the church of Rome, as if all other churches must rely vpon her declaration, we our selues being able by the touchstone to make triall of true Scriptures, as well as the church of Rome, and therefore there being no cause why we should rely vpon them more than they vpon vs. And as vainely doth he apply to his purpose the saying of Saint Austin, that he should not beleeue the Gospell except the authority of the church mooued him thereunto; there being nothing therein meant but what may bee applied to the church England as well as to the church of Rome; Saint Austin speaking generally of the vniuersall church thorowout the world, without any ma­ner speciall intendment of the church of Rome. But how leudly they abuse those words of Austin wholly against his meaning and purpose, I haue Of Traditi­ons, sect. 22. before sufficiently declared and neede not heere to repeat againe. As for the churches declaration for vnderstanding the Scripture, that is also to be tried and made good by the touchstone, because no ex­position or sense of Scripture is to be admitted, the doctrine whereof is not to be iustified by other Scripture; and they that bring other senses and meanings do but deceiue men and leade them into errour, as other heretikes formerly haue done, and as the Papists now doe, abusing the Scriptures to draw others after them into destruction. Heereof also enough hath beene said Of Tradi­tions, sect. 21. before, whereof I wish the Reader duely to consider for his satisfaction in this point. That which he saith of other ancient Creeds and Confessions of faith, that they containe not all points of Christian doctrine, I ea­ily admit: but yet let him vnderstand, that it is a maine pre­iudice against them, that neither any ancient Creed, nor any exposition of the Creed, or confession of faith conteineth sundry pointes, which they now make to be matters of the meaning of the Creede. Let him shew that euer any ancient Creed or expositour of the Creed did vnder­stand or deliuer, that the name of the Catholike church in the Creed hath any speciall reference to the Church of [Page 212]Rome; that the Catholike church is to be defined as they now define it, by being subiect to the bishop of Rome; that the certaine declaration of the Canonicall bookes, and of the true sense of Scripture, is alwaies infallibly to be ex­pected from the sentence of that Church; that all Christi­ans are fully to beleeue and wholly to relie vpon that Church for resolution of all points of faith necessarie to sal­uation. Which, and such other points, made by them mat­ters of the Creed, because neuer any ancient writer hath found to be conteined or intended in the Creed, therefore we iustly affirme them to be new Creed-makers, coiners of new articles of faith, and thereby peruerters and corrup­ters of the true Christian faith. As concerning the Articles mentioned by M. Perkins now holden by the Romish Church, that the Pope is Christs Vicar and head of the Catho­like Church; that there is a purgatorie fire after this life, that images of God and of Saints are to be worshipped; that praier is to be made to Saints departed, and their intercession to bee required; that there is a propitiatorie sacrifice daily offered in the Masse for the sinnes of quicke and dead; M. Bi­shop answereth, that the Fathers haue most plainly taught them in their writings, and expresly condemned of heresie most of the contrary positions. But what Fathers are they, and in what writings haue they so done? Surely, if the Bishop of Rome in the ancient Church had beene taken to bee the Vicar of Christ, and head of the Catholike church, it can­not be but that we should haue very currant and frequent and memorable testimonie thereof, as a matter vniuersally receiued, and euery where practised. But now let M. Bi­shop shew vs one; let him shew so much as one that for diuers hundreds of yeeres after Christ, did euer dreame of any such thing. Which though indeed he cannot doe, yet hee telleth vs of that and the rest, that in those seuerall questions he hath before prooued what he saith; whereas hee hath not spoken of any more of these points, saue onely one, and in that one point, cannot be said to haue prooued [Page 213]any thing, because whatsoeuer hee hath said, standeth hi­therto reprooued. And surely if he haue no better proofes than hitherto he hath brought in all the questions that hee hath handled, the Protestants will but scorne him as a ve­ry vnproouing disputer, and aduise him to bestow his time a while longer in the Schooles, to know what it is to prooue.

3. W. BISHOP.

Touching beleeuing in the Church, which he thrusteth in by the way, we vse not that phrase, as the very Creed sheweth; following therein S. Augustine with others, who hold, that to beleeue in a thing, is to make it our Creatour, by giuing our whole heart vnto it; in which sense we beleeue not in Saints, nor in the Church: albeit some other ancient Doctors, take the words to beleeue in, not so precisely, but say that we may be­leeue in the Church and in Saints: that is, beleeue certainly that the Catholike church is the onely true company of Chri­stians; and that to the lawfull gouernours thereof, it appe [...]tai­neth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall, and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them: so we beleeue the Saints in heauen to heare our prayers, to be carefull to pray for vs, and to bee able to obtaine by intreaty much at Gods hands, in whose high fauour they liue. Thus much in answer vnto that which M. PERKINS obiecteth in generall. Now to that he saith in particular.

R. ABBOT.

Greg. Nazia. de sp. sancto. o­rat 6. S [...]reatū est, quo pacto in ipsum eredi­mu? &c. Non enim idem est in aliquem cre­dere, & de eo credere: nam illud diuimt atis est; hoc cuiusuis rei. It is one thing, saith Gregory Nazianzene, to beleeue in any one, another to beleeue of or concerning him; the one be­longeth to the Godhead, the other is vsed of euery thing. And heereby hee prooueth that the holy Ghost is God because wee beleeue in the holy Ghost. By which argument our Sauiour Christ also teacheth vs to acknowledge him to be God, when he saith; Ioh. 14.1. Yee beleeue in God, beleeue also in me; where Hilar. de Trin. lib. 9. Vni­ens se fidei dei & naturae eius vniuit, &c. de­umse per id do­cens cum in eum credendum sit ab his qui in de­um credant. vniting himselfe to the beleefe of God, saith Hilarie, he vniteth himselfe also to his nature; thereby teaching, that he [Page 214]himselfe is God for that they who beleeue in God must be­leeue in him. I might further enlarge this point by the testimonies and expositions of Aug. in Ioan. tract 29. & de ciu. dei. l. 18. ca. 54. Euseb. E­missen. Ruffin. Venant. in sym­bol. Apost. Austin, Eusebius, Emissenus, Ruffinus, Venantius, and others, who all acknowledge, that that phrase belongeth to God, and is not to bee applied to any creature. But it shall not neede, because the Elucidatour of the Romane Cate­chisme, according to the doctrine of the Catechisme it self, as he pretendeth, though quite contrary both to their do­ctrine and practise otherwise, doth tell vs, that Elucidat. Ca­tech. Roman. c. 9. q. 5. Cùm di­cimus nos crede­re in deum pa­trem, in filium, in sp. sanctum, phrasis haec lo­quendi signifi­cat nos ita cre­dere deum pa­trem, filium & spiritu sanctū, vt etiam in eis omnem fiduci­am nostram collocemus, quam in deo so­lo, non autem in creaturis ponere possumus, ex quibus tamen ecclesia compo­sita est. when wee say wee beleeue in God the Father, in the Sonne, in the ho­ly Ghost, this phrase of speaking doth signifie that wee so be­leeue God the Father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost, as that also we place all our confidence in them, which we are to put in God onely, and not increatures, of which notwithstanding the Church consisteth. Which exposition wee acknowledge conteineth the very trueth, agreeable to Gods word, and doe wish that they would alwaies continue constant there­in. But they doe heerein as their vsuall maner is, what by euidence of truth they are forced to say in one place, for the maintenance of their owne traditions and superstiti­ons, they vnsay it or qualifie it in another. And in this sort M. Bishop heere dealeth, who first inclining somewhat to that construction alreadie mentioned, and telling vs that to beleeue in a thing, is to make it our Creatour, by giuing our whole heart vnto it, alleageth notwithstanding, that some ancient Doctours take the words (to beleeue in) not so precisely, but say that wee may beleeue in the church and in Saints; heereby to make way to his absurd conceits, which none of the ancient Doctours dreamed of. it is true indeed that Epiphanius and Cyril haue vsed that maner of speech, by adding the preposition, in, to the rest of the articles; I beleeue in one holy Catholike church, in one Baptisme, in the re­mission of sinnes, in the resurrection of the body, in the life eternal; but yet making thereof no other construction than we do, as if the article were away. To beleeue in the church, [Page 215]was with them, as M. Bishop saith, to beleeue certainly in the Catholike church, to be the onely true company of Christi­ans, and thereof we contend not; wee beleeue the same as well as they, though not in M. Bishops meaning, which neuer was any part of their meaning, that the Catholike church should be meant in any speciall maner of the church of Rome. But whereas he addeth, it is another part of their construction, that to the lawfull gouernours thereof, that is, as he intendeth, to the Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops, it appertaineth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall, and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them; he ve­rie shamefully abuseth the ancient Doctours, of whom there is not one that hath noted any such matter to be con­teined in the Creed. If hee know any, let him acquaint vs therewith; if hee know none, let him confesse to his Rea­der, as he must, that he hath sought to deceiue him with a lie. The same I say of beleeuing in Saints; for which of the ancient Doctours hath taught vs out of our Creed, that we are to beleeue in them? He telleth vs what they meant by it, that wee beleeue the Saints in heauen to heare our praiers, to be carefull to pray for vs, and to be able to obteine by intreatie much at Gods hands. But what a strange man is he that will tell vs what men meant by words which they neuer spake? Surely, to beleeue in Saints is no antiquitie, but nouelty, and the deuice of him, who by beleeuing in Saints seeketh to draw men away from beleefe in God. The Apo­stle telleth vs, that Rom. 10 17. Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Thereupon Basil gathereth thus: Basil. Ethit. reg. 80. Si quic­quid ex fide non est peccatum est, fides verò ex au­ditu, auditus autem p [...]r ver­bum Dei est; er­go quicquid ex­tra diuinam Scripturam est, cùm ex fide non sit peccatum est. If whatso­euer is not of faith bee sinne, and faith commeth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, surely whatsoeuer is beside the Scripture of God, because it is not of faith, is sinne. Let M. Bishop then shew vs some word of God, some warrant of Scripture, that it is one point of faith to beleeue in Saints; or if hee cannot so doe, we must rest perswaded as we are, that to beleeue in Saints is to sinne against God. [Page 216]And if we may not beleeue in Saints, then neither may we pray vnto them, for Rom. 10.14. how shall they call vpon him, saith the Apostle, in whom they haue not beleeued? And seeing praier is Grego. Moral. lib. 22. cap. 13. Vera postulatio non in oris est vocibus sed in cogitationibus cordis. not a matter of the lippes, but of the heart, how can wee beleeue that the Saints in heauen heare our praiers, when as the word of God telleth vs, that 1. King. 8.39. it is God only which know­eth the hearts of all the children of men? Againe, seeing God hath himselfe named vnto vs the Mediator by whose intre­ty, & Mat. 3.17. Ephe. 3.12. for whose sake he wil accept vs, and in whom he will be Iohn 14.13. glorified for the granting of our requests, who Rom. 8.34. sitteth at the right hand of God, and Heb. 7.25.euer liueth to make intercession for vs; how can we call it faith, and not rather impudent presumption, that we of our owne heads should set vp eue­ry Saint in heauen to be a Master of requests, and disturbe that order which God himselfe hath appointed for our ac­cesse to him? Admit that in generality they pray for the consummation of their brethren; they pray in fellowship of loue, not by authority of mediation; as ioined in affecti­on with vs, not as by specialtie of fauour appointed to be patrons for vs; for in that respect it is true which Saint Au­stin telleth vs, that August. in Psam. 64. Solus ibi ex his qui carnem gusta­verunt interpel­lat pro nobis. of all that haue beene partakers of flesh, it is Christ onely in heauen that maketh intercession for vs. To conclude, we haue heard before out of the Catechisme, that our beleeuing in God requireth all our confidence and trust to be placed in God onely. Accordingly Cyprian saith, that Cyprian. de dupl. martyr. Non credit in deum, qui non in eo solo collo­cat totius feli­citatis suae fidu­tiam. he beleeueth not in God that placeth not the confidence of all his happinesse in God onely. But beleeuing in Saints cannot be vn­derstood but to import putting of trust and confidence in them. Therefore we cannot beleeue in Saints, but with the ouerthrow of our beleefe and trust in God. And that the Popish beleeuing in Saints, importeth the putting of their trust and confidence in them, it plainly appeareth as by o­ther their offices of deuotion, so specially by their Ladies Psalter wherein they blasphemously vse to the Virgin Ma­rie those words whereby Dauid professed his trust in God: [Page 217] Psalter. Ma­riae. Psal. 7. Domina in te speraui; de ini­micis meis libe­ra animam me­am. & Psal. 10. In domina con­fido propter dul­cedinem miseri­cordiae nominis sui. & psal. 21. Quia ego spera­ui in gratia tua, sempiternum a me opprobrium abstulisti. & Psal. 45. Do­mina refugium nostrum tu es in omni necessitate nostra. & Psal. 53 Domina in nomine tuo sal­uum me fac. O Lady, in thee haue I hoped, deliuer my soule from mine ene­mies; I trust in our Lady for the sweetnesse of the mercy of her name; Because I haue trusted in thy grace, thou hast taken a­way from me euerlasting reproch: O our Lady, thou art our refuge in all our necessity; O Lady saue mee by thy name. And whereas M. Bishop saith, that our beleeuing in God is the gi­uing of our whole heart vnto him, they yeeld the same to our Lady, also saying; I confesse vnto thee Ibid. Psal. 9. Confitebor tibi Domina in toto corde meo. & Psal. 102. Om­nia praecordia mea glorificate nomen eius.O Lady, with my whole heart, let all my hartstrings glorifiy her name. By these and infinite other such speeches it appeareth that by their belee­uing in Saints they commit idolatry, and doe giue that ho­nour to the Saints which belongeth to God onely.

4. W. BISHOP.

He chargeth vs first, with the breach of the third article, Conceiued by the holy Ghost: Which (saith he) is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse, into the body and blood of Christ: for heere wee are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ, beginning in his conception, and neuer ending af­terward.

Answ. Heere is a strange exposition of the Creed. Is Christs incarnation perpetuall, and not yet ended? then it is true to say, that Christ is not yet incarnate; as we may say truely, that a man is not borne, vntill his birth be accomplished and ended. But to the present purpose: because Christs incarnation began at his conception, cannot bread be turned afterward into his bo­dy? how hangeth this together? Belike he meanes that Christs body was but once conceiued, and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe: therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing. This to be his meaning, he declares in the question of the Sacrament; but it is too too simple and childish. For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread, as he was by the holy Ghost, who was the efficient cause of his concep­tion: but that the same body that was conceiued by the holy Ghost, is made really present in the Sacrament, by transubstanti­ation [Page 218]of bread into it, which hath no opposition at all with this article, as I haue more largely prooued in the for said question. And whereas he saith farther, cleane besides the purpose of this article, that Christs body hath the essentiall properties of a true body, standing of flesh and bone: we grant the same; but when he addeth, that locall circumscription cannot be se­uered from a body, he is deceiued: for the greatest body of all others, (which is the highest heauen) is not circumscribed by any place; because there is no other body without it, whose ex­tremities might compasse in, and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen. And when he saith, that to be circumscribed in place, is an essential property of euery quantity; and that quantity is the common essence of euery body: he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Legi­cian, who knoweth that no accident (such as euery quantity is) can be of the essence and nature of a substance, such as Christs body is. Neither would any man say, (that cared what he said) that to be circumscribed in a place is essential to euery quantity, when all numbers that be quantities, haue no relation vnto any place: neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place; but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kinde of quantitie, to be apt, and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place. And natu­rally all bodies (except the highest heauen) haue one place, out of which they passe (as Saint Austin said) when they come into another: but by the omnipotent power of God, any body may be separated from his place, or be in as many places at once, as it shall please God to seate it: because to be circumscribed with a place actually, is a meere accident vnto a substantiall body, and without the nature of quantity; and God may not without blasphemy be disabled to separate a substance from an acci­dent.

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishop, saue that he was disposed to cauill, knew well enough what M. PERKINS meant by the perpetuall in­carnation [Page 219]of Christ; The truth of Christs body destroied by Popish tran­substantia­tion. that whereby he tooke flesh once for all and to continue man for eu [...]r. Now it is true, that because Christ hath but one only body, and that body was perfect by that incarnation, therefore bread, which hath his being after, cannot be said to be turned into the body which was before. For when one thing is turned into another, the lat­ter is not, till it be produced of the former, neither hath the one beginning, but by the ending of the other. Aarons rod was turned into a serpent, but the serpent was not till of the rod there became a serpent. Our Sauiour Christ turned water into wine, but the wine was not till of water there be­came wine. And absurd it is, that one and the same thing being fully and perfectly made already, should yet be said to be made of any other thing. As for M. Bishops exception, it is childish and impertinent, because we doe not charge them to hold, that the body of Christ is so conceiued by bread as it was conceiued by the holy Ghost, who was the efficient cause of his conception: but we say, that sith the body of Christ by the power of the holy Ghost was conceiued and made of the substance of the Virgin Mary, and thereby became a consummate and perfect body, it is therefore absurd to af­firme that the same body is now to be made of any other thing. But this is not the thing that M. PER. aimed at; it is the condition and nature of a true body whereof he argu­eth, which we professe to beleeue that Christ tooke in his conception and incarnation, but is ouerthrowen by Popish transubstantiation. He saith, that Christs body hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a body, which hee namely specifieth in local circumscription, which he saith, can no way be seuered from a body, it remaining a body; implying, that the Papists affirming the body of Christ without locall circumscription, doe thereby destro [...] the truth of his body. M. Bishop answereth, that M. PER. heerein is deceiued; For, saith he, the greatest body of all other, which is the highest hea­uen, is not circumscribed by any place, because there is no body without it to circumscribe it. Well, but yet it hath dimensi­on [Page 220]and position and distance of parts, and motion accor­dingly; and therefore quantum inse, it is locally circumscri­bed; the only defect is, that it hath not a body without it to be circumscribed thereby. Yea we may truely say, that it hath a kinde of locall circumscription by the superficiall clausure and determination of it owne substance. In as much therefore as in it selfe it hath euery way the condition of lo­call circumscription, it is no instance against M. PER. rule, that locall circumscription cannot be seuered from a true body. But because he taketh locall circumscription so nicely as we see he doth, I would gladly haue him to resolue vs one question thereof, and his answer shall shew the nullity of his owne exception. He hath told vs Preface to the Reader, sect. 2. before that the body of Christ is in one place circumscribed, and in another vn­circumscribed: circumscribed in heauen, and in the Sacra­ment vncircumscribed. Now let him tell vs how the body of Christ in heauen hath locall circumscription? To speake of Physicall and material heauens, it is true of Christ which the Apostle saith, Ephe. 4.10. He is ascended far aboue all heauens, and therefore aboue that highest heauen, which M. Bishop na­meth to vs, beyond which there is neither vacuum nor locus properly so called, but the incomprehensible habitation of diuine light, which our thoughts are in no sortable to con­ceiue. How then is the body of Christ locally circumscribed, where yet there is no Physicall or naturall place? Let him giue vs answer heereof, and then we will answer him, that looke what giueth locall circumscription to the body of Christ in heauen, the same also giueth locall circumscription to the highest heauen. Vnderstand the highest heauen, gen­tle Reader, as M. Bishop doth, for the vttermost sphere of the materiall globe of this visible world, beyond which is that heauen into which we beleeue our Lord Iesus to haue ascended, and where we hope to dwell with him. This ex­ception being frustrate, let vs see the rest, where M. Bishop standing nicely and precisely vpon termes of schooles, tel­leth vs, that M. PERKINS makes himselfe a common mock­ing-stocke [Page 221]to euery simple Logician, of whom notwithstand­ing I dare boldly say, that hee was as good a Logician as Doctour Bishop is, though writing to the people he vsed his words accordingly. He saith that quantity is the common essence of euery body, and who knoweth not, saith M. Bishop, that no accident, as euery quantity is, can be of the essence of a substance as Christs body is. Well Sir, but yet quantity gi­ueth existence to euery body, which is enough to M. PER. purpose, and to be the subiect of quantity, or indued with quan­tity, is the common and true essence of a body. If he will say, nay; we desire him of his courtesie to take the paines to send vs without quantity the true definition of a body. Albeit his reading might serue him to vnderstand, that there are few learned men, or none at all, so strict in termes, but that they call by the name of essentiall properties whatsoeuer doth immediately and necessarily issue from the essence of a thing, though according to Logicke rules it be no part of the essence thereof. And thus M. PERK. saith againe, that to be circumscribed in place is an essentiall property of euery quantity: which saith M. Bishop, no man would say that cared what hee said. And why? Because all numbers, saith hee, which be quantities, haue no relation vnto any place. But hee might easily haue conceiued that M. PER. as I said before, spake according to vulgar vse, which for the most part vnderstandeth quantity of the magnitude and great­nesse of bodies, in which meaning it is a property flowing out of the essence of euery quantity, not onely to be apt to be circumscribed with a place, but to be circumscribed and determined locally according to that meaning of locall cir­cumscription which I haue before expressed. Therefore in this sort it is not a meere accident to a substantiall body to be circumscribed, but it is proprium quarto modo, agreeing al­waies to euery body, and to nothing but a body, necessarily arising of the dimensions of the length, breadth and thick­nesse of a body, and the deniall whereof is the taking away of the nature of a body. As for his allegation of the almigh­tie [Page 222]power of God how idle it is, it hath beene Preface to the Reader. sect. 8. before de­clared. For God doth not by his omnipotency contradict himselfe, neither doth his power serue to make good the fantasticall dreames of giddy headed men to be said to de­stroy the nature of a thing, and yet to leaue it still continu­ing the selfe-same thing. But it is woorth the noting how M. Bishop heere plaieth the micher and stealeth by two al­legations vsed by M. Perkins, very pertinent to the matter heere in hand. It is for the illocality of the body of Christ that M. Bishop pleadeth the omnipotency of God: but M. Perkins bringeth in Leo Bishop of Rome, saying that Leo. epist. 70. Nulla ratione extranostri est corporis verita­tem. the body of Christ is in no sort without the truth of our body. This he passeth by without any mention of it, as if he had not seene any such thing. The words of Saint Austin he vouch­safed to take some knowledge of, but applieth them gene­rally to all bodies, whereas Saint Austin also spake of the body of Christ; making a difference betwixt Christ, as God and man. August. in Ioan. tract. 31. In terra loque­batur, & tamen in caelose esse di­cebat: sic venit vt inde non ab­scederet: sic re­dijt vt nos non derelinqueret. Quid mirami­n [...]? Deus hoc facit. Homo enim secundù;m corpus in loco est & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo lo­co vnde venit non est: Deus autem implet omnia, & vbi­que totus est, non secundum spatia tenetur locis. Christ, saith he, spake vpon earth, and yet said he was in heauen; the sonne of man which is in heauen. He so came, as that he departed not from thence; he so returned, as that he did not forsake vs. Why do ye wonder heereat, saith he? God doth this. For man according to his body is in a place, and departeth from the place, and when he is come into another place, is not in that place from whence hee came: but God filleth all things, and is whole euery where, and is not conteined in [...]ace of place. Thus doth Saint Austin distinguish the God-head and man-hood of Christ, making the body of Christ of the same condition with our bodies, so as that it leaueth one place whensoeuer it commeth to another. The church of Rome therefore affirming a body of Christ without exten­tion or space of place, that is, a ghost in stead of a body, im­pugneth the article of our faith, whereby we beleeue that he was conceiued and borne of the substance of the Virgin Mary according to the truth and condition of our bodies.

5. W. BISHOP.

By this is confuted also his second instance: Christ is ascen­ded into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, therefore his body is not really and locally in the Sacrament. This followeth not, Chrysost. lib. de sacerd.because it is in both places at once, as Saint Chrysostome in expresse tearmes teacheth. O miracle! O goodnesse of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father, at the very same instant is touched with the handes of all men, Real presence denied by our beleefe of Christs ascen­sion. and giueth himselfe to them that will re­ceiue and embrace him! See more of this in the question of the blessed Sacrament, where M. PER. citeth the very same authorities, which he heere repeateth; see my answer to to them there.

R. ABBOT.

It is a true argument and very consequent, Christ is as­cended into heauen, and there sitteth at the right hand of God the father: therefore hee is not really and locally in the sacrament. The connexion is Saint Austins: August. in Ioan tract. 50. Conuersatus est secundum corpo­ris praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum dis­cipulis suis, & eis deducentibus videndo non se­quendo ascend it in caelū, & non est hîc. He is ascended into heauen, and is not heere, as touching the presence of his body. Saint Austin saith, that because he is ascended, therefore as touching his body he is not heere. M. Bishop saith, that notwithstanding his ascension he is still heere ac­cording to his body. Whether now may we thinke is more likely of these two to bee beleeued? But M. Bishop to saue himselfe, will set Chrysostome and Austin together by the eares. Forsooth, Chrysostome reporteth it as a miracle, that he who sitteth aboue with his father, at the very same instant is touched with the hands of all men, and giueth himselfe to them that will receiue and embrace him. What Chrysostomes minde was in this behalfe, appeareth by that which other­where he saith, that Chrysost. op. imperf. hom. 11. In vasis sancti­facatis non est verum corpus Christi sed my­sterium corporis eius continetur. in the holy vessels, not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of his body is contained. And by this mystery of his body, Saint Austin saith, that August. epist. 23. Secundum quendam mo­dum sacramen­tum corporis Christi corpus Christi est. after a cer­taine maner it is the body of Christ; and Cyprian saith, that [Page 224] Cyprian. de re­surrect. Christi. Quod videtur nonane & vir­tute Christs cor­pus censetur. in name and power it is accounted the body of Christ. As therefore Saint Austin saith, that August. in Psal. 33. conc. 2. Ipse se porta­bat quodammo­do cum diceret, Hoc est corpus meum. Christ did in some sort beare himselfe in his owne hands, when he said, This is my body, in some sort, he saith, or after a sort, not verily and indeed: so Chrysostome intendeth, that he who sitteth at the right hand of God is after a sort touched in the Sacrament, with the hands of all the partakers thereof; not as touching the reality, but as touching the mysterie of his body, yet so (wherein consisteth the miracle which Chrysostome mentioneth) as that he indeed giueth himselfe spiritually and by faith to all them that are truely willing to receiue him. And in what meaning Chrysostme spake those words, we may easily conceiue by other words which he vseth in the very same place: Chrysost. de sacerd. lib. 3. Dum conspicis dominum im­molatum, Sa­cerdotem sacri­ficio incumben­tem ac preces fundentem, tum verò turbam circumfusam pretioso illo san­guine intingi ac rubefieri, eti­amnè te inter mortales versa­ri at (que) in terra confistere censes? annon potiùs e­vestigiò ad cae­lum transferris? annon omnem ca ni [...]c [...]gitatio­nem abijcre [...]s mente [...]ura cir­cumspie [...]quae in ce [...] sunt? O mi­raiu um; O d [...] bemgintatem; q [...] cum patre sursum sedet, in illo ipsotemporis articulo on nium manibus pertra­ctatur, a [...] s [...]p [...] tradit w [...]tibus ipsum excipere acc [...]m [...]lecti, fit autem id nullis praestigijs, sed apertis ac [...]reumsp [...]tientibus circumsistentium omnium occutis. When thou seest the Lord offered, the Priest leaning to the Sacrifice and powring foorth praier, and the people round about died and made red with that pretious blood, doest thou thinke that thou art amongst mortall men, or standing vpon the earth? Art thou not foorthwith lift vp to heauen? Doest thou not cast away all carnall cogitation, and with pure minde behold those things which are in heauen aboue? Then vsing the words which M. Bishop hath alleaged he addeth: And this is done, not by collusion, but so as that the standers by with open eies behold all that is done. Let M. Bishop now tell vs: doe the standers by with open eies see Christ offered? Are they made red with the bloud of Christ? Must they thinke that they are indeed carried vp to heauen, and are not vpon the earth? If he cannot deny, but that these words are vsed by excesse and vehemencie of speech, to drawe the mindes of his hearers, to diuine and heauenly meditation of the my­steries then in hand: can hee deny but that wee haue iust cause to vnderstand the other words in the very same sort? The other testimonies cited by M. PER. out of Vigilius, Fulgentius, Austin, doe make the same good, because they [Page 225]shew, that Christ according to his manhood, is not really vpon the earth. M. Bishop biddeth vs see his answeres to those authorities: but as yet we doe not see them; and if euer we do see them, we shall see him as wise, or rather as wilfull, in them as he hath beene in all the rest.

6. W. BISHOP.

Thirdly, he reasoneth thus: The Church as it is belee­ued is not seene. In that we beleeue the Catho­like Church, it followeth that it is inuisible, because things seene, are not beleeued.

We answer: that the persons in the Catholike Church are and euer were visible, euen to Iewes and Heathens who perse­cuted them; but the inward indowments of those persons: that is, their faith, hope, and charity: their assistance by Gods spirit, and such like Christian qualities, are inuisible & to be beleeued. And euen as a man is truely said to be visible, though he con­sist aswell of an inuisible soule, as of a visible body: so the Church is visible, for the vsible persons, visible teaching and administring of Sacraments in it: albeit the inward qualities of it be not visible.

R. ABBOT.

Origen. in Cant. hom. 1. Ecclesiam coe­tum omnium aduerte sancto­ [...]um Et hom. 2. Ecclesia ante constitutionem mundi: sic enim dicit Paulus: sicut elegit nos in Christo. &c. The holy Chatholike church is the company of Gods saints, whom he hath elected in Christ before the foundations of the world, and Gregor. in Cantic. cap. 3. Secundum prae­scientiae suae gratiam Chri­stus sanctam ecclesiam de in aeternum per­mansurissanctis construxit. whom he hath by the grace of his foreknowledge appointed to continue with him for euer. It is Ephe. 1.23. the body and Reuel. 21 9. Spouse of Christ: Reuel. 5 9.redeemed and 1. Pet. 1.2. sprinkled with his bloud, Rom. 8 11.quickened by his spirit, Rom 5.19.iustified by his obedience, 2 Cor. 1.22. Eh [...]. 1.13.14. 2. Tim. 2.19.sealed to the remssion of sinnes and euerlasting life. That God hath such a people, we beleeue it, we see it not, neither can our eies discerne who they are that appertaine to this number, it being one of the proper emblemes of Gods honour, j The Lord knoweth who are his. In this sort doe we in the articles of our Creede professe to beleeue the holy Catholike church. That there is a church also visible no man denieth, no man doubteth: nay we affirme, that it is amidst that [Page 226]church which wee see that God gathereth vnto himselfe that church which we cannot see. And to speake of this vi­sible church also, we cannot see it to be Gods church, or that it is Gods word that there is preached, or that they are the Sacraments of Christ which are there administred, or that there is any fruit or benefite to be reaped thereby. We see these things done, but the estimation of them is a matter of faith and not of fight: we see the persons, but we do not by our eies perceiue them to be that that they take vpon them to be. But being by faith instructed that these things are of God, or professing so to be beleeue, we discerue by hea­ring and seeing who they are to whom we are to adioine our selues for the exercise of our faith. So then the church is both visible and inuisible: visible as touching the per­sons, visible as touching open assemblies and exercises; but not visible to bee the church of God: for then Iewes and heathens would see so much, and would leaue to persecute, which now they doe not, because they haue no faith, and the church is no otherwise knowen so to be, but onely by faith. Now what saith M. Bishop to hurt any thing that we say? The persons, saith he, in the Catholike church are visi­ble, but their indowments are inuisible. Well, and men are not true members of the true church by being such and such persons: but by hauing such and such inward indow­ments: and therfore though they bee visible as touching their persons, yet they are not visible as true members of the church. The church therefore which wee professe to beleeue, which consisteth in them that are the true mem­bers of the visible church, must needs be granted to be in­uisible. Yea I say further, that men are not at all members of the visible church by being such and such persons, but by profession of the faith and name of Christ and participa­tion of his Sacraments. And therfore M. Bishop doth much amisse to compare visible persons and inward qualities with the body & the soule, because to be a visible person is not to be in part a member of the church, as the body is part [Page 227]of a man, for then euery Turke and Infidell might be said to be in part a member of the church, because he is a man: but outward acceptance of the faith and visible communi­on with the church, maketh a man outwardly a member thereof, and is as it were the body: the life and soule wher­of is the inward grace of the spirit: whereby he is indeed to the eies of God, that which outwarly he seemeth to bee to the eies of men. But a further difference also there is, for that the soule though in it selfe it be inuisible, yet is certain­ly perceiued and discerned by the actions and motions of the body, and therefore well may a man be said to be visi­ble as a man, though as touching the soule it selfe he be inui­sible; whereas there are no such actions or motions of a member of the visible church whereby the eie of man can certainely see that hee hath life within, or is spiritually the same to God, that outwardly he giueth semblance to men to be. Because therefore the true members of the church are not to be discerned with the eie, it followeth that the church properly so called, consisting of those true members is visible to God onely.

7. W. BISHOP.

His last obiection against vs out of the Creed, is: That the articles of remission of sinnes: resurrection of the body: and life euerlasting, containe a confession of speciall faith. For the meaning of them is thus much: I beleeue the re­mission of mine owne sinnes, and the resurrectition of mine owne body to life euerlasting.

Answer. That is not the meaning, vnlesse you adde some conditions: to wit, I beleeue the remission of my sinnes, if I haue duly vsed the meanes ordained by our Sauiour for the re­mission of them; which is after Baptisme, the Sacrament of Pe­nance. Item, I beleeue I shall haue life euerlasting, if I keepe (as Christ willed the yong-man to keepe) Gods commande­ments, or (at the least) if I doe die with true repentance. Now whether I haue done or shall doe these things required of me, I [Page 228]am not so well assured, as that I can beleue it: for I may be de­ceiued therein; but I haue or may haue a very goood hope, by the grace of God to performe them. Neither is there any more to be gathered out of Saint Augustine, as some of the words by himselfe heere alleaged doe conuince. For he requireth besides faith, that we turne from our sinnes, conforme our will to Gods will, and abide in the lap of the Catholike church; and so at length we shall be healed. See the question of certainty of saluation. Note also by the way, the vncertainty of of M. PER. doctrine, concerning this point: for he holdeth that it is not necessary to haue a certaine perswasion of our owne sal­uation, Pag. 2 [...]0. &. 275. but that it is sufficient to haue a desire to haue it: and that doctrine he putteth there (as he saith himselfe) to ex­pound the Chatechismes, that propound faith at so high: reach, as few can attaine vnto: yet heere and elsewhere, the goodman forgetting himselfe, chargeth vs to crosse the Creed, because we doe not wrest faith vp to so high a straine: and so in heate of quarelling, often expoundeth this contrary to his owne rule. Now for proofe of S. Augustines opinion heerein (whom he onely citeth) take these two sentences for the two points be speaketh of. For the first, that we be certaine by ordinary faith of our saluation, let this serue. Of life euerlasting, which God (that cannot lie) hath promised to his children, De bono perse­uer. cap. 22. De correct. & grat. cap. 13. no man can be secure (and out of danger) before his life be en­ded, which is a tentation vpon earth. Secondly, that a man once truely iustified may afterward fall: We must beleeue (saith this holy father) that certaine of the children of per­dition doe liue in faith, that worketh by charity, and so doe for a time liue faithfully and iustly (they were then truly iusti­fied) and yet afterward doe fall, and that finally; because be calleth them the children of perdition. Thus much in answere vnto that, which M. PER. obiecteth against our religion out of the Creed, which (as you haue seene) consisteth wholly vpon his owne forced exposition, and vaine illations.

R. ABBOT.

That our profession of saith in the Creed, importeth a particular application of those things which we beleeue, Romission of sinnes is belee­ued, not wrought. hath beene sufficiently declared Sect. 3. before in the question of the certainty of saluation. M. Bishop referreth his Reader to that question, as hauing there iustified what he saith heere: but with what face can he so doe, before he hath made it appeare that he is able to defend what he hath said there? What exceptions he hath vsed there, the same he vseth heere; he giueth them no further strength, he cleereth them not from those answers whereby hath beene shewed the inualidity of them; but goeth on with his cuckowes note, saying ouer and ouer still one and the same thing. But his adding of conditions is the destroying of the nature of true faith, which when it professeth to beleeue the remission of sinnes doth therby disclaime the working of it, resting vp­on Gods promise, Agust. in Psal. 88. Non s [...]cundi [...]m meri­ta nostra, sed secundùm mise­recordiam eius, firma est pro­missio.which as S. Austin saith, is sure, not ac­cording to our merits, but according to his owne mercy;Iere. 31.34.I will forgiue their iniquities, and their sinnes wil I remember no more. His sacrament of penance we know not, because Christ hath not taught it; but the true Sacraments which Christ hath ordained are to the faithfull repentant, not workes of merit whereby they purchase, but seales and confirmations of Gods gift, whereby hee freely bestoweth the remission of sinnes. As for the keeping of Gods commandements, we say with S. Iohn; He that saith he knoweth him, that is, as Gre­gory Bishop of Rome expoundeth it, Gregor. in Ezechiel. hom. 22. De fide & operatione Io­annes fatetur dicens; Qui di­cit se nosse de­um. &c. he that saith he be­leeueth in him, & keepeth not his commandements, is a liar, and there is no truth in him.Rom. 7.12.The commandement is holy and iust and good, and Heb. 12.14. without holinesse no man shall see God. But the keeping of Gods commandements is one thing accor­ding to the condition of the law, another according to the precept and exhortation of the Gospell. The Gospell fa­uourably commendeth vnto vs the keeping thereof as a fruit of faith; the law strictly requireth it as the condition [Page 230]of eternall life. The Gospell admitteth forgiuenesse of that that by humane frailty is left vndone: the law is neuer satis­fied vnlesse Gal. 3.10. all be done. Therefore if the beleefe of out obteining eternall life must rest vpon our workes according to the law, we can neuer haue assurance of faith, because we can neuer finde sufficiency and contentment in our owne works. It followeth therefore, that to build the faith of the Gospell vpon the workes of the Law, is to confound the Law and the Gospell, and to destroy the truth of faith. Rom. 4.14. If they which are of the law be heires, saith the Apostle, then faith is made voide, and the promise is made of none effect. But v. 16. therefore it is of faith, that it may be of grace (and therefore Rom. 11.6. not of workes) and the promise may be sure to all the seed, that is, to all that beleeue according to the example of Abra­hams faith. Now then whereas M. Bishop saith, that he be­leeueth to haue life euerlasting if hee keepe the commande­ments, that is no beleefe at all, because he cannot keepe the commandements, as is required for couenant of eternal life. Whereas he telleth vs, that he may haue a very good hope by Gods grace to performe them, his owne heart telleth him that he saith vntruely, because he knoweth himselfe debarred from that hope by God himselfe, by whose words we are taught, that Eccles. 7.22. there is not a man iust in the earth, that doth good and sinneth not, and that Iames 3.2. in many things we offend all, and that Psal. 143.2. in Gods sight no man liuing shall bee found righteous. Therefore amidst all our keeping of Gods commande­ments, amidst all our fightings and wrastlings against sinne, we stil hold fast that confession, that the iust (euen the iust) shall liue by faith; because all our iustice in this life is maimed and halting, and August de ciu. det, lib. 19. cap. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita, vt potiùs remissione pec­catorū, constet quàm prefecti­one virtutum. consisteth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes than in perfection of vertues. It remaineth therefore, that true faith is the apprehension and particular application of the promise of God, expecting the effect and participation thereof, not for any workes of ours, but for his owne mer­cies sake. Of which faith it followeth indeed, that we turne from our sinnes, and conforme our will to Gods will, and abide in [Page 231]the lap of the Catholike church, but these are effects and not causes of that state of saluation which we attaine by faith onely. Saint Austin therefore requiring these things, doth not shake his owne assertion of particular faith, whereby he teacheth a man, as M. Perkins sheweth, to beleeue as touching himselfe, the remission of sinnes, the resurrection of the body, and euerlasting life. As for the contradiction which M. Bishop noteth in M. PER. words, it is more in his conceit than it is indeed. He saith heere, that the act of faith is particularly to apply: he saith elsewhere, that faith notwithstanding doth not alwaies attaine to a distinct ap­plication by formall proposition, but that it is sometimes inuolued and inlapped in sighes and grones, in desires and praiers to God, which cannot be without an expectance of Gods goodnesse and mercy, and yet a perplexed and trou­led minde by questioning it selfe cannot see so much in it selfe. He saith againe, that some define faith generally to be a certaine and full perswasion, which he calleth, so high a reach as few can attaine vnto, because as there is strong faith to perswade certainely and fully, so there is also weake faith which apprehendeth and perswadeth comfortably, but yet not with fulnesse and vndoubted certainty. He saith nothing heere contrary to this, because whether it be strong faith to apply strongly, or weake faith to apply weakely, yet both serue in their degree particularly to ap­ply. It is then M. Bishops want of vnderstanding heere that maketh him to mistake, not M. PER. heate of quar­relling that maketh him to forget. But now to shew what Saint Austins opiniō is concerning these matters of beleefe, he bringeth vs two sentences, the one to shew that by ordi­nary faith a man cannot bee certaine of his saluation; the other, that a man once truely iustified may afterwards final­ly fal away; both tending to this, that a man cannot be said by the articles of the Creed, to beleeue the remission of his owne sinnes vnto euerlasting life. The first, as he alleageth, is thus: August. de bono perseuer. cap. 22. De vita aeterna quam filijs promissio­nu promi sit non mendax deus ante tempora a terna, nemo potest esse secu­ [...]usmisicum [...]ō ­summata fuerit ista vita, quae tentatio est su­per terram; sed faciet nos perse­uerare in se vs (que) in huius vitae [...] ­nem, cui quotidie dicin us; Ne nos inferas in tentationem. Of life euerlasting, which God that cannot lie hath [Page 232]from euerlasting promised to the children of promise, no man can be secure before his life be ended, which is a temptation vpon earth. But what, M. Bishop; did your breath faile you that you could goe no further? did you not thinke the end of the sentence as woorthy to be repeated as the beginning? Goe on man, tell out your tale; for Saint Austin addeth further: But he wil make vs to perseuere in him vnto the end of this life; to whom we daily say, Lead vs not into temptation. What could Saint Austin deuise to speake more agreable to our asserti­on, than this is? We say, that respecting our selues we haue no security; wee are continually beset with danger and feare; many occasions we haue of distrust and despaire; and with these temptations we haue to wrastle the whole course of this life; but amidst all our distractions and feares this is stil the support of our faith, that he wil make vs to per­seuere in him to the end of our life, to whom we daily say, Lead vs not into temptation.1. Thess. 5.24.Faithfull is he, saith the Apostle, who hath called you, who will also doe it. In the other place Saint Austin saith, that [...]e corrept. & gratia. cap 13. Credenaū est, qu [...]sdam de fi­lijs perditionis non accepto do. no perseueran­tiae vsque in fi­nem, in fide quae per dilectionem operatur incipe re viuere, & a­liquandiu fide­liter aciustè viuere, & post­ea cadere &c. we are to beleeue, that some of the children of perdition, not hauing receiued the gift of perseuering to the end, doe begin to liue in faith, that worketh by loue, and for a while doe liue faithfully and iustly, and afterwards doefall away. But this Saint Austin speaketh according to men, and as seemeth to the eies of men, and of that profession of faith, which by outward fruits carieth for the time the semblance of true faith. For to the eies of God, I haue Of the cer­tainty of sal­uation. sect. 10. before shewed out of Austin, that reprobates are neuer effectually called, neuer iustified, neuer partakers of that healthfull and spiri­tuall repentance, whereby man in Christ is reconciled vnto God. Therefore Gregory Bishop of Rome faith, that Gregor. Mo­ral. l. 25. c. 8. Specie tenus cre­dunt quotquot certum est ele­ctorum nume­rum summam (que) transire. Ad fi­dem specie tenus regni veniunt, qui a numero regnicaelestis excluduntur. they who are not of the number of the elect, doe beleeue but only in shew; do in shew onely come to the faith of the kingdome; Ibid. lib. 34. cap. 13. Aurum quod prauis eius persuasionibus quasi lutum sternipotuerit, aurum ante dei oculos nunquam fu [...]t. Qui enim seduci quando (que) non reuersuri possunt quasi habitam sanctita­tem ante oculos hominum videntor amittere, sed eam ante oculos dei nunquam habuerunt.that the gold which by Satans wicked suggestions commeth to be troden vnder feete like dirt, was neuer gold in Gods sight; [Page 233]that they who can be seduced, neuer to returne againe, seeme to lose the holinesse which they had after a sort before the eies of men, but indeed they neuer had it in the sight of God. Behold heere M. Bishop, one of your owne Bishops of Rome, ei­ther a correctour, if you will so haue it, or as we will rather say, an expounder of Saint Austins words, but wholly ad­uerse and contrary to you, denying vnto reprobates that faith and holinesse which you so confidently attribute vnto them. So that in fine we see, that M. PERK, not by forced exposition or vaine illations, but directly and according to truth hath charged you with impious violation of the first principles of the faith.

8. W. BISHOP.

Hence he proceedeth to the tenne Commandements. But be­fore I follow him thither, I may not omit heere to declare how the Protestant Doctors doe foully mangle, and in manner ouer­turne the greatest part of the Creed. Obserue first, that accor­ding to their common doctrine, it is not necessary to beleeue this Creed at all, because it is no part of the written word: secondly, that Caluin doubteth whether it were made by the Apostles or no; being then no part of the written word, Cal. lib. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sess. 18.not made by the Apostles, it must by their doctrine be wholly reiected. Now to the particulars.

1. Concerning the first article, I beleeue in God the Fa­ther almighty, maker of heauen and earth; they doe erre many waies. First, they doe destroy the most simple vnity of the God-head, Confess. fidei gener.by teaching the diuine essence to be really distin­guished into three persons. If the diuine nature be really distinguished into three, there must needes be three diuine essen­ces or natures: ergo, three Gods. Caluin also saith, In actis Serueti. pag. 872. that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from his Father. Melancthon, that there be aswell three diuine natures, as three persons, in locis de Christo.

Secondly, they ouerthrow the Father in the God-head, by denying the Sonne of God, to haue receiued the diuine nature [Page 234]from his Father: as Caluin, Beza, and Whitakers doe, See the Preface.

Thirdly, how is God almighty, if he cannot do all things that haue no manifest repugnance in them? But he cannot after the opinion of diuers of them, make a body to be without locall cir­cumscription, or to bee in two places at once; which notwith­standing some others of them hold to be possible,In colloq. Marpurg. art. 29. Li. 1. cont. Scargum, cap. 14. Dialog. de cor­pore Christi. pag. 94. De con­sil. part. 2.276.as Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Andreas Volanus, &c.

Fourthly, though we beleeue God to be maker of heauen and earth; yet neuer none but blasphemous Heretikes, held him to be true authour and proper worker of all euill done vpon earth by men. Such neuerthelesse bee Bucer, Zwinglius, Caluin, and others of greatest estimation among the Protestants. See the Preface.

2. And in IESVS Christ his onely Sonne our Lord. They must needes hold Christ not to be Gods true naturall Son, which denie him to haue receiued the diuine nature from the Father: againe, thy make him according to his God-head infe­riour to his Father. See the Preface.

3. Borne of the Virgin MARY. Many of them teach, that Christ was borne as other children are, with breach of his Mothers virginity, as Bucer, and Molineus in Vnione Euangelij part. 3. and Caluin signifieth no lesse in harmo. sup. 2. Math. vers. 13.

4. Suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and buried. Friar Luther (with a great band of his followers) doth toughly defend, that the God-head it selfe suffered; which to be blasphemy, Musculus doth prooue in his booke of the er­rours of Luthers Schollers: yet Beza with all them that hold Christ to haue beene our Mediatour, according to his diuine nature, can hardly saue themselues from the same blasphemy. For the chiefest ast of Christs mediation consisteth in his death: if then the God-head did not suffer that death, it had no part in the principal point of Christs mediation. Hither also appertaine all these their blasphemies, to wit: that Christ was so frighted with the apprehension of death, that he forgot himselfe to [Page 235]be our Mediatour, yea refused (as much as in him lay) to be our redeemer: Item, that he thought himselfe forsaken of God, and finally despaired. Se the Preface. Caluin deni­eth not the Creed to be Apostolike.

R. ABBOT.

Whether M. Bishop deale honestly with Caluin as touching his opinion of the Creed, let it appeare by the ve­ry words of Caluin in the very place alleaged. Where ha­uing named it, the Apostles Creed, he taketh occasion ther­upon thus to say: Caluin Insti­tut. lib. 2. cap. 16. sect. 18. Apostolicum autem nuncupo, de authore in­terim minime solicitus. Apo­stolis certè mag­no veterum Scriptorum con­sensu ascribi­tur, siue quod ab illis in com­mune conscrip­tum & editum existimabant, siue quòd com­pendium istud ex doctrina per corum manus tradita bona fide collectum tali elogi [...] con­firmandum cen­suerunt. Neque verò mihi dubi­um est quina prima flatim ecclesiae origine ad ecque ab ipso Apostolorum seculo instar publicae & omnium calculis receptae confessionis obtinuerit, vndecun (que) undem initio fuerit profectum. Nec ab vno aliquo priuatim fuisse conscriptum verisimile est, [...]m ab vltima vsque memoria sacrosanctae inter pios omnes authoritatu fu [...]sse constet. Quod vni­cè curandum est, id extra omnem controuersi [...]m positum habemus, totam in eo fidei nostrae histori­er saccinctè, distinct [...]qu [...] ordine recenseri; nihil autent contineri quod solidis Scripturae testimo­cijs m [...] sit consignatum. Quo intel [...]ecto de anth [...]re vel anxiè laborare vel cum alique digladiari nihil attinet. I call it Apostolike, not making any great scruple who was the authour of it. Surely by the generall con­sent of the ancient writers it is ascribed to the Apostles, either for that they thought it in common written, and set foorth by them, or for that they thought good by such a title to confirme this Briefe, which is faithfully gathered out of the doctrine deli­uered by their hands. Neither doe I doubt whencesoeuer it first began, but that from the first originall of the Christian Church and from the very time of the Apostles it tooke place, as a publicke and generally approoued confession. Neither is it likely to haue beene written in priuate by any one, because it is certaine that from the very beginning it hath beene of sacred authority amongst all godly men. That which we are entirely to regard, is without all controuersie or doubt, that the whole story of our faith is therein briefely and distinctly set downe, and nothing contained in it but what is confirmed by sound testimo­nies of the Scripture. Which vnderstood and knowen, it is boot­lesse for a man either much to trouble himselfe, or to contend with any other concerning the authour of it. Which words of Caluin conteining both his owne iudgement and ours con­cerning the authority of the Creed, doe sufficiently refell [Page 236]the malicious cauils of this vaine and absurd wrangler. By our doctrine, he saith, it is not necessary to beleeue the Creed, yea it is wholly to be reiected, because it is no part of the written word. Indeed formally it is no part of the written word, be­cause it is not a part of the very text of Scripture there set downe in that frame of words wherein we vse it: but doe we any where say, that whatsoeuer is not so a part of the written word is wholly to be reiected, or not necessary to be beleeued? Nay we are so farre from saying or thinking so, as that we hold many things in M. Bishops bookes ne­cessary to be beleeued, which notwithstanding are so farre from being a part of the written word, as that for the mani­fold vaine cauillations and impudent falsehoods therein contained they deserue rather to goe for wall paper, than to be read for learned bookes. As touching the matter and doctrine of the Creed, Caluin affirmeth that it is taken out of the doctrine of the Apostles, set downe in the written word, and therefore it is no more to be reiected than the word it selfe from whence it is taken. He denieth not but that the Apostles might be and were the authours of it, though he cannot certainly affirme that they were so. Hee acknowledgeth the consent of ancient writers that it was composed by the Apostles. He confesseth the antiquity thereof euen from their very time. He holdeth it vnlikely to haue beene published by any priuate man, and therefore leaueth it most likely to be done by them. By whomsoe­uer it was done, because it is consonant to the Apostolike spirit and doctrine, he acknowledgeth all sacreed authori­tie and opinion as heeretofore, so now to be attributed vnto it. What is there heere that malice it selfe could blame, but that Popish malice aboue other is blinde and cannot see it owne shame? Let vs now goe along with him to the parti­culars, and see what wise worke he maketh to prooue that which he saith, the Protestant Doctours doe foully mangle and in manner ouerturne the greatest part of the Creed. Con­cerning the first article he saith, we erre many waies. But [Page 237]how I pray you? first, saith he, they doe destroy the most sim­ple vnity of the Godhead, by teaching the diuine essence to be re­ally distinguished into three persons. But how doth that fol­low? One essence of God distin­guished really into three persons. for if vnity of essence in this distinction bee terminus a quo; and triality of persons, be terminus ad quem; and the re­ality of distinction be vnderstood not in the essence for it selfe but onely in the persons, how shall it destroy the simple v­nity of the God head, to say that one diuine essence is real­ly distinguished into three persons. What, will M. Bishop say that the distinction of the persons is intellectuall only and not reall? Let him then set vp a schoole for Sabellius and Praxeas, the heretickes, and teach as they did, that August. de haeres. ad Quod vultd. c. 41. Di­cunt eundem ipsum esse pa­trem & filium & sp. sanctum. the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, are but one and the same person, onely termed diuersly. But if for auoiding thereof he will say, as all learned diuines say, that the per­sons of the Trinity are really distinguished, then let him vn­derstand that hee saith no more than we say, nor knoweth more than wee know, who know how to speake as well as he. Our Diuines doe sometimes indeed say, that the one essence of God is distinguished really into three persons, but meaning it no otherwise than according to the definiti­on of Thomas Aquinas, that Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 1. q. 28. art 3. in corp. Oportet quòd sit in deo distinctio realts non se­cundum rem ab­solutam quae est essentia, in qua est summa vni­tas & simplici­tas, sed secundū r [...]m relatiuam. there is in God a reall distincti­on, not according to that that is absolute, which is the essence, but according to that that is relatiue, which is the diuers subsistence of the persons. Or rather they meane it accor­ding to that which Saint Austin saith: August. de fide a [...] Pet. dia­con. c. 1. Vna est patris & filij & sp sancti essentia, in qua non est aliud pater, aliud filus, a [...]ad sp. sanctus, quan [...]is perso­n [...]tlitèr sit alius p [...]ter, alius filius, alius sp­sanctus. There is one essence of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, wherein the Father is not one thing, the Sonne another thing, and the holy Ghost another thing: and yet personally the Father is one, the Sonne another, and the holy Ghost another. What is it but the same to say, either, that in one essence there are (really) three persons, or that one essence is really distinguished into three persons? He saith, that if the diuine nature bee really distinguished into three, there must needs be three diuine esser­ces or natures. If, saith he, it be distinguished into three: but three what? for if he had added as he should, into three per­sons, [Page 238]then his folly had appeared to argue in that sort, The sonne how vnder­stood to haue a distinct sub­stance from the Father. that if one essence be really distinguished into three persons, there must needs be three essences. That which he addeth out of Caluin, that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from the Father, Caluin speaketh not of himselfe, but of Tertulli­an; nor by his owne phrase, but by Tertullians phrase, who though he differ from latter times in manner of speech, yet defendeth the truth of the Godhead in three persons as o­ther godly Fathers haue alwaies done. Praxeas the here­tike denied the Trinity, affirming that the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, were but onely names giuen in diuers respects to one and the same person. Tertullian writeth a­gainst him, and comming to the word, the second person in Trinity, he disputeth that the same is, Tertul. adu. Praxed. Ergo, inquis, das ali­quam substan­tiam esse sermo­nem? Planè. Nouimus enim eum substanti­uum habere in re per substan­tiae proprieta­tem, vt res. & persona quae. dam videri pos­sit. &c. Nihil dico de deo mae­ne & vacuum prodire potuisse &c. nec carere substantia quod de tanta sub­stantia proces­sit. &c. Quod ex ipsius sub­stantia missum est, sine sub­stantia non erit. Quaecun (que) ergò substantia ser­monis fuit, illam dico personam, & illi; filij no­men vindico; & dum filium agnosco, secundum a patre defendo. not an empty or idle name, but importeth some substantiall thing by propriety of sub­stance; that it cannot bee without substance that proceeded from such a substance, and was sent of the substance of the Fa­ther. But yet he presently expoundeth himselfe; Whatsoe­uer the substance of the word is, that I call the person, and chal­lenge to it the name of the Sonne; and whilest I acknowledge him the Sonne, I defend him to be a second to the Father. By sub­stance therefore with Tertullian, is not meant [...] the essence, but [...], that is, the personall and indiuiduall ex­istence, wherein each person distinctly hath the one true and perfect substance, that is, essence of one Godhead, the word being purposely intended to crosse the hereticall conceit of Praxeas, of voide and empty tearmes. Euen as Hilary re­porteth, that a Councell of Antioch against the same here­sie, challengeth to euery person Hilar. de Synod adu. Aria­nos His nominibus significantibus diligenter propriam vniuscuius (que) nominatorum sul stantiam & ordinem & gloriam vt sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam verò vnum. Ex [...] ­cil. Antiocheno. his proper substance, and saith, that they are three in substance, but in accord one, Ibid. paulo post. Tres subst iutias esse dixerunt, subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes, non substantiam patris & f [...]ij & spiritus sancti diuersitate dissimulu essen­tiae separantes.mea­ning, saith he, by substances the persons subsistent, not separating [Page 239]the substance of the Father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost, by diuersity of vnlike essence. The blasphemy of Praxeas and of the Sabellians was in these latter times reuiued by Serue­tus. Against him Caluin disputeth, and bringeth in Tertul­lian in his owne language oppugning that damnable fancy, and in that whole discourse with all integrity hee maintai­neth our beleefe of one substance in three persons: and is not M. Bishop ashamed thus by aduantage of anothers words onely by him alleaged, and in the authours meaning vsed, so ill to requite him, and to charge him with that whereto he purposely defendeth the contrary in the same place? But why doe I speake of shame; for what are those men ashamed of? And therfore he sticketh not heere againe very grosly to belie Melancthon also, charging him to say, that there be as well three diuine natures as there be three per­sons, whereas neither in the place by him quoted nor any otherwhere euer any such matter proceeded from Melan­cthon. Vpon his second point I will not stand, because it is before handled in the sixt section of the Preface. So is the third point handled there also in the eight section, and the fourth in the tenth, and that which he saith as touching the second article, in the sixt and seuen. His obiection as touch­ing the third article is a very leaud and vnhonest slander. None of vs affirmeth that Christ was borne with the breach of his Mothers virginity, Christ borne without breach of his mothers vir­ginity. because her virginity stood in being free from the company of man, not in that shee had not her wombe opened when she bare Christ. For if the opening of her wombe in her childbirth were the breach of her vir­ginity, then the Euangelist shall be said to impeach her vir­ginity in applying to the birth of Christ that saying of the law: Luk. 2.23. Exod. 13.2. Euery man-child that first openeth the wombe shall be called holy to the Lord. Which words diuers of the ancient fathers, Tertull. de carne Christi. propè finem. Origen. in Luc. hom 14. Ambros. in Luc. 2. lib. 2. Hierom. cont. Pelag. l. 2. Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Hierome, hold to be most properly verified in the birth of Christ, who ope­ned the wombe that was not opened before, whereas for all other the wombe is first opened by carnall copulation. [Page 240]Heereupon Tertullian saith, that Tertul. vt su­pra. Virgo & non virgo: vir­go quantum à viro: non vir­go quantum à partu. the virgin Mary was both a virgin, and not a virgin: a virgin as touching man, not a vir­gin as touching child-bearing; that is, a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by man; not a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by birth of childe. So Saint Au­stin saith, that August. de fi­de cont. Manich. cap. 22. Maria non incongruè propter partum dicitur mulier, virgo verò quòd virilem nescierit con­uentionem, ne (que) pariendo virgi­nitas eius cor­ruptasit. Christ as God our M [...]diator, yet the God. head it selfe suffereth not. shee may not vnfitly be called a woman in re­spect of her child-birth, and a virgin for that she know not the company of man, neither was her virginity corrupted by bearing child. What, will M. Bishop now say that all these were he­retikes, and did deny that the mother of Christ continued a virgin? Let him say what he will, but we will hold him for a sorry fellow that concludeth breach of virginity of that opening of the wombe. As touching the fourth article, that Luther affirmed the Godhead it selfe to suffer, it is a lie. These are but deuices of Gifford, and Knogler and such other base hungry staruelings, who to gaine fauour make collections and conclusions of their owne, and then affirme them of our men. That Christ according to his diuine nature also is our Mediatour, euen whole Christ both God and man, hath beene before iustified in answer to the seuenth section of his preface to the Reader. But to inferre, that therefore the Godhead it selfe suffereth, is as good a reason as to say, that because the man dieth, therefore the soule is mortall. But saith M. Bishop, the chiefest act of Christs mediation consist­eth in his death. True, and what then? If then, saith hee, the Godhead of Christ doe not suffer that death, it hath no part in the principall act of Christs mediation. As if he should say; the chiefest act of a faithfull and good subiect is to die for his Prince and country: if then the soule it selfe doe not suffer that death, it hath no part in the chiefest act of a faith­full and good subiect. Would he take it patiently to heare another man to reason in this sort? If he would not, why doth he himselfe thus play the wiseman, and mocke simple men that are not able to perceiue his fraude? It is the man that dieth, though he die not in the soule, but in the body; and it is Christ God and man, that suffereth, though he suf­fer [Page 241]not in the God head but in the manhood. Vigil. cont. Eutych. lib. 2. Passus est deus in vnione perso­nae, non est pas­sus in proprie­tate naturae; si­quidem possio­nis iniurias eti­am diuinitas pertulit, sed passionem sola etus caro per­sensit. God suffe­red by vnion of person, saith Vigilius, but in propriety of nature he suffered not; the Godhead did beare the iniuries of the passi­on, but the flesh onely did feele the same. Though the soule it selfe die not, yet it is the soule that exposeth the body vnto death; and though the Godhead suffered not, yet it was the Godhead that yeelded the manhood to suffering and death, Heb. 9.14. offering himselfe without spot vnto God by his eternall spirit; as the Apostle speaketh. The rest of his quarrels be­ing most impudent and shamelesse fictions, are already handled in the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the an­swer to the preface.

9. W. BISHOP.

5. Descended into hell, the third day hee arose againe from the dead. It is worth a mans labour, to behold their good­ly variety of expositions about Christs descending into hell. Beza followed of Corliel our Country-man, 2. Apolog. ad Sanct. thinkes this to haue crept into the Creed by negligence; and so the French Hugonots, and Flemish Gues haue cast it cleane out of their Creed: but they are misliked of many others, who had rather admit the words, because they be found in Athanasius Creed, and also in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus: but they doe most peruersly expound them. Caluin saith, that Christs suffering of the paines of hell on the Crosse, is signified by these words: but he pleaseth not some others of them; because Christs suffering and death also, goeth before his descending in­to hell, and the words must be taken orderly as they lie. Third­ly, diuers of them will haue it to signifie, the laying of Christs body in the graue; but that is signified plainely by the word, buried. Wherefore some others of them expound it to signifie, the lying of his body in the graue three daies, which M. PER. approueth as the best; but it is as wide from the proper and li­terall signification of the words, as can be. For what likenesse is there betweene lying in the graue, and descending into hell? Be­sides, Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition, as [Page 242]much as any of the rest,Lib. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sess. 8.and calleth it an Idle fancy. Fourthly, Luther, Smideline, and others cited by Beza, art. 2. doe say, that Christs soule after his death went to hell, where the Diuels are, there to be punished for our sinnes, thereby to purchase vs a fuller redemption; which is so blasphemous that it needes not a­ny refutation. As ridiculous is another, receiued of most Pro­testants; that Christs soule went into Paradise, which well vn­derstood is true. For his soule in hell, had the ioyes of Paradise; but to make that an exposition of Christs descending into hell, is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it. All these and some other expositions also, the Protestants haue deuised, to leads their followers from the ancient, and only true interpretation of it: to wit, that Christ in soule descended vnto those lower parts of the earth, where all the soules departed from the beginning of the world, were detained by the iust iudgement of God, till Christ had paied their ransome; and were not admitted into the king­dome of heauen, before Christ had opened them the way thi­ther.

R. ABBOT.

We hold, Of Christs descending into hell. that all the articles of our Creed are so to be vn­derstood, as that our faith may make vse thereof concer­ning our selues, and not onely concerning others. It is a ve­ry barren and cold construction which M. Bishop maketh of the descending of Christ into hell; that his soule descen­ded into the lowest parts of the earth, to bring from thence the soules that were detained there by the iust iudgement of God till Christ had paid their ransome. But marke how wisely he setteth downe the matter. All the soules, saith he, departed from the beginning of the world. What; all the soules without exception? the soule of Cain, of Esau, of Ismael, and of other such infidels and reprobates? Well, though he write he knoweth not what; we must take his meaning by that that his fellowes say, Greg Marti. Discouery chap. 7. sect. 6. that the Patriarchs and o­ther iust men of the old Testament, were in some third place of rest, called Abrahams bosome, or Limbus patrum till our Sa­uiour [Page 243]Christ descended thither & deliuered them from thence. So then, not all soules, but the soules of the iust were deliue­red by Christs descending into hell. But what? is it the meaning of Christs descending into hell, that he descended into a place of rest? Surely M. Bishop will haue but very bad rest, if he haue no better then is any where to be found in hell. He vpbraideth vs with the improbability of diuers expositions made of this article; but surely this is aboue all other a madde exposition, to say that Christ descended into hell, that is, into Abrahams bosome, into a place of rest. Let him not presse vs with the authority of mens names for the iustification of it; Saint Austin knew their names as well as he, and they could not so much preuaile with him, but that he freely professed, that August. epist. 99. Ne ipsos quidem inferos vspiam scriptu­rarum locis in bonum app [...]lla­tos potuti repe­rire. Quod si nusquam in di­uinis authorita­tibus legitur, non vti (que) sinus ille Abrahae, id est, secretae cu­iusdam quietis habitatio, ali­qua pars infero­rum credenda est. &c. si in il­lum Abrahae si­num Christum mortuum venis­se sancta scrip­tura dixisset, non nominato inferuo eiusq̄; doloribus, miror si quisquam ad inferos eum des­cendisse asserere auderet. he could no where in Scrip­ture finde hell spoken of or named in good part; and saith, that because it is not so read in any diuine authority, therefore Abra­hams bosome, which is an habitation of quiet rest, is not to be be­leeued to be any part of hell. And if the Scripture had said that Christ being dead went into Abrahams bosome, not mentioning bell or the sorowes thereof, I woonder if any man would dare thereupon to say that hee descended into hell. So in another place he saith; Idem de Ge­nes. ad lit. l. 12. c. 33. Illud me nondum inve­nisse confitetor, inferos appella­tos vbi iustorum anima requies­ [...]nt. &c. Et ideo quomodo apud inferos eum (Abrahae sinum) credamus esse non video. I doe not finde it any where called hell, where the soules of iust men doe rest; and I doe not see how we may be­leeue that Abrahams bosome is in hell. And this he obserueth out of the story of the Gospell, where it is that we read of Abrahams bosome; Ibid. Videmus inferorum mentionem non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in supplicio di­ [...]itis. We see that there is no mention made of hell in the rest of the poore man, but in the punishment of the rich. Thus strange it seemed to Saint Austin and vnprobable, which now forsooth wee must take to be a very Catholike construction, that Christ descended into hell, that is to say, into a place of rest. But this placing of Abrahams bosome to be a part of hel, was the deuice of Marcion the hereticke, who borrowed it from the Poets dreame of the Elysian fields; [Page 244]Tertullian therewith vpbraiding him, that Tertull. cont. Marc. lib. 3. Vester Christus posi decursum vitae pocticetur apud inferos in sinu Abrahae refrigerium. Et lib. 4. Mer­cedem refrigerij apud inferos de­terminat eis po­sitam qui legi & prophetis obe­dierint. their Christ promised to the Iewes after life ended, rest in hell, in Abrahams bosome; and did determine a reward of rest in hell for them that obeied the law and the Prophets. So doth Origen bring in the Marcionite heretike alleaging, that Origen. de recta in deum fide dialog. 2. Ait in inferno Abraham fuisse non in regno cae­lorum. Ex eo quòd illi cum diuite colloqui­um intercesse­rat simul fuisse intelligitur. Abraham was in hell, not in the kingdome of heauen; For by that they talked one to the other, it is vnderstood, saith he, that they were together. But Origen answereth him, that Ibid. Ingen­tem hiatum qui nominatur non attendisti; Me­dium enim illud inter caelum & terram hiatum vocat. he listeneth not to the great gulfe that is there said to be betwixt them; which he expoun­deth to be the middle space betwixt heauen and earth, as im­porting that Abraham was in heauen. Hee obserueth also, that the rich man is said, Ibid. Erigens oculos suos: tol­lere verò oculos in caelum visita­tum est. to lift vp his eies: and men vse, saith he, to lift vp their eies to heauen. The very same reasons Ter­tullian also vseth to shew, that Tertul. vt supra lib. 4. Aliud inferi vt puto, aliud quo (que) Abrahae sinus. Nam & magnum [...]it intercedere inter istas regiones profundum & transitum vtrin (que) prohibere. sed nec alleuasset di [...]e [...] oculos, & quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora. Hell is one thing, and Abra­hams bosome is another, because it is said, that a great depthis betwixt those places, and no passage betwixt the one and the e­ther, and the rich man would not haue lifted vp his eies, being far off, but to a higher place. He expoundeth it therefore to be the receptacle of the soules of the faithfull now depar­ting, where they enioy rest and peace till the time of the re­surrection; not in heauen as hee thinketh, but yet higher than to be any part of hell. Amisse indeed in that he exclu­deth it from being a part of heauen, but yet destroying that Popish fancy whereby it is made a part of hell. For we be­leeue that the soules of the faithfull goe immediately to heauen; and because in their departure they are said to goe to Abrahams bosome, therefore we beleeue that Abrahams bosome is in heauen, nothing being thereby imported, but what Christ saith in the Gospell, Mat. 8.11. They shall come from the East, and from the West, and from the North, and from the South, and shall sit downe with Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob, in the kingdome of God. So saith Origen, that Origen. in Genes. hom. 11. Omnes sancti qui de quatuor terraepartibus veniunt in sinum Abrahae portantur ab Angelis. all the Saints [Page 245]which come from the foure parts of the world, are caried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome. In like sort Saint Austin saith of Nebridius, a faithfull man deceased; August. Con­fess. lib. 9. cap. 3. Et nuncille viuit in sinu Abraham. He now liueth in Abrahams bosome. Now then we are come to this, that be­cause Abrahams bosome is in heauen, and Christs descen­ding to hell was no other but his going to Abrahams bo­some; therefore the meaning of Christs descending into hell is, that hee ascended vp to heauen. It were well that they should first cleere these matters for themselues and make good their owne assertion, before they should take in hand to question ours. Whatsoeuer the meaning bee of Christs desecending into hell, we are sure that that which they bring is vaine and false. Now the article of Christs de­scending into hell, being according to their exposition im­pertinent and idle, and no vse to bee made thereof in the Creede, some in respect thereof haue thought the same to haue crept into it of latter time, and not to haue beene there from the beginning; and some, it may be (for I know it not, neither dare I take M. Bishops word for it) haue quite omit­ted it in the Creed. Neither doe they want inducements heereunto from the ancient church, in which there are ma­ny Creedes and confessions of faith, in which there is no mention of Christs descending into hell. And heerein we are to note Doct. Bishop to be a man singularly impudent, who alleageth the article to be in the old Roman Creed ex­pounded by Ruffinus, whereas the words of Ruffinus him­selfe doe expressely affirme the contrary. Ruffin. in ex­posit. symb. Apost. Sciendum sanè est quòd in ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non ha­betur additum, Descenditad in­ferna, sed ne (que) in Orientis ec­clesiis habetur hic sermo. We are to know, saith he, that in the Creed of the Roman church it is not added that he descended into hell, neither are those words vsed by the Easterne churches. The Nicene Creed saith nothing of it, which in likelihood would not haue omitted it if it had beene found in the ancienter Creed of the Apostles. Saint Austin hath Tom. 9. de symb. vel reg. fidei ad Cate­chumenos. foure expositions of the Creed in one place, and Tom. 3. de fide & symbolo. one in another, and in none of these expositions is it found that Christ descended into hell. Tertullian hath Tertul. de praescript. & adu. Praxean, & de veland. virginib. three declarations of the rule of faith, and this point is not [Page 246]found in any of them. Neither doth Ireneus mention it, where Iren. adu. heres. lib. 1. c. 2. &. lib. 3. cap. 4. twice he expresseth the Apostolike faith. There is a confession of faith set downe by Synod. Roma. tom. 1. Concil. a Synod at Rome in the time of Iulius the first, another in the Concil. Con­stantin. 1 cap. 7. first Councel of Con­stantinople, another in a Councell at Synod Aleu­and. apud. Cy­ril. & in Con­citio Ephes. Alexandria, confir­med by the Councel of Ephesus, and many other moe, wherein there is nothing said of Christs descending into hell. Thus from many examples and authorities of the an­cient church, those men parhaps thinke that they haue warrant to leaue out that article without being culpable of any violation of Christian faith. And although Athanasius and sundry other in their writings haue deliuered this as a point of faith, yet they hold that those acts and instruments of publicke recognition, which are very frequent to this purpose, do ouerwaigh priuate iudgements, and are suffi­cient to excuse or defend that that is done by them. But for our parts wee see no sufficient reason to moue vs to fol­low them herein. We see diuers phrases of Scripture ten­ding to the assertion of this article of our beleefe. We read our Sauiour Christ professing his reioycing to his Father, Acts. 2.27. Psal. 16.10. for that he would not leaue his soule in hell, which is vainely spoken if the soule of Christ were not at all in hell. There­fore we admit the article, and in the confession of our faith we alwaies recite it, neither doth any man make question to doe otherwise. But M. Bishop excepteth against the va­riety of expositions that are found amongst vs concerning the same. And what; is there no variety of expositions there­of to be found amongst them? Doe they all so accord in one, as that we can obserue no difference of one from ano­ther? first, that learned deuout Authour Durand, as M. Bi­shop Preface to the Reader. sect. 5. before hath stiled him, doth hold that Durand apud Bellarm. de Christianima. cap. 15. Christ des­cended not into hell at all by reall presence, but only by ef­fect and power. Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 3. q. 52. art. 2. in concl. Christus secun­dùm effectum in omnem infer­ [...] locum descen­dit, secùndum verò substanti­alem praesenti­ [...]m non descen­dit nisi ad locum iustorum. Thomas Aquinas determineth, that by reall presence he went onely to Limbus Patrum, but to the other parts of hell he descended by vertue and power. Bellarmine setteth it down for Bellarm. de Christianima. c. 16. Probabile est profectò ani­mam Christi ad omnia inferni lo [...]a descendisse. probable, that the soule of Christ [Page 247]did verily descend to all the places of hell. Thomas Aquinas resolueth, that Tho. Aqui. vt supra art. 4. in concl. Animam Christi tamdiu fuisse in inferno credendum est, quamdin cor­pus fuit in se­pulchro. the soule of Christ was so long in hell as his body was in the graue; and so they commonly hold, as did Vigi­lius of old, Vig. [...]o. Eutyc. lib. 2. Anima (Christi) per illud triduum in inferno. that for those three daies space, the soule of Christ was in hell. But S. Austin holdeth it, a thing impious to be affir­med,Augst. cont. Felic. Arian. ca. 15. Si mor­tuo corpore ad paradisum ani­ma (latronis) mox vocatur, quenquamnè adhuc tam im­pium credimus, qui dicere au­deat, quoniam anima saluato­ris nostri triduo illo corporeae mortis apud inferos custodiae mancipetur?that the soule of the theefe being foorthwith called to Pa­radise, the soule of our Sauiour should for the three daies space of his bodily death be in custody in hell. Thomas Aquinas is of opinion, that Thom. Aquin. sum. pa. 3. qu. 52. art. 1. in corp. Conueni­ens fuit Chri­sten ad infernum descendere, quia ipse venerat portare poenas nostras vt nos a poena eriperet: ex peccat [...] autem homo incurrerat non solum mortem corporis, sed etiam descensum ad inseros. it behooued that Christ should goe to hell, because he came to beare our punishments, so to deliuer vs from the same; and we by sinne had incurred, not onely bodily death, but also going to hell. But Bonauenture saith, and to him Bel­larmine inclineth, that Bel­lerm. de Christi anima, cap. 16. ex Bonauentura. Dicit Christi animam dum esset in inferno fuisse in loco p [...]ae, sed sine poena. the soule of Christ when it was in hell was in a place of punishment, but yet without punishment. It should seeme then by these, that there is not so great agree­ment amongst them concerning this article, as that M. Bi­shop should haue any great heart to obiect disagreement a­mongst vs. As for the expositions which he citeth on our part, setting aside the fourth, they all containe truth accor­ding to the Scripture, though happily they doe not fitly expresse the meaning of this article; yea they all are a­nouched by some of his owne side. That Christ endured the agonies and anguishes of soule, that belong to our damnation in hell, Caluin affirmeth to bee the meaning of this article. The thing it selfe is affirmed for a truth by their owne Cardinall Cusanus, that Nicol. Causan. Excitat. lib. 10. ex sermone in iliud; Qui per sp. sanctum se metipsum obtulit. Passio Christi (qua maior nulla potest esse) suit vt damnatorum, qui [...]agis damnari nequeunt, scilicet vs (que) ad poenam infernalem. Etibid. Illam poenam sensus conf [...]r­nem daemnatis in inferno pati voluit in gloriam der patris sui. the passion and suffe­ring of Christ, than which none can be greater, was the like as of the damned, which cannot be more condemned, euen vnto the paines of hell; and that Christ would suffer that paine of sense and feeling, correspondent to the damned in hell, to the glory of [Page 248]his father. The like in effect doth their Friar Ferus. in Math. 27. Poenam & me­ritum peccato­rum (quae sunt Frigus, calor, efuries, sitis, ti­mor, tr [...]pidatio, horror mortis, horor inferni, desperatio, mors, infernus ipse) in se trans­ferens. &. Ferus dis­course at large, writing vpon those words of Christ vpon the crosse, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? That this, taken in no other meaning than they speake it is a truth, I haue before shewed in Sect. 13.14. answer to the Preface: but that it must necessarily be taken to be the meaning of this article, I will not contend, because it may be conteined in the other article of the crosse and suffering of Christ. So neither will I say, that it is the intent of this article, that Christ was bu­ried in the graue, albeit that he was so, is a truth of Scripture; and they that affirme that there is nothing else meant by his descending into hell, may so much the more be confirmed therein, for that Andradius, one of their owne greatest Scho­lars, and a chosen defender of the Councell of Trent resol­ueth, that in Andrad. De­fens. fidei Tri­dent. lib. 2. Animaduerta. mus infernum hoc loco (solutis doloribus infer­ni. Act. 2) pro morte atque sepulchro He­braeorum di­cendi more vsurpari, vt Psa. 15. is quem mox Petrus citat, Quoniam non dere [...]quisti an man in in­ferno. &c. some of the chiefe places, whereby Christs descent to hell is prooued, there is nothing meant by hell but death and the graue onely. The third exposition ad­deth nothing to the second, but only a circumstance of con­tinuance and abiding in the state of death and of the graue; which in like sort is true, though we may well refuse it, as touching the meaning of this article. The fourth expositi­on which he alleageth out of Luther, Smideline and others, whether truely or not I cannot tell, namely, that Christ af­ter death went to hell, in soule there to be punished for our sinnes, swarueth indeed from the truth; but yet Suarez the Iesuit out of Medina confesseth, that Suarez in Thom. Aqui. p. 3. q. 52. art. 8. disp. 43. §. 1. Me lina dicit a iquos Catholi­cos sensisse Chri­flūpassū esse a­liquas extrinse­cas poenas dāna­ [...] in inferno. some Catholikes, as hee calleth them, haue thought the same, namely, that Christ suffered some extrinsecall paines of the damned in hell: and how neerely Thomas Aquinas commeth thereto, we haue seene before. The last construction, which aboue all other he nameth ridiculous, is their very owne, & he leaud­ly belieth the Protestants, in that hee attributeth it to the most of them, namely, that Christs going to Paradise, is meant by his descending into hell. They say, that the soule of Christ went immediatly to Abrahams bosome, as being a part of hell, there to continue till his resurrection. But yet [Page 249]he saith to the theefe, Luk. 23.43. This day shalt thou be with me in Para­dise. It must needs bee therefore by their opinion, that A­brahams bosome must be Paradise, and so that Christs de­scending into hell importeth, that hee went to Paradise, which if it be to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it, let him thanke his owne for the folly of it: as for vs we haue no­thing to doe with it. There remaineth after all these the common receiued opinion of our church, that the soule of Christ being departed from the body, as the letter of the text importeth, went to hell, as a King into the prison, not to be holden in it, but to declare his power and command ouer it; to bid Satan defiance in his owne kingdome, and vpon his owne ground, and in himselfe to carry away, by way of spoile, all them whose person and cause he had vn­dertaken, and whom he had, by the grace of his foreknow­ledge and election, made members of himselfe.

10. W. BISHOP.

6. Concerning Christs resurrection, they doe also erre. For whereas a resurrection is the rising vp of the very same body that died, with all his naturall parts: they denie Christ to haue taken againe the same bloud, which he shed in his passion; Cal. in 27. Math. Perkins pag. 194. In. ca. 24. Lucae,and yet is the bloud one notable part of the body. Caluin also affir­meth it to be an old wiues dreame, to thinke that in Christs hands and feete there remaine the print of nailes, and the wound in his side, notwithstanding that Christ shewed them to his Disciples, and offered them to bee touched of Saint Tho­mas.

7. About Christs ascension into heauen, they doe some­what dissent from the truth. For some of them say, that Christs body did not pearce through the heauens by vertue of a glorious body (lest they should thereby be compelled to grant, that two naturall bodies may be together in one place, and therefore as well one true body in two places at once) but that broad gappes were made in the lower heauens, to make him way to the highest, which is very ridiculous, and more against true Philosophy: [Page 250]they say also,1 Cor. 15. vers. 21. Coll. 1.18. Beza. inc. 2. Actorum L. 1. ar. 25. de concor. Calui­nist.that he was not the first man that entred into the possession of heauen; which is flat against the Scriptures, that call Christ the first fruits and first begotten of the dead. Thirdly, they locke Christ so closely vp in heauen, that they hold it impos­sible for him to remooue thence at any time before the last iudge­ment (for feare they should otherwise be inforced to confesse, that his body may be in two places at once) which is to make him not Lord of the place, but some poore prisoner therein. And as for Christs sitting one the right hand of his Father, they are not yet agreed what it signifieth. See Conrad. L. 2. Insti. c. 14 ss. 3. Caluin plainely saith, that after the latter iudgement hee shall sit there no longer. That God shall then render to euery man accor­ding to his workes (as holy Scripture very often doth testifie) all the packe of them doth vtterly denie.

R. ABBOT.

I doe not know any of our writers that denieth, Christ in his resurrection resumed his blood againe. but that Christ in his resurrection by his almighty power, resumed his bloud againe. He quoteth M. Caluin and M. Perkins, affirming the contrary, but I could not finde that which he mentioneth of them. For my part I resolue; that if any of them, or any other haue said so, they haue erred therein, because I beleeue that it is true, both of the whole and eue­ry part of the body of Christ, which Dauid saith; Psal. 16.10. Thou wilt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Saint Austin re­solueth, that Aug. de. ciu. Dei. lib. 22. ca. 19. Non quòd existimē corpori cuiquam peri­turum quod na­turaliter inerat. of our bodies there shall nothing perish that is na­turally belonging thereto, and groundeth vpon the words of Christ, that Ibid. cap. 14. & 20 Luk. 21.18. not a haire of our head shall perish. If then it be so in our bodies, much more are wee so to conceiue of the body of Christ, that nothing at all perished, that did belong to the substance of it. As for the now remaining of the print of the nailes, in the hands & feete of Christ, & of the wound in his side, M. Bishop can giue no reason why Caluin might not well account it an old wiues dreame. For whereas he al­leageth, that Christ after his resurrection did shew the same to his Disciples, it may well be answered, that so Christ af­ter [Page 251]his resurrection, did eate and drinke with his Disciples, and yet it doth not follow, that therefore now Christ doth eate and drinke. Both these Saint Austin holdeth to be of like vse, to giue to his Disciples assurance of his resurrecti­on; whereas now there is no such vse, and therefore no rea­son of the remaining of them. August. de. ciui dei. lib. 22. cap. 19. Quando ille à suis ita deberet attendi vt p [...]ss [...]t agnosci Quò pertinuit etiam vt contrectanti­bus ostenderet suorum vulne­rum cicatrices, vt etiam cibum potum (que) sume­ret; non ali­mentorum in­digentia, sed ea qua et hoc pote­rat potestate. He was so to be seene of them, saith he, as that he might be knowen. Thereto it serued, that to them handling him, he shewed the skarres of his wounds, as also, that he did eate and drinke, not for want of food, but by that power whereby he could so doe at his owne pleasure. But of Christ ascending he saith; August. in Psal. 23. Con­trecta cicatri­ces & senties reparatas & immortalitati redditam hu­manam infir­mitatem. The heauens gaue way to Christs body in his ascensi­on. Handle his skarres, and thou shalt perceiue them to be repaired, and that humane infirmity is re­stored to immortality. That in the ascension of Christ, the heauens opened way and passage to his body we beleeue, and that necessarily it was so, because Christ had a true bo­dy, which was glorified in taking possession of heauen, where is the place of glory; albeit in the glorifying of it, August epi. 57. Cui profectò immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit. he gaue it immortality, but tooke not from it the nature of a body, so that, Ibid. sub finem. In aliquo cali loco propter veri corporis modum. it is in some certaine place of heauen, because of the condition of a true body. Thus Saint Austin saith that he ascended, Idem in Psal. 23. Pate­factis sibi caelestibus. the heauens being made open for him. So where the Psalme saith, Lift vp your heads, O yee gates; Saint Hie­rome saith, that Hieron. in Psal. 23. Ipse dominus nunc regna caelestia repetens nunciatur. &c. Tollite portas. &c. Hoc est, reserate caelestes aditus, pateat aeternalis ingressus. therby is set foorth Christ ascending to heauen and expoundeth the words thus; Open yee the entrances of heauen, let the euerlasting entry be set open. As for M. Bishops foolish Philosophy we regard it not in this case; we would know of him by his Philosophy how Saint Steuen said, Act. 7.56. Behold I see the heauens open, and the Sonne of man slanding at the right hand of God. We wish him to remember, that in the measuring of matters of faith by rules of Philosophy, Tertullian saith, that Tertul. adu. Hermog. Philosophi haereticorum patriarch. Philosophers were the Patriarchs of heretikes; the Apostle therefore giuing warning, Col. 2.18. Beware [Page 252]lest any man spoile you through Philosophy and vaine deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ. We aske him againe, how it standeth with his Philosophy, that 2. Kin. 2.11. Elias in a whirlewind ascended into heauen. We beleeue that the heauens yeelded him way to goe thorow; and M. Bishop will not say that he had as yet a glorified body to goe otherwise. What he will affirme otherwise, The soules of the faithfull in heauen be­fore Christs incarnation. let him prooue it, or else he shall not finde vs very hasty to beleeue it. Now that Elias ascended into heauen, the text plainly affirmeth, as I haue alleaged, and therefore we beleeue vndoubtedly that he did so. The same Elias with Moses, Luk. 9.31. appeared vnto Christ in glory, and to his Disciples, which glory they could not bring with them from the Popish Limbus patrum, and therefore wee cannot doubt but they brought it with them from hea­uen. We cannot doubt therefore, but that the soules of the faithfull that died before the incarnation of Christ were re­ceiued into heauen. For as by the faith of Christs death and resurrection, they were acquitted from hel, euen so doe we beleeue, that by the faith of Christs ascension, they were re­ceiued to heauen. And of faith the Apostle telleth vs, that Heb. 11.1. it is the subsistence of things hoped for, the demonstration or euidence of things which are not seene, to which in effect and after a sort, the things are, which yet indeed are not. By faith Abraham so long before Iohn 8.56. saw the day of Christ, and was glad thereof. To faith Christ was Reuel. 13.8. the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world. To faith therefore Christ from the beginning of the world was ascended into heauen, because they so beleeued in him as if he were already ascended. In effect then, Christ was the first that ascended into heauen, because no other ascended, but by the faith of his ascension. As for the places cited by M. Bishop, they make nothing to the contrary, as which belong properly to the question of the resurrection of the dead, to signifie, that Christ is the first that Rom. 6.9. rose from death, to die no more, and in whom all the rest shal so rise againe: but as touching the state of the soules [Page 253]departed, it prooueth nothing. As touching the being of Christ in heauen, Christ vntill his second comming abi­deth in hea­uen onely. we teach nothing but what hee himselfe hath taught. If M. Bishop will call it, a locking of him in heauen, it is not we that locke him, but he himselfe hath locked himselfe, who hath told vs, that Iohn 12 8. we shall not haue him alwaies with vs; that Acts 3.21. heauen must containe him vntill the time that all things bee fulfilled, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his Prophets since the world began; Heb. 10.12.13. that he is at the right hand of God, hencefoorth expecting or waiting till his foes be made his footestoole. To affirme then, that Christ is in heauen only, and not vpon the earth; and that he so abideth vntill the time that he shall come againe to iudge the quicke and the dead, is not to locke vp Christ in heauen, but to iustifie the words of Christ. They may rather be said to locke vp Christ, who of their owne heads, so tie him by the words of the Priest, as it were by a charme, to their conse­crated hoast, as that See the An­swer to the Epest. sect. 14. so long as the forme of bread conti­nueth, he may by no meanes be released, though he passe by the stomacke into the draught, though he be eaten by mice, or dogges, or swine, though he be cast into the dirt, and teach it to be heresie to affirme the contrary. Of the meaning of Christs sitting at the right hand of his father, I know no difference at all, but that all acknowledge it to import the exaltation of the humane nature of Christ to the communion and fellowship of the maiesty and glory of God, so as that all creatures both in heauen and earth are made subiect vnto him. He referreth vs to Conrad, some wizard or other; but if that which Conrad saith, be not woorth his reporting, we hold it not woorth our seeking, nor list to looke after euery foole which will sucke fancies out of his fingers ends, and then make vs the authours of them. As for that which Caluin saith, How Christ shall continue or cease to sit at the right hand of God. that after the last iudgement, Christ shall no longer sit at the right hand of God, in that meaning wherein he speaketh it, it is very true, not for that there shalbe absolutely any end of his kingdome, which the Angell saith Luk. 1.33. shall continue for euer, and shall haue [Page 254]no end, but he shall thenceforth reigne only in personall vni­on with the Godhead, who now raigneth by delegated office, Iohn 5.22.27. hauing all iudgement committed vnto him, in that he is the Sonne of man. For wee must vnderstand, that God who ruleth and gouerneth the world, yet doth it not now immediately by himselfe, but vseth thereto the ministery and seruice of men and Angels, and performeth all things by meanes. But for the execution of this gouernement, he hath specially exalted his sonne, euen the man Iesus Christ, in whose obedience and humbling of himselfe, hee tooke that delight, as that as it were in hew thereof, he would set him vp, according to his humane nature, Ephe. 1.21. farre aboue all Principalities, and Powers, and Might, and Dominion, and aboue euery name that is named, not onely in this world, but in that that is to come, Mat. 28.18.giuing vnto him, in special manner, all power both in heauen & in earth; that as he had purchased the church with his pretious blood, so for the behoofe of the church, hee might haue a soueraignty and dominion ouer all creatures to limit their power, to determine their cour­ses, to command, or compell their seruice, to doe by them and with them, whatsoeuer is to be done, till he fully and for euer accomplish the perfection thereof. Which being done, and the end come, and all rule and authority and power abolished, there shall be a cessation of that commission, be­cause there shal be no further vse therof; 1. Cor. 15.24. he shal deliuer vp the kingdome to God the father, and with vs according to his manhood, shall bee subiect vnto him, that put all things vn­der him, that God may be all in all. Not for that he is not now according to his manhood subiect to the father, but he is now in such sort subiect, as that for the father in his man­hood, he exerciseth a kingdome of power for the confusi­on of his enemies, and preseruing of his from the force of them. Not for that hee shall not then also raigne for euer God and man, but hee shall not raigne in that sort as man, because all aduersary power being vtterly abolished and for euer, there shall bee no neede of such a kingdome, his [Page 255]reigning being thencefoorth the enioying of them, whom he hath redeemed & purchased; not the rescuing or defend­ing of them. And thus doth Saint Austin set downe from some ancients, a stinting of the kingdome of Christ as now he raigneth; August. lib. 83. q 69. Opor­tet eum regnare donceponat om­nes inimicos suos sub peaibus suis, qu [...]a talis regni quale habent principes arma­torum nulla exit causa, hoste ita subiecto vt re­bellare non pos­sit. Nam vti (que) dictum est in Euangelio, Et regni cius non erit finis, secun­dum quod reg­nat in aeter­num; secundum autem [...]d quòd aduersus diabo­lum sub eo mili­tatur, tamdiu erit vtique ista militia donec ponat, &c. po­stea verò non erit, cum pace perpetua per­fruemur. He must raigne till he put all his enemies vnder his feet, because there shall bee no cause of such a kingdome, as haue Princes or Captaines of armed men, when the enemy shall be so subdued as that he cannot rebell; for it is said indeed in the Gospell, Of his kingdome there shall be no end, according to that he raigneth for euer; but according to that we warre vn­der him against the diuell, so long shall this warfare be, till he put all his enemies vnder his feete; afterwards it shall not be, when as we shall enioy euerlasting peace. Thus and no other­wise doth Caluin say, that Christs sitting at the right hand of God is but for a time, because the end of his sitting is for the subduing of his enemies, which thencefoorth shall be none; and for the bringing of vs to God, who then shal per­fectly and immediately be ioyned vnto God, 1. Cor. 13.12. to see face to face, and to know euen as we are knowen, August. de Trin. lib. 1. ca. 10. Vt iam non interpellet pro nobis Mediator & Sacerdos noster filius Dei & filius hominis, sed & ipse in quantum Sacer­in est, assumpta propter nos serui forma, subiectus sit ei qui illi subiecit omnia vt in quant is Deus [...]t cum illo nos subiectos habeat; in quantum Sacerdos nobiscum illi subiectus sit.so as that our Mediatour and Priest, the sonne of God, and the sonne of man, shall no further make intercession for vs, saith S. Austin, but he also as our Priest, hauing taken for vs the forme of a seruant, shall be subiect to him, who hath subdued to him all things, that as he is God, he may haue vs subiect together with himselfe (as man,) and as our Priest, may with vs be subiect to himselfe (as God;) the kingdome thencefoorth to abide, not in the manhood of Christ, as now it doth, but in the Godhead, that God, as the Apostle saith, may be all in all. For conclu­sion of this section, M. Bishop addeth; That God shall then render vnto euery man according to his workes, all the packe of them doth vtterly deny. But M. Bishop, you should for ex­ample haue named one; you should haue quoted some place, where either in common or priuate iudgement this [Page 256]deniall is set downe. Gods ren­dring accor­ding to works prooueth no merit. If you can bring none, what a shame is it, for a man of your degree and profession, thus wilfully to lie, and to wrong them that haue done no wrong to you? The Scripture indeed hath taught it, as he alleageth, and we beleeue, and so preach to all men, that Rom. 2.6. God shall render vnto euery man according to his workes. We giue warning with the Apostle, Gal. 6.7. that no man deceiue himselfe; for whatso­euer a man soweth, the same shall he reape. He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reape corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit re [...]pe euerlasting life. We teach by the word of Christ, that Iohn 5.28. the houre shall come when all that are in their graues shall heare his voice, and shall come foorth; they that haue done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that haue done euill, to the resurrection of condemnation. And yet we teach withall, that we are Rom. 3.24.25. iustified freely by the grace of God, throuh faith in the blood of Christ; and that God doth saue vs, not for any merits of ours, but onely for his mercies sake. Can he not tel how these two may stand to gether? Let him learne then of Gregory Bishop of Rome, who propoundeth the question, and answereth it; Gregor. in Psal. paenitent. 7. Si illa sancto­rum foelicitas misericordia est & non meritis acquiritur, vbi erit quod scrip­tum est, Et tu reddes vnicui (que) secundum opera sua? si secundum opera redditur, quomodo miseri­cordia aestima­bitur? sed ali­ud est secundum opera reddere, aliud propter ip­sa opera redde­re. In eo enim quod secundum opera dicitur ip­sa operum quali­tas intelligitur, vt cuius apparu­erint hona op [...]r [...], eius sit & retri­butio glori [...]sa­i [...] nam (que) hea­tae vitae in qua cum deo & de deo v [...]i ur nullus potest aequari labor, nulla opera compara [...]i, praesertim cum Apostolus dicat, Non sunt condignae passiones, &c. If the blisse of the Saints be mercy, and be not purchased or gotten by merits, how shall that stand which is written; Thou shalt render vnto euery one according to his workes? If it be rendred accor­ding to workes, how shall it be esteemed mercy? But it is one thing, saith he, to render according to workes; another thing to render for the workes sake. For when it is said, according to workes, the quality it selfe of the works is considered, that whose workes appeare good, his reward may be glorious. For to that blessed life where we are to liue with God, and of God himselfe, no labour or paines can be equalled, no workes may be compared, for that the Apostle saith, that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory that shall be reuealed vpon vs. Notwith­standing then that God doe render to euery many cccor­ding to his workes, yet the doctrine of merits, which M. [Page 257]Bishop would build thereupon is excluded; because our good workes, though they be sufficient as markes to distin­guish vs from others, yet they are not sufficient to obtaine saluation for vs; yea, as Of Iustifica­tion sect. 49. elsewhere hath beene declared out of Gregory, if God should in strict iudgement examine the defects and blemishes of them, they should therein be suf­ficient to condemne vs. Whatsoeuer they are, they are not our owne but Gods workes in vs, and August. de grat. &. lib ar­bit. cap 7. Si dei dona sunt bona merita tua, non deus cororat merita tua tan­quam merita tua, sed tanquā dona sua. when he shall crowne them, he shall crowne them, not as our merits, but as his owne gifts, as S. Austin saith.

11. W. BISHOP.

8. I beleeue in the holy Ghost. First, Caluin and his fol­lowers (who hold the holy Ghost to haue the God-head of himselfe, and not to haue receiued it from the Father and the Sonne) must consequently deny the holy Ghost to proceede from the Father and the Sonne, In the Pre­face. In cap. 6. &. 17. Isa. & in 16. Marc. as hath beene elsewhere proo­ued. Secondly, they make him much inferiour vnto the other persons: for they teach in their French Catechismes, that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Sonne. And Caluin against Gentil saith, that the title of creatour belong­eth onely to the Father: and elsewhere, that the Father is the first degree and cause of life, and the Sonne the second. And that the In 26. Math. v. 64. Father holdeth the first rancke of honour and gouernement, and the Sonne the second; where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Sonne, or at most, must be content with the third degree of honour.

R. ABBOT.

As touching the Frst point, he referreth his Reader to the Preface, and there it is already answered. That which Cal­uin saith, is namely concerning the second person in Trini­ty, the Sonne of God. M. Bishop by consequence draweth it to the third person, the holy Ghost. The obiection then, or rather the slander, being cleered, as touching the Sonne, [Page 258]is consequently cleered concerning the holy Ghost. His second cauill is, The holy Ghost not made inferior to the Father and the Son. that we make the holy Ghost much inferiour to the other persons. And how may that appeare? Marry in their French Catechismes they teach, saith he, that the Fa­ther alone is to bee adored in the name of his sonne. But what? because they say, the Father alone, must they needes be ta­ken to exclude the holy Ghost? Hath he not so much diui­nity as to know that the name of the Father, is sometimes vsed for distinction of persons, sometimes indefinitely of God, without any such distinction? When our Sauiour saith, Matt. 23.9. One is your Father, who is in heauen, doth not the name of Father there, extend to God the Father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost? Doth it not so also, where the Apo­stel saith, Eph. 4 6. There is one God and Father of all, who is aboue all, and through all, and in you all. Doth M. Bishop other­wise vnderstand it, when he saith, Our Father which art in heauen? Surely the French Catechisme may say as he re­reporteth, (who yet seldome reporteth truth) & yet import nothing therby, but what Origen saith Christiās of old did, namely Origen. cont. Cels. [...].8. Chri­stiani soli Deo per Iesum pre­ces offerentes. to offer praiers to God only by Iesus, or in the name of Iesus. The next cauil against Calum is of the same kind, that the title of Creatour belongeth only to the Father. Which M. Bishop might well haue vnderstood, in the distinctiō of the persōs by their seueral attributes, as Calu. Opus in Explicat. per­fidiae Valent. G [...]ntil. Certè vn [...] consensu fatemur Chri­stum impropriè vocari creato­rem coeli & ter­rae quoad per­sonae distinctio­nem. Ne (que) enim dubium est quin seriptura patri nomen Creatoris ven­dicans personas distinguat. Caluin setteth it down to be very true; and the rather, for that in the very articles of the Creed he findeth it so applied; I beleeue in God, the Father almighty, maker of heauen and earth. For although it be true, which S. Austin oftentimes deliuereth, that August de praedest. san­ctor. cap. 8. Inseparabilia dicimus [...]sse ope­ra Trinitatis. the workes of the Trinity are inseparable, and in the act of any of the persons is the concurrence of all; yet they so concurre, as that they retaine therein their seuerall proprieties, so as that of seuerall actions arise seuerall denominations; which in common phrase of speech are vsed as in some specialty belonging to one person rather than another. As therefore we attribute it to the sonne alone to haue redeemed vs, and to the holy Ghost alone to sanctifie vs, albeit both the Fa­ther [Page 259]and the holy Ghost, had their worke in our redempti­on; and the Father and the Sonne haue their worke also in sanctifying vs; euen so to the Father alone, the title of Cre­atour is applied, not but that the Sonne and the holy Ghost haue their worke in the creation, but because, Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 8. Di­cimus immedi­atum opifice [...] esse fi [...]um dei verbum. &c. Ver [...] aut [...]m pa­trem, curus mandato mun­du [...] sit per ipsum filium conditus, esse primarium opincem. the Father is the primary or principall worker, as Origen saith, at whose commandement the world was created by the Sonne, and Hilar. de Sy­nod adu. Aria. Si suis vnum di­cens deum, Chri­stum autem de­um ante secula filium dei obse­cutum patri in creatione omni­um non confite­tur, anathema sit. wherein, as the Syrmian Councel saith, and Hilary ap­prooueth, the Sonne did obedience to the Father. As for the rest that he heere quarelleth at, that the Father is called the first degree and cause of life, and the Sonne the second; and a­gaine, that the father holdeth the first ranke of honour and go­uernment, and the sonne the second; not to question the truth of his allegations, I would in a word aske his wisdome, doth he that saith, that the Father is the first person in Trinity, and the Sonne the second, deny thereby the holy Ghost to be the third? or doth hee hereby exclude the holy Ghost from hauing part with the Father and the Sonne? Doth the Apostle when in his epistles he saith, Rom. 1 7. 1. Cor. 1.3. et in reliq. Grace and peace from God our Father, and from our Lord Iesus Christ; doth he, I say, exclude heereby the holy Ghost from being the authour of grace and peace, or from hauing part with the Father and the Sonne? Or when he saith; 2. Cor. 1.3. Ephe 1.3. Blessed be God, euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, doth he deny the Sonne and the holy Ghost to be blessed and praised toge­ther with the Father? If he doe not, why then doth this idle headed Sophister thus take exception, where there is nothing for him iustly to except against? Forsooth at most, saith he, the holy Ghost must be content with the third degree of honour. But what, M. Bishop; doe not you also place the holy Ghost in the third degree, when you name him the third person? Doth not your head serue you to vnderstand degree of order only, without imparity or minority, as all Diuines in this case are woont to do? But why doe I thus contend with a blinde buzzard, a wilfull and ignorant wrangler, and not rather reiect him as a man worthy to be [Page 260]altogether contemned and derided? He hath Preface to the Reader. sect. 7. before cited the latter of these words, to shew that Caluin made the Sonne of God inferiour to the Father, but how leaudly he dealeth in the alleaging of it, and to how small purpose, it is there declared, & there is no cause here to speake thereof.

12. W. BISHOP.

9. one. I beleeue the holy Catholike Church, the communion of Saints. First, where as there is but on Catholike church, as the Councel of Nice expresly defineth following sundry texts of the word of God; they commonly teach that there be two churches: one inuisible of the elect; another visible of both good and bad. holy.Secondly, they imagine it to be holy, by the im­putation of Christs holinesse to the elected Bretheren, and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faith­full.Catholike.Thirdly, they cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sense of it: that is, they will not beleeue the true Church, to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the Apostles time, and to haue beene generally spread into all countries; otherwise they must needes forsake their owne church, which began with Friar Luther, and is not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world. Finally, they beleeue no Church, no not their owne in all points of faith: but hold that the true Church may erre in some principall points of faith. How then can any man safely relie his saluation, vpon the credite of such an vncertaine ground and erring guide? may they not then as well say that they do not beleeue the one Catholike Church: because they doe as well not beleeue it, as beleeue it? And as for the communion of Saints, their learned Masters doe commonly cassier it out of the Creed, and that not without cause. For by the Saints vnderstanding (as the Apostles did) all good Christans whether aliue or departed this world, they that deny praier to Saints, and for the soules in Purgatory, haue reason to reiect the com­mon society and enter course that is betweene the Saints, and the mutuall honour and help which such good Christian soules doe yeeld and afford one to another.

R. ABBOT.

The holy Catholike church which wee beleeue in the Creed, being the communion of Saints, is onely one, The Catho­like Church only one. which is the body of Christ, whereof all the faithfull are members, being ioyned into this society by one spirit. Visible and In­uisible, being but circumstances, cannot argue any multipli­cation of the church, because the inuisible church importeth all them, and them only, who are the true members in their time of the visible church. For in the visible church, the name of the church properly belongeth to them onely, who liue by faith and by the spirit of Christ; the rest are not members, but August. in 1 Ioan. epist. tract. 3. Sic sunt in corpore Christi quomodo humo­res mali. as euill humours in the body, which wait their time to be purged out. In the meane time, because all professe to seeke Christ and to serue him, and our eies can­not distinguish betwixt them that truely doe so, and them that doe not, therefore visibly and to vs all goe together vnder the name of the church, though many there be hy­pocrites and time seruers, who with God and to his sight are no part thereof. So then the church visible and inuisible, in substance are the same, they differ only in respect; and M. Bishop knoweth that respects change not the natures of things; and therefore those different respects doe nothing hinder, but that the church in nature is alwaies one. As touching the holinesse of the church, M. Bishop. in the de­liuering of our opinion keepeth his woont. He saith, The holines of the church imputatiue and reall. that we imagine it to be holy, by the imputation of Christs holinesse to the elected brethren, and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faithful: Whereas we doe not imagine only, but by the word of God beleeue and know, that the church, and all the members thereof are holy, not onely iudicially, by the imputation of Christs holines, but also really by the infusion of the holy Ghost, begun in this life by Rom. 8.23. the first fruits of the spirit, and fully to be perefected when the promise of Christ shall be fullfilled; Mat. 5.6. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse; for they shal be [Page 262]satisfied. Againe, he excepteth against vs, that we cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sense of it. Of the true sense of the name Catho­like. But what is that true sense? That is, saith hee, they will not beleeue the true church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the time of the Apostles. But what ancient father did euer set this downe for the true sense of the name Catholike? If any, let him be brought foorth. If none, why doth he contrary to his owne prescription introduce a new exposition of an ar­ticle of our beleefe? Cyril in his Catechisme, bringeth in all the meanings of the name Catholike that he could learne, that the church is so called, for that Cyril. Hiero­sci. Catechis. 18. Illuminat. Catholica voca­tur quia per vntuersum sit or [...]em terrarum diffusa &c. Et quia doret Catholicè, hoc est, vniuersali­tèr & sine vllo defectu vel dif­ferentia omnia dogmata quae deberent venire in cognitionem, &c Et quòd omne genus ho­minum ipè subiugat; et quia in vni­uersum curat omne genus pec­catorum &c. hab tur (que) in illa omne genus vir­tutis. &c. it is vniuersally spread thorow the whole world; for that it teacheth vniuersally all doctrines that are to be known; for that it subiecteth to it alkinde of men for that it healeth all kinde of sinnes; for that it hath in it all kind of vertues: but of M. Bishops meaning, that it should be alwaies visibly extant, he had learned nothing. Surely S. Ambrose saith, Ambros. Hexaem lib. 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia habet tempora sua persecutio­nis & pacis. vi­detur sicut luna deficere, sed non deficit; obum­brari potest, de­ficere non potest. The church hath her times of persecution and peace, it seemeth as the Moone to faile, but it faileth not; it may be ouershadowed, but vtterly faile it cannot. If the church may be as the Moone, so ouershadowed by persecution, as not to be seene, then it is not necessary to be alwaies visibly extant; and if that be not necessary, then M. Bishop hath plaied heere the false merchant to tell vs, that the church is therefore called Catholike, because it is alwaies visibly ex­tant. Albeit there is somewhat also to be obserued concer­ning the name of the true church, that we may speake to that time of the visibility of the church which M. Bishop specially intendeth. For if wee call that the true Church which truely hath the outward vocation and calling of the church, then we deny not but that the church, in the time of Antichrist must bee and hath beene alwaies visibly ex­tant, because Antichrist was to possesse and hath possessed the visible state of the church. But if by the true church, we meane those members of the church which are truely cor­respondent to the vocation and calling of the church in faith and obedience vnto God, then the true church is not [Page 263]alwaies visible, because the greater part being the woorse doth many times oppresse the better and weaker part, and proudly carrying it selfe in the opinion and confidence of it selfe, persecuteth and driueth into corners all them that gainesay their traditions and wilworships, which by their owne authority they establish to delude thereby and fru­strate the word of God. And thus we say, that the true church, in the time of the exaltation of Antichrist was in a sort inuisible, the publike state of the church yeelding it selfe in thraldome to his tyranny, and persecuting the true members of the church, who disclaiming his obedience sought to keepe themselues entire, and faithfull vnto God. Whereas hee further addeth for the notation of the name Catholike, that the church was so called as being generally spred into all countries, we willingly acknowledge the same, as being before acknowledged by the ancient church, and defended against the Donatists, who by other expositions sought to draw the name vnto themselues, as the Papists now doe. Onely wee adde that caution which Bellarmine himselfe hath deliuered, as necessary for himselfe, that Beliarm. de notis eccles. cap. 7. Si solae vna prouincia reti­neret veram fidem, adhuc verè & propriè diceretur eccle­sia Catholica, dummodo clarè ostenderetur eam esse vnam & eandem cum illa quae fuit aliquo tempore vel diuersis in toto mundo. if one only countrey should retaine the true faith, yet the same should truly and properly be called the Catholike church, so that it might cleerely be shewed to be one and the same, with that which hath been at any time or times ouer the whole world. For by this rule nothing hindreth but that our church, though now it be not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world, yea if it were but in one onely country, yet may truely and properly be called the Catholike church, if it be prooued to be one and the same with the church, which at any time heeretofore was spred ouer all the world. But that our church is the same with that, which at the first was spred thorowout the world, it is very euident, as Tertulli­an teacheth vs to prescribe Tert. de prae­script. adu. hae­ret. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus A­postolicae depu­tantur pro con­sanguinitate doctrinae. by consanguinity or agreement of our doctrine, with the doctrine of that church. For by the Gospell which the Apostles preached, the church was founded thorowout the whole world. Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Quod quidem tunc praeconiauerunt, postea per dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae fu­turum. The gospell which [Page 264]the Apostles preached they afterwards by the will of God deli­uered to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. The same Gospel deliuered to vs in the Scrip­tures we receiue; we adde nothing to it, we take nothing from it; as we finde it, so we teach it. Our faith therefore is the same with the faith of that church, which at the first was planted thorowout the whole world. There is no cause then for vs to forsake our owne church, or to thinke that the same began with Friar Luther, as this dreamer imagineth, which by so plaine deduction is approoued to be the same with the first church, and consequently to be truely and properly the Catholike Church. Finally, saith he, they beleeue no church in all points of faith. But doth his wisedome finde it in the articles of the Creed that we are to beleeue any church in all points of faith? The church how farre to be beleeued in points of faith. We are taught there to beleeue that there is a holy catholike Church, which is the communion of Saints: but nothing doe we finde there of be­leeuing any Church in all points of faith. We beleeue the Church in points of faith, so farre as she yeeldeth her­selfe like a faithfull and obedient spouse to be guided by the voice of her Lord and husband Iesus Christ. But if the Church preferre her owne will before the word of Christ, as the proud harlot of Rome doth, it should be a wrong to Christ to beleeue the Church, and a way to set vp humane errour in stead of diuine truth. It is not the voice of the Church, but the word of the written Gospell which God hath appointed, as Irenaeus euen now hath told vs, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For the words of the Church are many times the words of errour and vntruth; and therefore if we should relie our saluation vpon the cre­dit thereof, wee should indeed relie vpon an vncertaine ground and erring guide; but the word of the Gospell is al­waies one and the same, without any variablenesse or vn­certainty, and therefore safely may wee relie our saluation thereupon. Now therefore it cannot be said, but that wee alwaies beleeue one holy catholike Church, according to the [Page 265]profession of faith specified in the Creed, though some­times and in some things we doe not beleeue, that is, credit the visible Church as touching points of faith, because the Church sometimes teacheth vs to beleeue otherwise than God hath taught. Which though it seeme strange to M. Bishop in that language which he hath learned to speake, yet to vs it is not strange, who in the Canonicall histories of the Churches both of the old and new Testament do so often see them diuerting and turning from the right way. As for that hee saith, that our learned masters doe commonly cashiere out of the Creed the addition of the cōmunion of saints, it is but a fruit of the harnessing of his face, and he is there­fore bold to say it, because he hath learned not to be asha­med of any thing that he list to say. That by the Saints are there meant al good Christians, all the faithful, whether a­liue or dead, we will not denie; Communion of Saints im­plieth neither Purgatorie nor praier to saints. but that either praier to saints, or praier for soules in purgatorie, belong to this com­munion of Saints, we neuer yet learned, and are too old to learne it now. For as for the Saints in heauen Aug. de vera relig. cap 55. Honoramus eos charitate, non seruitute: ho­norandi propter imitationem, non propter re­ligionem ado­randi. We honour them with loue, as Austin saith, but not with seruice; to follow them by imitation, not to adore them by religion, and there­fore not to pray vnto them. Further entercourse as yet there is none betwixt them and vs, because Esay 63.16. they know vs not, nor are acquainted with vs, nor can we any way ac­quaint them what wee say vnto them. Now beside the Saints triumphant in heauen, wee acknowledge none but those that are militant vpon the earth, because the holie Ghost diuideth the whole body of the Church into Eph. 1.10. Col. 1.20. those that are in heauen, and those that are in earth, and pro­nounceth them all Reu. 14.13. blessed that are dead in Christ, as who rest from labours and sorrowes, and thereby are discharged from all Purgatorie paines. But if there be any soules in Purgatorie, to which all good Christian soules should yeeld and affoord their helpe to doe them ease, and this be one matter of the entercourse and communion of Gods Saints, why doth the Pope violate the communion of [Page 266]Saints, by withholding from those tormented soules that helpe and ease which he is able to affoord them. Surely, if he cannot doe them ease, then is he an impudent liar, and a notable impostour and cozener of the world. If he can do it, then is he a cruell wretch that without compassion suf­fereth poore souls to lie broiling in those fierie flames. But we rather approoue the former member of this diuision, and take him for a liar, both for that without warrant hee thrusteth in Purgatorie into the articles of our faith, and with lesse warrant challengeth the same for a iurisdiction to himselfe.

13. W. BISHOP.

10 The forgiuenesse of sinnes. It is not easie to finde what is their setled opinion, touching theforgiuenesse of origi­nall sinne in Infants. Some attribute it to Baptisme; but that cannot stand with their common doctrine, that Sacraments haue no vertue in them to remit sinnes, or to giue grace. Others say, that God without any meanes doth then, when they be baptised, of himselfe immediately iustifie them. But that cannot stand in their owne doctrine, because Infants want the instrument of faith to lay hold on that [...] then offered by God, and therefore cannot, being so young, take it vnto them. Others will haue Infants sanctified in their mothers wombe, by vertue of a couenant, which they suppose God to haue made with old father Abraham, and all his faithfull seruants, that (forsooth) their seed shall bee holy. But this is most phanta­sticall, and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience: for Isaac was the sonne of promise, and yet Esau his sonne was are­probate; Dauids father was a godly Israelite, and yet Dauid affirmeth, Psal. 51.that he himselfe was conceiued in iniquities; and we may see whole Countries now turned Turkes, whose ance­stors were good Christians: therefore not all the soules of the faithfull are sanctified in their mothers wombes. Secondly, how euill soeuer they agree about the remission of sinne; yet there is a perfect consent among them, that such relikes of ori­ginall [Page 267]sin remaine in euery man baptised and sanctified, that it infecteth all and euery worke he doth, with deadly sin: yea that which remaineth is properly sinne in it selfe, though it be not imputed to the partie; so that sinne is alwaies in them, though their sinnes be neuer so well forgiuen. And as for the Sacrament of Penance, by which we hold all sinnes committed after Bap­tisme to be forgiuen; they doe renounce the benefit of it, and are at vtter defiance with it.

R. ABBOT.

If wee were as full of differences in our doctrine as M. Bishops head is full of idle fancies, it should be hard indeed to finde any setled opinion amongst vs, whereas now our opinion being setled, he out of sundry termes and words that are vsed in the expressing thereof, dreameth of great difference and vncertainty amongst vs. Originall sin how it is for­giuen to In­fants. The matter is concerning the forgiuenesse of originall sinne in Infants. Some, saith he, attribute it to baptisme. And whom, I mar­uell, doth he know that doth otherwise? Who of vs doth not acknowledge baptisme to be Gods instrument for the actuall application of that grace which hee hath intended towards vs in Iesus Christ, before the foundation of the world? which notwithstanding hath his effect, not by the very worke wrought, or by any vertue infused into the water, or by any power giuen to the very words and syl­lables that are pronounced, but by the assisting power of the holy Ghost, accompanying the outward Sacrament to giue grace and forgiuenesse of sinnes, not indifferently or generally, but Rom. 4.5, vulgat. Eph. 1.5.9 according to the purpose of the grace of God. Now of this that wee say, that it is the holy Ghost which in baptisme worketh the effect of grace, hee out of the abundance of his wit frameth another opinion, which with vs is no other but onely the explication of the for­mer. As for his exception, that children haue not the in­strument of faith to lay hold on the grace of God which is offered in baptisme, it auaileth nothing, because children [Page 268]are brought to baptisme, though not in their owne faith, whereof they are vncapable; yet in the faith of their pa­rents, who apprehending the promise of God according to the tenour thereof, both for Gen. 17.7. themselues and for their children, doe thereby deriue and transport vnto them an interest in the grace of God, whereby they are sacred and holy vnto God, and are therefore by baptisme to be recei­ued to be made partakers of that grace. Heere againe M. Bishop imagineth a third opinion, whereas still there is nothing said but what is dependant vpon the first. And this third opinion he deliuereth according to his owne ab­surd conceit thereof, and not according to that that by vs is intended. We say nothing but what the Scripture hath taught vs, that 1. Cor. 7.14. Children of faithfull pa­rents how vnderstood holy. the children of faithfull parents are holie. Hee betwixt his pride and ignorance, will take no know­ledge that the Scripture so speaketh, thereby to giue a true sense and meaning of that it saith, but scornefully derideth it, and out of his owne distempered braines bringeth a foolish reason to dispute against it. This is most phantasti­call, saith he, and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experi­ence. And how so? Forsooth Isaac was the sonne of promise, and yet Esau his sonne was a reprobate, and many children of Christians afterwards become Turkes: Therefore the children of the faithfull are not sanctified in their mothers wombe. But did not his eies see that out of his owne doctrine a man might by the same argument ouerthrow the sanctificati­on of baptisme also? for in like sort a man may say; The children of many faithfull become reprobates and cast­waies; therefore the children of the faithfull are not sancti­fied in baptisme, which I suppose he will not admit. Surely he knoweth that by the doctrine of their schooles sancti­fication once had may afterwards be lost, and that many reprobates are for the time partakers thereof. It is then no argument to say, that because many children of the faithfull are reprobates, therefore they were not sanctified in their mothers wombe, because, as hee will say of them, [Page 269]who are sanctified in baptisme; so it may be answered him of them who are sanctified in their mothers wombe, that by apostasie they forgoe that which by grace they had re­ceiued. I speake not this to affirme that sanctification which he imagineth, but onely to shew him the sillinesse of his argument whereby he impugneth it. His other in­stance as he setteth it downe, is as weake as that; Dauids father was a godly Israelite, and yet Dauid affirmeth that hee himselfe was conceiued in iniquities. For though Dauid were conceiued in iniquities, yet that letteth not but that after his conception hee might be sanctified in his mothers wombe. But we doe not onely make him say that he was conceiued in iniquitie, but also that hee was Psal. 51.5. borne in sinne, euen as we confesse generally of all, that Aug. Enchir. ca. 33. Cum hac quippe (ira dei) omnis homo nas­citur. wee are borne guilty of the wrath of God, Eph. 2.3.the children of wrath; and that vnlesse the grace of Christ doe thencefoorth releeue vs, Iohn. 3.36. the wrath of God abideth vpon vs. When therefore the A­postle saith, that the children of beleeuing parents are ho­ly, we doe not thereby vnderstand any inward indowment or gift of holinesse, but onely that they are with vs to bee holden and accounted as belonging vnto God, and com­prehended within his couenant, that therefore we may not doubt but that the fellowship of the grace of God, as God himselfe hath ordeined, is to be imparted vnto them. We know that many things by the law were called holy, which yet were not capable of inward and spirituall holinesse; and therefore albeit wee say by the Apostles phrase, that the children of the faithful are holy vnto God, euen from their mothers wombe; yet is there no necessitie to vnderstand this holinesse of any grace of inward regeneration, as they wilfully vnderstand it; it being sufficient both to the Apo­stles words, and to our meaning, that they be reckoned as belonging to Gods houshold, partakers of his vocation and calling, designed to his vse, and in case to be made par­takers of his holinesse. That the remainder of originall sin is properly sinne in the regenerate, and that it infecteth [Page 270]and staineth all our good works, so as that it should pre­uaile against vs to condemnation, saue onely that God im­puteth not the same vnto vs, it hath beene at large before declared, and M. Bishop for shame should no more gaine­say it, till he haue made good that, that there he hath said against it. As for his Sacrament of penance, we know it not. Repentance Christ hath taught vs, but Sacrament of pe­nance he hath taught none, and therefore iustly may wee leaue it to them that haue beene the deuisers of it. For re­mission of sinnes, which wee commit after baptisme, wee looke backe alwaies in our repentance to baptisme it selfe, where it was sealed vnto vs, not for the present onely, but for euer, that 1. Ioh. 2.2. if any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation for our sinnes.

14. W. BISHOP.

11 The resurrection of the bodies. Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Geneuian Gospel doubted thereof or no, let his successor Caluin tell you, who answereth Farels letter thus: Epist. ad Fa­rellum. That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seeme to thee incredible, no maruell, &c. Againe, many of them teach that Christ tooke not his bloud againe, which he shed vp­on the crosse: yea, some of them are so gracelesse, as to say; that his pretious bloud wherewith wee were redeemed, Vide Conradum lib. 1. art. 20. rotted away on the earth 1600. yeeres agoe. If then it bee not necessarie to a true resurrection, to rise againe with the same bloud; why is it necessarie to rise againe with the same bones and flesh, the one being as perfect a part of a mans body as the other?

R. ABBOT.

The epistle wherein are the words mentioned by M. Bishop, importing a doubt of the resurrection of the bo­die, was not written to Farel, as he falsely quoteth, but to one Caluin. epist. 103. Quòd res tibi incredibilis videtur huius carnis resurre­ctio, nihil mirū. Lelius Zozimus an Italian, who seemeth to haue [Page 271]beene but meanely perswaded of some other points of Christian doctrine. After two epistles to this Zozinus, in the former whereof these words are, there follow two epi­stles to Farell. But what drowsie fit was M. Bishop in to take Farels name from an epistle that followed after, and by forgery to adde it to the epistle that went before? But this is one of the Romish holy fraudes; whether true or false it skilleth not, so that it be fit to serue the turne. What wee thinke of Christs resuming his bloud againe, I haue Sect. 10. be­fore shewed. As for Conrades reports of the opinions of some of our men concerning the same, they little mooue vs without better testimonie, because wee know what the guise of Romish Sycophants in that case is wont to be.

15. W. BISHOP.

12 Life euerlasting. First, Captaine Caluin holdeth it for very certaine, that no soule doth enter into the ioyes of hea­uen (wherin consisteth life euerlasting) vntill the day of doome. These be his words: 3. Institu. 25. sess. 6. The soules of the godly hauing ended the labour of this war-fare, doe goe into a blessed rest, where they expect the enioying of the promised glorie: And that all things are holden in suspence vntill Christ the redeemer appeare. Whose opinion is yet better than was his predecessor Luthers. For he teacheth in many places, Enarra. in Gen. cap. 26. In Ecclesi. c. 9. v. 10. that the soules of the godly departing from their bodies, haue no sense at all, but doe lie fast asleepe vntill the latter day: Take this one for a taste. Another place to prooue, that the dead feele, or vnderstand nothing: wherefore Salomon thought the dead to be wholy asleepe, and to perceiue no­thing at all. And again, The sleepe of the soule in the life to come, is more profound than in this life. And Luther with this one position of his (as that famous historiographer Iohn Sleidan recordeth) ouerthrew two points of Popery: to wit, Lib. 9. hist. praying to Saints: for they are so fast asleepe, that they can­not heare vs: and praying for the dead; For they in Purga­torie slept also so soundly, that they felt no paines. A meet foun­dation [Page 272]surely to build such false doctrine vpon.In 20. Luc. hom. 35.But Brentius is most plaine in this matter, who ingeniously confesseth; that, albeit there were not many among them, that did professe publikely the soules to die with the bodie; yet the most vn­cleane life, which the greatest part of their followers did lead, doth clearely shew, that in their hearts they thinke no life to be after this: yea, that many such speeches doe sometimes proceed from them. Finally, it is a grosse errour of theirs, to thinke that euery meane godly man, shall be then made equall in glory with the Apostles, which Luther teacheth; whereas cleane contrary S. Paul declareth, In 1. c. Petri 1. 1. Cor. 15.42. that as one starre differeth from another in glory: so also shall be the resur­rection of the dead.

I omit heere many other particularities, that I be not ouer tedious: For these their bickerings against the very principles of our Christian faith, (not leauing any one article of our Creed vnskirmished with all) will serue any indifferent man for a warning, to beware of their prophane doctrine, that lead­eth the high way to Infidelitie. They vse to crie out much a­gainst the Antichrist of Rome, for corrupting the puritie of the Gospell, as the wicked Elders did against the adulterie of Susanna: but the iudicious Christian may easily espie, them themselues to be the true fore-runners of Antichrist indeed, by their so generall hacking and hewing at euery point of the ancient Christian faith. Thus much concerning the Creede: now let vs passe to the Commandements.

R. ABBOT.

Note well, The soules of the faithfull affirmed by Caluin and Luther to be in heauen. gentle Reader, the wilfull impudencie and malice of this man. He saith that Caluin denieth to soules departed the ioyes of heauen, vntill the day of doome; and yet in the words by him cited, hee seeth that hee affirmeth them, hauing ended this warfare to goe into blessed rest; and in his other words in the same very place might haue seene, and in likelihood did see it, that he placeth this bles­sed rest no otherwhere but with Christ in heauen. Hee ap­plieth [Page 273]generally Cal. Instit. l. 3. ca. 25. sect. 6. De fidelibus lo­quens. to the faithfull the words of the Apostle, that 2. Cor. 5.1. when this earthly house shall be dissolued, wee haue a house or building in heauen. Hee saith that Nisi supersti­tes essent animae corporibus quid est quod habet deum praesen­tem vbi fuerit à corpore sepa­ratum? Nisi etiam animae corporibus exu­tae retinerent suam essentiam, ac beatae gloriae capaces essent, non dixisset Christus latro­ni: Hodie me­cum eris, &c. the soule sepa­rated from the body hath the presence of God; that vnlesse the soules seuered from their bodies did still retaine their being, and were capable of blissefull glorie, Christ would not haue said to the theefe, This day shalt thou be with me inparadise. Here­upon he taxeth, as well he might, the infinite curiosities of the schoole-men, in inquiring and disputing of the place and state, the maner and degrees of heauenly glory as now it is, and heereafter shall be, and condemneth it as a point of rashnesse and folly, further to search concerning things vn­knowen to vs than God permiteth vs to know.Scriptura vbi dixit Christum illis praesentem esse & eas reci­pere in Parae­disum vt conso­lationem perci­piant, reprobo­rum verò ani­mas cruciatus quales meritae sunt perpeti, non vltra pro­greditur.The Scripture, saith he, haning said that Christ is present with them (mean­ing the faithfull soules before spoken of) and doth receiue them into Paradise to receiue comfort, and that the soules of the reprobate doe suffer the torments which they haue deser­ued, goeth no further. For conclusion he saith by and by af­ter: Quum scrip­tura vbi (que) iube­at pendere ab expectationae aduentus Christi & gloriae coronam eous (que) differat, contenti simus his finibus diuinitus nobis praescriptis, animas piorum militiae labore perfunctas in beatam quie­tem concedere vbi cum foelici laetitia fruitionem promissae gloriae expectent, at (que) ita omnia su­spensa teneri donec Christus appareat redemptor. Seeing the Scripture euery where biddeth vs to depend vpon the expectation of Christs comming, and thither doth de­ferre the crowne of glory, let vs conteine our selues within these bounds which God hath prescribed vnto vs, that the soules of the godly hauing ended the labour of this warfare doe goe into blessed rest, where with happy ioy they expect the fruition of the promised glory, and so all things are holden in suspense vntill Christ our redeemer shall appeare. By all which words it appeareth, that although Caluin according Col. 3.3.4. 1. Ioh. 3.2. 1. Pet. 5.4. to the scrip­tures doe referre the full reuealing of the glory of the faith­full vnto the comming of Christ, when the same both in soule and bodie shall be made manifest to the whole world; yet that in the meane time hee denieth not but that their soules departed, are receiued into Paradise, into heauen, and [Page 274]doe enioy blissefull glory, blessed rest, the presence of God, the presence of Christ, and therefore doth not exclude them from the ioies of heauen, vnlesse Christ himselfe, whose presence they enioy, be excluded from heauen. And wher­as M. Bishop maketh him absolutely to say that all things are holden in suspence vntill the comming of Christ, he leaudly falsifieth his words by leauing out the terme of limitation, the same being thus set downe as hath beene said, And that so all things are holden in suspence vntill Christs comming, im­porting that these things acknowledged before expressed, all things further are to vs holden in suspence vntill Christ shall come, are therefore God not hauing reuealed the same, and not to be curiously enquired of. The summe of all which beleefe, Caluin himselfe in another place hath briefely comprised thus; that Caluin. adu. Libertin. ca. 22. Etsi fidelium animae simulac separatae sint à corporibus vi­uunt cum deo ac foelici regni gaudio potiun­tur, tamen per­fecta omnium filiorum dei foe­licitas vs (que) ad secundum Chri­sti aduentum defertur. albeit the soules of the faith­full so soone as they are separated from their bodies do liue with God, and doe obteine the blessed ioy of the heauenly kingdome, yet the perfect happinesse of all the children of God is deferred vntill the second comming of Christ. Now what is there heere for blinde Bishop to dislike in captain Caluin, but that his malice ouerruleth his wit, and carrieth him as it were with a violent streame to condemne that which notwithstand­ing his owne iudgement and conscience doth approoue? And if Caluin had beene of that minde, yet M. Bishop might with the more fauour haue excused it, for that Bel­larmine driuen thereto by the testimonie of Pope Adrian, doth confesse that Pope Iohn the two and twentieth was of that minde, Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. Reuera sensit animas non vi­suras deum nisi post resurrecti­onem. that the soules of the faithfull shall not see God till after the resurrection. But as he dealeth with Caluin, so doth he also with Luther, most maliciously and leaudly. It is true that Luther writing vpon Ecclesiastes, reteining as yet somewhat too much of the dregs of Popery, speak­eth heereof somewhat obscurely, though not to that mean­ing as M. Bishop citeth him. Vpon the words of the Prea­cher, Eccles. 9.10. Whatsoeuer thy hand can doe, doe it instantly; for there is neither worke nor inuention, nor knowledge, nor wisedome in [Page 275]hell, as he readeth, whither thou goest; he commenteth thus, that Luth. Eccl. 9. Alius locus quòd mortui nihil sentiant: nulla enim, in­quit, est ibicogi­tatio, ars, cogni­tio, sapientia: sensit ergò So­lomon mortuos omninò dormire & nihil prorsus sentire. Iacent ibi mortui non numerantes dies vel annos, sed excitati vi­debūtur sibi vix momentum dor­miuisse. the place sheweth that the dead perceiue nothing; for there is there no cogitation, arte, knowledge, wisedome. Solo­mon therefore thought, saith he, that the dead doe sleepe, and haue no sense of any thing. The dead lie there, not reckoning daies or yeeres, but being raised vp, they shall seeme to haue slept a verie little while. Now in these words there is no am­biguitie, as shall appeere by the other place, because that which he saieth of sleeping and not perceiuing any thing, hath reference onely to the affaires and doings of this life. Onely his errour is, that he construeth hell (for which wee rather choose to reade the graue) to be the place where the soules thus sleepe, expounding it Ibid. Insernus propriè me iudi­ce significat il­lum abditum recessum in quo dormiunt mor­tui, &c. vt in­telligas infer­num dici vbi continentur a­nimae & quasi quoddam se­pulchrum ani­mae extra hunc corporalem mundum, stcut terra est sepul­chrum corpo­rum: quid au­tem illud sit no­bis est incogni­tum. to be that secret with­drawing place where the soules are conteined, and which is as it were the graue of the soule, without the compasse of this corporall world, as the earth is of the body: but what this is, saith he, it is vnknowen to vs. This conceit it seemeth hee drew, either from the errour of Pope Iohn aforesaid, or from the Popish fable of Limbus patrum, reteining as yet some taste of that corruption which had beene long grow­ing in him, nad in respect whereof, hee somewhere be­seecheth his Reader to reade many of his works with compassion, remembring that hee was sometimes a Monke, as acknowledging that from his Cloister hee drew many things that were vnsound, and in his wri­tings might escape him vnawares. But whatsoeuer his fancie were when hee wrote that Commentarie vpon Ecclesiastes, hee was afterwards in expounding Gene­sis so farre from that opinion wherewith M. Bishop chargeth him, as that most comfortablie hee setteth foorth the hope of the faithfull in their death, yea e­uen in that very place whence M. Bishop cireth him: the greater is his sinne, that by dismembring a sentence would make him say that that is directly contrarie to the drift and purpose of that whole discourse. He taketh occasion of his speech by the storie of Abrahams death, and there­upon [Page 276]saith: Luther. in Gen. c. 25. Nos habemus grati­am & donum ac manifestam & multiplicem scientiam de morte & vita. Siquidem certi sumus saluato­rem nostrum Christum Iesum sedere ad dex­teram dei patris & expectare nos decedentes ex hac vita. Quandocun (que) igitur excedi­mas è viuis, ad Episcopum ani­marum nostra­rum egredimur, qui recipit nos inmanus suas: is noster Abra­hā est cuius cō ­plexu fruimur: is viuit, imò regnat perpetuò. We haue a grace & gift, euen a manifest and ma­nifold knowledge concerning death and life: for we are sure that our Sauiour Iesus Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, and expecteth vs when we depart out of this life. Whensoeuer therefore we die, we goe to the bishop of our soules, who receiueth vs into his hands. He is our Abraham, whose bosome or embracing we enioy: he liueth and reigneth for euer. Againe he saith; Ibid. In Chri­sto mors non est acerba sicut impijs est, sed est commutatio huius miserae & calamitosae vitae in quietam & bes [...]. tam. &c. Et paulò post. Multi loci scripturae sanctae comprobant quòd post mortem non morimur, sed viuimus simplicitèr. Esa. 57. Requiescit in cubili, &c. Ingrediuntur non in mortem, purga­torium aut infernum, sed in pacem. Death in Christ is not bitter as it is to the wicked, but it is the changing of this wretched and miserable life into a quiet and blessed life. Many places of Scripture, saith he, doe prooue that after death wee die no more, but doe simply or perfectly liue. And alledging the words of Esay, Esa. 57.2. Peace commeth; he shall rest in his bed, whosoeuer walketh before him, he inferreth; They enter not into death, into pur­gatorie or hell, but into peace. Heereupon hee mooueth a question, Et mox. Alia quaestio nascitur, cùmcer­tū sit viuere & esse in pace animas, qualis illa vita aut quies sit. Haec verò sublimior & difficihor est quàm vt à nobis possit definiri: deus enim noluit id a nobis cognosci in hac vita: sufficit igitur nobis haec cognitio non egredi animas ex corporibus in periculum cruciatuum aut poenarum in­ferni, sed esse eis paratum cubiculum in quo dormiant in pace. Differunt tamen somrus siue quies huius vitae & futurae. Homo enim in hac vita defatigatus diurno labore sub noctem intrat in cu­biculum suum tanquam in pace, vt ibi dormiat & ea nocte fruitur quite, ne (que) quicquam scit de [...]llo malo siue incendij siue caedu. Anima autem non sic dormit, sed vigilat & patitur visiones & loquelas angelorū & dei. Ideo somnus in futura vita profundior est quàm in hac vita, & tamen anima coram deo viuit. seeing it is certaine that the soules liue and are in peace, what maner of life or rest that is. This, saith hee, is a higher and harder question than can be decided by vs; for God would not haue vs to know it in this life. It sufficeth vs to know that our soules depart not from our bodies to danger of the tor­ments or paines of hell, but that there is a chamber prouided for them where they may sleepe in peace. But yet, saith he, there is difference betwixt the sleepe or rest of this life and of the life to come. For man in this life being wearied with the daies la­bour, at night entreth into his chamber as in peace, that there [Page 277]he may sleepe, and so in the night he enioyeth rest, and knoweth nothing of any euill either of fire or of sword. But the soule sleepeth not so, but waketh and enioyeth the sight, and heareth the speeches of the Angels and of God. Therefore the sleepe in the life to come is more profound than in this life, and yet the soule liueth in the presence of God. Out of these last words M. Bishop taketh the occasion of his quarrell, expounding sleepe as wee commonly take it, as if Luther meant that the soule in death became wholly deuoid of all sense, know­ledge and vnderstanding, and were as it were dead vntill the last day. But what truth or conscience may we thinke is in this man, who thus obiecteth the words as if Luther had put the soule in case of death, when notwithstanding in the end of the same sentence he addeth, that it liueth in the presence of God, and in the whole circumstance of the place, testifieth by the Scripture, that it enioieth the bo­some of Iesus Christ, the sight and speech of God and his Angels, a most peacefull and blessed life, and that this sleepe is not such, but that the soule waketh alwaies. The mean­ing of Luther is plaine, who finding the rest of the soules of the faithfull termed in Scripture a sleepe, would signifie that this sleepe is a more sound and perfect rest than any is in this life, voide of trouble and feare, free from all know­ledge of miserie and sorrow, not distracted or interrupted with the cares or cogitations of our state, not reckoning number of daies, or length of yeeres, all time seeming short for that blissefull and happie pleasure and conten [...]ment that is yeelded to the soule thereby. For further declaring heereof, he addeth anon after: Ibid. Qui somnum natu­ralem dormit nihil eorum scit quae geruntur in domo vicini, & tamen viuit, li­cet contra natu­ram vitae nihil sentiat in som­no. Idem in illa vita fiet sed a­lia & meliore ratione. Proin­de sicut mater desert infan­tem in cubicu­lum, ponit in cunas, non vt moriatur sed vt dormiat & quiescat suaui­tèr, ita ante Christum & multò magis post Christum ingressae sunt & ingrediun­tur omnes ani­mae credenti­um insinum Christi. He that sleepeth a naturall sleepe, knoweth nothing of those things that are done in his neighbours house, and yet he liueth, though contrarie to the na­ture of life he perceiue nothing in his sleepe. The same shall come to passe in that life to come, but in other and better sort. As therfore the mother bringeth the childe into the chamber, put­teth it into the swadling clouts, not to die, but sweetly to sleepe and rest: so before Christ, and much more since Christ, all the [Page 278]soules of the faithful did and do enter into the bosome of Christ. The sleepe then wherof Luther speaketh is in the bosome of Christ, where faithfull soules are sequestred from the af­faires and troubles of this world, and liue with him in per­fect blisse, and therefore is no such sleepe as M. Bishop dreameth, or rather leaudly deuiseth by wilfully miscon­struing Luthers words. And this is that position of Luther whereof Sleidan speaketh, who mentioning that ghosts and apparitions of spirits were very common in Popery, and that the soules of the dead, as they were thought to bee, did make much stirre and trouble after buriall, and tell why either they were condemned, or for the time tormented in Purgatory fire; and heereupon solicited their neighbours, kinsfolke, and friends to helpe them in that miserie, and that the vsuall maner was, that they requested either some vowes to be paid which they had made to the Saints, or that Masses and sacrifices to such a number might be performed for them, whereby the opinion of Purgatorie and of the Masse woonderfully increased, to the great aduantage and gaine of the Priests; telleth consequent­ly, as indeed the euent euery where hath prooued, that Sleidan. Com­ment. lib. 9. Sed postquam inno­tuit, & aliquid roboris assump­sit Lutheri do­ctrina, paula­tim euanuerunt eiusmodi spe­ctra. Docete­nim Lutherus è sacris literis mortuorum a­nimas quiescere & supremum iudicij diem ex­pectare: turbas autem illas & strepitus formi­dolosos ac phan­tasmata per Sa­tanam excitari dicit, qui nullā praetermittit oc­casionem vt im­pios cultus & falsas opiniones in animis homi­num coufirmet & Christi ser­uatoris nostri beneficium ex­tinguat. when Luthers doctrine began to be knowen, and had gathered some strength, these ghosts and apparitions by little and little vanished away. For Luther teacheth, saith he, out of the holy Scriptures, that the soules of the dead are at rest, and do wait for the last day of iudgement (meaning that where they are at rest, there they abide vntill the day of iudgement, with­out that wandring and walking which was commonly fancied of them) and that those stirres and fearefull noises and sighes were caused by Satan, who omitteth no occasion to confirme in mens mindes vngodly deuotions and false opinions, and to extinguish the benefit of Christ our Sauiour. Now hee that waigheth these words, may easily see how M. Bishop plaieth the Skoggin in the application of them, there being heere nothing at all directed against praier to Saints, and that that is intended against Purgatory, not being for that the soules are so soundly asleepe, as he obiecteth, but for [Page 279]that they are at rest & in peace with Christ if they belong to him, not subiect to any torments, nor hauing any cause of those complaints which Satan cunningly pretended vn­der their names. As for the complaint of Brentius, we doe not doubt but that he might finde cause of it in manie, who notwithstanding did liue vnder the name of Christians, of the professours of the faith and Gospel of Christ. The Prophets, the Apostles complained of such, and yet the pearles then were not the woorse esteemed, for that swine trode them vnder their feete. The Pagans of old saw many taking vpon them to be Christians, who yet were men of most wicked and damnable conuersation, and they tooke occasion hereby to condemne all Christians and Christian religion; and will M. Bishop say that they did well in so doing? Aug. in Psal. 30. cō. 3. Quàm multos putatis fratres mei vel­le esse Christia­nos, sed offendi malis moribus Christianorum? How many thinke you would willingly be Christians, saith S. Austin, but doe stumble and are offended at the euill behauiour of them that are Christians? And what? will M. Bishop say that there are no such amongst them? yea a­mongst their Popes, their Cardinals, their Bishops, are there not that liue as if there were no God, no hell, no re­surrection, no iudgement to come? yea that sticke not sometimes to professe that they thinke so? If hee will de­nie it, their owne stories shall reprooue him. If hee must needs confesse it, then must he needs confesse also, that he hath very idlely brought in this speech of Brentius against vs. That euery meane godly man shall at the last day bee made equall in glory with the Apostles, is not Luthers assertion, but M. Bishops calumniation. Hee affirmeth a paritie of Christians as they are Christians, as touching mutuall rec­koning ech of other in this life, but no paritie or equalitie of reward or glory in the life to come. By occasion of the name of brethren, hee saith that Luther. in 1. Pet. c. 1. Fra­ternitas est qu [...]d Christiani inter se vt fra­tres esse debent, nec vllum pror­sus discrimen admittere: si­quidem omnes in communi vnum Christū, vnum baptis­ma, vnam fidē, vnum (que) the sau­rum habemus. Non possum e­quidem pluris esse quàm tu: quod tu babes & ego habeo, &c. Christus ae­què meus est ac D. Bernardi: tuus non minus at (que) D. Francis­ci, &c. vnam Christiani om­nes fraternita­tem habemus, quam in baptis­mo sumus conse­cuti, de qua nul­lus diuus plus habet quàm ego ac hi. Nam quanto ille pretio redemptus est, tanto sum & [...] redemptus, &c. brotherhood is for that Christians ought to be one amongst another as brethren, and not make any difference at all; for we all in common haue one [Page 280]Christ, one baptisme, one faith, one treasure. I cannot bee of more woorth than thou, and what thou hast, I haue the same also. Christ is mine as well as S. Bernards; and S. Frances hath no more right to Christ than thou. All we that are Christians haue one brotherhood which wee haue atteined in baptisme, whereof no Saint hath more than thou and I. For with what price he was redeemed, with the same was I redeemed. It cost God no lesse for me than for the greatest Saint; onely hee hath perhaps better laid hold of this treasure, that is, hath stronger faith than I. Now what is heere as touching equalitie of glory in the world to come? Heere is a common brother­hood in this life, wherein none can challenge more than o­ther; but this hindreth not but that who in this brother­hood doth the greater worke, shall heereafter receiue the greater reward. Albeit if Luther doe affirme equalitie of glorie, what is that to the impeachment of the article of life euerlasting, when as by the common iudgement of the fathers, life euerlasting is that Matt. 20.2.12.13. Aug. de Sanct. Virgin. cap. 26. Hiero. cont. Io­uinian. lib. 2. Gregor. Moral. lib. 4. cap. 31. penny mentioned in the Gos­pell, which in howsoeuer great difference of worke and labour, yet is indeed equall and alike to all? Now albeit M. Bishop haue heere said whatsoeuer his malice could deuise, and more than truth and honesty would haue said, yet he would make his Reader beleeue, that he hath omit­ted many other particularities, that he might not be ouer tedi­ous: but what his other particularities are, may be esteemed by those that he hath heere set downe, consisting more in lies and cauils than in any matters of moment and trueth. Nothing hath he said whereby it may in any sort be con­ceiued, that either our doctrine tendeth to infidelitie, or that it is without cause that we cry out against the Anti­christ of Rome for corrupting the puritie of the Gospel.

16. W. BISHOP.

First (saith Master PER.) it is a rule in expounding the seuerall Commandements, that all vertues of the same kind are reduced to that Commandement: Hence it followeth, [Page 281]that counsels of perfection are inioined in the law, and therfore prescribe no state of perfection beyond the scope of the Law.

Answ. None of the counsels of perfection are enioyned in the tenne Commandements, though for some affinitie they may be reduced to some of them. For example: It is commanded that I shall not steale, that is, to take any of my neighbours goods against his will; but to giue away all my own to the poore, is beyond the compasse of the law: so likewise it is comman­ded not to commit adulterie, but wee are not commanded to vow perpetuall chastitie and obedience. Such offices only that are necessarily required to the performance of any Commande­ment, are comprehended within the same, but no others; though some men take occasion of the Commandement, to treat of the counsels of perfection.

R. ABBOT.

Psal. 19.7. The law of the Lord is a perfect law, All works of perfection prescribed by the lavv. and therefore pre­scribeth whatsoeuer is necessary to perfection. It requireth Deut. 6.5. Luk. 10.27. all the heart, all the minde, all the soule, all the strength, and because beyond all there can bee nothing more, therefore there is no vertue, no righteousnesse, no perfection that is not commanded therby. It is commanded, saith M. Bishop, that I shall not steale, but to giue all mine owne to the poore is beyond the compasse of the law. But I answer him, that where it is beyond the compasse of the law, there it is not a work of perfection, but an act of superstition. If God command it, then not to do it, is sin: if God cōmand it not, there is no piety but folly in the doing of it, because God casteth it off with that reprofe, Esa. 1.12. Who required these things at your hands? Let M. Bishop tell vs, when Christ said to the rich man in the Gospell, Luk. 18.22. Goe, sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen, & come and follow me; did hee sinne or not in refusing to doe as Christ aduised him? If not, why doth our Sauiour except against his en­tring into the kingdome of heauen? If he did sinne, then he [Page 282]brake the law; for Rom. 4.15. where there is no law, there is no sinne, and therefore the giuing of all his goods to the poore, was within the compasse of the law. Hee boasted that hee had kept the law, but our Sauiour Christ would discouer how farre he was from louing the Lord with all his hart, which the law requireth, who had so tied his heart to his worldly wealth, as that hee could not finde in his heart, God so requiring, for the reliefe of his neighbour, whom hee should loue as himselfe, to void himselfe of the possession thereof. To giue all that a man hath to the poore is then a worke of righteousnesse, when the calling of God and the following of Christ requireth it, and then it is commanded by the law. To doe it when dutie to God requireth it not, may wel be called a worke of supererogation, but work of perfection it is none. We are not commanded, saith he again, to vow pertuall chastitie and obedience. It is true, and there­fore those vowes are no matters of true deuotion and reli­gion, but of rash errour and presumption. Such offices onely, saith he, as are necessarily required to the performance of any commandement, are comprehended within the same; and I an­swer him, that no offices are at all required, but what are necessarie to the performance of some commandement. For notwithstanding all that can be said or alleaged for ad­uices and counsels, and howsoeuer it may be pleaded, that they may seeme in some particulars rightly so called, yet circumstance and occasion alwaies maketh them necessary duties, and the omitting of them is either the violation of the briefe of the first table, Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. or of the second, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe, there being reason of the doing of them, either for the glory of God, or for the edification of our brethren, of which neither can be neglected without trespasse of the law.

17. W. BISHOP.

Secondly (saith M. PER.) the Commandement, Thou [Page 283]shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image, &c. hath two seuerall parts: the first forbiddeth the making of Images: the second the adoration of them. Hee concludeth out of Deuteronomy, that the Images of the true Iehoua are for­bidden in the Commandement, and consequently the ado­ration of such Images. Hence he will haue it to follow, that to worship God in or at Images with religious worship, is abominable Idolatrie.

Answ. First if the Images of God onely be there prohi­bited, and then worship done to them according to his owne exposition, then it followeth most cleerely, that there is no pro­bibition for either making or worshipping the Images of any Saints; and therefore with a very euill conscience doth he wrest the commandement against them. Secondly I say, though God had forbidden vs to worship Images, yet doth it not follow ther­of, that we must not worship God in, or at Images. For as God is euery where; so may he be worshipped in all places, and as wel at or before an Image, as in the Church, and before the com­munion table. Thirdly, we make no Images to expresse the na­ture of God, which is a spirit, and cannot be represented by lines and colours, but onely allow of some such pictures, as set out some apparitions of God, recorded in the Bible; not doubting but that such workes of God, may aswell be expressed in colours to our eies, as they are by words to our eares and vnderstanding. Lastly, touching religious worship to bee done to Saints or pi­ctures,Analog [...]n.the Heretikes cauilling consisteth principally in the di­uers taking of the word religious. For it is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the worship onely due to God; in which sense to giue it to any creature were Idolatrie: but it is also with the best authors taken some other time, to signifie a worship due to creatures, for some supernaturall vertue or quality in them; and in this sense to tearme it detestable Idolatry, is either detestable malice, or damnable ignorance. And whereas (he saith) that common reason teacheth, that they who adore God in Images, do binde God & his hearing of vs, to certaine things and places: I say the contrarie, that God may be worshipped in [Page 284]all places; but we rather chuse to worship him in Churches and before Images, than in other places, because the sight of such holy things, doe breed more reuerence and deuotion in vs, and better keepe our mindes from wandring vpon vaine matters. If we taught that God could bee worshipped no where els, or by no other meanes, then he had not lied so loudly.

R. ABBOT.

M. All Images generally for­bidden to be worshipped. Perkins concludeth indeed, that the images of God are forbidden in the commandement, but neither saith nor meaneth that only the Images of God are there forbidden, and therefore hee vseth no euill conscience in vrging the commandement against the images of Saints; but M. Bi­shop with euill conscience defendeth the images of Saints against the commandement. And whereas hee saith, that thogh God do forbid to worship images, yet he doth not therfore forbid vs to worship God in or at Images, hee doth but frame himselfe to the guise and woont of all the masters of idola­try, it being the common pretence of them al, as hath been Of Images. sect. 5. before shewed, that they doe not worship the Image it selfe, which they know to be but mettall, or wood, or stone, but that in the Image or at the Image they worship the diuine essence, which they beleeue to bee immateriall and immortall. Yea, and by what reason M. Bishop heere defendeth the worshipping of God in or at Images, for at God is euery where, so may he be worshipped in all places, and as well at or before an Image, as in the Church or before the communion table, by the same did Ieroboam perswade the Israelites to worship God at or before, or in his golden Calues at Dan and Bethel, Ioseph. Ant. Iudaic. l. 8. c. 3. See of Images. sect. 5. because no place is void of God, neither is he included any where, and therefore they might as wel worship him neerer hand before those calues as in the temple and before the sanctuary at Ierusalem. But as Ieroboam committed damnable idolatrie, in worshipping God be­fore the Calues, so doth M. Bishop also in worshipping God in or before an image commit idolatry against God, [Page 285]who will not be mocked, nor can abide to haue honour done to an idoll by pretence of his name. His third excep­tion, that they make no Images to expresse the nature of God, but onely to set foorth some apparitions of God recorded in the Bible; how vaine it is, hath beene also fully declared in Of Images, sect. 4. & 7. the handling of that question. And very strange it is that M. Bishop should make those apparitions a colour for their idoll-images of God, when God himselfe affirmeth that therefore hee did forbeare in the day when hee gaue the Law, Deu. 4.12.15 to appeere in any image or likenesse, be­cause he would not haue them to make any image of him. Whereas he saith, that such works of God may aswell be ex­pressed in colours to our eies, as they are by words to our eares and vnderstanding, he should vnderstand that it is one thing to speake of the works of God, another thing to speake of the person of God. Wee question not the expressing of the workes of God, but wee condemne the expressing of the person of God. And if the expressing of those apparitions by words to our eares and vnderstanding, be a reason why we may expresse the same by pictures to our eies, then no­thing hindereth but that the nature of God also may bee expressed by colours and pictures to our eies, because the same is by words according to our capacitie expressed to our eares and vnderstanding. But God hath commanded himselfe to be preached to the eare and vnderstanding; he hath not commanded, nay hee hath forbidden himselfe to be painted to the eie; and therefore the one is lawfull and godly, the other wicked and vnlawfull. His distinction of religious worship is most ridiculous and absurd. The verie name of religion, as Austin and Lactantius do deriue it, im­potteth the Aug. de vera relig. ca. 55. Ad vnum deum tendentes & e [...] vni religantes animas nostras, vnde religio di­cta creditur. Lactant. Instit. li. 4 cap. 28. Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti deo & religati sumus; vnde ipsa reli­gio nomen ac­cepit. obliging and tying of our soules to God onely; and if to God onely, then it cannot be truely called religion, that is performed to any other. Therefore Lactantius saith a­gaine, that Lactan. Instit. l. 1. c. 20. Religio ac veneratio nulla alia nisi vnius dei tenen­da est. there is no other religion to be holden but towards God onely. So saith Austin, that Aug. cont. 2. ep. Pelag. lib. 3. c. 4. Debent ob­seruari Christi­ani, vt vni deo religionis obse­quio seruiatur. Christians are with dutie of religion to serue God only; and that Idem cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 14. cap. 11. Apostolus crea­turam laudat, & ei tamen cul­tum religionis exhiberi vetat. the Apostle forbiddeth [Page 286]worship of religion to be giuen to any creature. Hee telleth vs, that Idē de eiu. dei, l. 5. c. 15. Pietas vera non exhi­bet seruitutem religionis, quam latriam Graeci vocant, nisi vni vero deo. seruice of religion is that which the Greekes call [...], which true piety yeeldeth to God onely. Therefore hee saith, that Idem de vera relig. cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mor­tuorum. Hono­randi sunt prop­ter imitatio­nem, non ado­randipropter religionem. we are not to make a religion of the worship of dead men, and that wee are to honour them for imitation, not to worship them for religion. Now all these so expresse and perempto­rie resolutions, M. Bishop at once ouerthroweth with a di­stinction, taken, as he saith, from the best authours: but hee saith it very falsly and vnhonestly, not being able to bring one good authour for the approouing of it. The word reli­gious, saith he, is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the wor­ship onely due to God; but it is taken some other time to signifie a worship due to creatures. And as well he may say, that the word mariage is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the bond that is betwixt the husband and the wife, but yet is with the best authours taken some other time for that affi­ance that is betwixt the fornicatour and the harlot, so that lawfully may the one enioy the other, because there is betwixt them a bond of mariage. We are told that religion in Ecclesiasticall vse belongeth onely to God, and that no seruice of religion is to be done to creatures; and he telleth vs that religion belongeth principally to God, but that there is religion also belonging to creatures: yea euen to vile and abominable idols. And what maruell is this, when­as wee see the Valentian Iesuit distinguish in like sort of idolatry, that because S. Peter nameth 1. Pet. 4.3. abominable idola­tries, therefore we should vnderstand that there are ido­latries which are not abominable, and that Greg. de Va­lent. de idolat. lib. 2. c. 7. Quid attinebat ita determinatè cultus simula­chrorum illici­tos notare, si om­ninò nullos si­mulachrorum cultus licitos esse censuisset? some ido­latrie is lawfull? Surely religious worship giuen to crea­tures, is no other but idolatrie; but yet forsooth wee must not condemne it, because all kinde of idolatrie is not to bee thought vnlawfull. These are men of sharpe wits, and can, if yee will put them to it, distinguish God out of heauen, and Christ out of the Creed, or by a distin­ction can bring a great number of gods into heauen, and a great many Christs into the Creed. As for vs, wee take [Page 287]the fathers before alleaged to be herein ingenuous and ho­nest as we are, and that they did not intend with one breath to appropriate religion vnto God, and to blow it from him with another. Albeit not onely vnder the name of religion, but vnder the name of worship also they haue affirmed the same to belong to God onely, as namely, Cypria. de ex­hort. martyr. ca. 2. Quod Deus solus coiēdus sit. that God onely is to bee worshipped, Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 1. Cul­tus & adoratio nulli creaturae concedi potest abs (que) diuinita­tis iniuria.that worship and adoration can bee giuen to no creature without iniurie and wrong to God; Hieron [...]. aed Ripar adu. Vigi­lant. Ne solem quidem & Lu­nam, non ange­los, non archan­gelos, non Che­rubim, non Se­raphim, & om­ne nomen quod nominatur & in praesenti secu­lo & in futuro colimus & ado­ramus.that we worship neither Sunne nor Moone, neither Angels, nor Archangels, neither Cherubim, nor Seraphim, nor a­ny other name (of any creature) that is named either in this world, or in the world to come. Therefore of the Virgin Ma­rie Epiphanius saith: Epiphan haer. 79. Collyrid. Sit in honore Ma­ria: Pater, Fi­lius, Sp. Sact a­doretur: Mariā nemo adoret. Let Mary be in in honour; elt the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost bee worshipped, but her let no man worship; and Ambrose, Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, l. 3. cap. 12. Maria erat templum Dei, non Deus templi: & ideo ille solus adorā ­dus qui opera­batur in tēplo. Marie was the temple of God, but not God of the temple; and therefore he onely is to be wor­shipped who wrought in the temple. Thus the fathers knew no religion, they knew in religion no worship, but what belongeth to God alone; and M. Bishops distinction both in the one and in the other, was wholly vnknowen vnto them. But it is woorth the while to note, how the said distinction, such as it is, is applied by him to pictures and images. Religious worship, saith he, doth sometimes signifie a worship due to creatures for some supernaturall vertue or qua­litie in them. But good Sir tell vs, what supernaturall ver­tue or qualitie is there in your images and pictures? If any religious worship be due vnto them, you tell vs that it must befor some supernaturall vertue or qualitie in them. If there bee no such, then how shall religious worship bee due vnto them? May we not thinke that you haue sent vs a very na­turall distinction, that giueth supernaturall vertue and qualitie to stocks and stones? But if supernaturall vertue & qualitie doe yeeld a title of religious worship, how is it that Reu. 19.10. the Angell refused to be worshipped of S. Iohn, and Act. 10.25. the Apostle Peter of Cornelius, seeing it cannot bee doubted but that there was a supernaturall vertue and qualitie in [Page 288]them? Well, hee will tell vs that the next time; in the meane while he giueth vs leaue to thinke their Romish fa­uorites to be very naturally affected, that conceiue so su­pernaturally of the deuisers of such blinde and witlesse tales. As for that he saith, that they doe not binde God and his hearing of vs to certaine things and places, because they hold that God may be worshipped in all places, hee saith no more than Ieroboam hath in effect said before for the setting vp of his idols; no more than the Pagans and Heathens con­ceiued, that their gods were in heauen; and therefore that in all places they might pray and sacrifice vnto them. Not­withstanding as they thought, that to pray before their Images, was a more speciall and solemne deuotion, and they had there the heauenly powers more neerely present vnto them, so haue they beene affected in Poperie, and haue thought those praiers to bee most effectuall which they haue made in the presence of filthy idols, and to that end haue taken great paines to goe long iourneies and pil­grimages vnto them. But saith M. Bishop, the sight of such holy things doth breed more reuerence and deuotion in vs, and better keepe our mindes from wandering vpon vaine matters. He should haue said if hee would haue spoken as the truth is, that they breed superstition and errour, rather than re­uerence and deuotion, that they cause God and his Saints to bee contemned in that stoliditie and blockishnesse of dumbe idols, or at leastwise doe hold the minde so intang­led heere vpon the earth, as that it hath not power and li­bertie of affection to ascend to heauen, as hath beene Of Images, sect. 5.8. be­fore sufficiently declared, and needeth not heere to bee re­peated. His coupling of Churches and Images is like Deut. 22.10 the yoaking of an oxe and an asse; because Churches haue their vse for yeelding conueniencie of place and assemblie for praier, for hearing of Gods word and ministration of his Sacraments, for which vses onely it is that they are holie; but Images haue no vse at all to these purposes or any o­ther, yea they serue to set the minde a wandring, and to [Page 289]withdraw it from that stedfastnesse and deuotion which these spirituall offices and exercises doe require of vs. In a word, Lactantius maketh it Lactant. Inst. l. 2. c. 19. Non est dubium quin religio nulla sit vbi­cun (que) simula­chrum est. a thing vndoubted, that where Images are, there is no religion, and therefore very iustly do we affirme, that the Popish vse and defence of Images is no furtherance as M. Bishop would perswade, but the very bane and ouerthrow of all true religion.

18. W. BISHOP.

But let vs heare the end of his discourse: thus he argueth: They that worship, they know not what, worship an Idol. This exposition is false, vnlesse they worship it with diuine ho­nor. But goe on: the Papists worship they know not what. I prooue it thus: To the consecration of the Host, there is required the intention of the Priest: but they cannot haue any certainty of the Priests intention: wherfore they are not certaine whether it be bread, or the body of Christ. ergo, worshipping of it, they worship they know not what.

Answ. First, heere is leaping from the Commandements to the Sacraments, which is out of order: secondly, I returne his argument vpon himselfe. To their seruice and in the admini­stration of the Lords Supper, the Ministers intention is requi­red: for if he intend to serue the Diuell, and by giuing them the cōmunion to binde them the faster to him; then do they (in say­ing Amen to his praiers, and receiuing the communion at his hands) ioine with him in the Diuels seruice. Now they haue no more certaintie of their Ministers meaning, than wee haue of our Priests intention: yea much lesse of many of them, who are mad-merry fellowes, and care not greatly whereabout they go, nor what they intend: must they therefore flie from their di­uince seruice and holy communion, because they be not certaine of their Ministers intention therein? Surely they should, if his reason were ought woorth. But in such cases we must perswade our selues that Gods Ministers doe their dutie, vnlesse we see great cause to the contrarie; and thereupon are we bold to doe our dutie to the blessed Sacrament: If he should faile in his, [Page 290]yet our intention being pure to adore Christs holy bodie onely, and nothing else there, we should formally be the true worship­pers of Christ, though materially we were mistaken in that host; which to tearme Idolatrie, is to stile our Sauiour Iesus Christ an Idoll, and therefore blasphemy in the highest degree.

R. ABBOT.

They that worship they know not what, The Papists worship they know not not what. saith M. Perkins, do worship an idoll. M. Bishop saith that this is false, vnlesse they worship it with diuine honor. But that worship wherof M. Perkins speaketh, is no other but diuine honour; and in the subiect whereto he maketh application of this rule, which is the Sacrament, M. Bishop himselfe doth no otherwise vnderstand it, and therefore his exception is verie idle. Neither is there heere any vnorderly leaping, as he speak­eth, from the Commandements to the Sacraments, but ve­rie orderly and direct proceeding, when as hauing in hand to set foorth their breaches of the Commandement, he exemplifieth the same by their idolatrie committed in the Sacrament. For proofe whereof M. Perkins vseth this argument; They that worship they know not what, doe wor­ship an idoll. This M. Bishop acknowledgeth, if they wor­ship it with diuine honor. But the Papists in worshipping the Sacrament doe worship with diuine honour they know not what: Therefore they worship an idoll. That they know not what they worship, it is euident and plaine, because they can­not know whether it be bread or the bodie of Christ. For they confesse that it is not the body of Christ, Bellarm. de Sacra. in Gen. ca 27. sententia Catholicorum est requirs in­tentionem fa­ciendi quod fa­cit Ecclesia. without the Priests intention in consecration to doe that which the Church doth. But how can any man tell whether the Priest haue this intention or not? who can looke into his heart to be as­sured of his meaning, when as it is God onely that know­eth the heart? If no man can search into the Priests heart to know his intention, then can no man know whether the Sacrament be the body of Christ or not, and therefore in the worshipping of it, they worship they know not what, [Page 291]which is no other but idolatrie. With this argument M. Bishop is cruelly pinched, and knoweth not which way to auoid the absurditie that is thereby cast vpon them; and yet somewhat hee must say, howsoeuer little helpe hee re­ceiue by it. First hee would returne the argument against vs, as touching the intention of our Ministers, but dealeth therein childishly and vainly, because hee knoweth well that we hang not the Sacrament or any power thereof vp­on the intention of the Minister, but wholly vpon the word of Christ. It may be that some Ministers be as the greatest number of their Priests haue beene woont to bee, madde merry-fellowes that care not greatly whereabout they goe; but this hindreth vs nothing, who by the words of Christ him­selfe, by them deliuered, do firmely apprehend that which Christ hath promised. But to salue the matter the best he can, he telleth vs, that we must perswade our selues that Gods Ministers doe their dutie, vnlesse wee see great cause to the contrarie. Where hee should remember, that the matter heere vrged is not determined by our perswasion, but by the Priests intention. We may be in charitie well perswa­ded, but in our being well perswaded, wee may be decei­ued, and therefore doe not yet know but that we commit idolatrie in that which M. Bishop calleth duty to the blessed Sacrament; and the rather for that he himselfe Sect. 63. afterwards confesseth, that it is idolatrie in the Sacrament to worship for Christ, that which is not Christ. But now welfare a di­stinction to helpe at a pinch: for if the Priest in his intenti­on faile, yet our intention being pure, saith he, to adore Christs holy body onely, and nothing else, we shall be formally the true worshippers of Christ, though materially we be mistaken in that host. Let him speake plaine English, and tell vs, that for­mally we shall be true worshippers of Christ, but materially we shall be idolaters, and then let him resolue vs how in one and the same act it may be iustified that wee are both true wor­shippers and idolaters, & what shal become of the formal­ly true worshipper, when for being materially an idolater he [Page 292]shal be adiudged to hel. I haue wondered at a saying which I haue read, cited out of the great Schooleman Robert Hol­cot, thinking it to be more absurd than that any Christian man would vtter it, namely, Humphred. de vita & obitu Iuelit, pa. 120. ex Holcot. As­serit fidem laici adorantis hosti­am non conse­cratam sufficere illi ad saluatio­nem, tametsi er­roneam: & ho­minem posse mereri per fi­dem erroneam, etsi contingat vt adoret diabolū. that the faith of a lay man wor­shipping an Host that is not consecrated; though it be an erro­neous faith, yet sufficeth to saluation; and that a man by an erroneous faith may merit, although it fall out that he worship the diuell. This speech is strange, but yet M. Bishop now by his distinction teacheth vs, how it may very wel stand, because though a man materially worship the diuell, yet by his intention hee doth formally worship God. Now what ill happe had Ieroboam, that he was not acquainted with these Romish schoole-trickes; for he might well haue answered both for himself and for the people, that though materially they errēd in the Calues, yet their intention was pure and holy, to worship the true God, and therefore for­mally they were true worshippers. Yea this distinction wil serue to cleere a great part of the idolatries of the Gentiles and Pagans, because albeit the diuels did present them­selues at their idols and images, to receiue the sacrifices & deuotions that were there performed, as in Popery they haue also done, yet this hindred not, but that formally they were true worshippers, because though they were materially mistaken, as before was said, in taking the diuell for God, yet their formall meaning and intention was to doe seruice to the onely true and immortall God. Thus shall they be excused of whom Christ saith, Ioh. 16.2. The time will come, that whosoeuer killeth you, will thinke that he doth God seruice. Which many vndoubtedly thought in the cruci­fying of Christ, being (formally) Act. 22.3.zealous towards God, but Luk. 23.34. not knowing (materially) what they did. So S. Austin saith of the Donatists: Aug. epist. 48. Arbitrabantur se pro ecclesiae dei facere quic­quid inquie­ta temeritate faciebant. Whatsoeuer they did in their turbulent rashnesse and furie, they thought they did it in behalfe of the Church of God. The same we say of all schismes and here­sies, that the followers thereof, at least many of them, are formally true worshippers of Christ, because they haue an [Page 293]vnfained intention and purpose to serue the Lord Iesus Christ, howsoeuer materially they be mistaken in some things. Thus doth M. Bishop make a hotch-potch and mixture of all religions, and by his distinction of ma­terialitèr and formalitèr a man may in any religion bee a true worshipper of God, because hee may haue a zealous intention to serue God. But if his learning and vnderstan­ding did not faile him, he would remember that Ioh. 4.23. the true worshippers doe worship God, not onely formally in spirit, but also materially in truth. It was the religion of the Samari­tanes Ibid. vers. 22. to worship they knew not what; but the religion of the true Iewes, of whom was saluation, was to know what they did worship. Our Sauiour would thereby instruct vs that there is no saluation where men worship they know not what. God hath reueiled vnto vs the knowledge of himselfe and of his will, that thereby we may be directed to serue him. In this Ioh. 17.3. knowledge is eternall life, but Os [...] 4.6. in the want of know­ledge is perdition and destruction. Intention & zeale is good, and in the seruice of God necessarily required, but yet our intention and zeale is no other but furie and madnesse, and fighting against God, if it haue not knowledge to guide it (materially) in the way of God. Now if it be idolatrie to worship that for God which is no God, and yet it follow­eth not that God is heereby stiled an Idoll, then surely it is likewise Idolatrie to worship the Sacrament vnder the name of the body of Christ, when it is not the bodie of Christ, and yet we doe not thereby stile our Sauiour Iesus Christ an idoll, as hee fondly obiecteth against vs for blas­phemie in the highest degree.

19. W. BISHOP.

His third obiection is out of the fourth Commandement, which (as he saith) giueth a libertie to worke six daies in the ordinarie affaires of our calling, which libertie (saith be) cannot bee repealed by any creature: the Church of Rome therefore erreth, in that it prescribeth other set and [Page 294]ordinary festiuall daies, to be obserued as straightly, and with as much solemnitie as the Sabbath of the Lord.

Answ. Doth not the Church of England also prescribe the Natiuitie of our Sauiour, and of S. Iohn Baptist, the feasts of the Apostles, and many others to be kept holy, and com­mand that no man worke in the affaires of their calling those daies? doth their owne church also erre therein? How say you then to the church of the Israelites, which kept the feasts of Ea­ster, Whitsontide, and of the Tabernacles, as straightly and with as much solemnitie, as they kept the Lords Sabbath? was it also mis-led to the breach of Gods commandements? or must we not rather thereby learne, that six daies in the weeke, were at the first left vs free to labour in; but yet so, that by the decree and commandement of our spirituall Gouernours, any of them might (vpon iust occasion) be made festiuall, and there­upon euery good christian bound to keepe them, by their obedi­ence vnto their Gouernours? to thinke the contrarie is a high point of Puritanisme.

R. ABBOT.

M. Festiuall daies lawfully pre­scribed by the church. Perkins intendeth nothing against the authoritie of the Church, for the prescribing of some solemne and festi­uall daies, but condemneth the church of Rome iustly for prescribing such daies to be obserued, as straitly and with as much solemntie, he should haue said more straitly, and with much more conscience and solemnitie, than the Lords Sabbath day. Yea it is a thing impious in the Bishop of Rome, that hee taketh vpon him to make such daies, in themselues Bellar. de cultu sanct. l. 3. ca. 10. Sunt dies festi verè alijs fan­ctiores & sa­cratiores, & pars quaedam diuini cultus. more sacred and holy than other daies, and a part of the very true worship and seruice of God. Whereas M. Perkins saith, that it is not in the power of any creature to repeale the liberty of working six daies, he saith rightly, if we vnderstand it of the libertie of conscience; for no creature may binde the conscience from the acknowledgement of a lawfulnesse with God, to worke all and euery of the six daies in the af­faires of our callings, but yet in charitie and obedience we [Page 295]yeeld to our gouernours, and to our brethren somewhat vpon occasion to refraine our libertie, and to forbeare the doing of those things, of which notwithstanding we know and are perswaded that in conscience and with God, they are free and lawfull to be done.

20. W. BISHOP.

Fourthly (saith M. PER.) the fift Commandement enioineth children to obey father and mother in all things, specially in matters of moment; as in their Marriages and choice of their calling, and that euen to death: and yet the Church of Rome against the intent of this Commande­ment, alloweth that clandestine Marriages and the vowe of religion shall be in force, though they bee without and against the consent of wise and carefull parents.

Answ. It is very false to say that children must obey their parents in all things: for if parents command them any thing either against Gods law or the Princes, they must not obey them therein. And touching clandestine and priuie Marria­ges, they are of force aswell in the Church of England, as in the Church of Rome: yea more too. For by the Church of Rome alwaies they haue beene forbidden verie seuerely; and since the Councell of Trent, are made voide and of no force, where the Councell can be published. Concerning entring into religion, childrens vowes (during their minoritie) may be an­nullated and made of no force by their parents: marry, when they come to riper daies, if their father stand not in necessitie of their helpe, they may forsake him to follow Christ in a more perfect kinde of life: as S. Iames and S. Matth. 4.22. Iohn forsooke their fa­ther Zebedee, and followed Christ.

R. ABBOT.

There is little discretion in M. Bishops first exception, because M. Perkins did vse no other but the Apostles words; Col. 3.20. Children, obey your parents in all things, for that is well pleasing vnto the Lord. When the Apostle saith, in all [Page 296]things, M. Bishop should not be so rude as to say, It is ve­rie false to say, in all things; howsoeuer wee denie not but that the words haue their limitation and restraint to those things wherein they command in right of parents. The validitie of contracts & marriages without con­sent of pa­rents. As touching marriages without consent of parents, M. Bishop misreporteth the Councell of Trent, which though it doe detest and prohibit the contracts of such marriages, yet doth also Conc. Trident. sess. 24. Sancta Synodus ana­themate dam­nat eos qui fal­sò affirmant matrimonia à filijs familias sine consensis parentum con­tracta irrita esse, & parentes rata vel irrata facere posse. condemne them who say that such marriages when they are contracted are void, and that it is in the power of the parents either to ratifie or disanull them. The Church of England not meditating contradiction but truth, ap­prooueth so farre the sentence of the Councell, and al­beit it endeuoureth with all good care and circumspection to preuent and to exclude such wilfull and vngodly cour­ses of marriage, yet it acknowledgeth that marriages being so acted and done, cannot be reuoked; lamented they may be, and greened at, but voided they cannot be. M. Perkins seemeth to be of other minde, and hee followeth therein the iudgement of sundry late Diuines; whom though o­therwise we greatly esteeme and honour, yet wee cannot subscribe that which they determine in this point. Con­sent of parents belongeth to the honest and orderly pro­ceeding of marriage, and it is true that children sinne a­gainst the fift Commandement, in neglecting their con­sent, but this consent is no part of the essence and being of marriage, which therefore being complet and perfect without it, must necessarily stand good, albeit the parents giue no consent vnto it. The very essence of contract and marriage, consisteth in the parties actuall giuing of them­selues mutually ech to other, according to the forme and maner of the countrey and place wherein they liue, which being done, the want of parents consent cannot vndoe it, neither may they be sundred in two, who by Gods ordi­nance, though vnlawfully abused, are become one. By Gods ordinance, I say, because albeit they haue not vsed that maner of proceeding which God hath ordeined to [Page 297]the fastening of this bond, yet the bond it selfe wherewith they are fastened, is the ordinance of God to remaine inui­olable betwixt them that are once bound thereby. Neither doth it make against this which is obiected, that God ioineth not such together, that they marry not in the Lord; for so may it be said of them that marry only for carnal & worldly respects, of the beleeuer that matcheth him or her-selfe with an vnbeleeuer, that they are not ioined by God, nor married in the Lord, because God hath forbid­den such kinde of marriages to be made. But yet as the bond of marriage though vnlawfully entred into holdeth these together, and may not bee broken, euen so though children may not lawfully marry without consent of pa­rents, yet being married, they are tied by the couenant of God ech to other, as husband and wife, and may not shake off the yoke which they haue taken vpon them­selues. As for those phrases of Scripture which are vrged in this behalfe of parents, Gen. 21.21. Exod. 34.16. Deut. 7.3. taking wiues for their sonnes, or husbands for their daughters, and giuing their sonnes and daughters in marriage, they imply indeed the parents right and power for the bestowing of their children; but yet we cannot from thence argue, that if the children preuent their parents, and doe giue and bestow themselues, their gift should bee void, and their marriage a meere nullitie, as if it had not beene. For as wee reade of parents taking wiues for their sonnes, so we reade of sonnes also without consent of parents, taking wiues for themselues, when yet the want of such consent hath been no disanulling of their marriage. Esau Gen. 26.34. tooke him two wiues of the daughters of Heth or Canaan Ibid. 28.8. contrarie to the liking of his father and mother, and yet when he had taken them hey held it not in their power to frustrate his taking of them, but with griefe were forced to endure them. And if the sonnes taking of a wife be of no force without the parents consent, then Rebecca had no such cause of feare Ibid. 27.46. lest Iacob also should take a wife of the daughters of Heth, because his [Page 298] taking had been nothing, so long as his father and mother should giue no consent vnto it. So is it said of Gen. 38.2. Iudah, that he tooke him to wife a daughter of a Canaanite, which wee cannot doubt but that it was as offensiue to his father Ia­cob, as it had beene before to Isaac, and yet his marriage was not taken to be of no effect. To be short, as the one phrase of Scripture may be deemed to import a right in the father to bestow the children, so the other may bee thought to import a validitie of that which the childrē do, though vnlawfully, without the father. It is here, I know, commonly obiected, that God by his law prouided, that Num. 30.4. the vow of the daughter should not stand that was dis­auowed by the father, and thereof is inferred, that the daughters bestowing of her selfe in marriage cannot stand good without the father. But that law if it be duly weigh­ed, maketh as little to that purpose as any thing else that is alleaged. For the vowes and bonds there spoken of, are of things futurely to be done; but heere the question is of a thing already done. If the daughter made a vow of an of­fering to the Lord, it was in the fathers power to disanull her vow; but if she had alreadie offered any thing to the Lord, it was not then in the fathers power to reuoke her offering. Euen so if the daughter make a vow or giue a promise that she will marry thus or thus, it is in the hand of the parents to resist and frustrate her vow; but if by contract and marriage she haue effected her vow and pro­mise, it is then past the parents hands to vndoe what shee hath done, and it is not lawfull marriage but adulterie to bestow her otherwise. To conclude this point, it is a true rule in law; Multa fieri non possunt, quae tamen facta valent: Many things may not be done, which yet stand good when they are done. Exod. 4.25. Zipporah might not haue circumcised her sonne, but yet when she had done it, there was no reuer­sing of it. Corah, Dathan and Abiram, might not haue presumed to offer incense to the Lord, and yet when they had so done Num. 16.38. their censers were holy vnto him. It is not law­full [Page 299]for children rashly and head-strongly to bestow them­selues at their own will; God hath forbidden it, there is no blessing to bee expected in it; but yet when it is done, it cannot be auoided. It is not without cause, that I say rash­ly and head-strongly, because the necessitie of parents con­sents is not alwaies absolutely to be vnderstood, there be­ing sometimes cases of conscience by the iniquitie of pa­rents that doe necessarily enforce a mitigation of this law, and rules of this nature are commonly taken to hold onely ordinarily and for the most part. Childrens vowes of Moonkerie vnlawfull. Concerning childrens vowes for entring into religion, as they fondly terme it, M. Bishop speaketh more honestly and handsomely than they practise in that behalfe. It is neither minoritie of yeeres, nor necessitie of parents that can redeeme the chil­dren out of the hands of these Wolues and Beares, if once they haue found meanes to make a pray of them. Yet well it is that he will confesse what ought to be respected, how­soeuer amongst them it bee not so. His words of following Christ in a more perfect kinde of life, are ill applied to their Moonkerie, and so is the example of the Apostle Iames and Iohn, forsaking their father Zebedee to follow him. Iames and Iohn were called by Christ to doe that which they did, and where God calleth, no respect of man must preuaile to hold vs backe; but they of whom M. Bishop speaketh, haue no calling of God, neither hath Christ pre­scribed any such kinde of life for them to bee called vnto. But against all their hypocrisie in this behalfe, wee oppose the ancient Canon of the Councell of Gangra; If any chil­dren by pretence of seruing God, doe forsake their faithfull pa­rents, thinking it iust so to doe, and shall not rather yeeld due honour vnto them, to reuerence it in them that they are faith­full, accursed be he.

21. W. BISHOP.

Fiftly, The last Commandement (saith M. PER.) for­biddeth the first motions to sinne, that are before consent. Conc. Gāgrens. cap. 16. Si qui filij parentes maximè fideles deseruerint oc­casione Dei cul­tus, hoc iustum esse iudicantes, & non potius debitum hono­rem parentibus reddiderint, vt hoc ipsum in eis venerentur quòd fideles sunt, anathema sint. [Page 300] He prooueth it thus: Lusting with consent is forbidden in the former Commandements: Thou shalt not commit adulterie, and thou shalt not steale: therefore if the last forbid no more, it is confounded with the former. Againe, the Philosophers knew that lust with consent was euill, e­uen by the light of nature; but Paul a learned Pharisee, knew not lust to be sinne, that is forbid in the Comman­dement. Rom. 7. Lust therefore that is forbidden heere, is without consent. Wicked then is the doctrine of Rome, that re­quireth our consent to euery mortall sinne.

Answ. Their doctrine is most reasonable and godly: For the first motions to sinne, are rather the actions of the euill spi­rit, tempting vs to euill; than of a man, in whose minde they are before he is aware of them; and who assoone as he beginneth to marke them, disliketh them and chaseth them thence: and how can he carrie a right opinion of the milde goodnesse of God, that thinketh him so hastie with his fraile creature man, as to punish him eternally for such a thought, as is thrust into his minde at vnawares, and may come vpon him in his sleepe, went he neuer so well disposed to bed? See more of this in the question of originall sinne. To his reasons to the contrarie, I answer to the first, that lust with consent is not expresly forbid in the for­mer Commandements, but the act of adulterie and stealing: yet, it might well haue beene reduced vnto them, as it is in the other Commandements. Neucrthelesse, because our frailty is more prone to the wicked lust of concupiscence, and desire of our neighbours goods; it pleased God for the better bridling of of them, to giue vs particular precepts against them; specially considering, that it was also very hard, by the dimme light of our darkned reason, to discerne them to be such capitall sinnes. And whereas he saith, that the Philosophers knew the inward consent of our minde, without any exteriour acts to be mortall sinne: I take him to speake at randome, and more than he can prooue. Sure it is, that many learned Iewes, who should know more than Philosophers, Cap. 5.28. & 29.knew not so much: as may be gathered out of S. Matthew, and out of Iosephus, lib. 12. Antiq. c. 13. [Page 301] and Dauid Kimhy vpon the 66. Psalme verse 17. And S. Rom. 7.7. Pauls owne confession rightly vnderstood witnesseth the same: For (saith hee) I had not knowne concupiscence to haue beene sinne, vnlesse the law had taught it to be sin. Where­fore it was verie expedient, after the inhibition of the acts of adulterie and theft, to forbid in plaine and expresse termes, the lusts and desires of them.

R. ABBOT.

I referre thee heere, gentle Reader, as M. Bishop doth, to the question of Originall sin, That concu­piscence is sinne in the first motions thereof. where it hath been already fully declared that the Romish doctrine is neither reaso­nable nor godly which denieth the first motions of concu­piscence to be sinne. In the sixt and eleuenth section of that question, those particulars are answered, which heere hee fetteth downe in the first part of this section. I only note therein further, that he maketh the first motions to sinne, the actions of the euill spirit, contrary to the expresse testimo­nie of S. Iames, that Iam. 1.14. euery man is tempted of his owne lust. If it be his owne lust wherewith he is tempted, then is it not the action of the euill spirit: and that it is the action of the person, is shewed in the third section of the aforesaid que­stion. His answers to M. Perkins are vnsufficient. The question is, whether consents to wicked lusts be forbidden by the seuerall commandements to which the acts of them doe belong. Our Sauiour Christ briefly decideth it, that Matt. 5.28. to looke vpon a woman to lust after her, is the breach of the seuenth commandement, Thou shalt not commit adulterie. Now if the lust of adulterie with consent be forbidden by the seuench commandement, then that which is forbidden by the tenth is lust without consent. Now such lusts with consent M. Bishop confesseth are forbidden in the other Commandements; onely they belong not to the comman­dements against adulterie and stealing. And why? Because our frailtie, saith he, is more prone to the wicked lust of con­cupiscence, and desire of other mens goods, it pleased God to [Page 302]giue particular precepts of them. But that is not true, speci­ally in the one of these, that wee are more prone to these than to other lusts; for wee are as prone to selfe-loue and pride, and wilfulnesse, to hypocrisie and lying, to malice and enuy, and wrathfulnesse, and sundry other like sinnes, to say nothing of the lusts that tend to the breach of the first table of the law. The cause why God would exem­plifie lust by those particulars, is because those are most familiar and sensible, and of them groweth the most [...]all and common breach of the societie of men. But distrusting that reason, he addeth another of more specialtie, which maketh specially against himselfe. Specially considering, saith he, that it is very hard by the dimme light of our darke­ned reason, to discerne them to be such capitall sinnes. But by what reason I maruell doth hee make these more capitall sinnes than all the rest? Is not the lust of murther as capitall as the lust of adulterie? Is not the motion and will of disho­noring parents, and rebelling against Princes as hainous as the desire of other mens goods? And doth not he him­selfe presently signifie that it is as hard by the dimme light of our darkened reason to discerne them also to bee such capitall sinnes; inasmuch as the Philosophers, as he saith, in whom was the greatest light of reason, did not see so much con­cerning any consent of minde without the exteriour act. If it be not as hard to discerne the one as the other, let him giue vs reason of the difference. If it be as hard, and there be in that respect no difference, then let him acknowledge that there was as great reason of giuing particular precepts against the lusts of other sinnes, as of adulterie and theft; which being not done, let him acknowledge as the truth is, that the lusts of adulterie and theft, where consent is yeelded to them, are as in the heart reputed for the acts themselues, as by the former words of Christ is testified, and therefore are forbidden by the seuenth and eighth commandements; and therefore that it is very lust it selfe, without consent that is forbidden by the tenth comman­dement. [Page 303]He maketh M. Perkins to say, that the Philosophers knew the inward consent of our minde without any exteriour acts to be mortall sinne: but M. Perkins saith nothing of mor­tall sinne, knowing well that the Philosophers had no such knowledge of sin, or of the death that is effected spiritual­ly therby; but affirmeth only that they knew the same to be euill; and it is M. Bishop indeed that roueth at randome in the deniall of it. Tully saith, that Full. Offic. l. 1. Cauet in omni­bus opinionibus & factis nequid libidinosè, aut faciat, aut cogi­tet. nature and reason (right­ly informed) shunneth to do or to thinke any thinke libidinous­ly or licentiously. He affirmeth them Idem Tuscul. quaesi. lib. 4. Vt turpes sunt qui efferunt se laeti­tia tum cum fruuntur vene­reis voluptati­bus; sic flagiti­ost qui eas in­flammato ani­mo concupis [...]ūt. Et paulò post: Ve haec omittamus, (stupra, corrup­telas, &c.) per­turbatio ipsa mentis in amore foeda ser se est. to be leaud men that with eger minds couet after venereous pleasures; and that set­ting aside fornications, deflowrings, adulteries, incests, the fil­thinesse whereof is subiect to accusation, euen the perturbati­on of the minde in wanton loue, is by it selfe a filthy thing. In the same place he setteth it downe for a rule, that Ibid. Quae crescentia per­niciosa sunt, cae­dem sunt vitio­sa nascentia. what things are pernicious in their increase (namely when they come to exteriour acts) the same are vitious in their begin­ning; that is, in the thoughts and cogitations of the minde. But M. Bishop saith, that some learned Iewes knew not so much. And I answer him, that some vnlearned Iewes did know so much. They knew it that did obediently submit themselues to the law and word of God; they knew it not, as also many other things, who made the law of God sub­iect to themselues. It is many times so, that men who are, with the world, of reputation, for wisedome and learning, yet doe not see those things which children see, and there was a time and occasion for God to complaine, not of the vnlearned only, but also of the learned amongst the Iewes; Esa. 42.19. Who is blinde but my seruant, or deafe as my messenger that Isent? Who is blinde as the perfect, and blinde as the Lords seruant? Albeit it may perhaps be rather said, that they would not know this than that they did not, because out of the first common principles of moral discipline, they could not but vnderstand, that a man is euill and wicked, not onely for his outward actions, but also for his inward ha­bite and qualitie, howsoeuer the same by occasion bee re­strained [Page 304]from breaking foorth into outward acts. There­fore the constructions which they are reported by the E­uangelist to make of the commandements, as M. Bishop heere alleageth, may seeme rather to haue beene partiall and wilfull deprauations of the law of God, than matters of meere ignorance, as not to know that God condemned the wickednesse and euill imaginations and intentions of the heart. Againe, hee citeth Iosephus, who mentioning that Polybius said, Ioseph. Antiq. Iudat [...]. l 12. ca. 13. D [...]m [...]r [...]r Polybium qui ait [...] Antio­chum [...] conatu [...] sit Dianae templi thesaures & do­naria [...] V [...]u [...]sse enim tan [...], ac non etiam perse [...]sse [...], non vitetus res [...] [...]. that Antiochus perished for that he went about to make spoile of the treasures & offerings of the temple of Diana, excepteth against him with these words, Only to will or intend sacriledge, and not to doe it, seemeth not a thing woorthy of punishment. Which testimonie of Iosephus, M. Bishop hath quoted onely, and that vpon the credit of his Master Bellarmine, who reporteth the words as if Iosephus had said, B [...]l de Amiss. gr [...] & s [...]at. p [...]c. l. 5. c. 10. Qu [...] s [...]ribit motum inter­num non esse [...] [...]si [...] se pro­dat. that the inward motion is no sinne, vnlesse it do out­wardly shew or bewray it selfe. Wherein he dealeth very vn­honestly, to make his Reader beleeue that he fetteth down the authors words, when he setteth downe onely what hee himselfe list to collect and gather of them. The words of Iosephus, considering the occasion are very vnfitting and absurd, and so contrarie to common sense, as that we may woonder they should come from so wife a man. Antiochus brought his army against the citie of Elymais, as Iosephus there declareth, where the temple of Diana was: hee as­saulted it with all his might, hee left nothing vndone that he could doe for the atchieuing of his purpose, though by the valour of the Citizens he was resisted and frustrate of his desire. Now was it for Iosephus heere to say, that to intend a mischiefe, and not to act it, seemeth not worthy of punishment, when notwithstanding hee himselfe con­fesseth that th [...]e wanted no endeuour or attempt for the effect [...] it? It seemed strange to Tully, that Tu [...]. Orat pro [...] for­ti [...], non [...]: perind [...] [...] [...] non h [...]m aum con [...]ia legibus vindic [...]ntur. a thing should [...] be punished vnless [...] it were effected; as though, saith he, the issues of things onely were punished by lawes, and not mens counsels and purposes of them. And doe not humane [Page 305]lawes euery where take hold of attempts and practises of murther, of treason, and other villanies, albeit they atteine not their intended end? And if by the lawes of men such intents and purposes are thought woorthy of punishment, would not, or might not Iosephus thinke that much more they are so adiudged by the law of God? But taking the words as they are, yet that followeth not which Bellar­mine reporteth, that the inward motion is no sinne, because Iosephus might thinke the same a sinne, and yet not such a sinne as that a man therefore should be punished. And so it seemeth the Rabbine conceiued therof, whom M. Bishop further citeth out of Bellarmine, who where Dauid saith, Psal. 66.18. If I haue locked vnto or regarded iniquitie in my heart, the Lord will not heare, maketh this exposition and meaning of it, Bell vt supra ex R. Dauid Kimhi. Non imputabit ad p [...]ccatum desi­derium min­stum, si tantùm sit in corde. The Lord will not impute an vniust desire for sinne if it be onely in the heart. Where he doth not say, that it is no sin if it be onely in the heart, but onely that the Lord will not impute it or punish it for sinne. For that it is sinne hee ac­knowledgeth, in that hee calleth it vniust; but hee ac­quitteth it from punishment so long as it is restrained and kept in. But S. Pauls owne confession, saith M. Bishop, right­ly vnderstood witnesseth the same. And what is that? for Rom. 7.7.saith hee, I had not knowen concupiscence to haue been sinne, vnlesse the law had taught it to be sinne. But what hindreth this, but that as he knew by the law concupiscence to be sinne, where it hath consent, so by the law he knew it to be sin also, though it haue no consent? It is true, that Rom. 4.14. where no law is, there is no transgression; and without the law ei­ther written in our hearts, or written in our bookes, wee know nothing to bee sinne. But what hindereth this con­fession, I say, but that as by the law he know the one, so he knew the other also? Doth not M. Bishop himselfe see how idlely he hath brought this in? And in truth the Apo­stle spake those words of concupiscence it selfe by it selfe, where it hath no consent. For of the same concupiscence he saith soone after, vers. 15. I allow not that which I doe; for what [Page 306]I would, that doe I not; but what I hate, that do I. All which cōplaint being made in the person of Aug. cont. 2. epist Pelag. l. 1. c. 10. & [...]ont. Iulian. l. 6. c. 11. the regenerate man, who hateth the euill concupiscences of his owne heart, and therefore giueth no consent vnto them, doth plain­ly euict, that of concupiscence without consent the A­postle saith, that by the law hee knew it to bee sinne, as hath beene Of originall sinne sect 2. otherwhere declared more at large. But howsoeuer M. Bishop will cauill concerning some learned Iewes, the Romane Catechisme it selfe will iustifie that which M. Perkins saith, that Catech. Rom. part. 3. de 9. & 10 praecept. Quodam natu­raetumine intel­lectum est, alie­nae vxoris poti­undae cupidita­tem prohiberi, vetito adulte­rio: nam si con­cupiscere lice­ret, fa [...] item esset potiri. by light of nature it was vn­derstood, that in the forbidding of adulterie, was forbidden the lust of hauing or enioying another mans wife, because it should be lawfull to haue her, if it should be lawfull to desire her. Now if by light of nature it be discerned, that in the forbidding of adulterie, the will and desire of another mans wife bee also forbidden, and therefore that the for­bidding heereof belongeth to the seuenth Commande­ment, then M. Perkins concludeth very rightly, that the tenth Commandement goeth further, to condemne euen the first motions of concupiscence and lust, though they proceed not so farre as to gaine the will. We may hold no­thing heere superfluous: God would not adde a latter commandement to forbid that which was already forbid­den by a former.

22. W. BISHOP.

Lastly (saith M. PER.) the words of the second Com­mandement (and shew mercy vnto thousands on them that loue me, and keepe my commandements) ouer throw­eth all humane merits. For if the reward be giuen of mer­cy to them that keepe the law, it is not giuen for the merit of the worke done.

Answ. Either simple was this mans iudgement sometimes, or else most peruersly bent to deceiue the simple. For God speaketh there, neither of the reward that is rendred in heauen for good works; neither of any reward at all, that is rendred [Page 307]vnto the person himselfe that keepeth Gods commandements: but of a superaboundant fauour, that God of his bountie will shew vnto thousands of others, for one mans sake that loueth him and keepeth his commandements: therefore very peeuish­ly doth he draw hence any thing against merits.

R. ABBOT.

I haue before declared, Gods mercy excludeth the merit of man. that this promise of mercy ma­keth plainly against merit, that it concerneth not the chil­dren onely, but the fathers themselues; and that if it bee mercy, by which God bestoweth the things of this life, which are the lesser, then that it cannot be merit for which he bestoweth eternall life, which is the greater. See the se­uenth section of the question of Merits before handled.

23. W. BISHOP.

And to begin heere where M. PER. leaueth, to shew how their new doctrine and inuentions, doth crosse and make void the commandements of God. First in that, that he promiseth mercy and fauour vnto thousands for ones sake, that keep­eth his Commandements, we gather: that God in regard of his Saints (who so holily obserued his Commandements) doth grant vnto vs many fauours and graces: also, that the satis­faction of one may serue for another; for else God would not punish children vnto the third and fourth generation, for the of­fence of their great grand-father, vnlesse their punishment serued to satisfie for their ancestors offence: hence also we ga­ther, that some men do keepe Gods cōmandements, other­wise God did in vaine promise to fauour thousands for their sakes that keepe the Commandements, if he knew well that there should be none such. Therefore most vngodly is that posi­tion of the Protestants, that it is impossible to keepe the Commandements: and which alone ouerthroweth all the ten Commandements. For as all men skilfull in the true nature of lawes doe hold: there can bee no iust law, that is impossible to be kept, by the greater part of them to whom the law is [Page 308]giuen; because lawes are both to direct our actions, and do al­so binde euery man to obserue them. Now what reasonable law-maker will beat his braine to direct a man to do that, which he knoweth before hand, not to lie in the mans power to doe? and as tyrannicall should he be esteemed, that would binde a man vnder a great penaltie, to doe that which he know to be impossi­ble for him to doe. Which two points, S. Augustine doth in one sentence confirme, Defid. cont. Manich. cap. 9.saying; Who doth not crie out that it is folly to giue him Commandements, in whose power it is not to performe them? & who doth not say that it is vn­iust, to condemne him for not doing iust things, when hee could not doe them? The Protestants therefore affirming the Commandements not to be possible to be performed, doe make them no lawes at all; and so they at one blow, do beate down all the ten Commandements. But let vs come to the particulars.

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishops head is old, and therefore hee thinketh our doctrine to be new. If his head and heart were renued Rom. 1.5. to the obedience of faith, hee would easily see our doctrine to be old, euen that Ier. 6.16. old way which is the good way, wherein they that walke shall finde rest for their soules. Sure wee are that Poperie is not the old way, because they haue taught vs nothing of it, who of old declared the right way. But yet he heere taketh vpon him to shew that our doctrine cros­seth and maketh void the Commandements of God. And how, I pray? First, in that he promiseth mercy and fauour to thou­sands for ones sake that keepeth his Commandements, we ga­gather, saith he, that God in regard of his Saints, who so ho­lily obserued his Commandements, doth grant vnto vs manie fauours and graces. But what Saints doth he meane? for shall we say, or doth the Commandement say, that to eue­ry man God sheweth mercy for euery mans sake that keepeth his Commandements? If so, then wee must also say, that God to the third and fourth generation punisheth euery man for euery mans sake that hateth him. If hee had [Page 309]spoken more distinctly wee could easily haue told in what sort to answer him. But because he speaketh at randon, I answer him in generall, that God indeed sheweth fauour to one man for anothers sake, but so, as that the Comman­dement saith, he sheweth mercy on both sides: and therfore that it is his mercy that taketh occasion, and not mans me­ [...]t that giueth cause of doing whatsoeuer hee doth. His se­cond collection is most ridiculous and absurd, No satisfa­ction of one man for ano­ther. that the sa­tisfaction of one may serue for another. For how come wee heere to satisfaction? Marry God would not punish children to the third and fourth generation, for the offence of their great grandfather, vnlesse their punishment serued to satisfie for their ancestours offence. O admirable deuice! But yet tell vs, M. Bishop; what if neither the fathers nor the chil­dren be in the state of grace, for then Of Satisfa­ction. sect. 11.12. by your owne do­ctrine neither are the fathers capable of satisfaction to bee done for thē, neither are the children capable of the doing of it. And such it seemeth the Commandement intendeth, because it nameth them that hate God. Yea and of the Ba­bylonians God saith; Es. 14.21. Prepare a slaughter for the chil­dren for the iniquitie of their fathers, where both the fa­thers and the children were infidels and idolaters, and wholly estranged from the grace of God. How then shall we vnderstand that any satisfaction is heere intended? or how may wee not thinke this man to be drunke and sense­lesse that setteth foorth such paradoxes that can no way stand with their owne grounds? God teacheth no satisfa­ction there, but proclaimeth the terrour of his iudgement & wrath, which being once kindled, is not easily quenched that both the parents may dread to offend God for the safegard of their children, and the children may beware of following the euill example of their fathers, The keeping of Gods cō ­mandements not denied. knowing that how much they ad to their fathers sins, so much they adde to their owne plagues. Thirdly, he gathereth from hence, that some men doe keepe Gods commandements: And we also gather the same, and doe say further with S. Iohn: 1. Ioh. 2.4. He that [Page 310]saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandements, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Therefore wee doe not say, that it is impossible to keepe Gods Commandements, but that it is impossible in this mortalitie and frailtie to keepe Gods Commandements perfectly, so as to bee iustified thereby. But the residue of this tale I leaue, as being but babling of course, whereof he hath sundry times receiued ample and full answer, which he cannot gainsay; only like the cariers horse he is acquainted with a way, and out of that he will not goe. I referre him to that that hath beene said heereof before, both in the former parts of this worke, and in the answer to his Preface of this booke; and further vouchsafe him no answer, but with that dictate of Solo­mon; Pro. 27.22. Though thou shouldest bray a foole in a morter, as wheat is braied with a pestell, yet will not his foolishnesse depart from him.

24. W. BISHOP.

1 The first Commandement, as it forbiddeth vs to wor­ship false Gods: so doth it also include a commandement to wor­ship aright the onely true God, which is done principally by Faith, Hope, Charitie and Religion. The Protestants by their peruerting of many articles of our beliefe (as hath beene shewed) haue lost the true Faith, and by their new certaintie of Faith, leaue no place for Hope: for they are past hope of saluation, 1. Epist. 5. v. 3.that make themselues so assured of it as they doe. And as for Charitie, which S. Iohn defineth to bee the keep­ing of Gods Commandements, they must needs confesse themselues to be farre from it, which hold that to be impossi­ble: and with the principall part of true religion (which con­sisteth in offering a true, reall, and externall sacrifice vnto God, as in that question hath beene prooued) they are at vt­ter defiance.

R. ABBOT.

You haue shewed your owne folly M. Bishop, and dis­honestly, [Page 311] The Prote­stants teach faith, hope and charitie aright. but for the peruerting of any articles of faith on our side, you haue shewed nothing. We teach faith, hope, and charitie as God hath taught them, not as your schoole hath newly framed them. We teach faith wherby 1. Io. 5.10.11. to be­leeue the record that God witnesseth of his Sonne, that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life, and this life is in his Sonne. We teach hope whereby Rom. 8.25. to wait with patience for the reueil­ling of that which God hath giuen vs. Wee teach charitie, whereby to performe Eph. 2.10. those good works which God hath prepared for vs, as the way wherein to walke to the receiuing of it. True, reall and externall sacrifice for propitiation of sin we teach none but the sacrifice of the passion of Christ, because by Heb. 9.28. & 10.14. being once offered, he hath taken away our sinnes, and made perfect for euer them that are sanctified. Therefore the sacrifice which he intendeth, is no other but sacriledge and idolatrie, and because God hath condemned it, there­fore are we iustly at defiance with it. I may not omit how he heere bobbeth his Reader with, as in that question hath beene prooued, whereas of that question hee hath said iust neuer a word.

25. W. BISHOP.

2 Touching the second Commandement after our account; as God is honoured by swearing in iustice, iudgement, and truth; so he is also by vowes made vnto him of godly and religi­ous duties, which the Prophet Dauid signifieth, when he saith: vow yee, Psal. 75.13. and render your vowes vnto the Lord your God. Heereupon many Catholikes haue, and doe continual­ly vow perpetuall pouertie, chastirie, and obedience, the more fully and freely to serue God: which holy vowes the Pro­testants disallow wholly: neither doe they allow of any other vowes, for ought I haue heard: they doe therefore diminish the seruice of God, and pare away a part of that which is reduced to the second Commandement.

R. ABBOT.

We diminish not the seruice of God, because we teach al [Page 312]that the word of God hath taught, and with mens deuises God will not be serued. Spirituall vowes admit­ted; Popish vowes reie­cted. The true spirituall vowes where­by we consecrate our selues to God we duly approoue, but Popish vowes we reiect and detest, not onely as superstiti­ous, but also as they teach them with opinion of merit and purchase of remission of sinnes for themselues and o­thers, most wicked and damnable. There needeth heere­of nothing more to be said, then hath beene before deliue­red in the handling of that question.

26. W. BISHOP.

3. And whereas in the third wee are commanded to keepe holy the Sabaoth day, which is principally performed by hear­ing (attentiuely and deuoutly) that diuine seruice, which was instituted by Christ, and deliuered by his Apostles, which is the holy Masse: they may not abide it, but serue God after the in­uention of their owne braines, with a mingle-mangle of some old, some new, odly patched together.

R. ABBOT.

What Christ instituted, appeareth in the Gospell: what the Apostles practised and deliuered, appeareth by S. Paul, holding himselfe entirely to that 1. Cor. 11.23 which he had recei­ued of the Lord. What doe wee finde there that doth in any sort resemble the ougly monster of the Popish Masse? Gregory Bishop of Rome saith, that Greg. ep. l. 7 Indict. 2. ep. 63. Mos Apostolo­rum fuit vt ad ipsam solummo­do orationem dominicam ob­lationis hostiam consecrarent. the Apostles were woont with the Lords praier only to consecrate the sacred host, and shall we then thinke the Apostles to haue been the au­thours of those gew-gawes and fooleries, those turnings and windings, and crossings & blessings, and murmurations and eleuations, that are vsed in the Masse? Iulius Bishop of Rome the first, condemned the dipping of the Sacrament of Christs body in the cup of the bloud of Christ, De cons. dist. 2. Cum omne. Quòd pro com­plemento com­munionis intin­ctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testi­monium recepe­runt, &c. because no witnesse heereof is brought out of the Gospell. If nothing be to be done in the celebration of the Sacrament, but whereof there is witnesse in the Gospel, and Cyp. l. 2. ep. 3. In sacrificio quod Christus est nonnisi Chri­stu. sequendus est. none, as Cy­prian [Page 313]saith, be to be followed therein but only Christ, we haue iust cause to reiect the Masse, which hath so little of that that Christ did, and so much that he did not. The Masse therefore is no sanctifying, but a prophaning of the Lords Sabaoth: but the true sanctifying of the Sabaoth is in our diuine seruice, wherein Gods word is read and taught, praier is made to God in the name of Iesus Christ, and the Sacraments are administred accordingly as Christ him­selfe hath left the same vnto vs. Wherein we haue reteined whatsoeuer the abomination of desolation had left remaining of the ancient seruice of the Church; and whatsoeuer was wanting, we haue supplied agreeably thereto, and to the word of God; and no man will account it odly patched to­gether, but such odde fellowes as M. Bishop is, who are so farre in loue with the Romish harlot, as that they like to eat no bread but what is moulded with her vncleane and filthie hands.

27. W. BISHOP.

In the fourth we are commanded to obey our Princes, as well as our parents, and all other our Gouernours in all lawfull matters: yet the Protestants hold, that our Princes lawes doe not binde vs in conscience.

R. ABBOT.

What; Is Saul also amongst the Prophets? Princes lawes how they binde in con­science. Is M. Bishop now come to speake of obedience to Princes; by the pro­blemes of whose religion no Prince shall be obeied, if the Pope list by any pretense of religion to picke a quarrell a­gainst him; nor any matters shall be lawfull for him to com­mand, but what must stand with the Popes law? Doth he speake of obedience to Princes, who because his Prince liketh not to follow his course, hath before threatned him, Epist. to the king sect. 34. God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessitie will driue men vnto at length? When the Fox preacheth, beware the Geese. To the point, I answer him briefely, we teach that [Page 314]Princes lawes in things subiect to their command do binde the conscience to externall obedience, though not to any spirituall opinion of the things wherein we doe obey. And that we doe not denie this, he himselfe Preface to the Reader. sect. 3. before hath testi­fied for vs, so that we shall see that hee had need of one to remember him, that a liar must beare a braine. See further what hath beene said heereof to the first section of his an­swer to M. Perkins his Dedicatorie Epistle.

28. W. BISHOP.

5. The fift Commandement, teacheth that no man be kil­led by priuate authoritie: yet Protestantes hold it lawfull to take armes, euen against their lawfull Princes for the aduance­ment of their Gospell; and haue [...]n th [...] quarrell killed, and cau­sed to be killed millions in Ger [...]anie, [...]rance, Flanders, and Scotland.

R. ABBOT.

This is a meere slander leudly deuised b [...] some Papists, to take from themselues the enuie and iust reproch of that sauage and barbarous crueltie which they haue practised in Germany, Popish bar­baritie colou­red by slande­ring the Pro­testants. France, Flanders, in shedding the bloud of so many thousands of innocent persons without respect of time, place, sex, age or degree. They haue beene in their Churches togither to pray to God, and to heare his word, suspecting no harm, when these Tygers and Wooles haue come armed vpon them, and there slaine them without a­ny difference, both man, woman and childe. It were too long to set foorth the tragedie of those but cheries that haue beene committed in such like sort by the meanes of the Guises in France, of the duke of Alba, and others in Flanders, and in Germany by the impetuous & headlong tyrannie of Charles the fift. The Protestants armes in this case haue beene onely defensiue, when as contrary to pub­like edicts and proclamations, contrarie to lawes & rights, and priuiledges, and without legall course of proceeding, [Page 315]they haue beene thus barbarously destroied. Neither haue they then taken armes by priuate authoritie, but by law, and by the publicke direction of them to whom the main­tenance and defence of those rights and liberties did be­long. Now that Papists for the aduancement of their ido­latries and superstitions doe hold it lawfull and by their Confessours haue beene resolued that it is lawfull not onely to take armes against their Princes, but by secret practise to murther them, and by gun-powder to blow vp a whole Parliament house, to the vtter confusion and subuersion of a whole state, our experience from time to time hath suffi­ciently made knowen to vs. But See heereof, The diffe­rence be­twixt Chri­stian subiecti­on, and vn­christian re­bellion. part. 3. by D. Bilson then Warden of Winche, and now Bi­shop there. that Protestants hold it lawfull as he obiecteth to take armes against their lawfull Princes for the aduancement of the Gospell, it is a lie, and contrary to the doctrine and profession of al our Churches.

29. W. BISHOP.

6 The sixt forbiddeth adulterie, which is allowed of by Protestants in some case. For they permit one party after di­norcement to marrie againe, the other yet liuing; whereas our Sauiour saith: Whosoeuer dimisseth his wife and marri­eth another, committeth adulterie vpon her. And if the wife dimisse her husband and marrie another, she commit­eth adulterie. Moreouer, incest is also forbidden in this Com­mandement: now by the Canons of the Catholike Church, and the authoritie of the ancient Fathers, it is incest for one Cosen germaine to marry with another: yet is it not seldome practised; yea, it is generally allowed of in the church of Englād.

R. ABBOT. Protestants allow neither adultery nor incest; Papists doe both.

The limitation of diuorce which our Sauiour Christ hath set down ( Mat. 5.32. & 19.9.except it be for fornication) maketh it law­full for the party innocent to marry againe, the delinquent being left to the censure of the Church vntill satisfaction shall be giuen of true repentance for so hainous sinne. The Church of England notwithstanding for the preuenting of [Page 316]some mischiefes that by the wickednesse of men doe arise by abusing the liberty of mariage vpon diuorce, vseth a re­straint of that liberty, that the parties diuorced shall put in caution not to marry againe so long as they both liue. But the Church of Rome doth openly admit adultery in this behalfe, making it free to the Pope to pronounce of a so­lemne mariage a nullity, and to giue liberty to the husband to marry againe, the former wife being neither deceased nor diuorced. As for incest (so determined by the law of God) the Pope hath giuen allowance to it in giuing dispen­sation to the king of Spaine last deceased, to marry his own sisters daughter, as also to King Henry the eight of England to marry his own brothers wife. But that whereof M. Bi­shop speaketh, for one cousin germain to marry with another, is no incest by Gods law, nor there determined to be vn­lawfull. Yet thereof we commend that conceit which of old was had of it as S. Austen noteth; August. de ciu. d [...]i l. 15. c. 16 [...]actum eti­am [...]um propter vicini­tatem horreba­tur illiciti. that that which was law­full to be done, yet was abhorred, for that it is so neere to that that is vnlawfull. Therefore albeit by law we prescribe no other bounds than God hath set, yet we disswade such ma­riages rather than approoue them, lest men by taking the vttermost of that that is lawfull, should thereby the rather presume to that that is altogether vnlawfull. As for the Ca­nons of the Church of Rome we little respect them, because we know they make no conscience to permit or prohibit as they themselues list, who haue brought in a new deuise of spirituall kindred vnknown to ancient times whereby it is vnlawfull for them to marry ech to other, who haue been godfathers and god mothers tog [...]ther at the baptisme of a child. Let them make Canons for themselues, but for vs by the grace of God they shall make none.

30. W. BISHOP.

7. The seuenth Commandement, condemneth with theft, vsury, and all withholding of our neighbours goods, which was gotten vnlawfully: yet Protestants commonly make no consci­ence [Page 317]to take ten in the hundreth, which is plaine vsury; and as for restitution of euill gotten goods, it is cleane out of fashion among them.

R. ABBOT.

Hypocrite, Our lawes allow no vsu­ry at all. as though it were not common amongst Pa­pists also to take ten in the hundred. Yet our law alloweth not this, but punisheth it, if it be informed, with the losse of the increase. If M. Bishop will say that because there is no execution of this punishment, therefore it must be taken to be permitted. I answer him, that it is permitted as Mo­ses permitted the bill of diuorce only Mat. 19.8. for the hardnesse of mens hearts, who cannot be induced to lend to supply the occasions and necessities of their brethren, vnlesse they may be suffered to make benefit of their lending. As for restitu­tion of euill gotten goods, we say that the wanting thereof wittingly is a token of the want of true repentance, with­out which there is no saluation. And albeit I doubt not but that I may say hereof that it is more sincerely practised with vs than it is with them: yet I will not now stand to contend thereabout. But wheras Watson the Proctor for the Priests against the Iesuits hath particularly set downe great value of goods gotten by the Iesuits through meere collusion and fraud, let him acquaint vs that they haue made restitution hereof and then I will giue him further answer.

31. W. BISHOP.

8. The eight prohibiteth vs to beare false witnesse against our neighbour: and yet do Ministers (the master Procestants) in their pulpit (where truth should onely be taught) most com­monly beare such false witnesse against Catholikes, that the very stones may be astonished at their most impudent slanders: to wit, that Papists beleeue in stockes and stones: that they will not be saued by Christ and his passion, but by their owne works: that they rob God of his honour, and giue it to Saints; [Page 318]and a hundreth such like most notorious and palpable lies. Wherefore as the Preachers bee guilty of bearing false wit­nesse: so the auditors deserue to be seduced by them, who hea­ring them to lie so shamelesly in some things, will neuerthelesse beleeue them in others.

R. ABBOT. Papists be­leeue in stocks and stones.

The very stones if they could speake would iustifie the Protestants in this behalfe and cry out against the idolatry and abomination of the Papists. Whether Papists beleeue in stockes and stones and teach men so to do let it appeare by Thomas Aquinas who propounding the question, Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 3 q. 25. art. 4. See before of Images. sect. 14 whether the crosse of Christ be to be worshipped with the wor­ship of Latria, determineth the matter in this sort: We giue the worship of Latria to that wherein we put the hope of our saluation. But we put the hope of our saluation in the Crosse; for the Church singeth, All-haile O Crosse our only hope at this time of the passion; To the godly increase righteousnesse, and to the guilty grant forgiuenesse; Therefore the Crosse is to b [...]e worshipped with Latria. Let M. Bishop now tell vs whether they trust in stocks and stones who place the hope of their saluation in that Crosse to which they say All-haile O Crosse, &c. that is in a Crosse of wood or stone. Yea and Polydore Virgil acknowledgeth of their rude people that Polyd. Virgil. de inuent. re­rum. l. 6. c. 13. his (imaginibus) magis fidunt quam Christe vel alijs diuis quibus dicatae sunt. Papists wil be saued by their own works, not by the passion of Christ they put more trust in their images than they doe in Christ or in the Saints whose images they are. He spake gently of it be­ing loth to touch the sore too hard for feare of offence; but it is well known how the common people haue been affe­cted with these delusions and still are where their abomi­nable idolatry holdeth still it former strenth. The second point that Papists will not be saued by the passion of Christ but by their own workes is made plaine to vs by the Spanish In­quisitours in their Index Expur. Hispan. Ex li­bro qui inscribi­tur, Ordo bapti­zandi cum Mo­do visitandi, impresso vene­tijs, ann. 1575. Index Expurgatorius, who finding in an Order for visiting the sicke imprinted at Venice these questions to be asked of the sicke man, Deieantur illa verba: Credis non proprijs me­ritis sed passionis domini nostri Iesu Christi vir­tute ac merito ad gloriam per­uenire? Credis quòd dominus noster Iesus Christus pro ne­stra salute mor­tuus sit, & quòd ex proprijs meri­tis vel alio modo nullus possit sal­uari nisi in me­rito passionis ipsius? Beleeuest thou, not by thine own merits, but by the power and merit of the passion [Page 319]of Christ to come to glory? Beleeuest thou that our Lord Iesus Christ died for our saluation; and that none can be saued by his own merits or by any other meanes but by the merit of his passion; with comfort giuen that Deleantur illa verba: Non erit desperandum vel dubitandum de salute illius qui suprapositas petitiones corde crediderit & ore confessus fuerit. there is no doubt to be made of the saluation of him who thus beleeueth with the heart and confesseth with the mouth, haue defaced all these words and appointed them in new impressions to be wholly left out. The third point also is manifest; for sith worship and deuotion of religion belongeth to God only, as hath been Supra sect. 17 before shewed, surely the Papists in giuing religious wor­ship to Saints, doe rob God of his honour and giue it vnto the Saints. These things, M. Bishop, are cleere and plaine; they are not our notorious and palpable and shamelesse lies, but they are your notorious and palpable and shame­lesse heresies. We know you daube these things and set colours vpon them, as heretiques haue been wont to doe vpon their false and wicked opinions; but your colours with vs are soone washed off, and where you are in your owne kingdome, there we know how you appeare in your own likenesse. As for our auditors, thanks be to God, they are not like yours. Yours are like 1. Cor. 12.2. the Gentiles of old caried away to dumbe Idols euen as they are led. They must follow you blindfolded without seeing which way they go. They must search nothing, they must know nothing, but take what you tell them. But our hearers, thanks be to God, haue the liberty of Gods word, wherin they see with their own eies, and whereby they plainly vnderstand that wee seduce them not, because we teach them nothing but what they find there that God hath taught. And you they ther­by learne to hate and detest as seducers and deceiuers, be­cause you go about to teach them those things which they see God hath not taught you.

32. W. BISHOP.

9. and 10. Of the ninth and tenth I haue spoken already; wherein they erre grieuously, in teaching euery man to sinne [Page 320]damnably, by hauing any euill motion cast into his minde by the Diuell, albeit he resisteth it presently, and foorthwith chase it away. In which conflict and ouercomming of temptation, the grace and power of God is perfited, as S. Paul witnesseth: and S. Iames calleth the allurement of concupiscence temptation on­ly; and then first sinne when it conceiueth (that is) getteth some liking of the party.

R. ABBOT.

Where the mind is free from sinne, the Diuell can cast no euill motion into the minde. Euery euill motion is sin. If the Diuell cast euill mo­tions into the mind, it is a token that hee findeth there a mould wherein he casteth them, and a mine whence hee diggeth the matter of them. From the habitual corruption of our nature, all euill motions flow, which both in the spring and in the streame, both in the roote and in the branch, is before iustified to bee sinne. Wee resist it, he saith, and chase it away; but therefore we resist it and chase it away, because it is sinne; it being the vse and worke of our warfare Heb. 12.4. to fight against sinne, and the grace and po­wer of God assisting vs, whereby we ouercome sin. He al­leageth that S. Iames calleth it only temptation, and then first sinne when it conceiueth: and I answer him, that S. Paul cal­leth it sinne before it be temptation, Rom. 7.8. sinne wrought all ma­ner of concupiscence in me, and therefore in temptation it is sinne. See heereof the question of originall sinne handled at large before, and of this place of S. Iames, the sixt section.

33. W. BISHOP.

Now to conclude this passage, if you please to heare to what height of perfect obseruance of the Commandements, the E­uangelicall Preachers haue brought their followers in Germa­ny vnto, by teaching the Commandements to bee impossible, and that onely faith iustifieth, and that good works haue no reward in heauen, and such like; Iacobus Andreas a famous Lutheran shall enforme you, De planetis.who writeth thus. That the [Page 321]whole world may see these men alienated from the Papa­cie, and to put no confidence in works; De Planetis. therefore they doe no good worke at al. In stead of fasting, they feast, and are drunken day and night: in lieu of Almes, they oppresse and pill the poore: they haue changed praying into cursing and blaspheming the name of God, so prophanely, that no Turkes nor Saracens commit the like impietie against Christ: for humilitie, there raigneth pride, disdaine, cruel­tie, and riot in apparell, &c. and much more to the same pur­pose. And that this truth may be confirmed by the testimony of two sound witnesses; Musculus, a man of no smal account among them, thus reporteth of his brethren in the Lord. De prophetia Christi. Such now adaies is the condition of the Lutherans, that if any man list to behold a great number of Knaues, robbers, maliti­ous persons, coseners, vsurers, and such like deceiuers, let him but enter into a Citie where the Gospel is taught, and there he shall finde good store of them: and a little af­ter. Surely it is true, that among Heathens, Iewes, Turkes, and other Infidels, none can bee found more vnruly, and that lesse esteeme of honesty and vertue, than the Euange­licall brethren; with whom all things passe currant, and nothing almost is blamed (except vertue:) For the diuell hath shaken off all their bands, and turned them loose.

R. ABBOT.

And what M. Bishop, are there not, thinke you, The vertuous conuersation of Papists. as many knaues in Rome as in any city of the Lutherans? What, are there no Minions, & Courtisans there that serue for the vse of the Pope & his Cardinals? Did you not remember what was said of Rome by one of your owne Poets?

Viuere qui sanctè cupitis, discedite Roma.
Depart from Rome all yee, whose care is to liue holily.

Did you not consider that it was easie for vs to retort your words to your selues, and to say; If you please to heare what good effects the Popish doctrine of iustification by works doth bring foorth, looke to the Iesuits Catechisme, [Page 322]to Watsons Quodlibets, and to the rest of those bookes of the same argument, written by Popish Priests concerning the Iesuits, who are the Puritane-Papists, and the verie quintessence of their religion, and yet are there described to be no other but Epicures, Atheists, fornicatours, Sodo­mites, coseners, traitours, proud, malitious, contentious, couetous, and what not? Now wee know that the Iesuites will say that you are as leaud and naught as you haue de­scribed them to be. Like will to like, and get you both to­gether: there is no such goodnesse in either of you, as that you should take vpon you to question our goodnesse. And if I should rippe vp this matter of your vertues to the full, I should but cause a lothsome and filthie stinke, trouble­some both to my selfe and to the Reader. Therefore I rest my selfe with that answer that I haue Sect. 15. and of satisfacti­on sect. 19. before giuen vpon the like occasion. Onely I must note it for one of M. Bi­shops Sycophants tricks, that hee reckoneth it amongst our doctrines, that good works haue no reward in heauen.

34. W. BISHOP.

Hauing done with the Creed and ten Commandements, we must now come to our Lords praier.

Master PER. beginneth with it thus. The Lords Praier is a most absolute forme of praier: now in this wee are taught to direct our praiers to God alone, Our father, &c. and that onely in the name and mediation of Christ; for God is our father onely by Christ: therefore to vse any mediation of Saints is needlesse.

Ans. We allow our Lords praier to be a most perfect forme of praier: yet hold that many other sort of praiers may be made vnto God very acceptably, as sundry other praiers vsed by Christ, and set downe in the Gospell doe teach vs: and therefore to argue, that because one praier of Christs making is directed to God, that no other may bee made to any Saint, is very chil­dish. Wee gather praier to Saints out of S. Pauls requesting the Romans and Corinthians, and others to pray for him: [Page 323]and out of the mediation of the woman of Cananea to Christ for her daughter: and the Disciples speaking to Christ for her; with such like, both out of the old and new Testament. For if it had been either needlesse or bootlesse, to haue praied vnto God any otherwise, than in the name and by the mediation of Christ; then S. Paul would not haue requested the helpe of mortall mens praiers to God for him: and if poore sinners praiers may helpe vs, much more may the intercession of the glorious Saints do, who are in far greater fauor with God: See the question of intercession of Saints. Againe, if that only forme of praier were to be vsed, neither were it lawfull to pray to Christ himselfe; neither could it bee prooued thereby, that we should praie in Christs name. For there is no expresse mention of Christs name; neither any petition for Christs sake. For God may bee truely called our Father, in that he immediately createth and giueth vs our soules, which is more than our bodies, that we re­ceiue from our carnall fathers.

R. ABBOT.

If the Lords praier be a most perfect forme of praier, The Lords praier exclu­deth praier to Saints. as M. Bishop alloweth it to bee, then are we perfectly there­by directed, both to whom and for what we are to praie. It cannot bee called a most perfect forme of praier, wherein there is any want of either of these things. To adde any thing to that that is perfect, is to denie the perfection of it, and to take away any thing from it, is to make it maimed and vnperfect. Seeing then by the most perfect forme of praier, we are instructed to pray no otherwise but to God onely, it followeth necessarily, that praier to Saints is vn­lawfull, because it is exorbitant from that most perfect forme. M. Bishops exception heereto is very childish and vaine, that other praiers may be made vnto God very accep­tably, and that other praiers are vsed by Christ, and set downe in the Gospel, because in other praiers there may bee no­thing, and in the praiers set downe in the Gospel there is nothing, but what is consonant and agreeable to this form. [Page 324]For though praier be conceiued in other words, yet it va­rieth not from this forme, so long as wee pray to no other but to whom in this forme wee are directed, nor for any o­ther thing, but what in this praier is concluded. And albeit M. Bishop can alleage, that in the Gospell and otherwhere there are other praiers vsed and set down beside the Lords praier, yet in the whole course of Scripture can hee finde vs no example of any praier but to God alone. If hee did bring vs example of praier to Saints, somewhat it were, but now it is idle that he alleageth that there are praiers in other words. But he telleth vs that they gather praier to Saints out of S. Pauls requesting the Romans, Corinthians, & others to pray for him. And well indeed they may, if they can prooue that S. Paul in the same sort praid to the Romans & others to pray for him, as they pray to the Saints in hea­uen to pray for thē. But if that which S. Paul did, were but a familiar request of mutuall charitie, wheras their praier to Saints is a seruice of religious dutie; and hee did beseech them onely as fellow members of the same body to giue assistance to his praiers, not as Mediatours, as they make the Saints to obteine for their sakes the acceptance there­of; then doth M. Bishop shew himselfe a ridiculous man, that will draw from the one of these a conclusion of the other. Or if he will needs confound the one of these with the other, it shall be well that his disciples that craue the help of his praiers do take their ghostly father and set him vp like sweete S. Rood, and deuoutly kneele downe and pray vnto him. But if to craue ech others praiers be piety, and to doe that ech to other which they doe to the Saints be damnable idolatrie, then it is apparent that they gather that which was neuer sowed, and doe colourably alleage these instances for the abusing and blinding of simple men. As for Matt. 15.22. the woman of Canaan, we reade that she praied to Christ for her daughter, but we doe not reade that her daughter praied to her; and wee finde that by her praier she shewed her compassion, but that shee tooke [Page 325]vpon her any power of mediation, wee doe not finde. Chrysost. ex varijs in Math. locis hom. 17. Vi­de prudentiam mulieris: non rogat Iacobum, non obsecrat Io­annem, neque pergit ad Pe­trum, nec inten­dit Apostolorū chorum, non quaesiuit media­torem, sed pro omnibus illis poe­nitentiam acce­pit comitem, quae adu [...]cati locum in pleuit & sic. ad summum fontemperrexit. But whereas hee addeth the disciples speaking to Christ for her, hee sheweth little discretion therein, because it appeareth not that they spake for her, but onely re­quested their master to send her away, as being offended at her importunate crying. And so little helpe is there out of this example for praier to Saints, as that Chrysostom rather giueth vs hereby a note to except against it. Behold, saith he, the wisedome of this woman; she requesteth not lames, she intreateth not Iohn, she goeth not to Peter, she looketh not to the company of the Apostles, she seeketh for no mediatour, but in stead of them all she taketh repentance for her companion which supplied the place of an aduocate, and so went to the well-head. And whereas he hath before demanded of her; Ibid. Dic mihi mulier, quemad­modum ausa es, cùm sis peccatrix & iniqua, acce­dere ad Chri­sium? Ego, in­quit, nou [...] quid agam &c. prop­terea descendit, propterea car­nem assumpsit & hon [...]o factus est vt ego ei au­deam loqui. Tell me woman, how durst thou, being a sinfull and wicked woman thus come to Christ? he bringeth her in answering; I know what I doe: therefore descended he from heauen, therefore did hee take flesh and became man; that I might be bold to speake vnto him. It should seeme then that it is a point of godly wise­dome, neither to goe to one Saint nor other but to goe di­rectly to Christ himselfe, and not to be terrified by the conscience of our sinnes, because for that purpose he be­came man that wee might be bold to come to him and to seeke of him the remission thereof. But M. Bishop addeth another wise reason and well beseeming his learning; If it had been either needlesse or bootlesse to haue prated vnto God any otherwise than in the name and mediation of Christ, then S. Paul would not haue requested the helpe of mortall mens traiers vnto God for him. As if S. Paul when hee requested them to pray for him, did intend that they should pray o­therwise for him than in the name and by the mediation of Iesus Christ. He praieth for them and they pray for him, not to be heard ech for others sake, but all to be heard for Christs sake. Aug. cont. epis. Parmen. l. 2. c. 8. Sic oratio pro in uicemmembrorū omniū adhuc in terra laboranti­um ascendit ad caput in quo est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris. Thus, as Austen saith, the praier of all the members labouring vpon the earth, ech for other, goeth vp to the head who is gone before into heauen, in whom is the propi­tiation [Page 326]for our sinnes. Now therefore M. Bishop very vain­ly inferreth, that if poore sinners praiers may helpe vs, much more may the intercession of the glorious saints, because poore sinners praiers doe not helpe vs by way of mediation, but onely in louing care they ioyne themselues to pray with vs, that we may both be helped for Christs sake; whereas Popish intercession of Saints intendeth not so much that the Saints should pray for vs for Christs sake, as that Christ should accept vs for the Saints sake. As for the fa­uour of the Saints wee know God fauoureth vs no lesse than hee fauoureth them, being redeemed with the same bloud, and by one spirit sealed to the same hope; and no more will hee suffer an elect to perish on earth, than he will suffer a Saint to perish in heauen. Whatsoeuer M. Bishop will plead for their fauour, sure we are that they haue no fauour in this respect, and therefore without as­suming any thing to themselues, they haue left vs to de­pend vpon Christs fauour as they haue done. Now heere againe, see, saith he, the question of the intercession of Saints, whereas he hath taken paines to skip ouer that question also, and hath said nothing of it. But remembring him­selfe, hee goeth further heere and saith, that if that onely forme of praier were to be vsed, neither were it lawfull to pray to Christ himselfe, neither could it be prooued thereby that we should pray in Christs name. As if any of vs doe say, that that onely forme of praier is to bee vsed, who doe commonly our selues vse other formes of praier, and condemne them that hold it vnlawfull so to doe. Wee onely say, as hath beene alreadie declared, that no praier is to be made, the matter and substance wherof is not conteined in the Lords praier. And though that onely forme were to bee vsed, yet it followeth not that Christ is not to bee praied vnto, because Christ is that God who is our heauenly father, and therefore to Christ also wee pray when wee say; Our father which art in heauen. Neither doth it follow that then we shold not pray in the name of Christ, because it should [Page 327]nothing detract from the perfection of this form of praier, that we be otherwhere taught to make this praier in the name of Christ. Albeit the praier it selfe, though not in words, yet in effect leadeth vs thereunto, because God is our Father no otherwise but in Christ, who hath taken vs into his communion and fellowship where he hath said; Iohn 20.17. I ascend to my father and your father, to my God and your God; Cyprian. de orat. Domin. Hoc nomen ne­mo nostrum in oratione aude­ret attingere, nisi ipse nobis sic pernasisset ora­re.Which name (of father) saith Cyprian, none of vs might presume to vse in praier but that Christ hath giuen vs liber­ty so to pray. Now therfore we cannot truly say vnto God Our Father but with implication of the name of Christ, in whose name only it is that we vnderstand him to bee our father. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that God may be truly called our father, in that he immediatly createth and giueth vs our soules, that is nothing to the purpose, because we question not how God may be called our father, but in what meaning it is that we doe call him father when wee say, Our father which art in heauen. For sith Catechis. Ro­man p. 4. cap 9. sect. 1. Quid iu­cundius est pa­trius nomine quod induigen­tiam sonat & charitatem? the name of fa­ther importeth kindnesse and loue, as their own Romane Ca­techism expoundeth, surely it followeth, that because God is no otherwise kind and louing vnto vs but 2. Cor. 1.20. onely in Christ, therefore in Christ only it is that we can call him father.

35. W. BISHOP.

Secondly, he hoppeth to the fourth petition; Giue vs our daily bread: in which words we acknowledge (saith he) that euery morsell of bread is the meere gift of God: what madnesse then is it for vs to thinke that wee should merit the kingdome of heauen, that cannot merit so much as bread? It is false that we cannot merit our bread: Math. 10. v. 11. 1. Cor. 9. v. 14.For Christ teacheth, that he who goeth to preach the Gospell, is wor­thy of, that is, meriteth and deserueth his meat; which S. Paul testifieth, saying: that our Lord ordained, that those who preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell. And doe not day-labourers deserue their bread, before they eat it? [Page 328]and others that buy their bread, doe I hope deserue it. What ignorance then is it, in the very principles of our faith, to auouch that we cannot merit bread? which notwithstanding wee pray God to giue vs; because, neither could we deserue and yerne it, without his helpe and as sistance; neither would it do vs any good without his blessing.

R. ABBOT.

When Christ saith, Our daily bread is of Gods mercy. Mat. 10.10. The workeman is worthy of his meat, he maketh one man debtour to another, but God is deb­tour to no man. The preacher deserueth his liuely hood of the hearer, but yet at Gods hands he can challenge no­thing by desert. He that setteth a day-labourer to worke is bound to pay him his hire, but God is not bound to pay him bread. Yea many a man laboureth most painfully, and yet cannot thriue to maintaine himselfe with bread, and will M. Bishop say that God doth him wrong in not gi­uing him his desert? And if the labour of the hands be to merit at Gods hands, then the wicked man meriteth as wel as the iust, because the wicked often laboureth as carefully as the iust. So if to buy bread be to merit bread, then the vngodly also meriteth his bread, because he hath mony to pay for it. Would any man expect such silly and childish toies from so learned a man as M. Bishop would bee thought to be? Notwithstanding all the labour and tra­uell of our hands, notwithstanding all the vertues and righ­teousnesse of our life, yet we beg our bread at Gods hands as the gift of his mercy. M Perkins therfore rightly argu­eth, that if by merit we cannot claime of God the bread of this life, much lesse can we haue any merit whereby to lay claime to euerlasting life.

36. W. BISHOP.

Thirdly, in the next petition: Forgiue vs our debts; foure opinions of the Roman religion (saith he) are direct­ly ouerthrowne. What foure at one blow! what a Hercules [Page 329] haue we here? let vs heare which. The first is humane satis­faction: for the child of God is taught here to pray for the pardon of his sinnes; now to pray for pardon and to make satisfaction be contrary.

Answ. This is a silly ouerthrow: for it is so farre off, that praier and satisfaction are contraries, that praier it selfe is one of the three works of satisfaction: Fasting, Praying, and gi­uing of Almes are not contrary, but the very workes of satis­faction. And our Lords praier is esteemed by S. Augustine (who is assoone to be beleeued as M. Lib. 1 de Sym­bolo. cap. 6. in Enchir. cap. 69. PERKINS) sufficient of it selfe, to satisfie for the light dayly offences that iust men fall into: besides, Christ himselfe praied for pardon of these mortall sinnes, for which notwithstanding Gods iustice was fully satisfi­ed by Christ his sufferings; wherefore satisfaction and to sue for pardon, are not so contrary, but they may well stand toge­ther.

R. ABBOT.

Christ offered himselfe to God for the sacrifice and sa­tisfaction of our sinnes, Forgiuenesse of sinnes ex­cludeth our satisfaction. that by vertue of this satisfaction he might intreat pardon for vs, and we thereby also in his name might intreat pardon for our selues. Therefore we doe not say that praier for forgiuenesse of sinnes is the de­nial of satisfaction, but we say that this praier being groun­ded vpon a satisfaction made already in Christ is a denial of satisfaction to be made by vs. Our sinnes being satisfied for in Christ, remaine vpon our faithfull praier freely for his sake to be forgiuen vs. The forgiuenesse of sinnes is no­ted in scripture to be 2. Cor. 5.19. the not imputing of them. If satisfacti­on be required for sinne, it cannot be said not to be impu­ted; and if it be not imputed, because Bernard. in Cant. ser. 23. Omne quod mi­hi ipse non im­putaredecreue­rit sic est quasi non fuerit. it is as if it neuer had been, as Bernard saith there can no satisfaction be requi­red for it. What a franticke dreame it is whereby they haue made praier for forgiuenesse of sinnes to be a satisfa­ction for sinne, and that S. Austins words make nothing for their purpose, it hath beene Of satisfacti­on. sect. 6. & 15. before sufficiently declared, and is needlesse here to be repeated.

37. W. BISHOP.

Now to the second downfall: Merits are heere also ouer­thrown. For we acknowledge our selues debters, and wee dailie increase our debts: now it is madnesse to think that they, who daily increase their debts, can deserue or pur­chase any good of the creditors; in a word, this must bee thought vpon, &c.

And good reason too. First then I answer, that veniall sins and small debts that iust mendaily incur, doe not hinder the daily merit of their other good workes. As aseruant hired by the day, by committing some small fault, doth not thereby lose his daies wages: againe, though he should commit such a fault, that might make him vnworthy of his daies hire; yet, if his Master did forgiue him that fault, his wages were notwith­standing due to him: and so the asking pardon for our sinnes doth not ouerthrow, but rather establish and fortifie our me­rits.

R. ABBOT.

Ʋeniall sinnes,Confession of sinnes is the demall of merit.small debts, small faults, saith M Bishop. A vaine man, that knoweth neither God nor himselfe, and therefore hath so small conceit of the sinnes that he daily committeth ag [...]inst God. No doubt but hee could plead the matter in Adams behalfe, that God did h [...]m wrong to censure him so seuerely for so small a fault. What, it was but the eating of an apple or a figge, and he might by his merits soone haue made amends for it, and would God for so light a trespasse adiudge him to death, yea, and all his posteritie for his sake? Well, God make him wise to know with whom he hath to doe, and then hee will see that his sinallest faults are great enough to blow vp all his merits, yea, and that in his best merits there is enough to con­demne him, if God should enter into iudgement with him. And let me aske him out of his own wise sawes that he hath here set downe, if a hired seruant of his by breach of cone­nants [Page 331]from day to day, haue voided the condition of his wages, and yet he be in the end content to remit all, and to yeeld him his conditioned hire, will he thinke it well that his seruant shall say, that he oweth him no thanks because he hath nothing but what he hath merited and deserued? Surely M. Bishop would expect that his good will and bountie should bee acknowledged in this case, and would thinke it a wrong to be vpbraided with his seruants merit. But though his head serue him not to conceiue this, yet do thou remember, gentle Reader, that one forfeiture of a mans estate, putteth him wholly vnder the mercie of his Lord, and whatsoeuer he can plead for himselfe otherwise, it serueth not the turne, but he standeth at the courtesie of him whom he hath offended. And what shall we say then for our selues, whose life is a continuall forfaiture of our estate with God by our trespassing daily and hourely a­gainst him? Shall we thinke we haue merits to plead? shall we not acknowledge and confesse that wee stand meerely and wholly at the deuotion of his mercy? And if remitting aliour trespasse, hee vouchsafe to remember our seruice o­therwise, and to reward it, shall we say that hee giueth vs but our own desert? Do we not see our good deeds whatso­euer they be, to be so drowned and ouerwhelmed with our sinnes, as that it is Gods meere mercy that any mention is made of them? But when furthermore our good deeds haue in themselues such spots and staines of sinne as doe giue God iust cause to reiect them, as hath beene Of iustifica­tion, sect. 44. &c before declared, shall wee be so drunke with our owne fancies as that wee will still dreame of merit towards God? These things need not to bee strongly vrged, because they pre­taile mightily in the consciences of all that are not of be­nummed and dead hearts, and more hath beene answered heereof before, than that M. Bishop should thinke fit to trouble vs any more with these blinde reasons. Hee neuer ceaseth to oppose, though when he is answered hee neuer knoweth what to reply.

38. W. BISHOP.

The third opinion imagined to be confuted by this petition, is: that temporall punishment may bee retained after the crime it selfe, and the eternall is remitted: but this cannot stand (saith he.) For wee owe to God obedience, and for the defect of this paiment, wee owe to God the forfeiture of punishment. Sinne then is called our debt, in respect of the punishment: And therefore when we pray for par­don of our sinnes, we require not onely the fault to be par­doned, but the whole punishment; and when debt is par­doned, it is absurd to thinke that the least paiment should remaine.

Answ. Heere is a most absurd collection: For when we in our Lords praier craue pardon of our debts, wee confesse that we are in his debt, and that there is paiment of punishment yet due vnto vs, the remission whereof we then require: now this praier is made by the best men after their conuersion (as he con­fesseth) who standing in Gods fauour, and therefore free from eternall punishment, doe notwithstanding craue pardon and release of some punishment, by M. PER. owne interpretation: Whereupon it followeth most euidently out of this petition, that after eternall punishment is forgiuen vnto the iust, there is some other punishment remaining, of which they craue pardon; and consequently this opinion of ours is (by this very petition and M. PER. owne exposition of it) much strengthned and confir­med, and nothing at all weakened.

R. ABBOT.

If M. Temporall punishmēt re­mitted in for­giuenesse of sinnes. Bishop may be the expounder of M. Perkins ex­position, we doubt not but he will make some good matter of it. M. Perkins meaning is plaine enough, and so are his words, that after our first conuerting & turning vnto God, we haue stil cause from day to day to humble our selues be­fore God, and to begge of him remission both of temporall and eternall punishments, which by our sinnes from day to [Page 333]day wee runne into. It followeth not of any thing that Master Perkins saith, that the eternall punishment being alreadie forgiuen, wee aske heere the forgiue­nesse of some temporall punishment, but that as our sinnes are daily, so wee aske forgiuenesse daily both of the one and of the other. Aug. de vera & falsa paenit. cap. 5. Quia quotidiana est effensio, oport [...]t vt sit quotidia­na etiam remis­sio. Because the offence is euery day, saith S. Austin, therefore wee haue need to haue remission euc­ry day. Now the collection against M. Bishop is pregnant and cleere; for if to aske forgiuenesse of the sinne be to aske release of the punishment, then it followeth, that our peti­tion being granted, there is no remainder of punishment after the forgiuenes of the sin. The ground of this collecti­on he himselfe approoueth, saying, When wee in our Lords praier craue pardon of our debts, we confesse that we are in his debt, and that there is paiment of punishment due vnto vs, the remission whereof we then require. If then we here require the remission of punishment, I aske him, do we not require theremission of eternall punishment? What, haue wee the remission of eternall punishment without asking or pray­ing for it? Doth Christ teach vs to begge the forgiuenesse of temporall punishment and not of eternall? Tell vs your minde plainly M. Bishop: doe not glosse the matter with a false application of M. Perkins words. A man committeth mortall sinne, and thereby incurreth eternall punishment. Hee commeth to God and humbleth himselfe and saith as Christ hath taught him: forgiue vs our trespasses. Doth he not heereby craue of God for Christs sake, the release of of that punishment? If he say, no, hee is more absurd than that Christiā eares wil giue him the hearing. If he say, yea, he is confounded in the cause, because it must then needs be granted, that the hearing of our praier is the relaxation both of temporall and eternall punishment; of temporall, by his owne confession; of eternall, by a truth which hee must confesse whether he will or no. Their opinion there­fore is not strengthened as hee vainly pretendeth, but is [Page 334]plainly ouerthrowen by the true and necessarie constructi­on of this petition.

39. W. BISHOP.

The fourth point of our doctrine hence impugned by M. PER. is: that a man in this life may fulfill the law. Where­as in this place euery seruant of God is taught to aske dai­ly pardon for the breach of the law: answer is made, that our daily sins are veniall, and not against the law, though besides the law: but this which they say, is against this pe­tition: for a debt that commeth by forfeiture, is against the band or obligation. Now euery sinne is a debt, causing the forfeiture of punishment, and therefore is not beside, but against the law.

Answ. I grant that euery sinne is a debt, causing the for­feiture of punishment; but this punishment may bee small and short, and so the sinne veniall, and the debt not against the law directly, yet against the band of some morall duty: as the misspending of time, vsing of some idle words, and the com­mitting of such like light faults, which I am bound in reason to auoid; but not by any prescript law directly. And thus in fine we see, how foulely M. PER. was mistaken, that thought to ouerthrow foure points of our doctrine at a clap, when not so much as one is thereby any whit at all stirred.

R. ABBOT.

It will be well for M. Bishop that misspending of time and vsing of idle words be reckoned for veniall sinnes; for God knoweth he hath misspent a great deale of time in the writing of these books, and hath sent vs a number of idle words. Tush, saith he, the sinne is but veniall, and the pu­nishment but small and short for such light faults. But if it be a point of godly Ephe. 5.16. wisedome to redeeme the time, as S. Paul teacheth, surely it is a point of folly to esteem so light­ly of misspending time; and hee will not so easily swallow [Page 335]idle words, that regardeth what our Sauiour saith that Mat. 12.36. No man li­ueth without breach of Gods law. of euery idle word that men shall speake they shall giue account at the day of iudgement. To come to the matter, M. Perkins reason is very good, There can be no forfaiture without breach of the condition of a bond. Euery sinne is a forfei­ture. Therefore euery sinne is a breach of the condition of a bond. The obligation or bond here is the law of God. Se­ing then euery sinne, and therefore euery veniall sinne ma­keth a man subiect to a forfeiture of punishment, it must needs be that euery veniall sinne must be holden to bee a breach of the law of God. And because no man can liue without daily committing veniall sinnes, therefore it fol­loweth that no man can liue without daily breach of the law of God. I dispute not heere whether sinne be rightly called veniall in his sense or not; I aime at the point, that because no man by their confession can liue without venial finnes for which he daily saith, forgiue vs our trespasses, and euery veniall sinne is a breach of the law of God, therefore no man can liue without daily breach of Gods law, and therefore that no man in this life doth fulfill the law. But well fare a schoole-tricke yet that shall put this argument quite out: forsooth there is a twofold bond whence the for­feiture ariseth. One is the law of God, and veniall sinnes he telleth vs are not against the law directly; wee are not bound to auoid them by any prescript law directly. Thus faintly and fearefully he speaketh: his owne conscience telleth him that they are against the law of God, but being loth to confesse the truth, which thus notwithstanding reign­eth ouer him, he minceth the matter with directly and in­directly. But if the curse of God which is the penaltie of the law doe light vpon him for these sinnes, what shall it boote him to say, that he did but indirectly runne into it? Well they are not directly against the law, but against what are they directly? They are, saith hee, against the bond of some morall dutie, and we are bound in reason to auoid them. Heere is then the other obligation or bond, the bond of rea­son, [Page 336]the bond of morall duty. But is there any bond of mo­rall dutie but only the law of God? and doth not the law perfectly determine all morall duty? or doth the reason of man find it selfe otherwise bound than by the conscience of the law? Surely S. Paul saith, Rom. 7.7. I knew not sinne but by the law, and hath M. Bishop a way to know sinne otherwise than by the law? S. Paul saith; Rom. 4.15. Where there is no law, there is no transgression, and shall we beleeue M. Bishop that there is transgression where there is no law? August. de pecc. meritis & remiss. l. 2. c. 16. Quomodo non vetatur per iu­stitiam si pecca­tum est? Neque peccatum erit si­quid erit, si non diuinitus iube­atur vt non sit. How should it not be forbidden by righteousnesse, saith S. Austin, if it be sin? and that that is sinne, saith he, shall be no sinne if God doe not forbid the being of it. Doth God forbid all sinne or else it is no sinne; and yet is there some sinne that is not against the law of God? Well, let vs leaue M. Bishop to his reason; for we see he knoweth not the law. As for vs, we doubt not but the law of God is the full description of all morall du­tie, and that euery trespasse in morall dutie, and namelie their veniall sinnes are transgressions of the law, and there­fore that no man fulfilleth the law because no man liueth without daily veniall sinnes: veniall as they call them, though all sinne by the law be adiudged mortall. Thus we see how foully M. Bishop was mistaken to thinke with his elder sticks to prop vp his foure points of Poperie, which whether he will or not are fallen to the ground, and he can deuise no further to hold them vp.

40. W. BISHOP.

He saith further, In this clause (as we forgiue our debters) it is taken for granted, that wee may certainly know that we repent and beleeue, and are reconciled by God; which all Roman Catholikes deny.

Answ. Nothing lesse, because much more is required to the one, than to the other. For it is farre easier to discerne, whether I doe yet beare any euill will to my neighbour, than to know as­suredly, that I doe hartily repent me of all my sinnes, and that for the loue of God; and further, that I haue a firme purpose [Page 337]not to commit hereafter, any kind of mortall sinne: these things (as euery one may plainly see) are farre more difficult, than the other of forgiuing them that trespasse against vs.

R. ABBOT.

M. Perkins doth not say, Our repen­tance and faith to be known as wel as our charity. that in this clause it is taken for granted that we may certainly know that we repent and beleeue, as M. Bishop hath falsly and guilefully set down, but that in this clause it is taken for granted that wee may certainlie know that we are in loue and charity with men when we make reconciliation. Whereupon he inferreth the other, Why then may we not know certainly that we repent and beleeue, and are reconciled to God? M. Bishop telleth vs, that much more is required to the one than to the other, but what that is he tel­leth not. He saith it is far easier to discerne the one than the other, but reason he giueth none. He saith that euery one may plainly see it, and we thinke we can see into a milstone as far as he, and yet we cannot see but that a man may dis­cerne the truth of his heart in the one as well as in the o­ther, and till he giue reason to the contrary, wee so leaue him.

41. W. BISHOP.

In the last words: and lead vs not into temptation, Psal. 26.1. wee pray not (saith he) that God should free vs from temptati­on, for it is otherwhiles good to be tempted: but that wee be not left vnto the malice of Satan, and held captiue of the temptation: for heere to be led into temptation, and to be deliuered, are opposed. Now hence I gather, that hee who is the childe of God truely iustified and sanctified, shall neuer fall wholly and finally from the grace of God; and I conclude on this maner: 1. Ioh. 5. That which we aske according to the will of God, shall be granted: But this the childe of God asketh, that he might neuer be wholly forsaken of his father, and led captiue into temptation: this therfore shall be granted.

Answ. If this argument were sound, neuer should any Chri­stian that saith our Lords praier, fall finally & be damned; be­cause they all make this petition, and that according to the will of God, who would haue all men saued. Many things then besides saying our Lords praier, are required to saluation, for want of which many that haue often said that praier fall final­ly. Againe, he mistaketh the true sense of that petition: for therein we do not aske that we continue not in sin, which we as­ked in the former petition (forgiue vs our trespasses) but wee pray that we be not ouercome by the diuell, by yeelding our con­sent to the temptation, and so fall into sinne. Lastly he forget­eth himselfe much when he saith, that it is good to be temp­ted: for he holdeth for certaine, that the very first motions to sinne in vs (which is the beginning of the temptation) are mortall sinnes; and so by himselfe, it is good to fall into mortall sinne, if it be good we should be tempted.

R. ABBOT.

Many there are who are Christians in name, The true Christian ne­uer falleth a­way. but not in deed; Christians to men, but not to God, Christians by outward profession and partitipation of Sacraments, but not by inward regeneration and grace. M. Perkins namely speaketh of them who are truely iustified and sanctified, who with a true heart and vnfeined faith, doe call vpon the name of our Lord Iesus Christ. The rest speake praiers, but they do not pray: they repeat words with the mouth, but the heart, where is the true seate of praier, hath no feel­ing of that they say. Now of them that are truely the children of God, and do faithfully and truely pray, it is vndoubtedly true which M. Perkins saith, that neuer any doth wholly and finally fall away from the grace of God. For Psal. 145.18. the Lord is nigh vnto all them that call faithfully vpon him, and fulfilleth the desire of them that feare him; hee will heare their crie and will helpe them. And 1. Ioh. 5.14. this is the assu­rance that we haue of him, that if we aske any thing according to his will, he heareth vs; and if we know that he heareth vs, [Page 339]whatsoeuer we aske, wee know that we haue the petitions that wee haue desired of him.Aug. do bono pers [...]uer. cap. 6. Quisquis igitur exauditur hoc poscens, non in­fertur in contu­maciae tentatio­nem qua possit vel dignus sit perseuerantiam sanctitatis a­mittere. At e­nim voluntate sua quis (que) dese­rit deum vt me­rito deseratur à deo. Quis hoc negauerit? sed ideo petimus ne inseramur in tentationem vt hoc non fiat, & si exaudimur vti (que) non fit quia deus non permittit vt fiat.Whosoeuer then is heard, saith S. Austin, in that he praieth, not to be led into temptation, hee is not brought into the temptation of that wilfulnesse, where­by hee should faile to perseuere in holinesse. And whereas it may be obiected, Yea, but it is by a mans owne will that hee forsaketh God, so as to be woorthily forsaken of God; he an­swereth, Who will denie that? But therefore doe wee aske not to be brought into temptation, that that may not come to passe; and if we be heard, surely it doth not come to passe, because God doth not suffer it so to be. As touching the sense of the petition, M. Bishop to assume somwhat to himselfe, taketh vpon him to correct M. Perkins, whereas the sense deliue­red by M. Perkins, is the more sound and effectuall, that our praier is; not to be left to the malice of Satan, and held captiue of the temptation. For whereas M. Bishop saith, that we pray that we be not ouercome by the diuell, by yeelding our consent to the temptation, and so fall into sinne, it is true indeed that so we pray; but yet because wee know that God doth not so free his elect from temptation, but that they are sometimes ouercome, and doe consent to the temptation, and fall into sinne, wee vnderstand further, that if God see it expedient thus to let vs fall by temptati­on, yet he will not leaue vs to bee holden captiues therein, nor suffer vs so to be tempted, but that he be alwaies with vs, to deliuer vs from euill, that Psal. 37.24: though wee fall, yet wee may rise againe whilest he supporteth vs with his hand. For whereas M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins much forgetteth himselfe, in saying, that it is good otherwhiles to be tempted, it is he indeed that much forgetteth himselfe in so blame­ing M. Perkins, who intendeth not that temptation is good of it selfe, but onely accidentally in respect of the good vse which God maketh thereof, turning the poi­son of one sinne to be a preseruatiue against another, and by falling once making a man the more warie not to fall againe. And thus S. Austin by the words of the Apostle [Page 340]saith, that Rom. 8.28. all things to Gods elect worke together for good; Aug. de cor­rept. & grat. ca. 9. Talibus dili­gentibus deum omnia cooperā ­tur in bonū, vs­queadeo prorsus omnia vt si qui corum deuiant & exorbitant, etiam hoc ip­sum eis faciat proficere in bo­num.euen so altogether all things, as that if any of them swarue and goe aside out of the w [...]y, hee maketh that also to further their good.Bernar. de di­uers. ser. 1. An verò ei peccata ipsa non coope­rantur in bonū qui ex eis humi­lior, feruentior, solicitior, timo­ratior, & cauti or inuenitur?For doe not sinnes worke for good to him, saith S. Bernard, who is found thereby more humble, more feruent, more carefull, more fearefull and warie than before? And thus Gregorie verie truely saith, that Greg. Moral. l. 2. c. 25. Fit mi­ra dispensatione pietatis vt vnde malignus hostis cor tentat vt interimat, inde misericors con­ditor hoc erudi­at vt viuat. by the woonderfull dispensation of pietie, it commeth to passe that by what the wicked enemy tempteth the heart to destroy it, by the same our mercifull creatour nurtureth it to life. But the concupiscen­ces and lusts of sinne, doe specially serue for this end; which God hath left as an enemie within our owne ber­ders, to fight against vs for the exercising of our faith and hope, that seeing our owne weakenesse and danger in our selues, we may the more earnestly call vpon God, and de­pend vpon his power; that being vexed and afflicted with the temptations of sinne, wee may hunger and thirst after righteousnesse so much the more; that being wearied with warre, we may the more long after the place of our peace; and obteining through his grace the conquest and victo­rie, we may through his mercy obteine the promise of the crowne of glory. Thus God 2. Cor. 4.6. commandeth the light to shine out of darknesse, and out of euill worketh good vnto those that are his, which M. Bishop also I doubt not would acknowledge, but that a malicious spirit of wilfull contra­diction carieth him headlong to resist apparent and knowen truth.

42. W. BISHOP.

Finally (he saith) this clause (Amen) signifieth a speci­all faith concerning all the former petitions, that they shall be granted, and therefore a speciall faith concerning re­mission of sinnes.

Answ. It signifieth a speciall hope and confidence to obtaine them, but no certaintie of faith, vnlesse vpon a condition which is vncertaine: that is, if wee doe our parts, God will not [Page 341]faile of his; if wee doe heartily repent vs, and vse the Sacra­ment of Penance duly, wee shall assuredly obtaine remission of our sinnes.

R. ABBOT.

The Romane Catechisme in this point confirmeth that which M. Amen what it importeth in the Lords praier. Perkins saith and maketh good our speciall faith, expounding Amen to bee added by our Sauiour Christ Catec. Roman. p. 4. cap. 17. sect. 4. Cui voci illa quodammodo subiecta senten­tia est, scito tuas auditas esse pre­ces. Habet enim vim responden­tis & illum qui precibus quod velit impetrarit cum bona gratia dimittentis dei. Et sect. 6 Intel­ligentes nos iam impetrasse om­nia ac sentien­tes praesentem vim diuini aux­ilij illud vnà cum propheta canimus; Ecc [...] dominus adiu­uat me &c. as Gods answer to this effect; Know that thy praiers are heard; and that we are to vnderstand it, as that wee haue obtained all our desires, and feeling the present power of the helpe of God doe sing with the Prophet; Behold God is my hel­per; the Lord is the protector of my soule. If I be to conceiue Amen to be Gods answer that hee hath heard the praier that I haue faithfully made vnto him, then am I to beleeue that God hath forgiuen me my sinnes, because that is one part of the praier which I haue made. Whatsoeuer poison there is in the Romane Catechisme that M. Bishop sucketh very greedily; but this acknowledgement of truth, though perhaps vnwarily deliuered, he can by no meanes admit. As for his vncertaine condition I haue before shewed that it is the ouerthrow of Christian faith and hope, which whol­ly withdraweth our eies from looking vpon our selues and our owne merits that we may rest wholly and only vpon the mercy and goodnesse of almighty God. It may well stand with that doubting and feare which elsewhere he re­quireth, but confidence and hope can in no sort grow vp­on it.

43. W. BISHOP.

Hitherto M. Perkins hath argued against vs out of the Lords praier: now I will briefly shew how the Protestants do­ctrine contrarieth it.

I haue in my answer to his obiections, touched some points al­ready: I adde, that one position of their doctrine crosseth three of the first petitions. I prooue it thus: In euery petion we must [Page 342]be assured (as M. Perkins holdeth) or at the least haue a good hope to obtaine that wee pray for, or else it booteth vs not to pray: but according to the Protestants doctrine no man can be assured, nay can haue any hope to obtaine the three first petiti­ons: for if originall sin do continually dwell in vs, and infect all our actions with deadly sinne, as they teach: Gods name can­not be sanctified in vs, that are infected with such an vnclean leprosie: neither secondly, can God raigne as a King in vs, if sinne possesse and command all our members: and thirdly, Gods will cannot bee done by vs on earth as it is done in heauen, if wee cannot keepe his lawes and commandements, which they in heauen doe: wherefore the Protestants haue no assurance to obtaine the three first petitions, who are by their teachers assured, that they are not to bee expected or hoped for: nor they cannot (according to their owne rules) from their heart make the said petitions, being out of all hope to obtaine them.

R. ABBOT.

There is a notable picture of the regenerate man in the holy woman Rebecca when Gen. 25 22.23. the children stroue within her, and the Lord said vnto her, Two nations are in thy wombe, and two maner of people shall be diuided out of thy bowels, and the one people shall be mightier than the other, and the elder shall serue the yonger. For so are there in the faithfull the old and the new man, the flesh and the spirit, somewhat whereby they are the children of God, and somewhat wherby they are still the children of this world. The originall leprosie still cleaueth vnto vs, but it is begun to be clensed and the strength of it is abated already. Sinne still possesseth and dwelleth in our members, but we do not say, as M. Bishop falsly pretendeth, that it hath the commanding of them. Aug. de pee­cat. mer. & re­miss. l. 2. c. 7. Nunc ei similes esse tam coepi­mus per primi­tias spiritus, & adhuc dissimiles sumus per reli­quias vetusta­tis, proinde in quantū similes, in tantum rege­nerante spiritu filij dei: in quā ­tum autem dis­similes, in tan­tum si. ij carnis & seculi. Illinc ergò peccare non possumus; hinc verò si dixeri­mus quia pecca­tum non habe­mus, nosi, so [...] decipimus &c. We are now like vnto God, saith S. Austin, by hauing the first fruits of the spirit, and we are still vnlike vnto him by the rem­nants of our old state. So far therefore as we are like him, so far are we by the spirit of regeneration the sonnes of God: and so [Page 343]far as we are vnlike him, so far are we the children of the flesh and of the world. On the one side therefore we cannot sinne, but on the other side if we say that we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs. Now then semblably wee answer M. Bishop, that according to that we are renued, and by the spirit of God are become the sonnes of God, the name of God is sanctified in vs, his kingdome is begun in vs, and we doe his will in earth with ready will as it is done in heauen. But by the remainder of the corruption of flesh and of the old man, there is a let that Gods name is not perfectly sanctified in vs, his kingdome taketh not full place in vs, neither doe we his will in such measure as we ought to doe. Yet we pray that the old man, the body of sinne may more and more be destroied, that the worke of Gods kingdome may more and more be fulfilled in vs; that we may more and more keep his commandements and do his will, not only with ready will, but without all let and hinderance fully and perfectly as they in heauen doe. Herein we pray that we may increase from day to day, and we beleeue that God heareth vs and granteth our request and will goe forward with his good worke till he bring vs in heauen to the perfection of it: so far are the Protestants from being out of hope of the obtaining of these three first petitions as M. Bishop fondly dreameth.

44. W. BISHOP.

In the fourth we aske aswell to be made partakers of Christs blessed body in the Sacrament, which is the food of our souls: as for our daily corporall sustenance. For so do the ancient fathers expound that petition: as namely S. Cyprian in oratione Do­minica: S. Hiero. in 6. Matt. S. Amb. li. 5. de Sacra. c. 4. where he hath these memorable words of the blessed Sacrament: that before the words of Christ it was bread, but after it is the body of Christ. Why then (saith hee) is it called heere bread? he answereth, that it is called bread not simply, but supersubstantiall bread. For so doth the Greeke word Epióu­sion [Page 344] signifie, as well as daily:) it is (saith he) not such bread as passeth into our body, but it is the bread of eternall life that vpholdeth the substance of our soules. Now you may be well assured, that Protestants who will not beleeue any such bodily presence, doe not pray to God to giue it them.

R. ABBOT.

Wee wot well that sundry of the ancient Fathers haue expounded this petition, Reall pre­sence fondly collected out of the Lords praier. not onely literally of corporall foode, but also mystically of the participation of the bles­sed Sacrament, wherin Christ is spiritually offered and gi­uen vnto vs to be vnto vs the bread of euerlasting life. Of this we will not contend with the fathers; onely we would know of M. Bishop, if this daily bread bee vnderstood of the Sacrament, how is it that the people with them are not called and vrged to the daily participation of the Sa­crament, that daily they may be partakers of this bread, ac­cordingly as they are taught to pray? Or if without the receiuing of the Sacrament, a man may be partaker of the spirituall food of the body and bloud of Christ, as by their construction of this petition compared with their practise it may seem they do confesse, then they must acknowledge that there is no necessitie of their reall presence, to make vs partakers of the body and bloud of Christ. Which al­though I do not see how M. Bishop should well and han­somly auoid, yet he thought good here to put in one place for the same reall presence of Christs bodie, his choise notwithstanding being so smal, as that he hath brought vs one that saieth nothing for him, yea in very truth saith altogether against him. The words of Ambrose are these: Ambr. de Sa­cram. l. 5. cap. 4. Ante verba Christi quod offertur panis est: vbi Christi verba deprom­pta suerint, iam non panis dici­tur sed corpus appellatur. Before the words of Christ that which is offered is bread; but when the words of Christ are vttered, it is not now termed bread, but it is called the body. M. Bishop falsifieth the words: but taking them as they are, what doth hee finde in them, for assertion of the reall presence? Is it anie proofe of reall presence, to say that the Sacrament is called [Page 345]the body of Christ? Now as it is called the body of Christ, so is it also called supersubstantiall bread, not for that that it is really to the mouth & belly, but for that that it signifieth and presenteth to our faith. And this doth Ambrose him­selfe immediately declare when hee addeth, Ibid. Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vi­tae eternae qui anima nostrae substantiam fulcit. for it is not this bread which passeth into the body, but that bread of eter­nall life that vpholdeth the substance of our soule. Where when he deuideth the bread of eternall life, from that which goeth into the bodie, hee plainly sheweth, that that which goeth into the body, is not the reall body of Christ, which is the bread of eternall life. What hap had M. Bishop heere to speake of the reall presence, hauing no better witnesse to plead for it?

45. W. BISHOP.

And touching forgiuenesse of their debts to God, and sins; they are so assured of that before hand, by the certaintie of their new faith, that they can no more request of God forgiue­nesse of their sinnes, then they can aske, that God will make them reasonable creatures, which they see that hee hath done already. And they holding the first motions to euill in tempta­tion, to be mortall sinnes, which no mortall man ordinarily can now auoid; how can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation, when they teach it to bee impossible to escape the venime of it? And if they vnderstand it so, as M. PERKINS teacheth: to wit, that they there pray, not to be left to the malice of Satan, they cannot without losse of the certainty of their faith pray so; because they hold them­selues assured of that before hand.

Neithey can they pray God generally to deliuer them from all euill, affirming as they doe, that wee must needs fall into mortall sinne at euery step almost, which is the greatest of all other euill. And finally, if it belong to God to deliuer vs from sinne, and all other euill; then Caluin and his followers doe wickedly blaspheme, who teach God to be the author and worker in vs, of all errour, sinne, and wickednesse. Thus much of the Pater noster.

R. ABBOT.

Our beleefe and assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes is, that when we begge the same of God by faithfull prai­er, he granteth vs our desire; and therefore doe wee praie for it, because he hath promised, and wee beleeue his pro­mise, that in praying we shall obteine it. Of this idle So­phisme of his, there hath beene enough said a Of the cer­tainty of sal­uation. sect. 5.18. How we pray not to be led into temptati­on, but deli­uered from e­uill. before. We pray that we be not led into temptation, in such meaning as before hath beene said, vnderstanding simply temptati­on, so as to be left of God therein, without the assistance of his grace. This hindereth not but that the first motions of lust wherewith wee are tempted, are in their owne na­ture mortall sinnes, though by the mercy of God they become not so to vs. For we doe not say, as hee vntruely alleageth, that it is impossible to escape the venime of tempta­tion; nay, we say that the faithfull do escape the venime and poison of it, because Rom. 8.28. See before sect. 41. all things (euen temptation and sinne) worke together for good vnto them that loue God. And thus do we praie also, to bee deliuered from euill, that though we be not as yet set free from temptation, yet the same by his ouerruling prouidence, may be so ordered, as that by his mercy we may be free from the euill and danger ther­of. And what should let but that we may pray God gene­rally to deliuer vs from all euill, euen from that Rom. 7.21. euill which is (alwaies) present with vs when we would do good; from vers. 23. the law of sinne that is in our members; from Gal. 5.17. the flesh that lusteth against the spirit, because wee beleeue that God heareth vs when we so pray, and will deliuer vs from that bondage wherein we are forced for the time to serue? Yea this he hath begun to doe alreadie, destroying by the po­wer of his spirit more and more the bodie of sinne, and yeelding 2. Cor. 4.16. the outward man to bee corrupted, that the inner man may be renued from day to day, vntill perfect newnesse shall come, and all euils shall bee fully abolished, because 1. Cor. 15.28. God who is all good, shall be all in all. And if wee cannot [Page 347]pray generally to bee deliuered from all euill, because wee affirme the first motions of sinne which are euill to conti­nue still in vs, let M. Bishop tell vs how they pray to be de­liuered generally from all euill, who though they acknow­ledge not the first motions to bee sinne, yet acknowledge them to be euil as wel as we; and that from this euil no man is set free so long as hee continueth in the warfare of this life. As for the certainty of saluation, wee loose it not by these praiers, but are rather thereby confirmed in it, be­cause we beleeue as hath beene said, that God heareth vs when we so pray, and therefore rest assured according to the measure of our faith, that God will guide vs in safety through the middest of all temptations, and will finally deliuer vs from all euill, and bring vs to bee partakers of his kingdome for euer. That which hee saith of Caluin is an odious repetition of an impudent slander, which is cleered before in the answer to his Preface, the tenth sect.

46. W. BISHOP.

Now before I come to the Sacraments, I may not omit to speake a word of the Aue-Maria, which in old Catechismes followeth immediately after the Pater noster. The Prote­stants haue cassierd it, and may not abide to heare it once said; but therein, as much as in any other such matter, they dis­grace their doctrine, and discredite themselues. For all the words vsed of old therin, are the very words of the holy Ghost, registred in S. Lukes Gospell; and therefore they bewray ei­ther great ignorance, or a wicked spirit to dwell in them, that cannot indure to heare the words of Gods spirit. Besides in holy Scripture it is prophesied,Luk. 1.that from henceforth all genera­tions should call the Virgin MARY blessed. In what termes then can wee more conueniently so call her, then in the verie same that were composed by an Archangell, are penned by the Euangelists, and by them commended vnto all good Christians? besides, the sence of them is comfortable vnto vs, as containing a remembrance of the incarnation of the Sonne of God for our [Page 348]redemption, and we on our parts doe thereby giue thanks to God for that inestimable benefit, and congratulate our Saui­our with humble thanks therefore, saying: Blessed be the fruit of thy wombe, IESVS. I need not in such cleere euidence of Gods word, alleage the testimonie of any ancient father: hee that list to see how it hath beene vsed in the purest antiquity, let him reade S. Athanasius in Euang. de deipara. S. Ephem. de laudibus B. Mariae. S. Basils and S. Chrysostomes lytur­gies, which can with no more reason be denied to be theirs, then the rest of their works. One short sentence I will set downe in commendations of it, out of that most reuerend and deuout Bernard. The Angels triumph, and the heauens doe congra­tulate with them; the earth leapeth for ioy, and hell trembleth when the Aue-Maria is deuoutly said. Apud Dionisi. Corinth. 1. part. in Euan. c. 5.17.Good Christians then must needs take great delight in it, euen as the badde may not abide it.

R. ABBOT.

The Protestants doe so well indure to heare the words of Gods spirit, as that they haue made speciall choise ther­of as the principall weapon wherewith to fight against the superstitions and abominations of the Papists. Whose ab­surd dotage as many other waies, so in their Aue-Marie most notably appeareth, in that of a salutation to the vir­gin Marie being present, they haue made an inuocation of her being absent, and thinke it a matter of great merit and deuotion to vse it like a charme by saying it ouer thus or thus many times at once which the Angell spake but once. M. Bishop allegeth for it the old Catechismes, but he neither telleth vs what Catechismes he meaneth, nor how old they are; which if he had, we should easily haue descried the va­nity of his speech. For if by old Catechismes he meane as he should, the Catechismes of the ancient fathers and pri­mitiue Church, he is therein found a liar, because in those Catechismes there is nothing of it. But if by old Catechisms he meane any that haue beene of latter times vnder the [Page 349]darknesse of Popery, he abuseth his Reader, who in case of Religion looketh for satisfaction euen from the first age, because what was not then a part of religion can be no part of religion now; the truth of Christ being one and the same from the beginning and for euer. The words, he saith, are the words of the holy ghost, and so say we; but we say that the words of the holy ghost may be abused, as here they are, against the purpose and meaning of the holy Ghost. They are the words of the holy Ghost which Christ vsed to the Apostles, Luk. 24.25. Fooles and slow of heart to beleeue all that the Prophets haue spoken: and will M. Bishop therfore say that we may vse those words for inuocation of the Apo­stles? He allegeth againe that it is prophecied that all gene­rations should call the virgin Mary blessed; and we deny it not but we may call her blessed in the meditations of our own hearts, and in speaking of her to them that heare vs, though we speake not idlely as to her that heareth vs not. Be it that the words were composed by the Archangell, penned by the Euangelists, commended to the reading of all good Christians as other words of scriptures are; be it that the sense of them is most comfortable vnto vs, yet what is all this to prooue that these words are to bee vsed for a deuotion and seruice to the virgin Mary? specially in such sort as Po­pery hath vsed them in a strange and vnknowen tongue, which could yeeld no comfort of the sense, nor remem­brance thereby of the incarnation of Christ, nor perfour­mance of thanksgiuing or congratulation towards God. That purest antiquity which he allegeth is but corrupt no­uelty, and leud forgery. The Liturgies of Basill and Chry­sostome are very falsly so termed, and yet in Basils Litur­gie there is no mention of the Aue-Mary. Of Chrysostomes Liturgie there are so many different copies published, one by Leo Tuscus, another by Erasmus, another by Pelargus, who also testifieth that hee hath seen a fourth, as that if Chrysostome did leaue any, yet no man is able to say of any of them that this is it. The sermon of Athanasius in Euan­gel. [Page 350]de Deipara, is by Nann. epist. nuncupatoria praefixa oper. A­thanasij. In ter­tiam classem: relegaui omnes supposititios li­bros quos Atha­nasij non puto. Nannius their own translatour put amongst the ranke of bastards and counterfets. The name of Deipara was not so famous in the time of Athanasius as to be prefixed in the title of a sermon; neither could it haue wanted memorable testimony in the councell of Ephesus if it had been then knowen for his. Ephrems works, as Hieron. in Ca­talog. script. ec­clesiast. Multa syro sermone composuit. Hi­erome saith, were written in the Syrian tongue. If M. Bi­shop can shew them in the same tongue, yea or ancientlie translated into the Greeketongue, we can giue the better credit that they are his indeed. Otherwise we know that they haue been in hucksters handling; neither can we but be suspicious of that iugling and foisting which we finde to haue been so vsuall and common with them. And if M. Bishop will haue vs to take it for Ephrems worke, let him tell vs who is the translatour of it. Gerardus Vossius who translated and published the works of Ephrem by the war­rant of Pope Sixtus the fift, whereas he putteth his name to so many as hee translated, putteth no name to the Ser­mon which M. Bishop citeth, shewing thereby that it is not in Greeke, and therefore importing it to be a counter­feit. He saith, that these can with no more reason be denied to be theirs, then the rest of their works: But I answer him, that though there were no other reason, yet it is sufficient reason for vs to bee suspicious of these, because in them some things are set downe, whereof in the rest of their vndoub­ted workes, and in the infinite volumnes of antiquitie which are approoued and acknowledged, there is no to­ken to be found. As for Bernand he liued in latter times of great apostasie and corruption. In that truth which he re­teined, he is a good witnesse for vs against them; but hee can be no witnesse for them to make good those corrupti­ons which hee drew from the time wherein he liued. And yet neither is his testimonie cited out of any of his owne works, but from another, I know not whom, and therefore is the lesse to be regarded; to say nothing, that the speech is ridiculous and fond: for why should wee imagine that [Page 351]the Angels triumph, and the heauens congratulate, that the earth leapeth for ioy, and hell trembleth at the deuout say­ing of the Aue-Mary, more then when wee say deuoutly, Our Father which art in heauen, &c? Surely good Christi­ans will reiect such absurd dotages and idle dreames, though with bad Christians al is fish that commeth to net: and what custome offereth, they are readie to entertaine, neuer regarding to consult with the word of Christ for warrant of that they doe.

47. W. BISHOP.

Now let vs come to the last part of the Catechisme, which is of the Sacraments, where M. PER. doth briefly repeat his arguments, vsed before against the reall presence: I might therefore, send the Reader vnto the first Chapter of this booke for the answer; but because the matter is of great importance, I will heere againe giue them a short answer. 1 First (saith hee) the reall presence is ouerthrowne out of these words, hee tooke bread and brake it: ergo, that which Christ tooke, was not his bodie, &c.

A simple ouerthrow, Christ (indeed) tooke and brake bread, but presently after blessing it, made it his body by these words, this is my bodie.

R. ABBOT.

I might send the Reader, saith M. Bishop, vnto the first chapter of this booke for the answer, and yet in this booke there is no such chapter where his answer should be found. But touching the reall presence, M. Perkins argueth out of the words of Christ to this effect; that Christ brake that which he tooke, and that which hee tooke was bread and not his body, and therefore that it was bread and not really his body which hee brake; it being absurd that Christ should bee said to breake himselfe, and therefore remaining that that which hee brake was the Sacrament only, and not himselfe. To answer this M. Bishop wee [Page 352]see is somewhat hardly bestead, and forceth the words of Christ to another order than the Euangelists and S. Paul haue obserued in the deliuering of them. Yea hee crosseth the Canon of the Masse of rather setteth the Canon of the Masse at variance with the institution of Christ. In a word hee saith hee knoweth not what, and and cannot tell what to say. The Euangelists and the Apo­stle constantly and with one consent put blessing before breaking; but he saith that Christ first brake and then bles­sed. He saith that it was bread which Christ brake, but if it were bread which Christ brake, then what is it which the Priest breaketh? If it be bread, then there is no tran­substantiation. If it be not bread, then he swarueth from Christs institution. Hee maketh Christ to breake the host before consecration; but the Masse-priest breaketh it not till after consecration. How then shall the Masse-book and the Gospell be thought to agree together? All this it see­meth he runneth into because he cannot tell how it should be said that Christ did breake himselfe which was the thing that M. Perkins vrged. But let him reconcile these differences, and then send vs a more perfect answer; other­wise we must hold him for a simple man that could not a­uoid such a simple ouerthrow.

48. W. BISHOP.

Againe: M. Per. 2. Christ said not vnder the forme of bread, or in bread; but this that is, bread is my body.

Answ. It is false to say that this word (Hoc. This) doth demonstrate bread: for it is of a different gender from it, both in Latin and Greeke; and if he had said, that that bread had been his body, his word was so omnipotent, that it had beene of force to make it his body; so that M. Perkins maketh a false constraction, which nothing helpeth his error.

R. ABBOT.

His exception as touching the different gender is excep­ted [Page 353]against, I will not say by his Grammar rules; for I will not shame him so much as to send him to his Grammar, but by their glosse of the Canon law which telleth him that Extravag. de schismat. c. du­dum. in glossa. Neutrum adie­ctiuum de omni genere praedica­tur. the adiectiue in the neuter gender is spoken of euery gen­der. Though therefore the particle demonstratiue This be in the neuter gender in the Greeke and Latin tongue, yet that hindereth not but that bread being of the masculine gender may bee demonstrated thereby. And so the anci­ent fathers vnderstood it that Tertul. cont. Marcionem. l 4. Panem corpus suum appellans. Christ called bread his body, euen Cyprian. l. 1. e­pist. 6. Corpus suum panem vo­cat de multorum granorū aduna­tione congestum. bread made of many cornes he calleth his body; that Theodoret. Dialog. 1. sym­bola & signa quae videntur appellatione cor­poris & sangui­nis honorauit. he honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and blood; that Orig. de rectae in deum fide. Corporu & san­guinis signa & imagines [...] anem & poculum ministrauit. he ministred bread and wine for signes and tokens of his body and bloud; that Cyprian, de vnct. Chris. In mensa in quae vitimum cum Aposto [...]is parti­cipauit conuiuiū proprijs manibus tradidit panem & vinum. he gaue to his Apostles at his last sup­per bread and wine; and in a word that Aug. ser. ad Infant. Quod autem fides postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi. bread is the body of Christ. Now if there be no bread, then it cannot bee said that bread is the body, or that it is called the body of Christ. If bread be called the body of Christ, then is it ne­cessarily imported that there is bread which is so called. Which because it cannot be before consecration, therfore after consecration there must be bread to be and to be cal­led the body of Christ. And beyond this the omnipotent force of the word of Christ doth not extend it selfe. Hee thereby maketh the bread his body, not as Iohn 2.9. of water hee made wine, so as to be no longer water, but as Iohn. 1.14. the word was made flesh, and yet still continued to be the word, Theodoret. vt supra, Non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens. not changing nature, as Theodoret expresseth it, but adding grace vnto nature. Albeit to dispute here what the word of Christ had been of force to doe, is fantasticall and idle: what hee did intend to doe, is manifest and plaine vnto vs. He pur­posed to institute a Sacrament; and Aug. epi. 23. si sacramenta similitudinem quandam non haberent earum rerū quarum sunt sacramenta, omninò sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerun (que) rerū ipsarū nomina acci [...]iunt. sacraments haue a resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, and by reason of that resemblance they commonly take the names of the [Page 354]things themselues. Christ therefore according to this accu­stomed maner calleth the Sacrament of his body and bloud by the name of his bodie and bloud, and saith of bread, This is my body, and of the Cuppe, This is my bloud, and not in name enely but Cyprian de resurrect. Chri­sti. Quod vide­tur, nomine & virtute Christi corpus censetur.in power and effect they are to the faithfull receiuer the same that they are called. Heerein the force of Christs word is seene, that to so weake and simple creatures he addeth so rich and vn­speakable grace; and by so slender meanes worketh so great effects whereby he maketh vs poore creatures of the earth to become one with himselfe in heauen. But if M. Bishop will deny the meaning to be, This bread is my body, we desire him to declare a better meaning, and to tell vs certainly whereto to refer This; which if he can define, we will hold him for a wiser man than any hitherto hath been amongst them. After much tossing this matter to and fro needlesse here to be stood vpon, their great Master Bellar­mine commeth to strike the matter dead, and telleth vs that the meaning is; Bellar. de sa­cram. Eucharist. l. 1. c. 11. Hoc, id est, substantia sub his spectebus contenta. This, that is, the substance contained vnder these formes. But his wisedome might haue seene that the question heere continueth still the same, what the sub­stance is that is conteined vnder the formes. The body of Christ they say, is not there till Tho. Aquin. summ. p. 3. q. 75. art. 7. ad 2 vl­timuminstans prolationis ver­borum est pri­mum instans in quo est in sa­cramento corpus Christs; in toto autem tempore praecedente est ihi substantia panis. the last instant of the words of consecration, and till then the substance of bread is there. The sustance then demonstrated by This, must necessarilie be granted to be bread as wee expoundit, because as yet there is no other. Much adoe they make about this matter, and can resolue nothing, and whilest they will not sub­mit themselues to the truth, they are so intangled in their owne errour that they know not which way to quit them­selues.

49. W. BISHOP.

Thirdly, Per. 3. Bread was not giuen for vs, but onely the bo­die of Christ, and in the first institution, the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death.

Ans. This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence, [Page 355]but doth greatly fortifie it: For Christ gaue vs in the Sacra­ment, that which should be put to death for vs, this is my body that shall be giuen for you. Now not bread, but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs: ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread, but his true reall body.

R. ABBOT.

If M. Bishops argument be good against vs, we will re­turne it to himselfe againe. Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs; but not the forme of bread: but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs, therefore Christ gaue vs to eate, not the forme of bread, but his true reall body. And doth M. Bishop beleeue so? If he doe not, then let him answer his owne argument, and wee shall thereby finde a way to answer him. It is true that Christ in the Sacrament giueth his body, but he giueth not onely his body, but also the Sacrament of his body. He gi­ueth the Sacrament of his body externally and corporally to be receiued by the mouth: hee giueth-his true bodie in­ternally and spiritually to be receiued by faith. He giueth vs then that bodie that was giuen to death for vs, but hee doth not giue it to the swallowing of the throat, but to the meditation of the heart. And this S. Austin notably decla­reth, when for exposition of the words of Christ, Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, &c. he saith, or rather maketh Christ to say: August. in Psal. 98. spiri­tualiter intelli­gite quod locu­tus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis mandu­caturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me cru­cifigent, sacra­mencum ali­quod comn en­dani vohi [...]; spi­ritualitèr in­tellectum viui­ficabit v [...]s. Vnderstand spiri­tually that which I haue said; Yee shall not eat this bodie which yee see, nor drinke that bloud which they shall shead that crucifie me: I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament, which vnderstand spiritually, and it shall giue you life. Where vnderstanding eating and drinking properly with the mouth, hee denieth the very body and bloud of Christ to this eating and drinking, and leaueth onely the Sacrament to be appertaining thereto. Now in this meane while M. Bishop hath slipped M. Perkins argument, and let it goe without answer that the Sacrament is not simpl [...]e the body [Page 356]of Christ, but onely as it is giuen to death for vs, and be­cause the body of Christ neither was in the first institution, nor now is in the Sacrament really giuen to death for vs, therefore the Sacrament is not really the body of Christ.

50. W. BISHOP.

Fourthly, Per. 4. The cup is the new Testament by a figure, why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure?

Answ. A goodly reason, if there bee one figure there must needs be two. How followeth this? if those words of S. Paul be obscure, why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Matthew, and S. Marke, who deliuer it plainely thus: this is my bloud of the new Testament that shall be shedde, &c? But hee that delighteth in cauilling, must seeke darknesse.

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishop anone Sect. 63. after telleth vs that no good Christian may thinke but that our Sauiour Christ Iesus very well fore­seeing all such inconueniences, as he hath there expressed, did deliuer the Sacrament in such termes as he would haue to bee taken properly, and not bee construed at mens pleasures figura­tiuely. If this be true, how doth hee heere thinke of him­selfe that doth admit, that Christ in the deliuering of the Sacrament, namely of the cup, did speake figurariuely? Or if he be a good Christian notwithstanding, that contrary to his owne rule he admit a figure in Christs deliuering of the Sacrament, must we be no good Christiās if we admit two? Surely there is the same reason of the one part of the Sa­crament as there is of the other; and sich there is a necessity to vnderstand a figure in the one, either hee must giue vs sound reason to the contrary, or else he must leaue vs to our own reasons to conceiue the like of the other also. Though it be not a goodly reason to say, if there be one figure, there must needs be two, yet it is a good reasō to say, if there may be one figure, nothing hindreth but there may be two. If [Page 357]Christ might say by a figure, Luk. 22.20. 1. Cor. 11.25. This cup is the new Testa­ment in my bloud, as S. Luke and S. Paul haue set downe, then hee might say also by a figure, This is my bodie; this bread is my body. But saith he, if those words of S. Paul bee obscure, why did he not rather cleere them by conferring them with S. Mathew and S. Marke? So then there may be here somewhat obscure, but it must bee onely what pleaseth them, who, notwithstanding of that that is most cleere, as we haue seene in the former section saue one, doe by their exposition make a matter most intricate and darke. But what cleering doth S. Paul receiue from S. Mathew and S. Marke? Forsooth they deliuer it plainly thus, This is my bloud of the new testament that shall be shed, &c. Hee setteth downe the words, but what cleering it is that he meaneth, he sheweth not. And indeed the words on both sides are alike; S. Luke and S. Paul speake by a figure; and so doe also S. Mathew and S. Mark. S. Mathew saith; Mat. 26.28. This is my bloud of the new testament; but what meaneth he by This? Surely This hath heere the nature of a relatiue, and must be referred to his antecedent before set downe. And what is the antecedent but the cup? Iesus tooke the cup, and gaue it to them saying, Drinke yee all of this; of what, but of this cup? for this, that is, this cup is my bloud of the new testa­ment, &c. The words of Mark. 24.23.24. S. Marke doe beare also the same sense; which as it is the very Grammaticall con­struction of the words, so it is also fully confirmed in that S. Luke and S. Paul doe expresly deliuer it in that sort. So then by all three Euangelists and S. Paul, there is a figure in one part of the Sacrament; let vs then aske M. Bishop againe, why may there not be so in the other also? But hee doth not loue to be troubled with too many questions. He cannot tell as yet what answer to giue vs, and therefore we must be content to giue him further time till he may better bethinke himselfe.

51. W. BISHOP.

Fiftly, Christ did eat that supper, but not himselfe? Per. 5.

Answ. A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eat of that Sacrament, as M. PERK. doth, because hee hath no warrant for it in the written word: yet we doe grant that he did so, and hold him most worthy to taste of that heauenly food.

R. ABBOT.

If the written word doe not warrant that Christ did eat of the Sacrament, I maruell why M. Bishop citeth to that purpose out of S. Luke those words which Sect 62. ex Luc 22.15. anon he doth; that he maruellously desired to eat this last banquet with his disciples. Whether hee cite it truely or falsly, let himselfe looke to that; but either hee must confesse that hee hath cited amisse there, or else that he hath spoken rashly here. But if Christ did eat of the Sacrament, will M. Bishop haue vs to beleeue that he did eat himselfe, or dranke the bloud of his owne bodie? May we be perswaded that one and the same Christ at one and the same time was both wholly within himselfe, and wholly also without himselfe? that hee sate visible by his Apostles, and yet was then wholly conteined within the compasse of his owne bowels? or that in his owne bowels hee at that time caried his owne bloud? or that moreouer hee was then by the Sacrament in the bellies of all the Apostles, euen of the traitour Iudas? Surely what Christ did eat, the same Iudas did eat also. But of Iudas S. Austin teacheth, that Aug. in Ioan. tract. 59. Non est ex eis iste, &c. Illi mandu­cabant panem dominum; ille panem domini contra dominū. hee did eat of the Lords bread, but not of the bread which is the Lord. Therefore al­though Christ did eat the Sacrament, yet may wee not imagine that hee did eat himselfe. These are horrible and vnchristian fancies; but out of the schoole of Transubstan­tiation they come, and they that maintaine the one, must necessarily maintaine the other also.

52. W. BISHOP.

Sixtly, We are bid to doe it till he come: Christ then is not bodily present.

Answ. Wee are bid by S. Paul to shew the death of our [Page 359]Lord till he come to iudgement, which we may very well doe, 1. Cor. 11. v. 26.his body being present: as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbands blood, to represent more freshly vnto their chil­dren, the slaughter of their fathers.

R. ABBOT.

It is true that his comming shall bee to iudgement; but what shall he need to come if he be here already? It was not questioned whereto he should come, nor whether we may shew the death of the Lord, his body being present, if it were present; but why the Apostle should say till he come, if he be intended to be here already present. His body being present saith he, as though he meant that Christ were not wholly present, whereas they tell vs that whole Christ is in the Sacrament, both God and man, soule and body, flesh blood and bone as hee was borne of the virgin and nailed afterwards to the Crosse. And if Christ be wholly present, what reason had the Apostle to say till he come? He telleth vs a ridiculous and impertinent tale of certaine noble Ma­trones, who preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly to their children the slaughter of their fathers. But what is this to the matter here in hand? If those noble ma­trones had had their husbands with them, and in the pre­sence of their children; then let him tell vs whether it had not been a witlesse thing to bid them expect their fathers till they come? But hee stealeth away from the point, and though he doe but gull his Reader with an idle iest, yet he would haue it thought that hee hath giuen a worthy an­swer. As touching the truth of this matter, our Sauiour in­formeth vs when he telleth his disciples, Iohn. 12.8. The poore ye shall haue alwaies with you, but me ye shall not haue alwaies. S. Au­stin giueth a reason of those word; August. in Io­an. tract. 50. Quoniam con­uersatus est se­cundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diel. us cum dis­cipulis suis & eis deducentibus videndo, non se­quendo a scondit in caeiu [...] & non est hic. because according to the presence of his body, he was conuersant forty daies with his disciples, and then they bringing him on the way by seeing, but not by following, he ascended into heauen, and is not here. Christ then according to the presence of his body is not here; yea [Page 360] Acts 3.21. the heauen must containe him, saith S. Peter, vntill the time that all things be restored, and therefore Phil. 3.20. from heauen wee looke for him, saith S. Paul, euen as in our Creed we professe to beleeue that from thence hee shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead. Now because we beleeue according to the scripture, that Christ as touching his body is in heauen and not here, and that from heauen we are to looke for him at the last day, we are able to giue a iust reason why the A­postle should say, vntill he come, which M. Bishop out of his learning cannot doe.

53. W. BISHOP.

Seuenthly, Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him; but signes of remembrance are of things absent.

Answ. We see one thing and remember another. By Christs body really present, we remember the same to haue been nailed on the Crosse for our redemption: as Goliaths sword was kept in the tabernacle, in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goli­aths head with the same sword; and the women before rehear­sed, kept their husbands blood, & might much easier haue pre­scrued their bodies embalmed, to keepe the better their deaths in fresh memory.

R. ABBOT.

We see one thing, saith M. Bishop, and remember another. But Aug. serm. ad infantes, apud Bedam in 1. Cor. 10 Quod vide­tis panis est & calix, quod vo­bis esiam oculi renunti [...]nt.that which you see, saith S. Austin, is bread, as your very eies tell you. If then our remembrance be by our sight, it is by bread that we remember the body of Christ. M. Bi­shop, I hope, will not say that we see the body of Christ really present; and if we see it not, how should we remem­ber any thing by it, seeing signes of remembrance must be things seen? Such was Goliaths sword, such was the hus­bands blood kept by the wines, as much pertinent to this purpose as a goose quill to a woodcocks taile. The reall presence therfore in this behalfe, is altogether idle neither is there any fruit or effect of it, because there is nothing [Page 361]thereby to be seen. Albeit Christ did not say, see this in re­membrance of me, but do this in remembrance ofme. And what he bid vs doe, S. Paul telleth vs, namely 1. Cor. 11.26 to eat of this bread, and drinke of this cup. And how shall wee eat of this bread in remembrance of him, if it be true which they say that in the sacrament there is no bread? If he will say that by the forme of bread we may be remembred, though the body be not seen, we can also say that by the bread we may be remembred though there bee no reall presence of the body, and therfore the reall presence because it is needlesse is iustly affirmed to be none at all.

54. W. BISHOP.

Eightly, If the reall presence be granted, Per. 8. then the body and blood of Christ are either seuered or ioined together: if seuered, then Christ is still crucified: if ioyned together, then the bread is both the body and blood of Christ; wher­as the institution saith, the bread is the body, and the wine is the blood.

Answ. The body and blood of Christ, are (by force of Christs words) consecrated apart, so that if they could be na­turally separated, they should bee also seuered in that Sacra­ment, as they might haue been at Christs death, when all the blood was poured foorth of his body; but euer sithence Christs resurrection, they are so ioined together, that they can bee no more seuered: so that we grant vnder one kind of the Sacra­ment, to be both Christs body and blood, which is not wrought by the words of the institution, but by the necessary and insepa­rable coniunction of Christs body with his blood, euer since his glorious resurrection.

R. ABBOT.

To this it shall be needlesse to say any thing here, be­cause it commeth more fitly to be spoken of in the next section.

55. W. BISHOP.

Finally, M. Perkins condemneth the administration of [Page 362]the Sacrament vnder one onely kind: for the commande­ment of Christ is, drinke ye all of this, Mat. 26. vers. 27. and this commandement is rehersed to the Church of Corinth in these words: doe this as oft as ye drinke it, in remem­brance of me. vers. 25. and no power can reuerse this com­mandement, because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church.

Answ. He began to set downe the institution of the Sacra­ment out of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. heere he leapeth backe to S. Mathew, because he fitteth him better in this point: to whom I answer, that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles, who were afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to o­thers; and so something ther-about is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men, but vnto Priests onely, who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery. All men do con­fesse these words: hoc facite, doe yee this: that is, administer yee this Sacrament, to be spoken onely to the Apostles, and in them to all of the Clergie alone: euen so, drinke yee all of this, was in like maner spoken vnto them onely as Clergie men; and therfore it is a commandement onely to Priests so to do: and as for others, they may either drinke of it, or not drinke of it, as it shall bee thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors; and this may be gathered out of those very words, drinke ye all of this. For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe, then to eat of that food; vnlesse it were to signifie, that whereas all men should be bound to re­ceiue Christs body: they should bee further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also; from which bond other men should stand free? But to come to the purpose, when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kind of the Sacrament: we answer, that we doe them no hinderance thereby; because we giue them both the blessed body, and sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde: yea whole Christ, both God and man; because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated. But what can they answer, when we complaine vpon them, for that they haue defrauded the poore people, of both body and [Page 363]bloud of Christ, and in lieu of that most pretious banquet, doe giue them a cold breake-fast, of a morsell of bread, and a suppe of wine? this is a most miserable and lamentable ex­change indeed: our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it, and deliuer them speedily from it. Heere is the place to shew how the Protestants doe not onely bereaue their vnfortunate fol­lowers of this most heauenly food of Christs body: but that they also depriue them of the manifold and great graces of God, de­riued vnto vs in siue other Sacraments: but because I haue touched it in the Preface, I will omit it heere, and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him, by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence, as hee hath done against it.

R. ABBOT.

Whether it bee S. Mathew or S. Paul, they serue both for the confirming of one truth, and doe both condemne the Antichristian and damnable sacriledge of the Church of Rome, in maiming the Sacrament of Christ contrary to the institution of Christ himselfe, to the very intention and purpose of the Sacrament, to the example and practise of all ancient churches. Our Sauiour Christ saith: Matt. 26.27. Drinke yee all of this. But the Church of Rome saith; Not so, for there are iust and reasonable causes why it is not fit that all drinke therof, but it is sufficient that the Priest alone drinke for all. M. Bishop to make this good, telleth vs that Christ there spake to his Apostles onely, and that some thing there­about is spoken to them, which may not bee extended vnto lay­men, but vnto Priests onely. But how will hee make it ap­peare that Christ in the one part of the Sacrament spake to the Apostles onely, and not in the other also? There were none there present but the Apostles, and what direction haue we in the words of Christ, to restraine the vse of the cup, as peculiar to the Priests, and to make the other common to the people? And if Christ did so intend, how falleth it out that the Apostle S. Paul in the recitall of [Page 364]Christs institution, professing 1. Cor. 11.23 to deliuer precisely what he had receiued of the Lord, maketh no mention of this re­straint? and what presumption was it in the whole primi­tiue Church, contrary to that intendment, to make that common to the laitie, which Christ had made the prero­gatiue of the Priests onely? He saith, that others may drinke of it, or not drinke of it, as it shall be thought most expedient by the Pope, whom hee falsly nameth the supreme Pastour. But how may it appeere that there is any such authoritie left to the Pope? Surely, if Christ spake only to the Priests, it should not seeme likely that the Pope should haue liber­ty to extend this fauour to the people; and if the Pope may giue libertie heereof to the people, then it is certaine that Christ did not speake only to the Priests. But there is a speciall secret heere which I would gladly haue M. Bi­shop to vnfold: for if the words of Christ, Drinke yee all of this, were spoken onely to Priests, and doe belong to them, how is it that Concil. Trid. ses. 5. can. 2. Ec­clesia iustu cau­sis & rationi­bus adducta vt laicos at (que) eti­am Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantum: modo specie com­municaret, &c. Priests also in the church of Rome, he only excepted that ministreth, are excluded from being partakers of the cuppe? Christ saith, by their owne con­fession, Drinke all yee Priests; how impudently then doe they transgresse the commandement of Christ who barre all Priests from the Cup but him only that saith Masse? Here their wicked and damnable hypocrisie most plainly appeareth, and the knots wherewith they are tied are such, as that they know not which way to vntie them. The Priests that minister not, are with them in that behalfe as in the case of lay-men, and therefore are forbidden to be par­takers of the cup. But in that case also the Apostles were at the institution of the Sacrament; for Christ only mini­stred and not any of them. And yet to the Apostles being thus as in the state and condition of lay men, because they ministred not, our Sauiour Christ saith, Drinke ye all of this. What now followeth hereof, but that to lay men, and of lay men as well as of Priests, our Sauiour Christ said, Drink ye all of this; euen you all that haue eaten of this bread, [Page 365]drinke ye also of this cup? But all men confesse, saith M. Bi­shop, that these words hoc facite, doe ye this, were spoken only to the Apostles, and in them to the Clergy alone. And it may be that all his men confesse so, or all the men that he had in his head when he wrote this, but otherwise all men will not so confesse, because to confesse so, should be to con­fesse an vntruth. For those words haue reference to the whol celebration of this mystery, requiring the same to be performed in remembrance of him by whom it was first ordained. Yea and that they haue their respect to the re­ceiuers, appeareth plainly by the very coherence and con­sequence thereof; Mat. 26.26. Luke 22.19. Take, eat; doe this, namely that I haue bidden you doe, to take and eat, in remembrance of me. And this is as cleere in the Apostles description of the instituti­on of the Cup; 1. Cor. 11.25 He tooke the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you; this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me. Which later words sound plainly to this effect; Drinke ye all of this, and as oft as ye do so, doe it in the remembrance of me. But yet we will deale cur­teously with M. Bishop, and grant him his desire, that Christ here speaketh of the ministration of the sacrament which appertaineth to the Clergy alone; and will he here­of conclude that when hee saith Drinke ye all of this, his meaning was that the Clergy only should drinke thereof? Verily the contrary rather most plainly followeth. For when he saith, Doe this, what else doth he say, but what ye see me doe, the same doe ye; I say to you all here present, Take and eat; I deliuer the cup to you all that you may all drinke thereof; doe you administer to others in the same sort; what I haue done to you, the same doe you to them in remembrance of me. And this rule Cyprian most vehe­mently presseth, and vrgeth it to Cecilius again and again; Cyprian lib. 2. ep. 3. In comme­morationem do­min [...] hoc facia­mus quod secit & dominus &c. Ab Euangeii [...]i [...] praeceptis omni­nò recedendum non esse, & ea­dem quae magi­ster docuit & fecit, discipulos quo (que) obseruare & facere debe­re &c. Vti (que) ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qurid quod Christus fecit imitatur. &c. Nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere de­bemus &c. Quotiescun (que) calicem in com­memorationem domint & pas­sionis eius offe­r [...]mus [...] quod consia [...] domi­num fecisse, faci­amus, &c. that in remembrance of the Lord, we are to do the same that the Lord did; that we are not in any sort to depart from the precepts of the Gospell; and the disciples are to obserue the same things which their master hath taught and done; that that [Page 366]Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ, who imitateth that which Christ hath done; that we ought to doe nothing but what he hath done; that so often as we offer the cup in remem­brance of the Lord and of his passion, wee are to doe the same which we are assured Christ did. Now if the minister bee to doe the same that Christ did, then is he to administer both parts of the sacrament alike to all that are present, because we find that Christ did so. Yea but why should the Apostles, saith M. Bishop, haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cup, then to eat of that food, vnlesse it were to signifie that wher­as all men should be bound to receiue Christs body, they, namely the Apostles, should be further bound to receiue that holy cup also; from which bond other men should stand free? Thus he falsifieth the institution of Christ, that from an imagined ground of his owne, he may infer a conclusion answerable thereto. For had not the Apostles as speciall charge to eat of that food, as to drinke of that cup? did not Christ aswell say to all his Apostles, Take, eat, this is my bo­dy, doe this in remembrance of me; as he said, Drinke ye all of this? If hee did so, and thereby all men are bound to eat of that food, doth it not follow that by the other all men are bound also to drinke of that cup? Christ commandeth all his Apostles to take & eat. He commandeth al his Apostles to take the cup & drinke. On the one side he saith, Do this. On the other side he saith, Doe this. What reason can M. Bishop giue why al Christians should be concluded on the one side; and all saue the Priests should be excluded on the other; yea and all the Priests also that are present, saue he onely that administreth for the time? What, will hee wil­fully blinde himselfe? Will he stoppe his owne eies, that he may not see that which hee cannot choose but see? Well, he will yet make amends for all, telling vs, that when they take away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament, they do them no hinderance thereby, because they giue them both the body and bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde. But who hath taught them so to doe, or that so they can doe? and if [Page 367]both may bee giuen vnder one, why did Christ by his in­stitution ordaine seuerally a Sacrament of both? Let him satisfie vs in this behalfe; if the whole intention of the Sa­crament be atteined in one kinde, why our Sauiour Christ would do a needlesse worke to institute both? and if it be needfull for the Priest to drinke of the Lords cup, why is it needlesse for the people? or if it be sufficiently auailea­ble for the people that the Priest drinke thereof, why is it not also sufficient that the Priest onely doe eate for all? Hee telleth vs that the body and bloud of Christ bee so vnited that they cannot be separated; and we grant so much of the bo­die and bloud of Christ as now they are, but he should re­member that by this Sacrament 1. Cor. 11.26 wee shew foorth the death of the Lord, and in the death of the Lord his bodie was broken, and his bloud was shed for vs, accordingly as it is said, 1. Cor. 11.24. This is my body which is broken for you, Mat. 26.28.this is my bloud which is shed for you, and therefore that the sacrament must represent and offer vnto vs the bloud of Christ, as se­parated from the body. Which because it cannot do, be­ing vsed in one kinde, therefore it followeth, that the Po­pish vsage thereof in that sort, excludeth the intention of the sacrament, and robbeth vs of the comfort of Christs bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sins. And surely if the effect of the sacrament be wholly attained by receiuing onely in one kinde, there was no cause why Gelasius Bi­shop of Rome, hearing of some, De consecrat. dist. 2. Comperi­mus quosdam qui sumpta sa­cri corporis portione à ca­lice sacrati cruoris abstine­ant; qui quia nescio qua su­perstitione do­centur astringi aut integra sa­cramenta perci­piant aut ab in­tegru arcean­tur; quia diui­sio vnius eins­dem (que) mysterij sine grandi sa­crilegio non po­test prouenire. who receiuing the portion of Christs sacred body, did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud, should decree as he did, that either they should receiue the whole sacrament, or else be excluded from the whole, ad­ding a reason thereof, which cleerely cutteth off all Po­pish exceptions, because the diuiding of one and the same mysterie cannot come without great sacriledge. Why should Gelasius vrge a matter so needlesse if it be true which now is taught in Poperie? or if Gelasius then saw it to be sacri­ledge to diuide this mysterie of Christ, how commeth it a­bout that it is not so now? In the time of Iulius the first, [Page 368]long before Gelasius, another abuse was creeping into the Church, of dipping the Sacrament of Christs body into the cup, as thereby to saue a labour, and so vnder one to deliuer both. It appeareth heereby, that Christian people were not then taught as they are now in the Romane church, that the one part of the Sacrament is by concomi­tancy, as their Schoolemen haue deuised, both the bodie and the bloud of Christ, neither did Iulius vpon that ground condemne that dipping as superfluous and cause­lesse, which both hee and they should in that respect haue conceiued so to bee if that fancie were true. But they by Christs institution conceiued a necessitie to receiue both, and therefore in this sort by dipping the Eucharist in the cup, prouided so to doe; in which sort notwithstanding to receiue both, Iulius approoued it as a thing vnlawfull, Dist. 2. cap. Cum omne. Quod pro com­plemento c [...]m­munionis inein­ctam tradunt Eu haristiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex E­uangelio testi­moniū recepe­runt, vbi Apo­stolu corpus su­um commenda­uit & sangui­nem; seorsum enim panu & scorsum calicis commendatio memoratur. be­cause there is no testimony heereof in the Gospell where Christ commended to his Apostles his body and bloud; for there is re­corded seuerally the deliuery of the bread and seuerally of the cup. Now if Christ to the end he might commend to vs both his body and bloud, would seuerally commend the one, and seuerally the other; surely the church of Rome in debarring the people from the cup, confoundeth the institution of Christ, and commendeth the one onely without the other. And sith Iulius did hold that for di­rection in this behalfe, the Church is to haue recourse to the example of Christ in the Gospell, to doe as Christ there is recorded to haue done, wee must needs conceiue that the Church of Rome now, is not of the same mind that Iulius was, which so manifestly crosseth that which is described in the gospell. And not Iulius only but the whole Church of Christ held it selfe tied to that exam­ple, and practised accordingly: neither was there any Church in the world which held it sufficient or lawfull to administer the sacrament to the people in one kind. Hie­rome saith that Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11. Domi­nica coena om­nibus debet esse communis, quia ille omnibus dis­tipulu suis qui aderant aequa­liter tradidit sacramenta. the Lords supper ought to be common to all, because the Lord Iesus equally deliuered the sacraments to all [Page 369]his disciples that were present. So Chrysostome saith Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 18. Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos a sub­dito vt quando fruendum est sacris mysterijs; similiter enin, omnes vt [...] participemus digri habemus. that in the receiuing of the holy mysteries there is no difference be­twixt the Priest and the people; for we all, saith he, are vouch­safed to receiue them alike.Theophylact. in 1. Cor. c. 11. praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cun­ctis conditione sit traditus.This dreadfull cup, saith Theo­phylact, was in like or equall condition deliuered to all. In a word, when Cyprian saith that Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 2. Quo­modo ad marty­rij poculum ido­neos facimus si non eos ad bi­bendum prius in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicatio­nis admittimus? by right of communion we admit the people to drinke in the Church of the Lords cup, what doth hee but plainly declare that the Church of Rome doth apparant wrong to the people of God, in that it bereaueth them of this right? We may therefore iustlie thinke them very impudently obstinate, whom neither the authority of Christ, nor the consent of fathers, nor the practise of Christian Churches vniuersally through the world, nor the very reason of the Sacrament it selfe can mooue to reform this maiming of the sacrament of Christ, but doe make choise rather to continue still in error, than to acknowledge that they haue erred. But M. Bishop here pretendeth that they haue more cause to complaine of vs, than we of them; for he saith that wee haue defrauded the poore people of both body and blood of Christ, and in lieu of that most pretious banquet, doe giue them a cold breakefast of a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine. Which words hee vseth rather of malice, then for that he knoweth not that wee af­firme in the due participation of this Sacrament a heauenly riches of grace and of the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Tell vs M. Bishop, when Gelasius saith, that Gelas. cont. Eutych. & Ne­stor. Certè sa­cramenta quae sumimus corpo­ris & sanguin [...] domini, diuina resest, & per illa diumae con­sortes [...]fficimur naturae, & ta­men esse non desinit substan­tia vel natura panis & vini. the Sacraments which we receiue of the body and blood of Christ are a diuine thing, and we are thereby made parta­kers of the diuine nature, & yet there ceaseth not to be the sub­stance or nature of bread and wine, did hee make the Sacra­ment to be no more but a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine? If wee respect the nature of the outward and visible ele­ments, it is true that we receiue in the Sacrament a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine, for these creatures Theodoret. dialog. 2. Manent in priore substantia & figura & forma, &c. remaine still, as Theodoret saith, in their former substance: but if [Page 370]we respect them in their vse and effect, this bread is hea­uenly bread, and this cup is the cup of saluation and life e­ternall. And as he is a mad man who hauing a rich gift con­firmed vnto him by his Princes seale, will vilifie the seale and say it is but a peece of wax; euen so is he as mad who of the Sacrament of Christ, which is Rom. 4.11. the seale of the righ­teousnesse of faith, the pledge of the remission of sinnes, the meanes whereby grace and life through faith are deriued vnto vs, will say either in baptisme that it is but a handfull of water, or in the Lords supper that it is but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine. But of this and of his fiue other sa­craments, as he hath spoken before, so I haue answered him Preface to the Reader, sect. 20. before: and I refer the reader to that that is there said, where he shall easily see that he hath no cause to account himselfe vnfortunate for following vs, but rather to hold them for vnfortunate fooles that yeeld themselues to bee guided by such fancies.

56. W. BISHOP.

Let this be the first. 1

The state of the new Testament, which is more perfect then the old, requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection than the old had: they had Manna, which for substance and taste far passed our bread, and in significati­on was equall to it: Wherefore, either we must grant our Sa­crament of bread and wine, to be inferior to theirs of the old Testament; or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ, which doth surpasse theirs exceed­ingly, as the body doth the shadow. This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe, who in expresse termes doth preferre the meat that he was to giue to his disciples, before that of Manna, Ioh. 6.48.49. which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse.

R. ABBOT.

If this argument be good, it prooueth reall presence in Baptisme as well as it doth in the Lords supper. If in Bap­tisme [Page 371]without any reall presence, there be greater grace & perfection, as in a Sacrament of the new testament, then there was in the Sacraments of the old, then nothing hin­dreth but that in the Lords supper the like also may bee: neither can M. Bishop alleage any reason to prooue it ne­cessary in the one, that shall not prooue it in the other al­so. The preeminence of the state of the new testament a­boue the old, standeth in cleerenesse of light; not in diffe­rence of faith; in the performance of promises, not in any diuerse effect of them. 2. Cor. 4.13. Wee haue the same spirit of faith: and a little to turne the Apostles words; Act. 15.11. they hoped to bee saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ euen as wee doe. Aug de nat. & grat. cap 44. Ea fides iustos sanauit anti­quos quae sanat & nos, id est, mediatoris dei et hominum, homi­nis Iesu Christi; fides sanguinis eius, fides cru­cis eius, fides mortis & resur­rectionis eius.The same faith, saith S. Austin, saued the iust of old time that saueth vs; euen the faith of the Mediatour betwixt God and man, the man Iesus Christ; the faith of his bloud, the faith of his crosse, the faith of his death and resurrecti­on. To them he was to come, to vs hee is already come; he hath stood as it were in the middest betwixt vs; they looked vpon him forward, we looke vpon him backward, but both receiue from him the same grace. Accordingly therefore the Sacraments of the old and new testament, though in outward forme and administration they differ much, yet in inward power and effect they are the same. Aug. ep 118. Leus iugo suo nos subdidit & sarcinae leui; vnde sacramen­tis numero pau­cissimis, obser­uatione facilli­mis, significati­one praestantis­simis societatem noui populi col­ligauit. Christ as S. Austin noteth, hath laid vpon vs an easie yoke by Sacraments, in number very few, in obseruation most easie, and in signification most excellent: they were forced to attend to many types and figures, and encumbred with infinite ope­rositie of manifold obseruations and ceremonies. Our state therefore is better than theirs, for that wee with more ease are partakers of the same effects of grace, which with grea­ter labour and difficultie, God so disposing, they did at­teine vnto; but otherwise what benefit we receiue by our Sacraments towards eternall life, they also receiued by theirs. For why doth the Apostle say, that the Israelites 1. Cor 10.2. were baptised in the cloud and in the sea, but to signifie, that in these types and figures they were made partakers of the [Page 372]same spirituall blessing and grace that in baptisme is mini­stred vnto vs. And why doth he say, that they did eat the same spirituall meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke, but to giue to vnderstand that they also did Ioh. 6.54. eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, that they might liue thereby? for if wee respect the outward signes, they did not eat the same, or drinke the same that we do. It must needs therefore bee as touching the spirituall and inward meate and drinke which is the body and bloud of Christ. And so the Apostle saith, that they dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them, and the rocke was Christ. Amb. de Sp. Sanct lib. 1. in Prolog. Quod vti (que) non ad di­uinitatem eius sed ad carnem relatum est quae sitientium corda populorum pe­renni riuo sui sanguinis inun­dauit.Which, saith Ambrose, is not referred to the godhead of Christ, but to the flesh, which did water and refresh the hearts of the thirsty people, with the euerflowing streame or riuer of his bloud. And thus S. Austin saith of Manna, that it signified Aug. in Ioan. tract. 16. Hunc panem significa­uit Manna; hunc panem sig­nificauit Altare dei. Sacramenta ill: fuerunt; in signis diuersa sunt; in re quae significatur pa­riasunt. the same bread (euen the body of Christ) that is signified in the table of the Lord; they are both Sacraments saith he; in signes they are diuers, but in the thing signified they are equall and alike. Now if without any reall presence the faithfull in Manna did eat the flesh of Christ, and in the water of the rocke did drinke the bloud of Christ, then it followeth, that there is no necessitie of the reall presence to our eating the flesh of Christ, and our drinking of his bloud. But I would yet further aske him how the reall presence maketh our Sacrament of greater grace and perfection then the old, seeing the body of Christ is thereby made subiect to bee eaten of wicked and vngodly men, who receiue no grace by it, yea of swine and dogs, and mice, as they affirme, which are not capable of any grace? For if the very recei­uing of Christs body into our bodies doe worke effect of grace, then should grace bee wrought in these also. But if the effect of grace be to be attributed vnto faith, then the reall presence is needlesse, because faith touching the Sa­crament, but as the hemme of Christs garment vpon earth, receiueth vertue from the body of Christ in heauen to heale, to feed and strengthen vs vnto eternall life. That [Page 373]which hee bringeth for confirmation of his argument be­longeth nothing therto. Christ, saith he, preferreth the meat that he was to giue to his disciples before that of Manna which their fathers had eaten in the wildernesse. And who doubteth thereof, when as our Sauiour saith; Ioh. 6.48.51. I am the bread of life? The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world (for who doubteth but that Christ or the flesh of Christ is to be preferred before Manna?) but that this flesh of Christ is to be eaten in the Sacrament real­ly with the mouth and into the belly this place prooueth not. Christ there compareth not their sacrament with ours, but he compareth their sacrament as the signe with him­selfe, as the thing that was signified thereby. Augu. cont. Faust. Manich. li. 12 c. 29. vete­rem figuram carnalitèr acci­p [...]entes, mortui sunt. Which signe or figure they who vnderstood no otherwise but carnally, died and perished; but they who vnderstood the same aright, vnderstood Christ therein; they did eat the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud, as before was said, and obteine life by his name. Aug. in Ioan. tract. 26. Visi­bilem cibum spi­ritualiter intel­lexerunt, spiri­tualiter esurie­runt, spiritua­liter gustaue­runt, vt spiritu­alitèr satiaren­tur. The visible food, saith Austin, they vnder­stood spiritually they spiritually hungred after it, they spiri­tually tasted it, that spiritually they might be satisfied. So do we in our Sacrament, and without any reall presence it is life to vs euen as it was to them.

57. W. BISHOP.

Secondly, 2 Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eat, and his bloud to drinke: and when they marueiled how that could be, hee assured them; Ioh. 6.55. that vnlesse they did eat his flesh, they should not haue life in them; and fur­ther certified them, that his flesh was truely meat, and his bloud truely drinke: whence it is most plainely deduced, that he who neuer faileth of his promise, gaue them his true flesh to eate.

R. ABBOT.

We grant his conclusion, that Christ gaue to his disci­ples, and further giueth vnto vs his true flesh to eat: but the question still is how or in what sort we eat it. Christ in­deed [Page 374]hath taught vs that Iohn 6.55. his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drinke indeed; but will M. Bishop say that they are meat and drinke to the body; that the body is nourished and fed with the body and blood of Christ, and that the same is turned by digestion into the substance of our bo­dies? If not, then it cannot be said that with the body wee eat the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood, but this must necessarily be vnderstood to be an action of the minde. Therefore Cyprian saith that for the doing hereof Cyprian. de cae­na domini. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acu imus, sed fide syncera panem sanctum fran­gimus. we doe not sharpen our teeth to bite, but with sincere faith we breake the sacred bread: and Austin questioneth; Aug. Cur pa­ras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti. why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? beleeue and thou hast eaten; and defineth it Idem. in Ioan. tract. 26. Qui manducat intus non foris; qui manducat cor­de, non qui pre­mit dente. to be eating within, not without; to be eating with the heart, not crushing with the teeth. And otherwise to vnderstand it of eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth, what is it but the grosse error of the Capernaits, li­terally vnderstanding the words of Christ, because they were no other but carnall men? Tertul. de re­surr. carnis. Du­rum & intole­rabilem existi­mauerunt ser­monem eius, quasi verè carnē suam illis eden­dam determi­nass [...]t. They thought his speech to be hard & intollerable, saith Tertullian, as though he had de­termined that they should verily eat his flesh. But if they had been intelligent hearers, and men spiritually minded, they would haue discerned by the other words of Christ the true meaning of this speech. For when he attributeth the same to beleeuing in him, that he doth to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, that Iohn 6.47. whoso beleeueth in him hath euerlasting life, he plainly giueth to vnderstand that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is to be expounded by beleeuing. And so doth S. Austin con­strue it when hee saith; August. in Io­an. tract. 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viuum: qui credit, man­ducat. To beleeue in Christ, that is, to eat the bread of life: he that beleeueth eateth. Againe, when he perceiued their repining at his words, he saith vnto them; ver. 61.62. Doth this offend you? What then if ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before? Aug. vt supra ille putabant eum erogaturū corpus suum; ille autem dixit se ascensurū in calum, vti (que) integrum. Cum vid eritis filium hominis, &c. certè vel tunc videbitis quia nō eo modo quo pu­tatis erogat corpus suum; certè vel tunc videbitis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus.They thought, saith [Page 375]Austin, that he would impart to them his very body, but he telleth them that he will goe vp to heauen euen whole. When ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before, surely then ye shall see that he doth not impart his body in that ma­ner as you thinke; ye shall then vnderstand that his grace is not deuoured by morsells. Now if the ascending of Christ into heauen were an argument for the reforming of their fancy, and correcting of their error, then it must needs be a misconstruction of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ whereby the same is said to be done by his being really present vpon the earth. And that it might not be so vnderstood, he further saith; vers. 63. The words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life: it is the spirit that quick­neth, the flesh profiteth nothing, thereby aduertising them as S. Austin giueth to vnderstand, that Aug ibi. Quo­modo quidem edatur & quis­nam sit mandu­candi modus ignoratis.they knew not in what sort his flesh was eaten, or what the maner thereof is, and that they should spiritually conceiue the doing of it, in such maner as was before expressed out of Austin. And hereof Origen saith; Ori. in Leuit. hom. 7. Est & in nouo testa­mēto litera quae occidit eum qui non spirituali­ter aduertit. Nam si secundū literamsequaris id quod dictum est; Nisi mandu­caueritis car­nem &c. litera illa occidit. There is in the new Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually listen to it; for if thou fo­low according to the letter that which is written, Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood, that let­ter killeth. Therefore S. Austin deliuering certaine rules whereby figuratiue speeches are to be knowen doth by his rule find that this speech of Christ is not properly or li­terally to be vnderstood, but by a figure. Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 16. si flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere aut vti­litatem & be­neficentiā vita­re, figurata est. Nisi manduca­ [...]eritis carnem filij hominis &c. facinus vel fla­gitium videtur iubere. figura ergò est praecipi­ens passioni do­mini esse cōmu­nicandum & suauitèr at (que) vtiliter recon­dendum in me­moria quod car [...] eius pro nobis crucifixa & vulnerata sit If any speeche seem to command a hainous or wicked act, or to forbid well do­ing or any profitable thing it is a figuratiue speech. Where Christ saith, Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood &c. he seemeth to command a hainous thing. It is therefore a figure instructing that we are to communicate of the passion of the Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. In which sort S. Bernard also expoundeth that Bernar de verb. Habac. super custodiā &c. sub edendi corporis sus mysterio discipulos ad commun [...] andum passionibus suis aumonens. vnder the [Page 376]mystery of eating his body Christ admonisheth his disciples to communicate of his passions. Here is therefore no other but a spirituall action of the heart and soule, which requireth no reall presence because the spirit of man by faith climb­eth vp to heauen and looketh backe vnto the crosse of Christ, and there receiueth nourishment and strength of him to liue by him for euer.

58. W. BISHOP.

Thirdly, 3 Christ said in most cleere tearmes, this is my bo­dy: this is my blood. What could be more certaine or more perspicuous?

R. ABBOT.

The words as wee expound them out of the circum­stance of the text and the consent of ancient fathers are indeed perspicuous and cleere yeelding this meaning, This bread is my body, this wine is my blood, that is, the signe, the sacrament, the participation of my body and blood. But M. Bishop for his life cannot make any certaine and defi­nite meaning of them whereby their transubstantiation and reall presence may be made good If the words be so perspicuous and cleere for them, how commeth it about that they haue so tossed and tumbled them, and yet there is no certaine meaning thereof concluded amongst them till this day? I need not stand hereupon hauing before said what is sufficient for this purpose in the eight and fortieth section.

59. W. BISHOP.

Fourthly, 4 These words of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists, and by S. Paul: and they all vniformely de­liuer it to be, not the figure of Christs body, but his body; and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse: ergo, it was that his true reall body, which was nailed to the crosse for vs.

R. ABBOT.

Euen so three Euangelists and S. Paul doe vniformely deliuer that the cup is the bloud of Christ or the new testament in his bloud, as hath been Sect. 50. before said, and yet M. Bishop will not say, I hope, that the cup is really the bloud or te­stament of Christ. That the Sacrament is the figure of Christs body, is no new speech. S. Austin saith, that Aug in Psal. 3. Conuinium in quo corporu & sanguinis sui fi­guram discipu­ [...]usuis co [...]men­dauit & tradi­dit. Christ commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and bloud. Tertullian expoundeth thus, Tertul. cont. Marcion [...]. 4. Ac [...]eptum pa­nem corpus su­um fecit, dic [...] ­do, hoc est cor­sus meum, id est, figura corpo­ris mei. This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Gelasius the Bishop of Rome saith, that Gelas. cont. Eutych & Nest. Et certo imago & simili­tudo corporis & sanguinis domi­ni in actione mysteriorum celebratur. an image and semblance of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the administration of the Sa­craments. Chrysostome saith, that Chrysost. Op­imperf. in Mat. hom. 11. In qui­bus non verum corpus Christi, sed myst [...]rium corporu eius continetur. in the sacred vessels not the true body of Christ, but the mysterie of his body is contei­ned. The ancient Liturgies doe vsually call the Sacraments Constit Clem. l. 7. c. 26. Anti­typa corporis, &c. Iacob [...] Li­turg. Typus cor­poris & sanguinis Christi tui. the signes of the body and bloud of Christ, and so Carol. Magn. epist. ad A cuin. Panem fregit & calic [...]m pa­ [...]iter dedit eis in figuram corporis & sanguinis sui. Charles the great, stileth them in his epistle to Alcuinus. It should not therefore seeme strange to M. Bishop, that wee also should expound the sacrament to bee the figure of Christs body. Yea but Christ, saith he, saith not that it is the figure of his body, but his body. And euen so S. Paul saith not that the rocke was a figure of Christ, but 1. Cor. 10.4. The rocke was Christ; August. in Leuit. q. 57. Quod vti (que) non erat per substantiam sed per significationem.which yet, saith Austin, was not Christ in substance, but in signification. If S. Paul might say, that the rocke was Christ, though in substance it were not so; then might Christ say of bread, this is my body, though it bee not so in substance, but in signification and power onely, euen as hath beene Sect. 48. before said, that Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are sacraments, and that because though they be signes and figures, yet they are such signes as doe by the ordinance of God truely and effectually ex­hibite and yeeld to the faith of the beleeuer the heauenly [Page 378]and spirituall grace that is signified thereby. Now when we say that the Sacrament is thus the figure of Christs bo­dy, how doe wee meane it but of his bodie which was gi­uen for our redemption vpon the crosse? and therefore that addition set downe by M. Bishop is impertinent and ma­keth nothing at all for him.

60. W. BISHOP.

Fiftly, 5 1. Cor. 10.16. S. Paul demandeth thus: the Chalice of benedicti­on which we doe blesse, is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ? and the bread that we breake, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? if then wee doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christs body, and communicate his bloud, they surely are there really present.

R. ABBOT.

We doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christs body, and communicate his bloud, and yet they are not there really present, because wee participate Christs body by faith in spirit and soule, not in body by the mouth and belly, as hath beene before shewed. S. Austin suppo­sing Christ to be absent in body yet teacheth vs how wee receiue him when he saith; Aug. in Ioan. tract. 50. Quo­modo tenebo ab­sentem? quo­modo in coelum manum mit [...]am vt ibi sedentem teneam? fidem mitte & tenu­isti. How shall I lay hold of him be­ing absent? how shall I put vp my hand to heauen, to lay hold of him sitting there? send vp thy faith, saith he, and thou hast taken hold of him. There needeth then no reall presence for the receiuing of Christs body, but by faith we lay hold thereof sitting at the right hand of God the father.

61. W. BISHOP.

Againe, 6 S. Paul saith: He that eateth and drinketh vn­woorthely, 1. Cor. 11.28. eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe, not discerning the body of our Lord: and before, is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ: ergo, the body and bloud of Christ are there present; or else why should a man incurre [Page 379]that guilt, but by his vnwoorthy receiuing of it, and by not discerning Christs body to be there present?

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishop thinketh that we doe indignitie to the Saints when wee pull downe their images which they worship, and yet hee will not say that those images are the Saints themselues; and can he not conceiue that in the dishonor of the sacrament, is the dishonour of Christ, though the sacrament be not verily Christ himselfe, but the represen­tat [...]on and signe of his body and bloud? the despight and villaine that is done to the Princes picture or seale is con­strued to be an indignitie to the Prince, and so will the A­postle haue vs to conceiue of the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. It is by Gods ordinance to vs, and in our vse as it were the body and bloud of Christ, and there­fore iustly is he said not to discerne the Lords body, and to be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ, who vnreuerently and with contempt presumeth to offer himselfe to these mysteries of Christ, though Christ himselfe be not really present in the vsage thereof.

62. W. BISHOP.

Besides all these plaine texts of holy. 7 Scripture in confirma­tion of the reall presence, 7 the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein. In S. Luke we haue, Luc. 22.15.that our Sauiour maruellously desired (desiderio desideraui) to eat that this last banquet with his Di [...]ciples. S. Iohn addeth, that whereas he loued his that were in the world, vnto the end he loued them: and knowing that the Father gaue all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God, &c. What coherence (I say) with this excee­ding loue and infi [...]te power of Christ, to bee shewed in his last supper, if he hath left onely bread and wine to bee taken in remembrance of him, any meane man might easily haue done as much; and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus, [Page 380] did much more: for hee left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behinde him, to wit, his cloake and double spirit. But Christ bequeathing vs his true naturall body to bee the foode of our soules, and comfort of our hearts as wee beleeue and teach, he then (indeed) shewed his i [...]finite power and loue towards vs, and that he came from God, and as God bestow­ed an inestimable gift vpon vs, such a one as neuer any other did, or could possibly doe.

R. ABBOT.

It is truly said by Tertullian, that Tertul. de Baptism Nihil adeò est quod obiurat mentes hominum quàm simplicitas diui­norum operum quae in actu vi­dentur & mag­nificentia quae in effectu re­promittitur, &c. nothing so much offen­deth mens mindes (in the Sacraments) as the simplicitie of Gods works, as they seeme in act, and the magnificence which is promised in effect. M. Bishop looking to the outward signes in the Lords supper, taketh the same to be a simple token of Christs exceeding loue towards vs, a matter that any man might doe; and not so much as that that Elias left to his scholar Elizeus. Thus in his blinde fancie hee amplifieth the matter as if wee taught that Christ in his last supper had recommended nothing to vs but bread and wine. But let him vnderstand that we see and teach in this sacrament, the exceeding great loue of Christ, not in those simple creatures which we see in act, but in the magnifi­cence of grace which is promised in effect. If wee con­sider these creatures in act, they are but bread and wine, but consider them in vse and effect, and then this bread is heauenly bread, the bread of life, the food of immortalitie; there is in it the spirit of Christ, euen the power of the word of God, not onely feeding but also sanctifying and clensing the soule. I will expresse it by M. Bishops owne words, that Christ hath bequeathed and heereby giueth vnto vs his true naturall body, to be the food of our soules; of our soules, I say, not of our bodies; which if he did rightly meane, as he rightly speaketh, he would not vnderstand it to be receiued by the body. And thus Christ sealing vnto vs in the Lords supper, all the fruits of his passion, and [Page 381]giuing himselfe vnto vs spiritually to become one with vs, and to make vs one with him, hee hath without reall pre­sence bestowed, as M. Bishop saith, an inestimable gift vpon vs, such a one as neuer any other did or possibly could doe.

63. W. BISHOP.

Moreouer, 8 the institution of a religious rite and ceremo­nie, to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worlds end, and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion, did necessarily require that it should bee done in most certaine and cleare tearmes; otherwise, there might arise great strife and contention about it, and be the ruine of thousands. And speci­ally great perspicuitie is required in this holy Sacrament, where the mistaking of it, must needs breeed either idolatrie, if wee worship for Christ, that which is not Christ: or impietie, if on the other side we should not giue to it (being Christ God and man) diuine honour. Wherefore, no good Christian may thinke, but that our prouident Sauiour Christ Iesus, who verie well foresaw all these inconueniences, did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly, and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely. Adde, that hee spake those words to the twelue Apostles onely, whom hee was accustomed to in­struct plainly, and not in parable darkely; and who were woont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speeches, who here made no question about this high mysterie, because they were sufficiently forewarned, that they should eat Christs flesh, Ioh. 6. and that his body was truly meat: and therefore beleeued Christs words without further question.

R. ABBOT.

The institution of a religious rite and ceremonie for the vse of the Christian Church, required such termes as had beene formerly accustomed in the institution of such reli­gious rites, wherein as hath beene Sect 48. before noted out of Austin, Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments. So is circumcision called Gen. 17.13. the [Page 382]couenant of the Lord, being but the signe and seale of his couenant. So is the lambe called Exod. 12.11. the Lords Passeouer, though it were but a signification and remembrance there­of. So were the sacrifices of the law called Leuit. 1.4. & 4.20 &c. attonements or reconciliations for sinne, which yet they were not in them­selues, because Heb. 10.4. it was vnpossible that the bloud of calues and goats should take away sins, but were onely signes and fi­gures of the attonement that should be made by the bloud of Iesus Christ. And thus Cyprian saith expresly of the Lords supper, that therein Cyprian de Vnct. Chrismat. significantia & significata eis. dem nomenibus censentur. the signes, and the things signified are reckoned by the same names, being both termed the body & bloud of Christ. And herein is no occasion of contention but to them only that are contentious, & will prefer their own absurd fancies before the light and truth of the word of God. Who as they do peruersly and wilfully mistake, so doe wilfully by mistaking runne into idolatrie, Rom. 1.25. worship­ing the creature insteed of the creatour, & giuing to the signe or sacrament that diuine honour which belongeth pro­perly to Christ himselfe. And if it be idolatrie, as heere he telleth vs, to worship for Christ, that which is not Christ, then hee hath told vs amisse before, that men doe not commit idolatrie, though they worship the Host when the Priest hath had no intention of consecration. In a word our Sa­uiour Christ though he spake by a figure, yet spake so, as that not at mens pleasures, but according to the course of Gods word he might easely be vnderstood. And as for the Apostles, we cannot doubt but that they were so well in­structed in those other signes and sacraments wherewith they had beene before acquainted, as that they could not make any scruple or question what his meaning was in the institution of this. Therefore no cause was there for them to be troubled, or to aske interpretation heere, as of some darke and obscure matter, but there had beene cause for them to haue questioned many things in the words of Christ, according to that interpretation which the Church of Rome hath made thereof. For though Christ spake to [Page 383]them before of the eating of his flesh, and that his flesh was truely meate, yet had hee said nothing vnto them that they should eate a whole body in the likenesse of a peece of bread. Yea though hee spake to them of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud, yet withall he spake enough wher­by to giue them instruction how that should bee vnder­stood, as Sect. 49. & 57. before hath been declared.

64. W. BISHOP.

Finally, this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the new Testament, and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequea­thed vnto vs Christians. Now what law or conscience will per­mit, that any legacie should be interpreted figuratiuely? to wit: that for a house, goods, or lands bequeathed and giuen by last will and testament, you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen, or the signification and representation of some goods or lands. If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man, about temporall goods: how much more pernicious and intollerable is it, to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God, and that in his di­uine and inestimable treasures?

And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke, wherein (good Christian Reader) if thou finde a­ny thing, that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith, or further thy knowledge therein; giue God (the Father of lights, from whom all good gifts descend) the whole praise: If any thing be amisse, impute it partly to my slender skill, ouer­sight, or negligence; and partly to the want of a conuenient resting-place, commoditie of bookes, and conference: all which, these times of persecution doe depriue vs of.

R. ABBOT.

He that maketh his last will and testament and giueth thereby great legacies of lands and goods, and putteth to his seale for confirmation of the legacies that he hath gi­uen, shall he be said in giuing his seale to bequeath only a [Page 384]peece of waxe, or a figure and representation of landes and goods? The seale indeed is but wax; it is but a signe and token of somewhat, but yet it serueth to giue assurance of the legacies for confirmation whereof it is appointed. The new testament of Christ is, the couenant and promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes purchased by his bloud. This hath he published by the Gospell to all that repent and beleeue in him. For confirmation heereof he hath put to his Sacrament as a seale, thereby to deliuer after a sort, and to put into our hands the thing which he hath promised; euen as hee who hath receiued a seale presumeth that thereby hee hath in effect the thing that is sealed vnto him. And shall a man say that Christ in gi­uing vs this seale, hath bequeathed to vs no other but a figure, a signification or representation of somwhat, and not the thing it selfe that is represented thereby? If it be absurd to say so in humane testaments and wils, what meaneth M. Bishop to transferre such an absurditie to those things that are diuine? I need not stand vpon this matter; I say briefly, that it is idle to say that the Sacra­ment is the chiefest legacie that Christ hath bestowed vp­on vs. He hath bequeathed vnto vs himselfe, the fruit of his passion, the riches of his grace, the inheritance of eter­nall life, which hee will vndoubtedly giue to euerie true beleeuer, and in the meane time hath giuen his Sa­crament to bee to our faith the pledge and assurance thereof.

And thus M. Bishop telleth vs that he is come at length to the end of his booke; wherein I ghesse he hath taken small ioy, because he hath quite left out the middle, euen whole twelue questions handled by M. Perkins, and which he notwithstanding pretendeth to haue answered, as hath beene before obserued. We are beholding to him for that he giueth vs leaue if any thing heerein bee amisse to impute it partly to his slender skill, ouersight, or negligence. And surely, what betwixt his slender skill one way, and his ouer­sight [Page 385]and negligence, another way, he hath sent vs so ma­ny things amisse, as that the Reader hath small cause heereby to bee confirmed in that which he by a wrong name calleth the true Catholike faith. Thou hast gen­tle Reader, what hee can say on the one side; thou hast what I haue had to answer on the other side: it is now left to thee to iudge of both, which so doe, as being thy selfe to giue answer of thy iudgement to Christ the Iudge of all.

AN ADVERTISEMENT for the time concerning Doctor Bishops Reproofe lately published against a little peece of the Answer to his Epistle Dedicatory to the King.
With an answer to some few excep­tions taken against the same, by M. TH. HIGGONS lately become a Pro­selyte of the Church of Rome.

1 THou maiest well remember, gentle Rea­der, that it was full three yeeres in Fe­bruary last since I published an answer to Doctor Bishops Epistle to the Kings Maiesty, whom he had thereby solicited to entertaine the now-Romane religion, pretending many great and waighty reasons, that it should be expedient and necessary for him so to doe. Wherein, how vnfaithfully and vndutifully he demeaned himselfe towards his liege and Soueraigne Lord, seeking by false glosses and colours very trecherously to abuse him; I was carefull in the said answer to make it plainly to appeare, for the satisfaction of all, who in that behalfe were desirous to be satisfied. With what conscience of fidelity and truth I [Page 2]haue carried my selfe in all that businesse, from the begin­ning hitherto, it is knowen to God, who shall be both M. Bishops Iudge and mine, and doth appeare to them who without preiudice or forstalled opinion, doe take know­ledge of the cause betwixt him and me. That to M. Bishop himselfe it seemeth not so, it is no wonder, because by ouer­studying himselfe in the schooles of Rome, he is growen squint-eied, and can see nothing aright, or rather hood­winketh himselfe, that he may not see, that which indeed he doth see. By reason whereof it commeth to passe with him, as in the like case with the rest of his consort, which Saint Augustine said of the Donatists long agoe; August. con. epist. Parmen. lib. 1. cap. 7. Cum eos obmu­tescere compel­lit veritas, ta­men silere non permittit ini­quitas. Though truth compelleth them to be dumbe, yet iniquity suffereth them not to be silent. They see themselues ouermastred in the cause, but a state they haue to maintaine, and somewhat they must say for it, whether it be right or wrong. From this iniquity it hath proceeded, that M. Bishop though conuicted in his conscience that the answer aforesaid was such, as that howsoeuer in some things he might cauil at it, yet in the maine he could not tell by any meanes how to contradict it; yet that he might from his Romish masters receiue the thankes, which vpon an infamous ouerthrow and losse of a whole army Terentius Varro receiued by the policy of the Romane senat, Liu Decad. 3. lib. 2 in fine. Quòd de rep. non desperasset, For that he had not despaired of the state of their common­wealth, he would make shew by writing some kind of re­ply, be it what it might be, to carry still a courage, and no whit to distrust the quarrell that he had taken vpon him to defend. This is the drift of his Reproofe which he hath lately published, which goeth abroad amongst his com­plices vnder a name, and with an applause, that I am answe­red, I am now answered; as if he had made me some great answer; whereas, if wee respect them aine question and controuersie of religion, saue onely that he hath giuen a snatch at one or two points by the way, hee hath written (whether it may be said, he hath answered, it resteth fur­ther [Page 3]to be considered) onely to foure sections of my first booke, the second, third, fourth and seuenth; which he hath inched out with enlarging sundry retorsions and matters of discourse, and diuers silly excuses and defences of the traiterous speeches and practises of himselfe and his confederates, against the King and the State, in answering the Epistle Dedicatory and Preface to the Reader, and the first and thirty foure sections; but the maine substance of the booke concerning the suggestions and motiues by him pleaded to peruert the King, he hath by a figure of preter­ition quite let goe, Reproofe pag. 259. 286. remitting the points thereof to be hand­led (ad calendas Graecas) in their proper questions, because hee was loth (forsooth) first lightly to skimme them ouer in hast, as I had done, and afterward to recoile and turne backe to them againe.

2. But hee should haue remembred that hee wrot that Epistle to his Prince and Soueraigne, where being charg­ed to haue dealt perfidiously with his most excellent Maie­sty, and to haue very leaudly attempted to abuse him with many falsehoods and lies, with many broken and lame conclusions; and that he could not make good that which he had written, he should haue thought, that whatsoeuer became of the rest of his booke, it concerned him in all loi­alty and duty to yeeld to his Maiesty, a speciall and cleere iustification of that Epistle. Againe, he knew wel that there were many points handled by occasion of his Epistle, which belong not to any question after ensuing, and that the rest, though handled other where, yet being heere writ­ten to the King, were to be answered by me, and therefore maintained by him in the same nature wherein they were written; and would he then thus like a micher steale away from all, and leaue the chiefe and principall matters of his suggestion without succour or defense? I had often said, and he hath now verified it, that either he would not reply at all, or else would doe it in that patching sort as he hath now done. And surely, had not I my selfe ministred vnto [Page 4]him the matter whereupon hee hath framed his Re­proofe, without any necessity thereof arising out of his Epi­stle, I should haue gone for this time without any reproofe at all. Vpon mention made of the Catholike faith, I tooke occasion, further than I was compelled by him, to insist vp­on the name of Catholike, and to shew their abuse thereof. Vpon his appeale to the Romane Church, when the same was in the best and most flourishing estate, I tooke occasi­on of a comparison of the doctrine, of the old and new Church of Rome, by sundry sentences of the Bishops and other writers of that Church, whereas, it had beene suffi­cient for me to haue disprooued those instances whereby he tooke vpon him to prooue the same faith in both. From these two points ariseth the whole substantiall part of his booke, and had I omitted these, in hard case had he beene for the writing of a booke; for, for defense of his owne alle­gations he had had nothing more to say. Now gentle Rea­der, to confesse to thee the truth, I had determined so soone as time should serue, by a speciall treatise to enlarge the said comparison and to remooue their exceptions which they haue to take against it, and so more fully to describe, The true ancient Romane Catholike. What then hath M. Bishop in effect done by his Reproofe, but onely giuen me further occasion to doe that, that I had beforehand purposed to doe, and to consider of sundry matters, which happily o­therwise not minding I might easily haue ouerpassed? For the doing of this, I must craue thy patience for a time, be­cause it is a matter that will require conuenient time; but in the meane time, to giue thee some satisfaction as touching that Reproofe, I haue thought good by a short Aduerise­ment to make it appeare to thee, that Foxes whelpes are all alike, & that M. Bishop is no changling, but continueth in his proceeding the same man that he was in the beginning.

3. And first, I would haue thee to obserue what a terri­ble inscription he hath put in the forefront to fright owles and buzzards, that they may keepe them in their corners [Page 5]and not come foorth to see the light. A Reproofe, saith he, of M. Doct. Abbots Defence of the Catholike deformed by M. W. Perkins, wherein his sundry abuses of Gods sacred word, and most manifold misapplying and falsifying of the an­cient Fathers sentences be so plainely discouered to the eie of e­uery indifferent Reader, that whosoeuer hath any due care of his owne saluation, can neuer heereafter giue him more credit in matter of faith and religion. But not contented heerewith, to bombast this skar-crow to the full, and to cause the grea­ter terrour, taking occasion belike, by my comparing him and his fellow Wright to Iannes and Iambres, he vnder­writeth to that title the words of the Apostle; 2. Tim. 3.8. As Ian­nes and Iambres resisted Moses, so these men also resist the truth, men corrupted in minde, reprobate concerning the faith; but they shall prosper no further, for their folly shall be manifest to all, as theirs also was. Now is not this a horrible coniura­tion, Gentle Reader, and sufficient to make any mans haire to stare? Wouldest thou not imagine heereby that there should be cause to cry out vpon me, yea to hang me vp for abusing Scriptures and fathers, and beguiling the world in such sort as he pretendeth? But stay I pray thee a while; remember that losers must haue their words, and they will crie lowdest that smart most, neither doth any thing in being handled make so importunate a noise as the filthy swine doth. Saint Austine saith rightly that August. de ciu. dei. lib. 5. cap. 27. Non ideò plus potest vanitas quàm veritas, quia si voluerit etiam plus potest cla­mara quàm ve­ritas. vanity is not therefore stronger than truth, because if it list it can cry louder than truth. Thou knowest that naughty drabs, when they are reprooued for their leaud and vnhonest life, doe set themselues with all bitternesse and violence to deuise and frame words and termes to gall and disgrace them by whom they are reprooued. Thou maiest well conceiue that the greatest occasion of suspicion lieth on his part, who like the silly wood-cocke that thrusteth his head into a hole, and leaueth his body to be beaten till both head and all be dead, so after three yeeres space, leauing the whole [Page 6]body of his Epistle vndefended, thrusteth himselfe into one corner of a booke, there for a time to shrowd himselfe, till his head being crushed in that corner also, he shall haue no place left further to yeeld him breath. But that thou maiest see from what spirit that title of his booke hath pro­ceeded, I haue thought good heere to examine the whole matter of his preface, wherein he taketh vpon him to iusti­fie the same, and professeth to haue said so much therein Page. 11. as may suffice to discredit me with all indifferent men. Marke well, I pray thee, the matters which he bringeth, consider well the waight and the truth of them, and then take know­ledge of some other obseruations that I shall giue thee con­cerning the whole book.

4. His Preface he beginneth artificially, according to a precept of Rhetoricke, which teacheth a man Quintil. Ora­tor institut. lib. 5. cap. 13. Haec simulatio huc­us (que) procedit vt quae dicendo refutare non possumus, quasi fastidiendo cal­cemus. a dissem­bling tricke, that what he cannot confute he shall seeme scorne­fully to reiect and trample vpon. He telleth his Reader con­cerning mine answer, that Pag. 3. he found so little substance in it, that a long time he was vnwilling to reply vpon it, and could not thinke the time well bestowed which should be spent in so friuo­lous and vaine altercation. Aquil [...] non capit muscas. The Fox would none. And in this veine the man much pleaseth him­selfe, hauing much in his mouth my Pag. 45. vnlearned writings, Pag. 94.more meet to stop mustard-pots, than likely to stop any meane scholars mouth. He calleth me Pag. 86. shallow and shuttle witted, Pag. 16.one of the most shallow and beggerliest writers of these daies, Pag. 52.one of the shallowest for substance of matter that euer he read; and Pag. 40. if, saith he, there lie more marrow and pith hidden in my writing than one at the first sight would perhaps suppose (spe­ctatum admissi risum teneatis?) then surely it doth require a man of more substance than he, though of lesser shew: yea Pag. 47. if there be more in my booke, saith he, than you somtimes would haue people to beleeue, they that haue a good opinion of it may hap to thinke that those graue and wise men in high authority foresaw that it would hardly be answered by laying nakedly te­stimony [Page 7]to testimony, and reason to reason; wherefore they thought it best policy to make choice of som iolly smooth-tongued discourser, that might with a ruffling multitude of faire plea­sing words cary his Reader from the matter. Thus he is all marrow and pith, a terrible man, our graue wise men in high authority were afraid of him, they were put to their shifts to haue his booke answered; as for me I am no body, all words and no woorth; a man of too little substance to en­counter with the profound learning of so great a Clerke. I doe him heere a double fauour, both that I traduce not his foolery as it deserueth, and that I forbeare to giue him a ierke for so leaudly demeaning himselfe towards those graue wise men in high authority. But what he is, and what I am is not to be determined by him or mee, God and the Country must trie vs both; only this I doe not doubt, that my writings, vnlearned as they are, haue set a dagger at his heart, which he shall neuer be able to pull away. It appeareth by this Preface, that hee hath heard somewhat thereof that pleaseth him not, whereupon he is growen so furiated and enraged, as that he spitteth nothing but poi­son, and straineth himselfe to the vttermost, to disgrace that which he seeth to be so disgracefull to himselfe. But he is heerein but as the dogge which gnaweth the stone, which causeth paine to his owne teeth, but to the stone can doe no harme at all. And heere it troubleth him, that to his Epi­stle, being but one sheet and a halfe, I should write so long an answer of thirty sheetes; but I answer him, that in the seruice of my Prince, and in a busines of that nature I was not to huddle vp any thing, but to vnfold and lay open all things, that the truth might the more fully and plainly ap­peare. I doe not wonder that he would haue had me more briefe, because therby his vnhonest and shamefull dealing should haue beene the lesse seene. In a word, I wrot as the ancient fathers of the Church haue beene wont to doe, not to serue the humour of Heretickes and enemies, but as [Page 8]might best make for the satisfaction and edification of Gods Church.

5. Another quarrell he hath concerning my sharpe and bitter words, disgracefull and odious termes, and bitter rai­ling, as he speaketh, against the best men of their side. As touching the persons, I must tell him, that the best of their side are very bad if they be no better than those of whom I haue spoken. As touching the words I will not iustifie my selfe, but that in a iust and righteous cause, humane affecti­on may carry me somewhat too far in heat: but yet I must aduertise M. Bishop, that there is a difference to be made betwixt words spoken by way of priuate anger and re­uenge, and those that are spoken by way of iust reproofe. By way of iust reproofe Esay saith to wicked men, Esay 57.3. Ye witches children, ye seed of the adulterer and of the whoore. By way of iust reproofe, Iohn Baptist said to the Pharisees and Sadduces, Mat. 3.7. O generations of vipers, who hath forewarned you to flie from the wrath to come? In like sort doth our Sa­uiour Christ bitterly reproch the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them Mat. 12.34. generations of vipers, Mat. 16.4.a wicked and adulterous generation; Mat. 23.13.16.17.26.Hypocrites, blind guides, fooles and blind, blind Pharisees, and in extreame passion saith, Ver. 33. Ye serpents, Ye generations of vipers, how should ye escape the damnation of hel? So doth Steuen speake to the Iewes, Act. 7.51. Ye stifnecked and of vncircumcised hearts and eares: And Paul to Ananias, Act. 23.3. God shall smite thee, thou painted wall. The words then are not alwaies faulty, but the occasion thereof is alwaies to be re­garded, and the occasion thereof must be taken to depend much vpon the condition of the persons. For where men are in any sort tractable, and do not wilfully oppose them­selues against instruction, the Apostle prescribeth that rule alleaged by M. Bishop, 2. Tim. 2.24. The seruant of the Lord must not striue, but must be gentle towards all, apt to teach, instructing with meekenesse them that are contrary minded. But where men absurdly and wilfully resist the truth, and doe leaudly [Page 9]seeke to draw others to be partakers with them in their sin, there the Apostles example sometimes taketh place, who when he saw Elymas the sorcerer labouring to turne away Sergius Paulus the Romane Deputy from the faith, brast out with great indignation and said, Acts 13.10. O full of all subtilty & mischiefe, thou child of the diuel & enemy of all righteousnes, wilt thou not cease to peruert the straight waies of the Lord? Now therefore albeit I doe not in any sort compare my selfe in measure of grace with those excellent seruants of God, as M. Bishop to make himselfe worke full simply cauelleth, yet according to that measure of the same spirit which God hath giuen me, let no man maruell that I haue beene deep­ly mooued in heart to see these vassals of Antichrist by tro­cherous calumniations of true religion to offer so great in­dignity to the Anointed of the Lord, and therefore haue somewhat dipped my pen in gall to exagitate their hypo­crisie and iniquity, in such sort as to me it seemed the cause it selfe did require. Neither will I for that cause be a foule mouthed wrangler, as M. Bishop hath stiled me, but an ear­nest Aduocate of Gods truth, Iude vers. 3. vehemently contending, as the Apostle Iude exhorteth, for the maintenance of the faith, which was once giuen to the Saints, caried with zeale and in­dignation towards malicious and wicked hypocrits, who hauing prostituted their owne soules to the fornications of the whore of Babylon seeke perfidiously to entangle the consciences of others in the fellowship of their vngodly courses; and in a word, so far from wrangling; and hauing with so sound reason and proofe repulsed the cauillations and Sycophancies of his epistle, as that after three yeeres he can say nothing for iustification of his motiues which he tendered to the King, but shiftingly abuseth the world by a meere collusion, enlarging a booke out of some matters of discourse, and making a miserable answer onely to some few sentences alledged against him, without the compasse of that that he had written. But it is not to be omitted in this behalfe, what M. Bishop himselfe euen heere saith; [Page 10] Pag. 4. I wot well, saith he, that the most milde & 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 word or two. Yea and let it be noted how one sweet pen-man in this case excuseth another, M. Bishop his fellow Watson, after that he had with all importunity and fury thorowout his whole booke of Quodlibets runne vpon the Iesuits. Answer to particulars against D. Bi­shop. pag. 17. Sory I am, saith he, that to some blemish of his former ver­tues, certaine bookes set out of late carry the letters of his name, because the stile seemeth too sharp, and some thing in them soun­deth harshly in Catholike eares. But to mitigate the matter, the occasion of writing which time and place ministred must be duely considered, and withall, how he and others were before grieuously hurt in their reputation by the other party, and that in defense of their honour they might lawfully discredit the iniu­rious aggressours. Now if any man looke vpon me with the same eies wherewith M. Bishop looked vpon M. Wat­son, he will easily see that the reputation and honour of our religion being so deeply touched, and so many infamous aspersions being cast vpon our whole doctrine and mini­stery by his malicious and slanderous libell, the zeale of truth, and importunate impudencie of such an iniurious ag­gressour, must needs wrest from me what spleene or passion I had to shew in the seruice of my Prince, and in the cause of Iesus Christ. And this I hope shall excuse me in this be­halfe, with all that are friends and welwillers to the cause in hand: or if any take exception further, I must say to him with the words of S. Bernard, Bern. in Cant. serm. 12. Inhu­manè corum re­darguis opera quorum onera refugis: teme­rariè obiurgat rirum de praelio reuertentem mulier nens in domo. Thou dealest vngently to blame the doings of them whose burdens thou refusest: it is rash­nesse for the woman that sitteth spinning in the house, to checke the souldier returning from the warre.Hieron. A­polog. ad Pam­mach. Delicata doctrina est pugnanti ictus dictare de muro.It is a daintie kinde of teaching, saith Hierome, to sit vpon the wall, and to appoint the man in fight, in what maner he shall strike. Consider that thou art but as a beholder and looker on, but I was as hee that felt the blowes, and therefore do not maruell if I were more moued than thou, yea esteeme of me in this businesse by [Page 11]the experience of thine owne affections in that that touch­eth thine owne cause. But I must needs heere intreate thee, gentle Reader, by the way to note how this sweet pē-man carieth himselfe in that kind wherein he obiecteth so great fault to me. The flowers of his speech are; Preface to his second part, sect. 10. Of the same ac­cursed crue was Melancthon; Caluin in his institutions to hell;Reproofe. Pag. 50.craking impudencie, and impudent craking: Pag. 64.a vaine craking iangler, and notorious liar; Pag. 211.deuoid of all good conscience & ho­nest dealing;Pag. 264past all shame, and worthy to be thrust into an Asses skin; Pag. 272.base and bastardly minded Ministers; Pag. 283.cose­ning companions, false hypocrites, most impudent liars;Pag. 281.the spirit that possesseth his heart, to wit, the father of all lies, Pag. 283.he that will be fed with lies let him take the diuell to his father and M. Abbot or some other such like of his lying Ministers to be his master. Nay, the terme of lying is nothing euery where; and it is wonderfull to see what a rare dexterity he hath to multiply lies vpon me, as for example, fiue lies in a place, where indeed there is no lie. Reproofe. Pag. 83. A lie it is, saith he, that I denied to his Maiesty such authority as would serue for the taking order how God might be rightly serued in his Realm; whereas my words are, that he denieth to his Maiesty that supreme gouernment in causes ecclesiasticall whereby he should take vpon him so to doe; which he so far denieth as that a­gainst this Pag. 170. 171. &c. Supremacy he hath said more than of any one matter thorowout his whole booke. What authority he dreameth would otherwise serue so to do, that to me is no­thing. Another lie it is, saith he, that the Popes lawes doe in­hibit Princes to meddle with matters of religion; whereas the law is plaine, Dist. 96. Si imperator. Ad Sacerdotes deus voluit quae ec­clesiae disponen. da sunt perti­nere &c. Non publicis legibus, non a potestati­bus seculi, sed a Pontificibus & sacerdotibus o­pus deus Chri­stianae religionis voluit ordinari. &c. The ordering of matters for the Church God would haue to belong to Priests, not to the secular powers: not by publike lawes, not by secular powers, but by Popes and Priests would God haue the worke of Christian religion to be ordered. Sext. de hae­ret. Quicunque. Inhibemus ne cuiquam laica personae liceat publicè vel pri­uatim de fide Catholica dispu­tare. Qui con­tra fecerit excō ­municationis laqueo innode­tur.We forbid any lay person either publikely or priuately to dis­pute or reason concerning the Catholike faith; he that doth so, let him be excommunicated. Againe he saith: A third lie it is that I affirmed Kings to hold their crownes immediatly from [Page 12]God; but that his foolery may the better appeare he ad­eth; Which though it be true in that sense he taketh it, yet it is false that I said so in that place, for I meddle not with those termes of immediatly or mediatly. So then he saith so, but yet I lie in saying that he saith so, because he saith not so in that place, whereas notwithstanding I neither charge him with mediatly nor immediatly in that place, but onely repeat his owne former words, that of Gods meere grace and bounty Princes receiue and hold their diadems and princely scepters. Yet againe: The fourth lie is that the Pope denieth Princes to hold their Diadems and Princely authority immediatly from God, but are to receiue them by his mediation; whereas the Pope himselfe saith of the Emperour; Auent. An­nal. lib. 6. Im­per ator quod habet, totum habet a nobis. Ecce in potesta­te nostra est im­perium vt de­ [...]us i [...]ud cui volumus, prop­terea constituti à deo super gen­tes & regna vt destruamus & euellamus, & edificemus & plantemus. &c. Ex epist. Adri­ani 4. What he hath, he hath it wholly of vs; the Empire is in our power to giue it to whom we will; being therefore appointed of God ouer nations and Kingdomes, to destroy and to pull vp, to build and to plant. Which words I alledged vsed by Bull a Pij 5. apud Sander. de schism. Anglic. Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth, and applied generally to that purpose by the Extrauag. de maior. & obed. cap. V [...]am san­ctam. De eccle­siastica potesta­te verificatur vatietnium Ie­remiae: Ecce con­stitui te hodie, &c. Decretall of Boniface the eight, and M. Bishop with a wile slily passeth by them and telleth me that I lie; saying withall, that the common opinion of all their Diuines is to the contrary, whereas a number of their Diuines haue published it to the world, that God hath setled the power of all kingdomes immediatly in the Pope, and that the fur­ther disposing of them belongeth to him, as is to be seene in the Large Exa­mination of M. Blackwell. pag. 27. 28. &c. examination of M. Blackwell the Arch-priest, by ma­ny of their speeches to that effect, some of the bookes be­ing approoued and printed in Rome, as containing nothing contrary to the Catholike faith. The fift lie, saith he, that he maketh within the compasse of lesse than halfe a side is, that the Pope saith, By me Kings raigne; whereas notwithstan­ding the Pope saith expresly, concerning the Emperour, Auentin. vt supra. Per not imperat. By me he raigneth; and I further quoted the place where he doth say so, in his booke of ceremonies, which he sup­presseth, as shal appeare anon. Now doest thou not thinke, gentle Reader, that this man hath a great facility in obie­cting [Page 13]lies? And this is his maner thorowout his whole booke, whilest as the drunken man cried, fire, fire, when he saw but the rednesse of his owne nose, so doth he cry out euery while, a lie, a lie, when the lie is no other but a giddy apprehension of his owne distempered braine, be­ing with anger growen so farre into melancholy that he thinketh euery straw that lieth in his way to be a lie. And indeed we know by experience how the subtil thiefe when he is pursued crieth out with all his might, stop the thiefe, stop the thiefe, that whilest he seemeth to cry after another, he himselfe may not be taken to be the thiefe. So it is with M. Bishop, who in policy crieth out vpon me, a lier, a lier, that he in the meane time may lie freely and no man may suspect him. But who the lier is, the processe shall declare, and let him receiue the shame that belongeth therto. In the meane time, whereas for reprochfull words, he hath applied to me those words of Saint Paul, Rom. 3.13. Their throat is an open sepulcher, with their tongues they deale deceitfully, the venime of serpents is vnder their lips, their mouth is full of ma­lediction and bitternesse, &c. I wish him to consider, whe­ther it touch him which is written, Rom. 2.21. Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thy selfe? And againe, Luk. 19.22. Out of thine owne mouth will I iudge thee thou euill seruant. Consider him, I pray thee, gentle Reader, thorowout his whole booke, and thinke with thy selfe whether he be not in this behalfe a sit master for me to be instructed by. As touch­ing that he saith, that Pag. 5. if I hold that course of scurrility, I shall driue him to giue me ouer in the plaine field, I wonder not thereat, not for that I giue him cause by any scurrility of mine to leaue the field, but for that hee seeth a necessity thereof by the badnesse and wretchednesse of a leaud and vnhonest cause, which hee seeth himselfe vnable to de­fend.

6. His next quarrell is, that I cite for confirmation and proofe of any doubt our owne writers, Bale, Fox, Iewel, Hum­phrey, Holinshed, and such other. Now if I doe so, then I am a [Page 14]foole; but if I doe not so, then what is he? Some of them whom he nameth haue compiled stories of former times, collecting what they haue found recorded by others that were before them, whose stories standing vncontrolled, is it not as lawfull for me to cite, as it is for Bellarmine and the rest of his fellowes to cite Tert. & Parsons Respo. ad Apolog. pro iuram. fidelit. Baronius the Cardinall, Blon­dus the Popes secretary, Genebrard, Bellarmin. de notis eccles. cap. 14.15.16. &c. Surius, Cochleus, Staphylus, yea Bolsecke a very infamous runnagate and rakeshame, and such other of the like stampe; or for M. Higgons so often to cite Motiues. Pag. 44. 75. 78. Parsons his three Conuersions? or for Parsons there to cite Three Conuers. pa. 2. cha. 10. Exa­men of Fox his calendar, chap. 16. & passim. Waldensis, Antoninus, Gene­brad, Surius, Prateolus, Sanders and such like; yea to report what he list vpon hearesay from Ibid chap. 12. sect. 15. Sir Francis Inglefield? or for M. Bishop to cite Of Images sect. 20. Bellarmine, Preface 2. part. sect. 13. Caluino-turcismus, Answer to the Aduer. sect. 10. Conrad, Ibid. sect. 46. Ludolph, Of Tradi­tions, sect. 16. Gregory Martin, yea to report to vs a matter out of Preface. 2. part. sect. 8. a conference at Paris vpon his owne word? yea to write vs a whole booke as he hath done vpon the credit of Bellarmine and some other of his owne side? Surely we haue no cause to doubt but that those writers of ours in their relations are men of as great honesty and fi­delity as any of theirs: & though I alledge from them mat­ters of history and fact, or doe perhaps cite a sentence of an author mentioned by one or other, referring the Reader to the reporter because I haue not the prime authours workes at hand to search the original of it; yet very childishly doth M. Bishop conclude heereof, that I make their word a con­firmation or proofe for any point of faith, because I respect not at all what they say, but what they haue said or done whose doings or sayings they report, and their report I cannot but take to be true, so long as I see M. Bishop can say nothing for the disproofe of it. Thus haue I alledged out of Answer to the epistl. sect. 4. pag. 26. Holinshed the epistle of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome to Lucius King of Britaine, not to prooue any mat­ter of question by Holinsheds word, (what wizard would so conceiue?) but to shew by Eleutherius what the duty of a King is towards the Church of God. What a iest is [Page 15]this? saith M. Bishop, how knew this late writer what passed so long before his owne time? But I pray thee, gentle Reader, put the like question to him. He telleth thee in great sad­nesse that Reproofe. Pag. 248. amongst many other pardons granted by S. Gregory (whereof he cannot tell one) there is to be seene vntill this day one altar by him erected in the Monastery of S. Andrews in Rome, whereat whosoeuer saith Masse for a soule in Purga­tory shall deliuer a soule from thence. Say now to him, What a iest is this? how knoweth M. Bishop, a new vpstart writer, what passed so long before his owne time? Would he not, thinkest thou, take pepper in the nose if a man should answer him in this sort? The thing that he reporteth is indeed a very lie, and a tale meerely deuised by themselues, but yet it go­eth for a tradition at Rome, and he will heereupon haue it to be beleeued. But that which Holinshed setteth downe is a matter of record, extant and to be seene in the ancient Inter leges. S. Edwardi. cap. 17. Lambert. de priscis An­glor. legib. lawes of our land, and therefore hath testimony suffici­ent to mooue vs to giue credit vnto it. And that the matter might not rest vpon the silly poore credit, as he speaketh, of Holinshed onely; of whom notwithstanding, I may assure any man that he was a man of much more fidelity and ho­nesty than M. Bishop is, I cited also Stow as a witnesse thereof, a man knowen to haue beene too well affected to the Romish religion, so as that for his partiality that way hee is commonly alledged by themselues as a most au­thenticke authour, specially by Parsons in his three Con­uersions, of purpose by him to thwart M. Fox the vtter­most he can, and therefore of whom M. Bishop cannot doubt but that he found it in good record In lib. Const [...] tut. London. as he professeth to haue done, or else he would haue made no such mention of it. Now what might be the cause that he could heere see Holinshed and could not see Stow, but that he desireth to make some shew of exception, where notwithstanding he himselfe knoweth that iustly he can take none?

7. Now we see that Stow for countries sake findeth more fauour with him than Polydore Virgil, whom I cited as [Page 16]testifying Siricius Bishop of Rome to be Answer to the epistle. sect. 8. pag. 60. a noueller, in for­bidding the mariage of Priests, and he saith that I prooue it by the worshipfull verdict of Polydore Ʋirgil. Surely Poly­dore Virgil was no Protestant, he was a writer of their own and deserued well of them, a man of great learning and knowledge of history, one that would write nothing in fa­uour of vs, and therefore his verdict, in reason and equity, should be strong for vs. Yea that which he wrot, he wrot by the warrant Polyd. Vir­gil. de inuent. rer. lib. 5. cap. 4. Siricius pri­mus sacerdoti­bus & diaconis, vt ait Gratia­nus dist. 82. coniugio inter­dixit. of Gratian, the Collectour of the Decrees, the founder of their Canon Law; and saith no more than the receiued Glosse of the Canon Law mentioneth, as a thing commonly receiued; Dist. 84. Cum in praeterit. in glossa. Dicunt quòd olim sa­cerdotes p [...]te­rant contrahere ant [...] Siricium. Men say that of old, before the time of Siricius, Priests might marry. Being then a man of so good worth, and speaking vpon so good ground, doth M. Bishop with the flout of a worshipful verdict thus scorn­fully turne him off? But it is nothing with him thus to spurne at their owne writers when they stand in his way, and therefore telleth vs afterwards that Matthew Paris the Monke who wrot three hundred yeares ago, Reproofe. Pag. 2 [...]9. did ignorant­ly and saucily reprehend Gregory the seuenth for forbidding men to be present at the Masses of maried Priests; whereas Matth. Paris. in Willielm. 1. ex Chronico Si­geberti, anno dom. 1074. Matthew wrot the conceit and opinion of many that li­ued in that time; and borrowed the same from Sigebert the Monke that liued before him.

8. I come at length to examine how in the processe he maketh good that horrible crimination which he hath ex­pressed in the title of his booke, of my abusing, mangling, misapplying, falsifying, both scriptures and fathers. Now whereas a man in the entrance of this accusation would expect some great and waighty matter which might worke some impression in the Reader, the more strongly to apprehend the rest that followeth, see how coldly hee beginneth for want of better matter, with a ridiculous and childish cauill, that by the very beginning it may be con­ceiued how idlely he carrieth himselfe in his whole dis­course. In my Epistle Epist. dedicat. to the An­swer to D. Bishops epistle. to the Kings Maiesty I noted the [Page 17]necessary vse of the course intended by his Highnesse as touching the answering of the dedications and supplicati­ons of these Popish Proctours, for the discouering of the im­pudency of the petitioners; for the gaining of such as may be gained to the acknowledgment of Gods truth; and that as Saint Bernard saith, though the heretike arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confirmed by the faith. From these words he taketh his example of my misapplying the sentences of the fathers, because Bernard meant not thereby Pag 7. to disswade any man from the Romane faith, and doth in that discourse de­scribe those heretikes to be such as denied Purgatory, and praier for the dead, and inuocation of Saints, &c. Where I pray thee first to obserue, that the words by me alledged import only a phrase of speech, no sentence or argument for proofe. They serue fitly to signifie the thing by me intended, but for any waight they haue one way or other, it had beene all one to haue set them downe as mine owne words without adding Bernards name. And who knoweth it not to be a thing vsuall to borrow the phrases and speeches of Poets, Oratours, Philosophers, yea of heretikes, of schismatikes, of Apocryphall bookes or writings, without respect what they meant that spake them, so long as they fitly expresse the minde of him that vseth them? Bernard meant not by those words to disswade men from the Romane religion: no more did Aratus the Poet meane to disswade men from Paganisme by those words, Acts 17.28. For we are also his generation, the generation of God, and yet Saint Paul vseth them to that purpose. Neither did Menander by those words, 1. Cor. 15.33. Euill words corrupt good maners, intend to reproue them that de­nied the resurrection of the dead, which he himselfe belee­ued not, and yet the same Apostle forbeareth not to turne them that way; and will M. Bishop enter an action against the Apostle for misapplying the Poets words? Neither did Petilian the Donatist meane it well, and yet who doubteth but that by his words it may be truly said: Apud Aug. cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 8. Laqueo tradi­tor perijt, la­queum talibus dereliquit. Iudas the traitour perished with a halter, and to such as himselfe he left [Page 18]the halter. Let M. Bishop take an example of this vsage from M. Higgons their late conuert, who alleaging it to be said of him by the Apostles words, Gal. 5.7. He did run well, who did let him that he did not obey the truth? saith thereto thus; Motiues. booke 2. in the preface. Vnto these men I returne a louing, a faithful and iust answer, founded in the demand of an eminent professour of their Gospell; Will you be any longer led by them who thus grosly abuse you? and noteth in the margent; Doct. Abbot against Doct. Bi­shop part. 2. in fine. These words I vsed to withdraw M. Bishop from the Romish religion, and yet M. Higgons thought that without offense he might take my words to serue him for an answer why he had now embraced the same, presuming it to be the custome of all writers to take words euen out of the aduersaries mouth, and to retort them vpon himselfe; how ill he hath done it I will not heere say. Now therefore in like sort though Saint Bernard had beene mine aduersary professedly writing against me, yea though the words had beene M. Bishop words, yet no­thing could let but that thereby I might thus expresse the benefit of answering their bookes, that, to vse M. Bishops words, though the heretike arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confirmed in the faith. But the words as they are deliuered by Saint Bernard doe serue fully and directly to that purpose whereto I applied them. He handleth that which is said in the Canticles, Cant. 2.15. Take vs the Foxes; where by Bernard. in Cant. Ser. 64. Vulpes haereses vel potius haere­ticos ipsos intel­ligamus. Capi­antur non armis sed argumentis quibus refellan­tur errores co­rum, ipsi verò si fieri potest reconcilientur Catholicae, re­uocentur ad ve­ram fidem, &c. Homo de eccle­sia exercitatus & doctus si cum haeretico homine disputa­re aggreditur, ille intentionem suam dirigere debet quatenus ita errantem conuincat vt & conuertat, &c. Nec propterea sanè nihil se egisse putet qui haereticum vicit & conuicit, hae­reses confuta­uit, verisimilia a vero clarè a­perte (que) distinxit &c. nam etsi hae­reticus non surrexit de faece, tamen ecclesia confirmatur in fide. Foxes, hee vnderstandeth generally all heretikes which annoy and trouble the Church of God; whom he will haue to be taken, not with weapons but with arguments whereby to refute their errours, that so they may be reconciled to the Catholike Church, and recalled to true faith. He saith, that he that disputeth with an heretike should propound to him­selfe to conuince his errour that so he may conuert him, and thereupon to take away all obiection of losing his labour therein, he addeth, that though he will not be conuerted, yet hee that hath conquered and conuicted him is not to thinke he [Page 19]hath done no good; for though the heretike, saith he, arise not from his filth, yet the Church is confirmed in the faith: which is fully answerable to the drift of my speech where I vsed the same words. What, will he tell vs that he is not the he­retike, and therefore the words are misapplied? But then I will deride his folly that chargeth me with misapplication onely vpon his owne conceit of the point in question. He saith, I am the heretike, & I say that he is so. He saith it only, but prooueth it not, but he himselfe standeth by me conui­cted of many hereticall positions and doctrines deliuered in his epistle and otherwise in his booke, so as that he can­not finde how to trauerse the euidence thereof. Yea but S. Bernard, in that very place, describeth those heretikes to be such as denied Purgatory and praier for the dead, &c. But M. Bishop therein saith vntruly; for Bernard in that place speaketh of heretikes in general, as I haue shewed, and ther­fore leaueth his words to be applied to M. Bishop, who doth patronise and defend so many wicked and damnable heresies. True it is, that in the two sermons following he speaketh particularly of some heretikes in his time, and no­teth them for some points by M. Bishop set down, as name­ly Purgatory, and praier for the dead; but those matters he bringeth in a great way after in the end of the second Ser­mon, and we doubt whether for those onely without grea­ter cause he would haue noted them for heretikes, in as much as Petrus Cluniacensis, Bernards equall, doth testifie as the Centurists haue obserued, Magdeburg. Centur. 12. cap. 5. pag. 839. Pe­trus Cluniacen­sis ter in ea ipsa epistola fatetur Catholicos quos­dam de sacrifi­cijs & orationi­bus pro defun­ctis dubitare. that some Catholikes did then doubt of sacrifices and praiers for the dead, and conse­quently of Purgatory, which dependeth thereon. He no­teth them for other points wherein they are more like to the Papists than to vs, as namely, first, that Bernard. in Cantic. ser. 65. Firmauerunt si­bi sermonem nequam, Iura, periura, secre­tum prodere no­li. &c. Quod immobili iure sancitū est, non peierandum sci­licet, hoc tan­quam indiffe­rens pro sua vo­luntate dispen­sant. they dispensed with themselues to sweare and forsweare for the concealing of their owne secrets, as now the Iesuites and Priests, by their equiuocation and mentall reseruation teach their pupils to do. They Ibid. Contu­bernio faemina­rū nemo inter eos qui careat. &c. Vxornè tua? Non, inquit: nam voto meo istud non conue­nit. & ser. 66. In operimentum turpitudinis cō ­tinentiae se insig­niere voto: por­rò turpitudinem in solis existi­mant vxoribus reputandam. vowed continency, but yet would not be without the company of women, yea their vow of continency was but for [Page 20]the couering of their filthines, thereby forbearing marriage as vncleane, but in the meane time committing fornication, as Popish Priests and Votaries are accustomed to doe. Ibid. Quidam dissentientes ab alijs inter solos virgines matri­monium contra­hi posse faten­tur. Some of them permitted the first marriage, but the second marri­age they held vnlawfull, and the Church of Rome now denieth to it their sacramentall benediction. They also condemned the eating of flesh, as a thing vncleane, as the Maniches did; they thought they might euery day at their owne tables consecrate for themselues the body and bloud of Christ; they derided the baptising of infants: which things, with other like, were such as might iustly moue S. Bernard to inueigh against them. And these things hee spake as he was aduertised concerning them of whom hee spake; but whether hee were truely aduertised it may bee doubted, because he himselfe saith, that not onely Ser. 66. in fine. Non solum laici principes sed & quidam, vt dicitur, de Clero necno [...] de ordine Episcopo­rum eos susti­nent. Princes of the laity, but some also of the Clergy and of the Bishops were fauourers of them; which it is not likely they would haue beene, if they had beene men so ill conditioned as he reporteth them, howsoeuer he vpon an vnlikely rale im­pute it to their taking bribes of them. As for those matters which M. Bishop nameth, it is no wonder that Bernard li­uing in a time of so great corruption and declination of Christian faith were somewhat intangled in the superstiti­ons of that time; wonder it is rather, that in the most mate­riall points therof which most neerely concerne our iustifi­cation and eternall life, he continued so sincere and sound as we finde he did. Who although he had a conceit that the church of Rome should not erre in faith, as M. Bishop alleadgeth out of his Epistle to Innocentius, yet if he liued now would disclaime that conceit, because he should see the church of Rome oppugning that Doctrine of the imputa­tion of righteousnesse by Christ which he maintaineth at large in that epistle, as I haue Of Iustifica­tion, sect. 6.8. before cited him in the hand­ling of that point. Yea in sundry points from place to place I haue shewed how Bernard fully accordeth with vs, and condemneth the doctrine which the church of Rome hath [Page 21]since drawen out of the puddles of her owne schooles; so that howsoeuer hee were misted with some superstitious fancies, yet that letteth not, but that by his iudgement, M. Bishop is one of those heretikes against which hee would haue the church cōfirmed in the faith. For his further cen­sure of the Bishop & church of Rome, I refer the Reader to that which hath been before said in the second part, pa. 70, 72. For conclusion of this point, I note how in answering my Epistle to the King, he taketh the same exception of misapplication to two other sentences borrowed by mee from S. Austin. The one is prefixed vnder the title of the booke: Answer to the Epistle. ex August. de ciu. Dei. lib. 2. cap. 1. Eorum dicta contraria si to­ties refellere velimus, quo­ties obnixa fronte statue­runt non curare quid dicant dum quocun (que) modo nostris disputationibus contradicant, infinitum esset. If we would so often refute their gainsayings, as they resolue with impudent faces not to care what they say, so that they may in any sort contradict what we say, there should be no end. Forsooth, S. Austin pronounced this against infidels, and with what countenance could M. Abbot cite it against vs Christians, which in S. Austins meaning concerneth vs not? Forsoorth, M. Bishop, because S. Austins words of those Infidels do sitly expresse the dealings of such Christians as you be, wh [...]se peruersnesse and wilfull obstinacie in error is such [...] howsoeuer plainly your vntrueths be re­prooue [...]d conuinced, yet you verifie of your selues those other words of S. Austin, concerning other such Christians as you be; Aug. de bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 2. c. 13. Malunt peruersis voci­bus veritati re­luctari quàm confessis errori­bus paci resti­tui. They chuse rather with froward words to striue against the trueth, than by the confession of their errors to be restored to Christian peace. In the Epist dedi­cat. to the an­svver to Doct. Bishops epist. other place, mentioning M. Bishops threatning the King, that if he did not yeeld to them, God knowes what that forcible weapon of necessity would driue men vnto at length, I said, that they thereby verified in themselues that which S. Austin said of their predecessours the Donatists; Where they can­not by slie and wily cosenage creepe like Aspes, there with open professed violence they rage like Lions. Heere M. Bishop no­teth, that both this sentence and the former out of Bernard, I set downe in general, not quoting the very place, because I knew they made nothing for my purpose. But I would [Page 22]haue him to note, that I penned that Preface being from my bookes, and though I did well remember the words, yet I could not by memorie particularly note the place. But the words, he saith, are not to my purpose, because they were pronounced against the Donatists. Yes, they are there­fore to my purpose, because as they serued to expresse the vsage of the Donatists of old, so they serue to set foorth the vsage of Popish Donatists and Circumcellions now. S. Austin compareth heretikes to Aspes, and telleth that August. in Psal. 57. Aspi­des insidiosè vo­lunt venena immittere & spargere. Aspes lurkingly seeke to thrust in their poison and to di­sperse the same. This he applieth to the Donatists, and de­claring how Christian Emperours by barring them from the vse of Churches, resisted them in that course, he shew­eth how these proceedings were iustified against the Do­natists, by the example of the Donatists dealings amongst themselues, so as that their mouthes were stopped, & they had not to plead further for themselues. Ibid. Non est quod responde­ant, &c. Ideo (que) vbi non possunt lubrica fallacia serpere vt aspi­des, aperta vio­lentia fremunt vt leones: profi­liunt & saeui­unt armatae turbae Circum­cellionum, dant stragem quan­tam possunt. And therefore, saith he, where they cannot by their wiles and subtilties creepe like Aspes (to spread their poison, being by lawes restrain­ed from their wil) there by open violence they rage like Lions; the troupes of Circumcellions come foorth armed, and they murther and kill all that they can. Now doe not these words fitly agree to M. Bishop and his fellowes? who because they cannot be suffered like Aspes to spread the poison of their hereticall corruptions, do fall therefore to raging and threatning, to practises of surprising and blowing vp with gunpowder, and if they durst, to open tumulting, and in the meane time saying, both M. Bishop, and his fa­ther and fellow Parsons, for they are both in one note, that patience often prouoked is turned into furie, heereby to im­print in their followers, that it is no wonder being so hard­ly dealt with as they pretend, that they take their oppor­tunitie to play the Lions, to rauen vpon them by whom they are so ill intreated, that so howsoeuer they cleere it for the time as M. Bishop doth, yet they may haue them in affection prepared when time shall serue; though their Reproofe pag 30. Par­sons Answer to the Apolo­gie for the oth of allegi­ance, pag. vlt. [Page 23]eies, I hope, shall rotte the while, and they shall neuer see it serue? But heere is to be noted that he saith, that those words may be applied to the Lutherans in Germany, and Protestants in England. But how I pray, M. Bishop, seeing S. Austin knew them not nor meant any thing of them? He will haue it thought, because the Lutherans and Protestants doe in like maner as the Donatists did. But then, M. Bishop, I pray you vnderstand, that the words of Austin concerning those Pagans and Donatists are not misapplied to you, when you carrie your selfe in the like sort as did the Pagans and Donatists, or else by your owne crooked rule you haue a­bused S. Austins words, which you apply to me; Preface to the Reproofe pag. 16. ex August. cont. Gaudent. lib. 1. cap. 19. Nihil affert praeter lassum & quassum. He bring­eth nothing but what is weared and spent, because Austin spake those words against Gaudentius the Donatist, and I am not Gaudentius.

9. Another tricke no lesse shamefull, he obiecteth to me in misconstruing the words of the fathers. He maketh it to be but Answer to the Epistle, sect. 12. pag. 103. 104. a fable of mine, that Gregory the Bishop of Rome com­mended the zeale of Serenus Bishop of Massilia, who could not endure that any thing should be worshiped that is made with hands, or did tell him that he should forbid the people the wor­shipping of them. But what will M. Bishop say that Gregory did? Marry, Preface to the Reproofe pag. 8: he 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 well in­structed in the Christian religion did adore them as if they had beene Gods. Well, let Gregory tell his owne tale, and then doe thou, gentle Reader, iudge thereof. Greg. li. 7. ep. 109. Indico du­dum ad nos per­uenisse quòd fraternitàs ve­stra quosdam imaginum ado­ratores aspici­ens easdem ec­clesiae imagines confregit at (que) proiecit. Et qui­dem zelum vos nequid manu factum adorari possit, habuisse laudauimus, sed frangere easdem imagi­nes non debu­isse iudicamus. Iderirco enim pictura in ec­clesiis adhibetur vt hi qui literas nesciunt saltem in parietibus videndo legant quae legere in codicibus non valent. Tua ergò fraternitas & illas seruare & ab earum adoratu populum pro­hibere debuit, quatenus & literarum nescij haberent vnde scientiam historiae colligerent, & populus in picturae adoratione minimè peccaret. I certifie you, saith he to Serenus, that it came of late to our hearing that your brotherhood beholding some worshipping images, did breake the same Church-images and threw them away. And surely I com­mended you that you had that zeale, that nothing made with [Page 24]hands should be worshipped; but yet I iudge that you should not haue broken those images; for therefore is the picture vsed in the church, that they who are not learned by booke, may yet by sight read vpon the wals those things which they cannot read in bookes. Therefore your brotherhood should both preserue the images and forbid the people the worshipping of them, that both the ignorant may haue whence to gather the knowledge of the history, and the people may not sinne in the worshipping of the picture. In the other epistle written of the same matter he wisheth Serenus, Idem li. 9. ep. 9. Conuocandi sunt dispersi ec­clesiae filij eis (que) Scripturae sacrae est testimonijs ostendendum, quia omne ma­nufactum ado­rare non liceat, quoniam scrip­tum est, Domi­num deum tu­um adorabis & illi soli seruies. to gather together againe the Children of the Church, who vpon offense of breaking those images had withdrawen themselues from him, and to shew vnto them by testimonies of Scriptures, that it is not lawfull to worship a­ny thing that is made with hands, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him onely thou shalt serue. Now compare the words of my answer with these words of Gregory, and see whether I say any thing but what he saith. Consider where thou maist finde those skiruie shifts, of late conuerted heathens, and of worshipping images as Gods, seeing Gregory saith nothing of worshipping them as Gods, but meerely and only of worshipping them, affirming, that worship by the testimony of scripture belongeth to God only. Yea it is to be noted, that M. Bishop himselfe con­firmeth the same by the words of Gregory which he ci­teth, but that I know not how he is blind and seeth not his owne way. Gregor. ibid. Frangi non de­buit quod non adorandum in ecclesiis, sed ad instruendas so­lummodò men­te [...] fuit nescien­tium colloca­tum. Gregory, saith he, telleth him plainly that that should not be broken which was not set vp in the Church to be adored, but onely to instruct the ignorant. Marke what he saith; only to instruct the ignorant. Surely if they be set there to be worshipped, then not onely to instruct the ignorant; if onely to instruct the ignorant, then they are not to be wor­shipped. Therfore he absolutely opposeth the one to the other, not to be adored, but only to instruct the ignorant, which cannot stand if it be true which M. Bishop saith, that in a­ny maner or meaning they be to be adored. Yet he telleth vs, that though S. Gregory forbid images to be adored as Gods, [Page 25]yet doth he teach them to be worshipped as representations of most holy personages. But how may this appeare? Marry, by his letters, saith he, to Secundinus, to whom he sent the images of our Sauiour, of the blessed Ʋirgin Mary, and of Pe­ter and Paul. It is true indeed that Secundinus sent to Gre­gory for the picture of Christ, and Gregory sent it him; signifying to him, that his request did greatly please him; be­cause, saith he, thou louest him with all thy heart and whole intention, whose image thou desirest to haue before thine eies. Withall hee sent him those other pictures which M. Bi­shop speaketh of. So then heere we haue pictures and ima­ges, and thereof we make no scruple, but we haue yet no­thing for the worshipping of them. For the affirming wher­of, M. Bishop heere very impudently abuseth his Reader by false translation. For the words of Gregory are thus: Greg. lib. 7. ep. 54 Scio quidem quòd imaginem saluatoris no­stri non ideò petis vt quasi deum colas, sed ob recordatio­nem filij dei vt in eius amore recalescas cuius te imaginem vi­dere consideras. Et nos quidem non quasi ante diuinitatem an­te illam proster­nimur, sed illū adoramus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum sed & in throno seden­tem recorda­mur: & dum nobis ipsa pictu­ra quasi scrip­tura ad memo­riam silium dei reducit, animū nostrum aut de resurrectione latificat aut de passione demul­ [...]et. I know verily that thou doest not therefore desire the image of our Sauiour that thou maiest worship it as God, but for a re­membrance of the sonne of God, that thou maiest become fer­uent in his loue, whose image thou considerest thy selfe to behold. And we verily fall not downe before it as before the Godhead, but we worship him, whom by the image we remember, either as borne, or hauing suffered, or now sitting vpon his throne. And whilest the picture, as it were a writing, bringeth to our remem­brance the Sonne of God, either it reioyceth our minde as touch­ing his resurrection, or appeaseth it by his passion. Now wher­as Gregory saith; We doe not fall downe or cast downe our selues before it as before the Godhead, M. Bishop readeth; We doe cast downe our selues before the said Image, not as be­fore a Godhead. And so he vnderstandeth the former words, Thou worshippest the image, but thou doest not worship it as a God, taking the particle (as) to import a distinction of the variety of worship, which is onely an exemplification of the propriety thereof. For Gregory hath no meaning to instruct Secundinus to worship the image or to kneele to it which we see before is the thing he wholly condemneth, but willeth him to vnderstand that these deuotions belong [Page 26]to God onely, and therefore that he must beware not to put the image in the place of God to doe to it those duties of religious humiliation, which are proper to God alone. For as when I say of another man, I will not kneele to him as to the king, I doe not meane that I will kneele to him, though not in that maner as to the king; but whereas of du­tie I kneele to the king, I will not kneele to him: so when Gregory saith to Secundinus, that he is not to worship the image as God, or to kneele before it as before God, he meaneth not that hee is to worship the image or kneele before it, though not in that maner as before God, but that this duty belongeth onely to God, and is not to be performed to the image. And that this may appeare to be Gregory his true meaning, and not any glosse of mine, it is vndeniably con­firmed by Gregory himselfe, where for conclusion of his instructions giuen to Serenus for the quieting of his peo­ple, he saith thus: Idē. l. 9. ep. 9. Si quis imagi­nes facere volu­erit, minimè prohibe: adora­re verò imagi­n [...] omnibus modis deuita: sed hoc solicitè fraternitas tua admoneat vt ex visione rei gestae ardorem com­punctiunis per­cipiant & in adoratione soli­us omnipotentis sanctae Trinita­tis humilitèr prosternantur. If any man will make images, forbid him not; but by all meanes auoid the worshipping of images: but this let your brotherhood carefully aduertise them, by the sight of the story to gather feruency of compunction, but humbly to fall downe or kneele in the worship of the holy Trinity onely. Now if he so forbid the worshipping of images, as that he reserueth kneeling or casting downe our selues onely to the worship of the holy Trinity, let it be esteemed with what conscience it is that M. Bishop saith, that he approoueth the worshipping of images, euen so farre foorth as to kneele before them. Albeit out of the very words themselues, the thing is manifest; for if Gregory had intended that images though they were not to be worshipped as Gods, yet were in other sort to be worshipped, hee would by the aduersatiue haue opposed worship to worship, to expresse what that sort of worship should be, whereas now he setteth worship on the one side, and onely remembrance on the other side, not to worship but for remembrance; not to fall downe before it, but to worship Christ, whom we remember by it, still appropriating worship to God, but attributing nothing to the image saue [Page 27]to be put in minde thereby of him whom it doth repre­sent. Surely a senslesse thing it is to imagine that hee who would not haue images to be worshipped as gods, and yet would haue them to be worshipped, should neuer direct in what sort they should be worshipped, but teach absolute­ly as we haue seene, by all means to auoid the worshipping of them. M. Bishop saith, that he hath diuers other places to make good that meaning of Gregory: but he abuseth his Reader therein; hee hath not one place more whereby to make any shew of it, and therfore I hope it plainly appear­eth, that I haue not wrongfully alleaged Gregories words, but haue iustly affirmed that he in this point directly cros­seth the doctrine and practise of the now-church of Rome.

10. In the next place he chargeth me with the falsifying of Epiphanius, which yet he could not hansomely do, but that he must first play a false tricke with me. The originall of this matter is from Hierome, who inueighing against certaine bishops of Spaine, as I take it, for that they would admit none to be priests or deacons, except they were first married, detesting as it seemeth the horrible fruits of forced single life, alleageth in preiudice of them the examples of other Churches, namely the Churches of the East; none else saue onely the Churches of Egypt and Rome. Against this allegation of Hierome concerning the Easterne Churches, I say, Answer to the Epistle sect. 8. pag. 62. that Socrates who wrote his storie within lesse than twentie yeeres after the death of Hierom, Socrat. hist. lib. 5. cap. 21. Id adeò cùm omnes illustres presby­teri in Oriente, & episcopi etiā, modò ipsi volu­erint, nulla lege coacti ab vxori­bus abstineant; nam non pauci illorum, dum episcopatum ge­runt, etam libe­ros ex vxore le­gitima procre­ant.affirmeth of those Easterne Churches (which Epiphanius also an Easterne Bi­shop euen in the time of Hierome, of some parts thereof ac­knowledgeth) that the Priests and Bishops thereof were not forced by any law to forbeare their wiues, and that many of them whilest they were Bishops had children borne vnto them of their lawfull married wiues. Now marke I pray thee gen­tle Reader, the bad dealing of this vntowardly wrangler; for whereas I rest the maine report heereof vpon Socrates, to Socrates he saith nothing, standing conuicted heereby, that all the Omnes illu­stres presbyteri. famous Priests of the East, and the Bishops al­so [Page 28]at their discretion had their wiues, and being bishops did beget children of them. Againe, whereas I alleage Epipha­nius onely as a party-witnesse, he peruerteth my words, as if I made him a witnesse of the whole. Hee setteth downe my words thus: Epiphanius an Easterne bishop, saith M. Abbot, euen in the time of Hierome, acknowledgeth for true those words of Socrates, that the Priests and Bishops thereof were not forced by any law to forbeare their wiues, &c. where­as I say by a parenthesis only thus, which Epiphanius also an Easterne Bishop euen in the time of Hierome of some parts thereof acknowledgeth. The difference is this, that whereas Socrates affirmeth the matter generally of the East, I al­leage Epiphanius testifying it onely of some places thereof, though not concerning bishops, as M. Bishop excepteth, yet concerning Priests and Deacons, which was sufficient for my purpose, because Hierome against whom I obiected it, spake onely of Priests and Deacons. Albeit he doth not wholly except Bishops, because saying, that Epiphan. haer. 59. sed & ad­huc viuentem & liberos gig­nentem vntus vxoris virum non suscipit, &c. diaconum & presbyerum, & episcopum, & hypodiaco­num; maxime vbi synceri sunt canones eccle­siastici. the Church receiueth not (amongst the rest) a bishop that liueth still the husband of one wife, and begetteth children, he addeth this limitation, specially where the ecclesiasticall Canons be syncere or exact. Hee denieth not then but that bishops also were married and begat children, but he excepteth that it was not so, where the ecclesiasticall Canons were syncere and exact. Vpon this he addeth; Ibid. At dices mihi, omninò in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gignere & pres­byteros, & dia­conos, & hypo­diaconos. At hoc non est inxta Canonem, sed iuxta hominum mentem, quae per tempus elanguit, & propter multi­tudinem quum non inuenire­tur ministeriū. But thou wilt say vnto mee, that in some places Priests and Deacons and Subdeacons do still beget children: He answereth; But this is not according to the Canon, but according to the minde of men, which in time hath fainted, and for number sake when there were not found to perform the ministery. So then he iustifieth that that I affirm­ed, that Priests and Deacons in some places were married and did beget children, this being yeelded to the frailty of mens mindes, and for the supplying of the ministery, though it were not according to the Canon. M. Bishop presseth this, that Epiphanius testifieth, that the Ecclesiasticall Canons had decreed otherwise; but the question is not, what was [Page 29]decreed by I know not what Canons, but what by pra­ctise in some places was done. The thing that I affirme is, that some places admitted no such Canons, but their Priests and Deacons and Subdeacons, were married men. Albeit it were worth the while to know of M. Bishop what Canons those were, & whence, which Epiphanius speaketh of. For there was before that time no generall Councell holden but only the Councel of Nice, and the Councel of Nice though some motion were made to bring in Socr. hist. ec­cles. li. 2. cap. 8. Visum erat epis­copis legem no­uam in ecclesi­am introducere vt qui [...]ss [...]nt sa­cris initiati, sicut episcopi, presbyteri & diaconi, cum vxoribus, quas cùm erant laici in matrimoniū duxissent, mini­mè dormirent, &c. Paphnu­tius vehementer vociferatus est, non graue iugū ceruicibus illo­rum imponendū esse qui erant sacris initiati, honorabile esse coniugium inter omnes & thorū immaculatum &c. viri cum legitima vxore concubitum ca­stimoniam appellarit. a new law, as Socra­tes calleth it, to separate Bishops, Priests and Deacons from the company of their wiues, yet gaue it ouer vpon the ad­uertisment of Paphnutius, earnestly crying out that it was too heauy a yoke to be laid vpon the Clergy, that marriage is hono­rable in all, and the bed vndefiled, that the company of a man with his owne wife is chastity. Yea there was an ancient Ca­non vnder the name of the Apostles: Canon. Apost. 6. Episcopus vel presbyter, vel diaconus vxorem suam ne eijciat religionis praetextu: sin fecerit, segregetur; & si perseueret deponatur. Let not any Bishop, Priest or Deacon, put away his wife vnder colour of religion; if he doe so, let him be excommunicated; if he continue therein, let him be deposed. Which Canon, though abbridged in res­pect of Bishops, yet concerning Priests and Deacons is re­nued in the sixt Councel in Trullo, where those fathers pro­fessing Constantinopol. 6. in Trull. can. 13. Nos antiquum Canonem Apostolicae perfectionis ordinis (que) seruantes hominum qui sunt in sacris coniugia deinceps ex hoc temporis momento firma & stabilia esse volumus, ne­quaquam eorum cum vxoribus coniunctionem dissoluentes, vel eos mutua tempore conuenienti consuetudine priuantes. Quamobrem siquis dignus inuentus fuerit qui hypodiaconus, diaconus, vel presbyter ordinetur, is ad talem gradum assumi nequaquam prohibeatur si cum legitima vxore cohabitet. sed ne (que) ordinationis tempore ab eo postuletur vt profiteatur se à legitima cum vxore consuetudine abstenturum, &c. siquis ergò praeter Apostolicos Canones incitatus sit aliquem eorū qui sunt in sacris, presbyterorum, vel diaconorum, vel hypodiaconorum coniunctione cum legiti­ma vxore & consuetudine priuare, deponatur: similitèr & siquis presbyter vel diaconussuam vxorem pietatis praetextu eiecerit, segregetur, &c. to obserue the old Canon of Apostolike perfection and order doe decree, that the marriages of Clergy men shall from thenceforth continue firme and good, and say, that they will not dissolue their coniunction with their wiues, or depriue them of their mutuall company in time conuenient. Wherefore if any, [Page 30]say they, be found worthy to be made a Subdeacon or Deacon or Priest, let him not be put backe though he dwell with his lawfull wife; neither let it be required of him in the time of his ordi­nation to professe that he will abstaine from hauing lawfull com­pany with his wife. If therefore any contrary to the Apostolike Canons shall be mooued to depriue any Priest, Deacon, or Sub­deacon of the company of his lawfull wife, let him be deposed; and if any Priest or Deacon shall put away his wife vnder pre­tence of religion, let him be excommunicated; and if he so per­seuere, let him be deposed. Now if these were ancient Ca­nons of Apostolike perfection and order, as the Councell telleth vs, then it was an errour in Epiphanius to account those Canons sincere and perfect that were contrary to these. They were, it seemeth, some positiue and locall con­stitutions to which he referreth his speech, which as they were in some places accepted, so in other were reiected, but neither the Apostles nor any generall Councel had pre­scribed any such Canons to be vsed in the Church. Now therefore I haue lost nothing by Epiphanius, because he plainly saith that for which I alledged him; neither hath M. Bishop gained by him any thing against me, because he can giue vs no authority for the Canons which Epiphanius nameth for him, and we giue him very good authority for other Canons that are against him.

11. But in this matter of falsifications M. Bishop yet meaneth to shew himselfe more false. I obiected it Answer to the Epistle, sect. 14 p. 122. as a horrible impiety written in their law, that they stile the Pope, Our Lord God the Pope. He saith that heerein is Reproofe in the Pre­face. pag. 10. a double lie. First, for that I auouch that to stand in the Law which is onely written in the Glosse. But is he so nice and strict in his tearmes that he neuer calleth Law but onely the text of Law? Surely we call those Law bookes wherein matters of Law are handled, although there be no text of Law. And might not I say that was written in their Law which is written in the Glosse, that is the exposition of their Law, and which by authority amongst them is alwaies printed [Page 31]together with the law? Albeit what I meant by the Law I expressed my selfe by setting downe the quotation thus, Extrauag. Ioan. 22. cap. Cum inter. in Glossa. Yea but the more shamefull lie is, that it standeth not in the glosse neither, but I bely both the one and the other. Where I confesse to thee, gentle Reader, that I thought that by their new edi­tions he had had some aduantage against me. I had read the words as I cited them long agoe in a faire print of the Ca­non Law, in the library of the Church of Worcester. Now when I saw M. Bishop thus confidently auouching that I belied them, I thought vndoubtedly that euen for shame in their latter impressions they had altered those words, ne­uer imagining that he would be so shamelesse as to charge me with belying them in a thing apparent to the sight of euery man. Thus I meant in simplicity to haue passed it, with referring the Reader to the old books, though it were changed in the new. But now I pray thee to doe the same that in the end for more assurance I thought good to doe. Looke to their edition of the Canon Law printed at Paris, Anno. Dom. 1601. and there thou shalt finde it still as I ci­ted it; Extrauag. Ioan. 22. cap. Cum inter. in glossa Parisiis. Anno dom. 1601 Cum priuilegio Gregorij 13. & aliorum princi­pum. Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam sic non po­tuisse statuere, &c. haereticum censeretur. To beleeue that our Lord God the Pope might not so decree, should be accoun­ted heresie. Now whether shall we thinke heere to be more impudent, the Pope or M. Bishop? Surely the Popes sin is the greater, who by Optat. lib. 3. Passus est ho­mines per se sie iurare tanquam per deum: in quo si vnus­quis (que) hominū errauerat, ipse prohibere debu­erat; cùm non prohibuit, deus sibi visus est. Optatus his argument, because he doth not forbid this stile, taketh vpon him to be our Lord God the Pope. M. Bishop hath some grace to be ashamed of it, but little grace hath he to deny that which is so open for euery man to see. By the hardnesse of his forehead in this thou maiest take occasion to esteeme what hee is in all the rest.

12. Againe he saith, that it is Answer to the Epistle, sect. 13. p. 119. a lie which I cite out of the Decretals, that they say the Pope is not a meere man. The words are, Decretal. Greg. de tran­slat. episc. Quantò. Non puri hominis sed veri Dei vicem gerit in ter­ris. Where I doubted not but that by a phrase of speech [Page 32]often vsed where the word of double gouernement hath his proper signification onely in respect of the latter, not of the former which it gouerneth, the meaning is that he hath not the condition of a meere man but is the vicar of the true God. And this meaning is elsewhere confirmed where it is said, that Sext. proaem. inglossa. Osten­ditur per muta­tion m [...]nomi­nis facta muta­tio hominis: cùm enim pr [...]ùs esset purus ho­mo, nunc vicem veri deige [...]it interris. by the changing of the Popes name is imported the changing of the man; for where he was before a meere man, now he is Gods vicar vpon the earth; leauing it to be vnder­stood, that therefore now he is not a meere man. But yet because I knew they might make another construction of those words, I would not thereupon rest the proofe of that that I said, that the Canonists perswaded the Pope that he was not a meer man, but added for that purpose their noble verse whereby they say to the Pope, Clement. Pro­oem. in gl [...]ssa. Nec deus es, nec ho­mo; quasi neuter [...]es inter vtrunque; Thou art neither God nor man, but as it were a neuter or mungrell betwixt both; euen as elsewhere it is said, Dist. 96. Constantinus in glossa. In hac parte Papa non est homo sed vicarius dei. The Pope in this behalfe is not a man but the vicar of God. Tell vs now, M. Bishop, did I lie or not? or doe not you rather dally with your Reader in cauilling thus vainely at one place, when you saw the thing that I said purposely iustified by another? Surely you take a wrong course; this is not the way to recouer the credit that you desire.

13. His next quarrell is concerning a place of Beda. I alledge out of him, that Answer to the epistle sect. 31. pag. 199.in his time the Scriptures were in foure seueral languages of so many seueral nations in this Iland, beside the Latin tongue common to them all, thereout to search the knowledge of Gods truth. This he saith, is a lie also, but to perswade his Reader that it is so, he leaueth out the words wherein I conceiued the proofe to stand. The words of Beda are these: Beda hist. ec­cles. gent. Ang­lor. lib. 1 cap. 1. Haec in praesenti iuxtra nume­rum librorum quibus lex di­ [...]ina scripta est quin (que) gentium linguis vnam candem (que) sum­mae veritatis & verae sublimita­tis scientiam scrutatur & confitetur, Anglorum vi­delicet Brito­num, Scotorum, Pictorum & Latinorum, quae meditatione scirpturarum facta est omnium communis. This Iland at this present according to the number of bookes wherein the Law of God is written, doth in the languages of fiue Nations search and confesse one and the same knowledge of the highest truth, and of true sublimity or height, namely of the English, the Britons, the Scots, the Picts, [Page 33]and the Latines, which by meditation of the Scriptures is be­come common to all the rest. Where I confesse that in those words, according to the number of bookes wherein the law of God is written, I vnderstood Beda his meaning to be, that they studied Gods truth according to the Canonical Scrip­tures which are contained in a certaine number of bookes; not conceiuing, such was then my dulnesse, that it might be taken, that as the Law of God is written by Moses in fiue bookes, so this Iland, in fiue languages, did study and search the knowledge of Gods truth; which in further waighing the words I since considered. Now M. Bishop to shew his fidelity, leaueth out those words, imagining that the Reader might perhaps take my first meaning to be as likely as this latter. These be S. Bedes wordes, saith he; This Iland at that time did study and confesse one and the same know­ledge of truth (of the highest truth he should haue said) in fiue sundry languages. But if he had meant honesty, and plaine dealing, he would not haue done thus; he would haue set downe the words, and left them to the consideration of the Reader, that it might appeare what it was that might in­duce me to that that I affirmed thereupon. Albeit, setting those words aside, I would aske him, and he indeed should heere haue told vs, how this Iland should in fiue languages study and search the knowledge of the highest truth, if they had not in fiue languages the bookes of the highest truth? Tell vs M. Bishop, we desire to know of you, and if you would needes answer the place, you should haue declared it, how they should study the highest truth without hauing the bookes of the highest truth? And that they had so, we cannot doubt, because it was said by Theodor [...]tlong before, Theodoret. de enrand. Graecor. affectib. lib. 5. Hebraici libri non modò in Graecum idio­ma conuersi sunt, sed in Ro­manam quoque linguam, Ae­gyptiam. &c. semelque vt di­cam in linguas [...]mnes quibus omnes gentes in hunc diem vtun­tur. that the bookes of the old Testament were translated, no [...] one­ly into the Greeke tongue, but also the Latine, Aegyptian, Per­sian, Indian Armenian, Scythian, & all tongues which all Nati­ons vsed at that time. But of that that Beda saith, that the La­tine tongue by meditation of the Scriptures became common to the rest, M. Bishop maketh a very poore and simple colle­ction, [Page 34] that they needed not to haue learned the Latin tongue for the studying of the Scriptures if the Scriptures had beene trans­lated into their owne mother languages. As if he should say, that because we haue the scriptures now translated into our English tongue, therefore we need not for the studying of the Scriptures learne the Latine, Greeke, and Hebrew tongues. The absurdity of which connexion is such, as that we may thinke M. Bishop out of his wits that would so much disgrace himselfe as to be the authour of it.

14. Another notorious vntruth and most malicious slander, he saith, I cast out against Austin the Moonke, whom he tearmeth our English Apostle, of whom I say in my answer, that Answer to the Epistle, sect. 31. p. 198. he being offended at the bishops of the Britons, for that they refused to be subiect to his Romish authority, prouoked against them Ethelbert, then King of Kent, by whose procurement an army of Infidels was sent to slay them, who cruelly and vnmerci­fully performed the slaughter, not sparing them who in their shirts came foorth to them to intreat mercy. For the iustifying wherof, he saith, I can produce no ancient authour, but am glad to shroud my selfe vnder an old namelesse Chronicle cited by the Arch-liar and late partiall writer Iewel. I doe not maruell that Bishop Iewel in his reckoning is a liar, be­cause he knoweth that where Bishop Iewel is not taken for a liar, there he and his fellowes must be accounted so to be. But as touching the story, if his eies had serued him, he might haue seene that I cited not the old Cronicle onely al­leaged by Bishop Iewel, but also Galfridus Monumetensis, whom in the beginning of that narration I quoted as a wit­nesse therof, who out of the ancient British story reporteth, that Galfrid Mo­numetens. lib. 11. cap. 12. Augustino pe­tenti ab Episco­pis Britonibus subiectionem. &c. Dino [...]t di­uersis argumen­tationibus ipsos ei nullam subie­ctionem debere respondit. Et. c. 13. Edelbertus rex Cantiorum vt vidit Brito­nes dedignantes subiectionem Augustino fa­cere, &c. hoc gra [...]issime fe­rens, Edelfridū regem Nor­thanumbrorum & caeteros re­gulos Saxonum instimulauit vt collecto grandi exercitu in ciui­tatem Bangor Abbatem Di­noot & caeteros Clericos qui eos spernerent per­ditum irent. &c. Edelfridus ciuitate capta cū intellexisset causam aduen­tus Monachorū (vt pro salute populi sui orarent [...] iussit in eos primum arma verti et sic mille du­ [...]enti corum in ipsa die martyrio decorati regni caelestis adepti sunt sedem. in the city of Bangor there was a most noble Church of 1200. Monks, all liuing with the labour of their hands. Their Abbot was named Dino [...]ch a man maruellously well learned; who by diuers arguments made it appeare, when Austin requi­red the Bishops to be subiect vnto him, that they ought him no [Page 35]subiection. Edelbert therefore the King of Kent, assoone as he saw them refuse to yeeld obedience to Austin and despise his preaching, sturred vp Edelfride & other princes of the Saxons to gather a great army, and to goe to Bangor to destroy Di­noochand his Clergy. Who taking the city, commanded the swords of his men to be turned first vpon the Monks, and so twelue hundred of them the same day, decked with Martyr­dome, entred the kingdome of heauen. By which record it is plaine that though that slaughter were not committed by Ethelbert, as M. Bishop saith, yet by the procurement of Ethelbert, as I affirmed, it was done. Albeit our English Chronicle cited Defence of the Apology. part. 5. in the beginning. by M. Iewell deliuereth that both the Kings Ethelbert and Edelfride ioyned their power toge­ther, and so the murther was committed by them both; Au­stin also meeting them at Leicester as they were going to the place where that act was done. Moreouer he citeth a Chronicle written in French by one Ibid. Thomas Gray, aboue two hundred yeeres agoe, wherein it is said, that Austin being so refused of the Bishops and other learned of the Britans, made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert King of Kent, that foorthwith he leuied his power and marched against them, and slew them in most cruell wise, hauing no more regard of mercy then a woolfe hath vpon a sheep. So then it should seeme that neither Austin nor Ethelbert, were free of that bloudy and cruell murther, howsoeuer M. Bishop doe his good will to cleere them both. Yea by that which Beda reporteth, it may be well coniectured that Austins hands were not free of it, for that he threatned them when he saw they would not yeeld to him Beda. hist. li. 2. cap. 2. fertur minitans prae­dixisse quòd si pacem cum fra­tribus accipere nollent, bellum ab hostibus fo­rent accepturi. that if they would not accept of peace with their brethren, they should finde warre of their enemies. But it may better be coniectured by the same answer as in two written Cronicles in the Library of Baliol Colledge in Ox­ford it is expressed, where it is not, they should finde warre of their enemies, but, Polychron. magn. & Poly­chron. Monachi Cistrensis. Quòd qui pacem cum fratribus acci­pere nollent, bellum ab eis­dem forent ac­cepturi. if they would not accept of peace with their brethren, they should (ab eisdem) of them, or from them, finde warre and reuenge, plainely importing that he himselfe [Page 36]would procure the same. For whereas M. Bishop alleageth out of Beda that Austin was dead and buried many yeeres before that slaughter happened, Bishop Iewel sheweth that therein they haue for Austins credit falsified the Latine sto­ry of Beda, because by Beda translated by Alfred seuen hundred yeeres agoe into the Saxon tongue, the contrary plainely appeareth that, Austin after that slaughter was a­liue. Yea he produceth a Charter of the Church of Canter­bury yet extant and to be seene, which was granted and confirmed by King Ethelbert, and by Austin accepted and subscribed the same yeare that that was done, whereby it is without all controuersie manifest and cleere that it is false which M. Bishop saith, that Austin was dead many yeares before. And for some further coniecture of this matter, I wil not omit to note out of Doct. Powell his history of Wales, certaine verses of that famous and renowmed Poet Ambro­sius Telesinus, or Taliessin, surnamed in his time, Ben Beirdh, the chiefest of the wisemen, which seeme in all likely hood to tax Austin as a procurer of that slaughter. For although he mention the said Taliessin as hauing beene a writer in the yeare 540. yet because there can be imagined no occasion of those words before Austins comming in, I conceiue that either there is some errour in the notation of the time, or that liuing perhaps to great yeeres, as in those daies was no rare thing, he wrot the Ode, whence those verses are taken, in his last time. I will define nothing heereof, but leaue it to the iudgement of the Reader to conceiue as he seeth cause. The verses then he first setteth downe in the Welch tongue as they were written by him that made them:

History of Wales by Doct. Powel.
Gwae'r offeriad byd
Nys angreifftia gwyd
Ac ny phregetha.
Gwae ny cheidw ye gail
Ac efyn vigail
Ac nys areilia
[Page 37]
Gwaeny theidw ei dheuaid
Rhae bleidhi Rhufeniaid
A'iffon gnwppa.

These he repeateth in English thus:

Wo be to that Priest yborne
That will not cleanly weede his corne
And preach his charge among.
Wo be to that shepheard (I say)
That will not watch his fold alway
As to his office doth belong.
Wo be to him that doth not keepe
From Romish woolues his sheepe
With staffe and weapon strong.

Where when he nameth Romishwolues, we cannot doubt but that he alludeth to some cruelty, caused or practised by some that came from Rome; which because it can haue no application in those times but only to the slaughter of the Monkes aforesaid, therefore I doubt not but that it hath re­ference to Austin the Monke, who came then from Rome, as the cause of that slaughter.

Now because we are in hand with falsifications and mis­constructions, I hold it not amisse to reduce hither two o­ther taxations of his of the same nature, as most properly belonging to this place. The first by order of my booke is a place of Mathew Paris, by whom I say it appeareth, that Answer to the epistle, sect. 3. pag. 20. for the space of twelue hundred yeeres after Christ, the Popes authoritie could gaine no acknowledgement in Scotland, for that in the time of King Henry the third (the one and twentith of his raigne) when the Popes Legate would haue entred into Scotland to visit the Churches there, the King of Scots Alexander the second, forbad him so to do, alleaging that none of his predecessours had admitted any such, neither would hee suffer it, and therefore willed him at his owne perill to forbeare. Concerning this allegation, M. Bishop setteth downe a postscript in the end of his booke, when all the rest was fi­nished [Page 38]in this curteous maner; Curteous Reader, I must needs acquaint thee with a notable legerdemaine, which by per­using the authour, I found out after the rest was printed. Now gentle Reader, I know thou lookest for some speciall great matter, which he was thus carefull to adde after all the rest was printed; but what is it I pray? M. Abbot, saith he, to prooue that the Pope had no authoritie in Scotland twelue hundred yeeres after Christ, auerreth that Alexander the se­cond vtterly forbad the Popes Legate to enter within his king­dome, which is not true. No is? Surely then M. Abbot dealt very vndutifully with his Prince, to delude him with a false tale. But I pray you, M. Bishop, tell vs what the truth is? For his authour Mathew Paris declareth, saith hee, that the King indeed 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 authoritie in those ecclesiasticall 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. And is this all M. Bishop, that you could finde, perusing the authour so diligently as you haue done? But I pray you put on your spectacles once more, and turne ouer your booke againe. Thou shalt vnderstand gentle Reader, that the impression of Mathew Paris which I follow, is that Tiguri in of­ficina Froscho­viana. 1589. at Tigure, in officina Froschouiana, anno 1589. There in the one and twentieth yeere of Henrie the third, being the yeere of our Lord 1237. pag. 431. which in the edition, cited by M. Bishop, I take by some notes of mine, to be pag. 597. thou shalt finde Mathew Paris set downe this matter in these words; Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. anno 1237. pa. 431. Volenti autem domino Legato intrare reguum Scotiae vt ibi de nego­tijs ecclesiasticis tractaret, sicut in Anglia, re­spondit rex Scotiae, Non me memini Lega­tum in terra mea vidisse, nec opus esse aliquē esse vocandum, deo gratias, nec adhuc opus est; omnia benè se habent. Nec etiā tempore patris mei, vel alicu­ius antecessorū meorum visus est aliquis Le­gatus introitū habuisse, nec ego dum mei compos fuero tolerabo. Veruntamen quia fama te sanctum virum praedicat, moneo te vt si fortè terram meam ingrediaris cau tè progrediaris nequid sinistri tibi contingat, &c. The Lord Legate being desirous to enter into the kingdome of Scotland, there to deale in Ecclesiasticall matters, as he had done in England, the King of Scotland answered him, I remember not that I haue seene any Legate in my countrey, nor that there hath beene any need, thanks be to God, that any should be called, neither is there yet any need; all things are well. No, nor in the time of my Father, or of any of my predecessours, hath any Legate beene seene to [Page 39]haue had any entrance there, neither wil I suffer any so long as I am in my right wits. Notwithstāding, because by report you are a holy man, I warne you, that if yee doe goe into my countrey, yee goe warily, lest any thing befall amisse to you. For vnruly and sauage men are there dwelling, which thirst after mens bloud, whom I my selfe cannot tame, nor hold them backe from me, if they fall vpon you. These are the words of Mathew Paris; now aske M. Bishop, I pray thee, wherein standeth that notable legerdemaine which he would acquaint thee with: Aske him what it is wherein I haue varied from my authour. I said that the king forbad the Legate to enter; so saieth the storie. I said that the King alleaged, that neuer any Legate in the time of any of his predecessours had beene ad­mitted there: the storie saith the same. I said that this was twelue hundred yeeres after the time of Christ; the story no­teth it to haue beene in the yeere 1237. Wish him now to tell thee where the legerdemaine is, or whether it be rather some policie of his, thus to talke of legerdemaine. But this place he would not see; yet the latter place he saw; he quo­teth the page 667. iustly agreeing with the edition, wher­in I haue formerly read the story; & is in the edition which I now follow, pag. 481. We see what he hath made of it; now let vs see how Mathew Paris himselfe reporteth it. Math. Paris. ibid. anno dom. 1239. pag. 481. Eisdem diebus Legatus in Sco­tiam intrare se­stinauit, &c. Et antequam reg­num Scotiae in­trasset, occurrit ei Rex Scotiae non acceptans ingressum suū. Dixit enim quòd nunquam aliquis Legatus excepto illo solo in Scotiam in­trauit; non e­nim vt asseruit, opus erat: Chri­stianitas ibi flo­ruit, ecclesia prosperè se ha­bebat. Et cùm sermones multi­plicarentur, & rex ferè ad con­tradicendum e­rigeretur, con­fectū est scrip­tum, interce­dentibus vtri­us (que) regni mag­natibus inter eos, cuius tenor fuit, vt nunquā ratione illius aduentus talis consuetudo in consequentiam verteretur; in super in recessu suo scriptum illud signaret, & hoc procuratum est ne confusus in Angliam quasi repulsus reuerteretur &c. Rege verò in interioribus terrae com­morante, Legatus sine Regis licentia clàm & subitò recedens praedictum scriptum asportauit. In those daies, saith he, the Legate hastened to enter in­to Scotland, and before hee was come into the kingdome of Scotland, the King met him, not liking well of his com­ming. For he said that neuer any Legate, beside him, had en­tred into Scotland, for there was, as he said, no neede; Chri­stianity flourished there, and the Church was in good case. And vpon multiplying of words, when the King was almost ready to chide, there was a writing drawen betwixt them by the inter­cession of the Nobles of both kingdomes; the tenor whereof was, that there should neuer any custome grow by reason of his so com­ming, [Page 40]and that at his departure he should seale that writing, and this was procured that he might not returne into England with disgrace, as hauing receiued a repulse. But whilest the King was abiding in the innermost parts of his country, the Le­gate, without the Kings licence, priuily and suddenly departed and tooke away with him the writing aforesaid. Heere we see by both these places, that the King of Scotland denied the Popes Legate any entrance into his land, protesting that neuer in his time, or in the time of his predecessours, any Legate had beene admitted there; and although he were content the second time vpon intercession to giue him leaue to visit that once, to quit him from disgrace, yet it was with caution, that no custome should grow thereof, neither should that example be pleaded to doe the like another time. May I not then heere say of M. Bishop as Austin said of Adimantus the Manichee; August. cont. Adimant. cap. 15. O hominem pessimum secu­rum de negli­gentiae generis humani ad oc­cultandas de­ceptiones suas, &c. O leaud man presuming of the negligence of men for the hiding of his owne cosenage and deceit, that did not thinke that any man would be so care­full as to take the booke, and by searching finde out how falsely and trecherously he dealeth in these things. Is this his conuincing of me to be so perfidious and without all consci­ence in alleging ancient authours as that no man can repose trust in my allegations, as he heere of inferreth? Ah wretched man that thus maketh hauocke of his owne conscience, and set­teth his soule to sale for the defense of an vniust and wicked cause. As for that which he further alleageth, that the said King did afterwards acknowledge the Popes Legate; and by his letters professe that hee and his heires were and would be obedient to his iurisdiction and censures, though I finde no such matter by his quotation, yet though it were so, it skilleth not. I question not what befell after, but what had beene before, knowing that the Pope where he had once set in foot was heedy to take all aduantages and op­portunities, specially of the distresses and troubles of Prin­ces, to winde himselfe further in. And therefore as little to the purpose is that which he alleageth, where by order he [Page 41]answereth this matter, that when Reproofe, pag. 122. King Edward the third, as he nameth him, indeed the first, would haue giuen to the Scots Iohn Baliol to be their King, they answerd him, that they would not accept him without the Popes consent, who had their country in protection, which was fiue and fifty yeere after the Legates first attempt to enter into that land, and there­fore no preiudice to that that I haue said.

16. The other point that I haue thought fit to touch in this place concerneth the opinion of Proclus the Origenist heretike, of whom M. Bishop alledged to the King, that he taught as we doe, that sinne in baptisme is not wholly taken away, but only couered, citing Epiphanius, as mentioning him for this opinion to be an heritike. Answer to the epistle. sect. 7. pag. 49. I answered him as the truth is, that by this allegation hee had sheathed a sword in his owne side, for that vnder the name of Proclus he had by errour cited the opinion of Methodius an anci­ent and godly Bishop of Tyrus, approued also by Epipha­nius, and therefore had at once produced two ancient wit­nesses teaching by his owne confession as we doe, that ori­ginall sinne in baptisme is not wholly taken away, but that the filth thereof cleaueth fast to vs so long as we continue in the frailty of this life. The matter being cleere and euident by that that I alledged, I told him that either he read the place too early in the morning, or too late at night, or else borrowed it from some of his Masters the Iesuites, who make little conscience what they say. Now I finde since, that as almost in all the rest, so in this also Bellarm. de notis ecclesiae. cap. 9. & de baptismo. c. 13. Bellarmine hath beene his Master, and hath shewed as little wit in this obiection as he hath done. Yet he hath led himselfe along in a strong opinion, that he hath therein great aduantage against me, and therefore though he haue cunningly pas­sed ouer all the rest of my answer vnder pretence of hand­ling all things in their proper questions, and there follow Of Origi­nall sinne, sect. 9. a question afterward where this matter is mentioned, and to which it properly belongeth, yet not meaning in truth to trouble himselfe with any more questions, hee would [Page 42]needes out with that that he had to say of this matter. And heerein he mightily bestirreth himselfe, he setteth downe opinions, noteth diuisions and coherence of speeches, exa­mineth circumstances, looketh into the Latin, looketh in­to the Greeke, taxeth me for shamelesse audacity, for simple and shallow wit, for carelesnesse of credit in thrusting out such an impudent assertion; for grosse ignorance; and in a word telleth me that I am past all shame, and worthy to be thrust in­to an Asses skin. But what, M. Bishop, can ye not be con­tent to be a foole, but ye must be a foole in print? I must be thrust into an Asses skin; but it seemeth that you need not be thrust into it: who doe of your owne accord so willingly put it on: or let the skinne light to whom it will, sure I am that the eares must belong to you. Men would haue thought before, that you had had some learning, but now you giue them cause to thinke, that you vnderstand not the Latin tongue, or if you doe, then remember him that said, Esay 5.20. Wo vnto them that put darknesse for light, and light for dark­nesse. Once againe, gentle Reader, to giue thee more full satisfaction in this matter, thou shalt vnderstand that Epi­phanius setting downe the heresie of Origen, and inten­ding as in the rest, a confutation thereof, Epiphan. haer. 64. pag. 175. Contentus esse duxi his quae rectè a beato Methodio in sermone de re­surrectione con­tra [...]psum Ori­genem dicta sunt. &c. thought best for one part of it to borrow the said confutation from Metho­dius a Bishop of former time. Take knowledge by the way that I follow the edition of Epiphanius translated by Iano Corna­rio interprete. Basileae ex offi­cina H. ruagia­na. &c. 1578. Ianus Cornarius printed at Basil, anno. 1578. Heereupon he setteth downe from Methodius the words of Origen, and hauing ended them, there followeth towards the end of the next page this distinction set downe by the transla­tour: Pag. 176. Hactenus Me­thodius Orige­nis verba retu­lit; sequuntur nunc Procli verba quae item Methodius re­censet. Hitherto Methodius hath rehearsed the words of Ori­gen; there follow now the words of Proclus, which Methodius also setteth downe, where in the Greeke there is no more but [...], that is, the words of Proclus; who namely in the time of Methodius maintained the condem­ned opinions of Origen, and with whom it seemeth that Methodius had much to doe. These words of Proclus ex­tend [Page 43]to the seuenth line of the next page 177. the ve­rie effect and substance whereof is this, as Master Bishop also hath expressed it, Pag. 177. Siquis potens fuerit exactè intelligere, &c. cognoscet resur­rectionem de hoc corpore non oportere accipi, vt sp non possit in a ternū i [...] mu­tabile permane­re, sed despiri­tuali, in quo idem ipse cha­racter qui nunc in hoc habetur conseruabitur quo vnusquis (que) nostrum etiam secundum for­mam idem sit, quemadmodum & ab Origene dictum est, &c. that the resurrection must not bee vnderstood of this body, as which cannot abide for euer without change, but of a spirituall body wherein the same shape that now is in this body shall be kept, that euery one of vs in forme and proportion may be the same, as, saith he, Origen hath said. This being the opinion of Proclus by M. Bishops owne confession, if he would haue had all the discourse following to be taken for the words of Proclus, he should haue shewed vs how the same had su­ted to this opinion, and haue laid before vs some of his ar­guments whereby hee had endeuoured the proofe of it. He saw that I had so done, and that the speeches which I alleaged from Methodius doe fully tend to the confuting of this opinion; which he in his booke hath wholly suppres­sed, knowing that no man can see those words, but hee must also see his folly, that would take those for the words of Proclus, which tend directly to the ouerthrowing of that which he confesseth to be the errour of Proclus. But to make the matter plaine, the words of Proclus being thus set downe, there follow these words in the next line: Pag. 177. Ve­rùm hanc ipso­rum contentio­nem & ex his & ex alijs plu­ribus quis re­darguere pote­rit. Demonstra­bimus enim in sequentibus ac sermonis pro­gressu per natu­rae veritatem & non per coniecturaes ne (que) Hieremiam vinctos terrae nos dixisse propter societatem ad corpus, ne (que) Dauidem hac de causa ligatos Operaepretium enim est haec proferre, in quibus maximè labi videntur. Proinde cúm de pelliceis tunicis & quòd ante structuram ipsarum primi parentes vixe­runt cum corpore immortalitate fruentes, insuper (que) quòd non potest corpus vinculum & carcer putari, ea quae conueniunt dixerimus, ô viri Iudices, deinceps ad consequentia me conuertam, ve­lut promisi, vt dilucidiùs videamus quod volumus. But this which they contend for, a man by these and many other rea­sons may reprooue; for we will shew in the processe of our speech following, by truth of nature and not by coniectures, that neither Ieremy calleth vs prisoners of the earth, because of the society with the body, nor Dauid calleth vs bound or fettered for that cause: for it is woorth the while to alleage those things wher­in they specially seeme to erre. Therefore when we shall haue spoken what is conuenient of the coates of skinnes, and that our first parents before the making thereof, liued with a body enioy­ing [Page 44]immortality, and moreouer, that the body cannot bee taken to be a bond or a prison, then I will turne me to those things that follow, that we may the more plainly see that that we desire. Heere we see a disputation plainely propounded against the foundations of the opinion of Proclus before set down, whose Master Origen held Pag. 173. An [...]am hu­m [...]nam p [...]ae ex­istere dicit; esse autem hae auge­los & virtuces supernas in pe [...] ­catis constitutas & ea gratia in supplicium in hoc corpus con­clusas. Qua­proter inquit etiam vinculum vocatū est cor­pus, eò quod ani­ma in corpore ligatdest, &c. Et hinc inquit Scripturam eti­ampelliceas tu­nitas indicasse, quia fecit ipsis, inquit, tunicas pelliceas & induit ipsos; hoc corpus est, &c. Et mortuo­rum resurrecti­onem defectno­sam facit, &c. that the soule was first created without the bodie, and that when it sinned, God created it a bo­dy and shut it vp thereinto as into a prison wherein it is fettered and bound, and that this the Scripture meaneth where it saith, that God made to the man and the woman coates of skins & put vpon them; by these, saith he, is vnderstood the bodie. Hence drew he the rest of that absurd fancie, whereby as Epipha­nius there addeth, he made the resurrection defectiue, infer­ring that sith this is the nature and vse of the body, it can­not be that this body should rise againe, but that God will create a more excellent and spirituall body for the soule to dwell in. And that this was the opinion of Proclus, appea­reth in the dialogue which is afterwards set downe betwixt Methodius and Auxentius on the one side, and on the other side, not Proclus and Origen as M. Bishop dreameth, Ori­gen being dead many a yeere before, but Aglaophon and Proclus; Methodius on the one side speaking for Auxenti­us and himselfe, and Aglaophon as the better man on the other side for Proclus and himselfe, where Methodius saith to Aglaophon thus; Pag. 185. b. Dicebator ani­ma corpus hoc nobis circumsi­tum propter transgressionem suscepisse, cùm superioribus temporibus abs (que) ipso foelicitèr degissetpelliceas enim tunicas corpora esse in quae concludi animas contigitsquo mortale gestantes pro his quae fecerunt poenam darent. Annon erant haec quae primùm in principio ante dicta sunt? Imò a [...]mone si non vidèor tibi rectè meminisse. Non opus habes, inquit ille, ad­monitione: haec ipsa enim erant quae inprimis à nobis dicta sunt. It was said that the soule receiued this body that is about vs for sinne and transgression, when as before time it had litted happily without it; and that the coats of skin are these bodies wherein it hath befallen our souls to be shut vp, whereby in state of mortalitie they may be puni­shed for the things they did amisse. Was it not this that was be­fore said? Tell me if I seeme not rightly to remember. Aglao­phon answereth, Thou needest no telling; thus it was indeed [Page 45]that wee said before. Anon after hee asketh him againe; Pag. 186. a Nonne & illud, inquam, ô A­glaophon, vide­tur tibi non re­ctè habere, di­cere vinculum & pedicas cor­pus construclū esse contra ani­mam, & quòd propheta vin­ctos terrae nos dixit, ideo (que) etiam Dauid, ligatos? Et ille, Non ha­beo, inquit, in promptu quod tibi respondeā. Et paulò post. Tu, inquam, ergo vinculis & carcerem & se­pulchrum & onus & pedicas ipsum (corpus) esse dixisti. Ve­ra, inquit ille, mihi dicis. Seemeth it not amisse to thee, Aglaophon, to say that the bo­die is made for fetters and chaines against the soule, and that the Prophet called vs prisoners of the earth, and that Dauid termeth vs men in bonds? Where being doubtfull to be cir­cumuented, he answereth, I cannot readily tell what to say. But being perswaded by Methodius to say his minde, and charged againe that he said, that the body is a bond and a prison and a graue, and a burden and fetters, he answereth, It is true as thou saiest. Now sith this is the opinion of Aglaophon and Proclus according to the doctrine of their master Origen, whom in this behalfe they followed, how is M. Bishop bewitched to take those words which propound the confutation of this opinion to be the words of Proclus? Yea it is further to be noted, that as in the latter part where M. Bishop confesseth Methodius to speake, so in the for­mer also the speaker still directeth his speech against Agla­ophon the companion of Proclus; Pag. 177. c. At fortassis op­ponentis vosipsos aduersus relata. O Aglaophon & dicetis, &c. But you, Aglaophon, will oppose your selues against the things that haue beene spo­ken.Pag 180. b. Attende, ó sapi­entissime Agla­ophon.Listen heere, O wise Aglaophon. Pag. 182. b. Vbi dominum pronunciasse di­xisti, &c. mox intu [...]sti, &c. ignarus quòd qui, &c.Thou saiest thus, Aglaophon, not knowing that he that hath made all things of nothing, &c. Pag. 183. c. Sic te O sapientissime Aglao­phon considerare oportet.Thus it behoueth thee to consider, O wise Ag­laophon. What will M. Bishop heere say? will he to saue himself set Aglaophon and Proclus together by the eares? Can he make vs beleeue that Proclus heere disputeth a­gainst Aglaophon his owne fellow? Nay is he so mad as so to beleeue himselfe? But if this be not enough, let vs looke into the matter of the discourse and see how well it accor­deth with the opinion of Origen and Proclus. Remember briefely what their conceit was, that the soule was first a­lone without the body; that in that state it sinned, and for a punnishment was thrust into the body, and that this bo­dy is not that wherein we shall rise againe, but that God will create a spiritual and more excellent body bearing on­ly the figure and shape of this. Now the speaker in this dis­course [Page 46]disputeth first, Pag. 177. b. Homo verissimè dicitur secundū naturā ne (que) a­nima sine corpo­re, ne (que) corpus sine anima, sed quod ex com­page animae & corporis in vna boni formā cō ­positū est, vnde hinc immortalē hominem factū esse apparet. that God in the beginning made man immortall, consisting of a body and a soule, because according to truth of nature man is called neither the soule without the body nor the body without the soule, but that which is made into one by the coniunction of body and soule. Marke heere in the very beginning an expresse contradiction to the opinion of Pro­clus, namely, that man was at the first created not a soule a­lone but a body and a soule. Then he sheweth that Pag. 179. a Pollutus & in­quinatus est ho­mo à sententia Dei dis essione facta, & multas maliciei macu­las sibi affricuit quas princeps ille & pater er­roris peperit, &c. Deus omni­petens immor­tale malum ex insidijs ipsum factū intuitus, velut etiam di­abolus seductor erat pelliceas tunicas ob id fe­cit velut morta­litate ipsos amiciens quò per corporis solutionem omne in ipso factum malum moreretur. man became polluted & defiled by swaruing and declining from the commandement of God, and did set vpon himselfe many spots of wickednesse, which the prince and father of errour brought foorth: and that God beholding man thus made by the subtilty of Satan immortally euill as Satan himselfe was, did make for the man and the woman garments of skinnes, as it were clothing them with mortality, to the end that by the disso­lution of the body all the euill that was wrought in him might die. Heereupon he prooueth, that the making of coates of skines cannot be vnderstood of the making of bodies, seeing Ibid. Adam confitetur se ossa habere & carnes, &c. Accepit Deus limū de terra & formauit hominem; quod propriè de corpore dictum esse apparet, nō enim de limo & grauioribus essentiam aedepta est amma. Quarè verissimè certū est vndequa (que) ante pelliceas tunicas incorporatum fuisse hominem. it is euident that man before the coates of skins had a body, for that it was said by Adam concerning Euah; This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone; and of the creation of man it is written, that God formed him of the dust or slime of the earth, which is manifestly spoken of the body, because the soule had not his being thereof. This is also directly against the fancy of Proclus; for Proclus held that the making of those coats was the making of bodies, but this authour prooueth that the bodies were before the making of those coates. Then he further alledgeth, that God hauing made for man coates of skins Ibid. b. Non quòd non vellet Deus ipsum decerpere de ligno vitae ac edere, eiecit eum: poterat e­nim in aeternū viuere vbi rursus de ligno vitae edisset, sed vt ne immortale fieret malum &c. Eiecit eum vt mortificaretur primùm morte peccatū quo sic post mortem consumpto peccato excitatus ho­mo purus ederet vitam, &c. Qui enim omninò decernit carnēhanc non esse immortalitatis suscep­toriam, reuera dementiae per morbū maledicus est. cast him out of Paradise, not properly for that he [Page 47]would not haue him to eat of the tree of life and liue for euer, for why would he send Christ into the earth if he would haue had man vtterly to die and not to taste of life? but because he would not haue sinne to be immortall by mans liuing for euer in that state wherein he was. Therefore he cast him out, saith he, that sinne first might be mortified by death, that so sinne being consu­med, man after death being raised vp againe might liue pure and vncorrupt; setting downe heereupon this conclusion, which I wish M. Bishop to obserue how it fitteth his Pro­clus; that by a disease of folly or madnesse he speaketh amisse who in any sort determineth that this flesh is not capable of im­mortality. This he repeateth againe, that Ibid. prohibi­tus est autem [...]t peccatum coocci­sum cū corpore moreretur, cor­pus verò peccato perdito resurge­ret. man was hinde­red from eating of the tree of life, that sinne being killed with the body might die, but the body, sinne being destroied, might rise againe. What, M. Bishop, may we not well thinke that you were in a dreame that would take those words to be the words of Proclus, that this flesh is capable of immortality, that this body, sinne being destroied shall rise againe? And this againe is set foorth by two notable similitudes, whereof the one is taken Ibid. c. Quem­admodum in ae­dificijs templo­rum pulchrorū vbi ficus enata est, &c. & in omnes composi­tiones lapidum per multum sar­mentosas radi­ces diffusa non priùs a nascen­do quiescit do­nec tota euella­tur, dissolutis lapidibus in lo­cis in quibus e­nata est; pos­sunt enim rur­sus in suos locos adaptari lapi­des, ficu subla­ta, quo templū quidem serue­tur, &c. ficus verò tota radi­citùs euulsa e­moriatur; eo­dem modo Deus optimus artifex templum suum hominem, qui instar syluestris ficus peccatum produxit breuibus mortis ictibus dissoluit, occidens velut scriptum est & viuificans, quò rursus earundem partium caro post exsiccatum ac mortuum peccatum instar renouati templi immortalis & illaesa excitetur, peccato perfectè ac funditùs perdito. of a Figg-tree growing in the wall of a goodly temple and spreading the rootes into the iointes of the stones; which ceaseth not to grow til it be quite pulled out, the stones be­ing taken asunder in the places where it grew, which, the fig tree being taken away, may be put euery one into his place againe, that so the temple may be preserued, and the fig-tree pulled vp by the rootes may die. For euen in the same sort, saith he, al­mighty God by the stroke of death dissolueth man who is his temple, who hath brought forth sinne like a wild fig-tree, kil­ling him, as it is written, and giuing him life againe, to the end that the flesh or body of the same parts (euen of the very same parts) after sinne dried vp and dead may be raised vp againe immortall and without any hurt, sinne being wholly and vtterly destroied. Then follow the words which first Bellarmine [Page 48]the Master and then M. Bishop the scholar obiect vnto vs as matter of heresie, that Ibid. Viuente adhuc corpore antequam mo­riatur necesse est simul viuere peccatum intus in nobis radices suas abscondens etiamsi forinse­cus per castiga­tionum ac ad­monitionum fe­ctiones fuerit refraenatū &c. Constat contra­hi quidem ac so piri per fidem nunc peccatum vt ne fructus noxios produ­cat, non tamen radicitus tolli &c. so long as the body liueth sinne must needes liue withall, inwardly hiding in vs the rootes of it, albeit outwardly by the checkes of chastisements and admonitions it be brideled and refrained; that certaine it is that sinne is now hol­den short and laied asleepe by faith, that it may not bring foorth noisome fruits but it is not pulled vp by the rootes; with other words more to that purpose which I haue set downe in an­swer to the epistle, this conclusion thereupon ensuing, that Pag. 180. a. Proinde in aux­iliaris medi­camenti modum ab auxiliatore nostro & verè medico Deo ad eradicationem peccati ac deletionem assumpta est mors, vt ne perpe­tuò durans in nobis immortale sit peccatum, &c. Instar medicamentariae purgationis quo sic om­ninò inculpabiles & innoxij efficiamur. therefore death is appointed by God our helper and Physician to be as a medicinable purgation for the rooting out and de­stroying of sinne that it may not continue immortally in vs, but we may be made blamelesse and without spot. To the same purpose then hee addeth the other similitude, Ibid. b. Videtur velut siquis summus opifex flatuam pulchram ex auro aut alia materia conflet, mutilatam repentè conspicatus a pessimo quodam ho­mine qui prae inuidia non tulit decoram esse statuam eamque laesit, &c. si voluerit opus ipsum pul­chrum esse ac irreprehensibile, confringi ac rursus conflari oportet, quo turpitudines & alterationes omnes ac quae ex insidijs ac inuidia in ipso sunt per reparationem ac conflationem pereant, ipsa verò statua in speciem suam integra & inadulterata simillima sibijpsi fabricetur: statuae enim perire non contingit per artificem ipsius etiamsi rursus in materiam resoluatur; restitui enim potest; turpitudines autem & mutilationes perire contingit, colliquescunt enim, &c. Idem sanè videtur in nobis Deus disposuisse; hominem enim decentissimum suum opificium insidijs & inuidia malè afflictum non sustinuit relinquere talem, &c. sed dissoluit rursus in materiam quò per reformati­onem colliquescant ac dissipentur omnia in ipso vituperabilia. Nam illit conflari statuam, est hic mori ac dissolui corpus: illic verò reformari materiam ac suo niteri restitui, est hîc post mortem resurgere. that as a workman hauing made a goodly faire image of gold or some o­ther mettall, if he see it by any leaud body of enuy maimed and disgraced, taketh course for the bringing of it to the former beauty to haue it broken and cast anew, that all the disgraces and alterations and whatsoeuer is caused by practise and enuy may by being repaired and new-cast be quite abolished, and the image may be framed againe perfect according to the former shape and fashion most like vnto it selfe, because it befalleth not to it to perish though it be resolued into the matter againe, for [Page 49]it may be restored; but the hurts and maimes and disgraces thereof are by melting taken away; euen so God beholding man his most goodly worke brought to euill case by the subtilty and enuy of the diuel, would not indure to leaue him in that case, for that he is gratious towards man, but dissolued him into his first matter, that by making him anew all things that are faulty in him may be as it were melted away and consumed. For what is the melting of the image there, the same is heere the dying & dissoluing of the body, and as is there the new forming of the matter and restoring of it to his beauty, the same is heere the ri­sing againe from the dead. Heere I pray thee, gentle Reader, to bethinke thy selfe the new building of a wall of the same stones, and the new casting of an image of the same gold, how well it agreeth with the opinion of M. Bishops Pro­clus that our bodies in the resurrection shall not be the same. Euen as well agreeth that which afterwards he con­strueth of the words of God, Deut. 32.39. I will kill and I will make a­liue, I will strike and I will heale;Pag. 181. b. Quid aliud do­cere vult quàm quòd ob hoc cor­pus prin [...]ùm oc­ciditur & mori­tur vt rursus re­surgat ac viuat; percutitur pri­mùm a saucia­tur vt rursus scluum ac sa­num formetur.what else doth he teach heereby, saith he, but that for this cause the body is killed and dieth, that it may rise and liue againe; and is therefore stricken and wounded, that it may be new, made whole and sound. Sure­ly M. Bishop if your face can blush, I trow it will appeare heere, in that you haue so outfaced vs that Proclus the he­retike speaketh heere where the authour doth thus Cate­gorically determine against the heresie of Proclus. After this he answereth two obiections directly made in the be­halfe of Origen and Proclus. The one is, that Ibid. Stom [...]e quod genera [...]ū est aegrotat, & secundùm nati­uitatem & se­cundum aiimē ­tum ab acce­dentibus ange­tur & ex dece­dentibus min [...]i­tur, &c. Pati­untur autem ae­grotantia, &c. Quod verò pae­titur & deficit & perit, &c. Non potest er­gò exors laesio­nis esse homo & immortalis. all things that are by generation are subiect to sicknesse, both by condition of birth and by reason of foode and nourishment; and are increa­sed by that that is put to them and diminished by that that go­eth from them, and being by this meanes subiect to passion, are subiect also, and therefore so is mans body, to failing and perish­ing and cannot be immortall. Thus doth Origen reason, be­fore, Pag. 175. c. Omne corpus (que) a natura conti­netur quae fo­rinsecus aliqua disponit ac suc­centuriat instar alimenti in ip­sum & pro ingestis alia se cornit, nunquam habet idem materiale subiectū: quapropter non malè flauius appellatum est corpus, cò quòd ne (que) per biduum idem subiectum est in corpore nostro. that that which from without receiueth and supplieth [Page 50]some things by way of food, and for the things which it putteth in euacuateth other, cannot continue the same materiall sub­iect, and therefore is not amisse compared to a riuer not being two daies the same: importing heereby that the resurrecti­on cannot be said to be of this body, because it cannot be determined in so great alteration what it should bee that should rise againe, as he hath before more largly expressed. In like sort the words of Proclus are, Pag. 177. a. Flaxile est cor­pus materiale & nunquâ ma­net in serpso ne minimo quidem tempore, sed ac­cedit & discedit circa speciem quae hominem delineat, &c. that the materiall bo­dy is fluxible and neuer continueth in it selfe so much as for a very small time, but commeth and goeth vnder the shape which proportioneth the man. The authour of this discourse answe­reth, that Pag. 181. c. Si omne quod factum aut ge­neratum est pe­rit, nihil enim refert vtrum di­cas, nam & pri­mi parentes non generati sunt sed facti, facti sunt item & angeli & ani­me, &c. Per­cunt ergo angeli & animae ex ipsorum rati­one. At neque angeli ne (que) aeni­mae pereunt &c. Non placet autem vt illud dicatur quòd omnia funditùs pereant, & terra & aer & caelum non futura sint. Exardescet equidem ad purgationem ac renouationem mundus, &c. non tamen ad perfectum interitum ac corruptionem deueniet, &c. there is no difference whether things be created or begotten; for our first parents were not begotten but created, who yet were in condition as we are; and if things that are by creation or generation must perish, then so must the angels and the soules of men, which yet neither of them doe perish; yea and that the world it selfe shall not vtterly perish so as there be no more heauen or earth or aire, but shalbe burned onely to the purging and renewing thereof. The other obiection is taken from the words of Christ, that in the resurrection Pag. 182. b. Qui resurrectionem asse­quentur erunt tunc velut angeli, &c. Angeli verò carnem non habentes in summa beatitudine & propterea gloria sunt. Ergo etiam nos, &c.we shall be as the Angels; but the Angels are in perfect blisse and glory not hauing flesh, and therefore we shalbe so also. It is answe­red, Pag. 183. a. Christus igitur si non esset re­surrectio carnis sed anima solum seruaretur, suffragatus esset ipsis velut benè ac rectè sentienti­bus. Nunc verò respondit dicens, In resurrectione, &c. non quòd carnem non habent, sed quòd non matrimonium contrabunt, sed sunt de caetero in incorruptibilitate, & per hoc angelis assimi­lates dicit, &c. Sicut angeli; gloria nempe & honore coronati, &c. Quare absurdissimum est dicere, Quoniam Christus pronunciauit sanctos conspiciendos esse velut angelos in resurrectione, ob id corpora haec non resurgere. that if there were no resurrection but the soule only were saued, Christ would haue accorded to the Sadduces as being well and rightly perswaded. But now he answereth saying, In the resurrection they marry not nor are giuen in marriage, but [Page 51]are as the Angels of God in Heauen, not because they haue not flesh or bodies, but for that they marry not, but are thencefoorth in state of incorruption, crowned with glory and honour, and thereby likened to the angels. In a word he saith, that it is a most absurd thing to say that because Christ saith we shall in the resurrection be seene as Angels, therfore these bodies (marke what he saith, these bodies) doe not rise againe. And that it must be vnderstood of these bodies he prooueth euen by the terme of resurrection. Ibid. Resur­rectio n [...]n de non lapso sed de lapso dicitur & resurgente, &c. Moritur autem caro; Anima enim immorta­lis est. Promde si anima est im­mortalis, corpus autem ipse mor­tuus, qui r [...]sur­rectionem qui­dem esse dicunt, verùm carnis non esse, hi re­surrectionem negant.For resurrection is not named of that that is not fallen, but of that that is fallen and doth rise a­gaine. Now it is the flesh that dieth, for the soule is immortall; and if the soule be immortall, and it be the body that is dead, then they that say there is a resurrection but not of the flesh, doe deny the resurrection. For conclusion he setteth foorth death and resurrection by comparison of sleeping and waking, af­firming, that Ibid. c Quem­adm [...] dum ex dormiendo ex­citari ac vigi­lari contingit: sic etiam viuere ex morte con­tinget & non omninò qui mortuus est postquam mor­tuus suerit in eodem mane [...]. as it befalleth a man to rise and wake from sleepe, being the same rising that hee was when hee lay downe to sleepe, so doth it befall also to liue again from death, so as that the dead doth not still continue in that state. Hither­to then it is plaine that all this discourse tendeth directly to the confuting of Proclus and Origen, and therefore that M. Bishop was scarsely in good temper in the reading heereof, that tooke all these words to be the words of Pro­clus. One onely exception he yet further hath, that what is Proclus his opinion and proposition in the beginning, where I designed it, the very same is his conclusion fiue leaues after, where he endeth his discourse with a comparison of our mortall bodies to a beasts hide filled with water. He setteth downe the words and then saith: Doe you not see how the same that Proclus propounded in the beginning with Origen, the same he concludeth in the end? Wherefore all that whole discourse be­tweene those two places was his owne, and no word in it of Me­thodius. But by M. Bishop I see that a wise man would as well haue looked to the middle as to the beginning and the end. It is true indeed that in the end as it is distinguished there are certaine words of Proclus, but M. Bishops vnder­standing [Page 52]should haue serued him to looke in what maner they come in. For the authour of that discourse hauing proceeded so far as I haue declared, concludeth that matter thus; Pag. 183. c. &c. Caeterum de his plura di­cere in praesens, eptime Theo­phile, voique reliqui sermonis iudices, omitta­mus. Arripta­mus autem ea quae deinceps ad haec consequun­tur, quomodo longè ab eo [...]p oportet discessit, quando in pro­phetia sexage­simi quinti Psalmi quam coactè & im­propriè exponit, resurrectionem in sola specie seruari sperare oportet, dicit. But let vs giue ouer, O noble Theophilus, and you o­ther Iudges of our speech, to speake any more of these things at this time. Whereupon follow these words; But let vs take also those words which heereupon further follow, how far he de­parted from the right when in the prophecy of the threescore and fift Psalme which he expoundeth forcedly and vnproperly he saith, We must expect that the resurrection shall be perfor­med in shape only. Marke well, gentle Reader, how he that hath spoken all this while professeth to cite other words of Proclus, taxing him for departing from the right, for for­ced and vnproper exposition, and setting downe the opinion wherein he departed from the right to be this, that the re­surrection shall be onely in the same shape. What; doe wee heare him that speaketh condemning Proclus, and yet must we beleeue M. Bishop to take the words whereby he is condemned to be the words of Proclus? Nay heereupon are the words of Proclus rehearsed to the same effect as M. Bishop hath set downe, that as a beasts hide being filled with water, if by little and little it be emptied, and by little and little be filled againe, it carrieth still the same shew though it be not still the same water; euen so our bodies be­ing by food and euacuation altered and changed from day to day, though they still haue the same shape and shew, yet in substance of flesh continue not the same, and therefore being not now the same for a few daies together, shall not be the same at the resurrection. This he setteth downe as the summe of Origens opinion, and then against the obie­ction of the body of Christ he answereth, that Christs bo­dy was not as ours are, his being not conceiued in sinne but by the power of the holy Ghost, whereas ours are sleepe and pleasure and filth, fit to be lest to beasts and wormes. The words of Proclus being thus deliuered, the Latine in­terpreter maketh a diuision thus, Sequuntur nunc ipsius Me­thodij [Page 53]verba: there follow now the words of Methodius him­selfe, where in the Greeke there is no more but [...]; the rest or the remnant of Methodius; wherein he set­teth downe a narration of that which befell as it seemeth vpon Proclus his declamation already mentioned vpon the threescore and fift Psalme, namely that therupon they grew to a disputation, Methodius and Auxentius on the one side, Aglaophon and Proclus on the other side, as was before said. In which disputation Methodius hauing con­uinced Aglaophon, that Pag. 186. Qui ligatus est non potest pec­care; Coarcta­tur enim [...] nec permittitur a vinculo. At corpus ad pec­candum est au­xiliarium, &c. Non ergo cor­pus est vincu­lum, &c. the body cannot be said to be the prison of the soule, as Origen held it to be, because a prison is for restraint of a man from doing that for which he is imprisoned, but the body is so far from being a re­straint from sinne, as that it is a helper thereto, goeth on forward againe in another large speech to the same effect and purpose as hath beene already declared. Thus I haue at large handled the matter of that large discourse, that thou maiest see, gentle Reader, how absurdly and vnho­nestly M. Bishop dealeth with thee, who being admoni­shed of his ouersight, will yet wilfully goe on to perswade thee that that is a bad discourse, as he calleth it, of an here­ticke, which so plainely appeareth to bee a memorable speech of a reuerend and godly Bishop. Proclus held that the same body shall not rise againe. The authour of that discourse prooueth that the same body shall rise againe. Therefore the authour of that discourse was not Proclus but Methodius, which being approoued by Epiphanius, my former speech is iustified, that these two ancient godly Bishops, Methodius and Epipha­nius did teach as the Protestants doe, that sinne is not vt­terly rooted out or taken away by baptisme, but continu­eth in the regenerate so long as this life continueth. And now I pray you, M. Bishop, to tell vs whether you or I be more woorthy to be thrust into the Asses skinne, and whether you haue not giuen vs iust cause to doubt that you are so hide-bound therewith as that it will very hardly be pulled [Page 54]from you? Surely we shall thinke you are no Asse if you giue vs many more such tokens of your discretion and ho­nesty as you haue done heere.

17. To returne now to his preface, againe he telleth his Reader, that Pag. 11. if he would make a Catalogue of M. Abbots corruptions, falsifications and other odde trickes, he should hi­ther reduce the gretest part of his booke: but this that I haue heere declared, saith he, cannot but suffice to discredit him with all indifferent men. But in thee, gentle Reader, the iudgement resteth, whether he haue said any thing to cast discredit vpon me, or whether he hath not rather heaped shame and confusion vpon his owne head. Surely he that thus crieth out with a wide mouth of falsifications and cor­ruptions, and in a whole booke can bring no better proofes or examples thereof than he hath heere done, doth excee­dingly iustifie his aduersary, and plainly declare that his outcry is not vpon occasion but onely by deuice. If, saith he, he hath wittingly misreported such woorthy authours of purpose to beguile the credulous Reader, then he hath a most seared and corrupt conscience vnwoorthy the name of a Diuine, and walking aliue is dead in conscience, and consequently in cre­dit with all men that loue the truth, for the tongue that lieth, killeth the soule. Be it so; I willingly subscribe the sentence; the doome is iust, and let it so befall to him that dealeth in that sort. His vntruthes, saith he, are so plaine and palpable that you need no more but compare his reports with the au­thours words, and at first sight any meane scholar shall finde his cosinage and deceit. But therefore haue I now set downe the authours words which he hath not done, and thereby the Reader shall see where the cosinage and deceit is. He profes­seth to haue read the places: if he haue done that himselfe which he imputeth to me, he hath pronounced his owne doome: if God giue him not grace to repent, wo be vnto him, and better had it beene for him that he had neuer been borne. We are come now, he saith, to the last kind of abuse offered by me to the sacred Senate of those most renowmed anci­ent [Page 55]fathers. And what is that? forsooth to deny their autho­rity flatly, to controll and censure them as simple men, to accuse them of errour and falsehood, yea and to preferre the opinions of old rotten heretikes before them, and heerein, he saith, I do most ingenuously discouer the right humour of a true Prote­stant. But I must tell him that the Protestants make more true account of the ancient fathers, and doe yeeld them more honour than the Papists doe. The Protestants giue all authority to the ancient Fathers, saue where the Fathers are ouer-ruled by the word of God. The Papists ouer-rule the Fathers by their owne Decrees, and the will and plea­sure of a buzzardly Pope or of a few blind Bishops depen­ding vpon him, must be with them of more account and reckoning than all the Fathers of the Church. They doubt not plainly to say, that 24. q. 1. Quo­tiescun (que) contra Papae authori­tatem nec Au­gustinus nec Hieronymus nec aliquis Docto­rum suam sen­tentiam de­fendit. neither Austin, nor Hierome, nor any of the Doctours may maintaine his opinion against the au­thority of the Pope. I haue before noted a speech of theirs generally of the Fathers; Index Ex­purgat. Belg. in censur. Bertra­mi. Cum in Ca­tholicis veteri­bus alijs pluri­mos feramus errores, & ex­tenuemus, ex­cusemus, exco­gitato commen­to persaepè ne­gemus & com­modum ijs sen­sum affingamus dum opponun­tur in disputa­tionibus aut in­conflictionibus cum aduersa­rijs. In the old Catholike writers we beare with very many errours, but we extenuate and lessen them, we excuse and make the best of them: by some deuised shift we often deny them or set some good meaning on them when they are opposed in disputations or in combates with our aduer­saries. What, and will a Papist now say that there are er­rours in the Fathers? Yes forsooth, where the Fathers speake as the Protestants doe, there the Fathers must be said to erre, yea, in very many things, and then their autho­rity must be flatly denied, they must be censured for sim­ple men, accused of errour and falshood, and the opinions both of old and new heretikes must bee preferred before them. But let vs see in particular of whom he speaketh. The first is Eusebius that most famous Historiographer, as he calleth him; of whom I vse these words: Answer to the epist. sect. 26. pag. 177. Let him giue me leaue to censure Eusebius a little, because the Canons of their owne Church haue censured him much more. And what is the censure whereof I spake? No lesse than this, that Gelas. 1. De­cret. de Apo­cryph. dist. 15. sancta Romana. Historia Eusebij Pamphili apo­chrypha, &c. Haec & omnia his similia, &c. non solum repudiata, verumetiam ab omni Romana Catholica & Apostolica ecclesia eliminata, atque cum suis authoribus in aternum con­fitemur esse damnata. his [Page 56]story by Gelasius Bishop of Rome with seuenty other Bishops is pronounced Apocryphall and it selfe with the authour abando­ned with the rest, out of the whole Romane Catholike and Apo­stolike Church, which censure I noted to haue beene by Gratian also transcribed into their Decrees. Now is this iudgement pronounced vpon Eusebius in the church of Rome, and doth a Romanist thinke much that I touch Eu­sebius for an iniudicious & presumed application of an act of Constantine, and that when he himselfe giueth occasion to touch him therein, confessing that Constantine said no­thing thereof, and declaring that Constantine at his death gaue occasion to conceiue the contrary? Thus is Ruffinus charged by Bellarmine, Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 2. c. 13. falsa est expositio Ruffin. with expounding falsely the Councell of Nice, Socrates to be Idem de cultu sanct. ca. 10. Di­co Socratem hae­reticum fuisse Nouatiamum, ne (que) eius testi­monium in dog­matibus vllius esse momenti. a Nouatianheretike, and his testimo­ny nothing worth in matters of doctrine; Zozomen to be Idem de Cle­ricis. cap. 20. ex Greg. l 6. ep. 31. Ipsam historiā (Sozomeni) se­des Apostolica reciperc recusat, quoniam multa mentitur, &c. a lier in many things, which Gregory hath noted of him, and signified the reiecting of his story by the Church of Rome. May they now thus at their pleasure reiect the ancient Histori­ans of the Church, and was it so hainous a matter for me to censure Eusebius, being knowen to haue beene an Arian heretike, for fathering vpon Constantine a superstition which it appeareth by himselfe he gaue him no occasion to conceiue of him?

18. There followeth Chrysostome in the next place, against whom Sixtus Senensis sticketh not to put in an ex­ception, that Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. sanct. l. 5. in Prafat. Chrysostomus impetu discep­tandicum Ma­nichaeis & Gen­tibus, &c. sae­ponumerò natu­rae nostrae vires plus aequo at­tollit. by heat of reasoning against the Manichee [...] and Heathens he doth often too much extoll the power of na­ture; and Andradius, condemning Origen of great errour for imputing sinne to the Virgin Mary, saith, that Andrad. Defens. fidei Trident. l. 5. Neque ab hoc Origenis errato Chrysostomus plurimum abfuit; &c. Chry­sostome was not farre from the same errour of Origen when he charged her with importunity and ambition for that shee inter­rupted her sonne as he was preaching. Will they againe at their liberty thus tax Chrysostome, and doe I offend in saying, that Answer to the epistle sect. 25. pag. 175. as an Oratour hee apprehended a thing to [Page 57]speake according to present occasion which otherwise he approoued not, when I giue plaine demonstration and proofe that it is so? The place it selfe, gentle Reader, will satisfie thee, neither need I to vse any defense of it. So will the other also, where I say of a speech of Chrysostome con­cerning Constantines sonne, that Ibid. pag. 176. howsoeuer it proceeded from him, it is much different from the certaine story. I show that it is so: what a vaine brangler is hee to cauill at my words when as he is not able to controll the proofe?

19. The next abuse that he noteth is to S. Austin, wher­in he plaieth Will Sommers part, striking him that is next him, but letting him alone by whom he himselfe is stricken. My words are these; Answer to the Epistle sect. 8. pa. 54. ex Erasm. ar­gument. in lib. Hieronym. ad­uers. Ioninian. Diuus Augu­stin [...]o errores quosdam con­fert in Iouini­anum quos ta­men illi non im­pingit Hierony­mus, vti (que) non dissimulaturus siquid tale do­cuisset, &c. Verùm apparet diuum Augu­stinum nec Io­uiniani nec in hunc Hiero­nymi libros le­gisse: tantum rumore popu­lari didicisse quod nouerat de Iouiniano. Erasmus obserueth truly that Austin chargeth Iouinian with some errours, whereof Hierome ma­keth no mention, who would not haue passed by them if Iouinian had taught them, whereby it appeareth as he collecteth, that Austin had neither read Iouinians bookes nor Hieromes bookes against Iouinian, but onely by peoples rumours and talke had learned that that he knew concerning Iouinian. I note what Erasmus collecteth; Erasmus himselfe giueth reason of his so collecting, and was not this a mortall abuse committed by me towards S. Austin; that M. Bishop should say as he doth? In like maner he slandereth S. Austin for writing against Iouinian, whose opinions, saith M. Abbot very audaciously, S. Austin knew onely by hearesay and not of any certainty. Doest thou not thinke he is well skilled in his art that can so well bombast such a quarrell as this is? But there is forsooth a­nother matter, that I say Austin was deceiued where he said that no Priests imbraced Iouinians opinion. And did I not prooue so much by Hierome himselfe that there were both Bishops & Priests of the same minde? Yea that the Clergy & Monks of the church of Rome notwithstanding the sen­tence of Siricius then Bishop of Rome retained still their o­pinion, that maried wiues are the same (with God) as Virgins are? the thing is plaine, and were M. Bishop so wise as he should be, he would neuer trouble vs with such idle stuffe.

20. I note Hierome Ibid. pag. 54. for rude & vndecent speeches against mariage. He that will know whether he vsed any such or not, let him read his epistle, ad Gerontiam de Monogamia, and his first booke against Iouinian, in which his vsage is such in that behalfe as gaue occasion of great offence in Rome, so as that the greatest part of his Apology to Pam­machius is spent in excusing such speeches which notwith­standing, to say the truth, very slenderly hee doth. That he wrot against Iouinian with Pag. 57.all indignation and stomacke who doubteth that readeth what he wrot? who seeth not that he laboured to the vttermost of his power to disgrace him against whom he wrot? As for railing I mention it not by mine owne words but by the words of Erasmus, who saith of him against Vigilantius; Answer to the epist. sect. 9. pag. 67. ex Erasm. argum. in lib. Hieron. aduers. Vigilan­tium. In hunc ita conuicijs de­bacchatur Hie­ronymus vt plusculum in eo modestiae cogar desiderare. Vti­nam argumen­tu duntaxat e­gisset & a con­uicijs tempe­rasset. He doth so raile at him as that I cannot but wish that hee had shewed more modesty. I would he had dealt by argument onely and had for borne railing speeches. False doctrine I name not, but if there be nothing false in Hierome how commeth it about that Bellarmine mentioning that Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 8. Videtur beatus. Hieronymus in­ea sententia fu­isse vt existi­maret episcopo [...] esse presbyteris maiores iure ec­clesiastico non diuino, qua sententia falsa est & suo loco refectetur. Hierome seemeth to be of that opinion that Bishops by the law of God are not superiour to Priests, saith, that that opinion is false, and he will afterwards refute it; or how doth Alfonsus De Castro say, that Alphons. de Castro aduers. haeres. l. 6. apud Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. sanct. l. 6. annot. 324. Non veretur fateri Hieronymum hac in parte errasse. he doubteh not to confesse that Hierome in that behalfe erred, as Sixtus Senen­fis hath reported of him? Thus it appeareth that I haue not taken exception against any father but that they them­selues also except against the same, as they doe also against the rest. Of Iustinus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Oecumenius Bellarmine saith, Bellarm. de sanct. bea­titud. c. 6. Iustini, Irenaei, &c. sententiam non video quo pacto possimus ab errore defendere. I doe not see how we can defend their opi­nion from errour.Idem de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Videtur mortalitèr peccasse cùm praecepto expresso Apostolico non paruerit.Cyprian, he saith, seemeth to haue sinned mortally for that he obeied not the expresse commandement of the Bishop of Rome. In another case he saith, Ibid. cap. 8. Respondeo non esse omninò fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte, quandoquidem ipse Montanista erat. Tertullian is [Page 59]not to be beleeued because he was a Montanist. Againe hee saith, Idem de verb. Dei interpret. ca. 10. Constat quosdā ex prae­cipuis corum non leuitèr in quibusdam lapsos. It is certaine that some of the chiefe of the fathers haue greatly erred in some things. This being so, what other doth M. Bishop but play the Sycophants part in calumni­ating vs for disclaiming sometimes the opinions of some fathers, when wee deale therein no otherwise than they themselues doe, nor doe indeed dissent from them in so ma­ny things as they doe? It hath hitherto, God be thanked, very well appeared, that though sometimes we dislike the opinion of a father, yet in all the questions that we haue handled, the fathers haue yeelded more strength to vs than they haue done to them.

21. But heere he maketh haste to acquaint the Reader with the most shamelesse pranke of all other, in which hee hath shewed himselfe as shamelesse as he hath done in all the o­ther. In his epistle to the King he hath charged vs with the heresies of Vigilantius, Aerius, Iouinian. It hath beene answered him in what sort and how farre we agree with these, and what reason we haue for that we doe. Heere like the cuckow he barely singeth ouer the same song againe, and not heere onely but Pag. 252.253. &c. againe also towards the end of his booke; he disprooueth not our answer, he confuteth not our reasons, but onely bableth, that we prefer the most infa­mous condemned heretikes euen in the very points of their er­rours, before the most iudicious, learned and syncere Doctours of the Church. For as the hackney that is accustomed to one way, if he be put beyond or beside that way hath no pace at all; euen so he hauing learned a forme to cry out a­gainst Iouinian, Aerius and Vigilantius, is very expert and ready in that, but put him beyond that and he is dumbe and hath nothing more to say. But I answer briefely, that it skilleth not what or how meane they were. We rest not our beleefe vpon any of them, but only ioine with them, where they hold that which God hath taught both vs and them. We know it to be true which the Poet hath said, that Iuuenal. Sape etiam stultus fuit opportunae locutus. a foole many times speaketh a wise word, & which S. Au­stin [Page 60]saith and doubteth not thereof, that August. de Anima cap. 1. Feri posse non ambigo vt ali­quid imperito & indocto cui­piam scire con­tingat quod a­liquis doctus & peritus ignorat. it may befall to an ignorant and vnlearned man to know something which the skilfull and learned man is ignorant of. And in a word as Hie­rom though Epiphanius had noted Aerius for an heretike for that he affirmed that by the law of God. Epiph. haeres. 79. Quid est episcopus ad presbyteruns? Nihil differt hic ab illo; v­nus enim est [...]rdo, & vnus honor, &c. Bishops had no superiority ouer Priests, but they were both equall and the same, held that no reason for him to renounce therein the opinion of Aerius, whereof Hieron. ad Euagr. Aposto­lus docet eos­dem esse presby­teros quosepis­copo [...], & in Tit. 1. Idem presbyter qui episcopus. No­uerint episcopi se consuetudine magis quàm dispositionis do­minicae veritate presbyteris esse maiores. he thought himselfe by good reason rightly perswaded; euen so though Hierome and Austin haue for some points taxed Iouinian and Vigi­lantius as heretikes, and Epiphanius in another point Aeri­us, yet is that no sufficient motiue to vs to forsake those o­pinions of Iouinian, Aerius and Vigilantius, so long as we haue warrant by the word of God and by good induce­ments of antiquity to be perswaded as they were. And as Hierome held it no preiudice to him that Aerius otherwise was an Arian heretike because in this he condemned him though he agreed with him in the other, euen so it is no preiudice to vs that either Aerius was an Arian, or Iouinian and Vigilantius taught otherwise amisse, because we pro­fesse to agree with them only in the truth, but in what they taught against the truth are ready to condemne them. Fur­ther I say nothing heere, but refer the Reader to that that in my answer to his epistle I haue already said; onely no­ting how vntruly he saith, that I confesse in the same place that the conceit of the holinesse of virginity before the holinesse in marriage was by the whole court of Rome maintained at those daies, whereas I shew that setting aside the Bishop of Rome, both Clergy and Laity, Nobles and others, Monks and such as professed continency were in that behalfe ad­uerse to Hierome and did most scandalously take it that he should say that virginity was a holier estate than marriage was, yea and gaue honour and countenance to Iouinian, which I verily resolue they would neuer haue done, so well am I perswaded of the church and City of Rome that then was, if he had beene a man of so base and bad condition as [Page 61]Hierome in his choler reporteth him to haue beene. As for his declamation heereupon following it is but idle stuffe and an empty flourish of his Romish Rhetoricke, his tongue mightily outrunning his wit, in talking of the poore miserable Protestants blindly bent to defend their owne errors; of their consorting themselues with heretikes; of likelihood that Austin, Hierom and Epiphanius, should see more than Iouini­an, Vigilantius and Aerius, as if the Protestants built any thing vpon the sight and authority of any of these; of my misapplying, misconstruing, corrupting, and falsifying the Do­ctours sentences as Caluin saith the Libertines did the Scrip­tures, of their being deceiued that thought I had beaten the Papists with their owne weapons; of our catching hold onely of some broken sentences of the Fathers to astonish and deceiue the simple Reader: All these are but words, and we know his winde serueth him to giue words enow, but how simply he maketh good his words appeareth by that that hath beene and shall be said.

22. Hee commeth now to shew how reuerently I behaue my selfe towards the holy Scripture. One example he will giue heere whereby the Reader may take scantling of the rest. It is conteined in some words of mine in answer of the first secti­on of his Epistle. Answer to the Epistle sect. 1. pag. 6. This is the thing, say I, that M. Bishop la­boureth for, seeking with Elymas the sorcerer Act. 13.10. To PER­VERT THE STREIGHT VVAIES OF THE LORD, and whereas his Maiestie as he confesseth hath made open and often profession of his vigilancie and care to aduance the diuine honour of our Sauiour Christ and his most sacred religion, hee would in stead therof draw him to aduance the idoll Dan. 11.38. MAVZ­ZIM the god of Antichrist, and to establish 2. Pet. 2.1. DAMNABLE HERESIES by him PRIVILY BROVGHT IN, where­by his agents and factours vers. 3. THROVGH COVETOVSNES VVITH FAINED VVORDS MAKE MERCHANDISE OF Reuel. 18.13. THE SOVLES OF MEN, Tit. 1.11. SPEAKING THINGS VVHICH THEY OVGHT NOT FOR FILTHIE LV­CRES SAKE. The first fault that he findeth heere is the [Page 62]dismembring of Gods word, and renting of it in peeces, with which peeces odly and idlely patched together, he maketh vp, saith he, as it were a poore beggers cloake rather than any testi­mony of Scripture. Now may we not thinke that this man was very destitute of examples of my abusing of holy Scripture, that vpon such a pretence as this would bring in such an example as this is? I name Elymas the sorcerer see­king to peruert the streight wayes of the Lord; I note the place where it is said that he did so. I mention Mauzzim as the god of Antichrist according to the exposition of sundrie of the Fathers; I direct the Reader where it is that the Scrip­ture maketh mention of him; I tell what the worke of An­tichrist shall be; I expresse it by the words of the Apostle Peter, which are a Prophecie of the time of Antichrist, that by himselfe and his he shall priuily bring in damnable here­sies, and through couetousnesse with fained words shall make merchandise of men. And that this merchandise shall be of the soules of men, I forgate to note it, but should haue done out of Reuel. 18.13. where the soules of men are reckoned a­mongst the merchandise of the whore of Babylon. And how this shall be done, I note by the words of the Apostle concerning such deceiuers and false teachers, that they speake things which they ought not for filthy lucres sake. Is this now that dismembring and renting of Gods word in peeces that he complaineth of? Surely I haue not dismembred the word of God, but it seemeth his vnderstanding is dismem­bred that can no better conceiue what it is to dismember the word of God. He is greeued that the word of God fit­eth so rightly to describe the Master whom he serueth, and for whom hee hath yeelded so farre to engage his owne soule. But saith he, the words hang vntowardly together; for if his Maiesty should be perswaded to aduance the idoll Mauz­zim the God of Antichrist, he could not establish heresies pri­uily brought in. And why so? For that false God, saith he, will wholly oppose himselfe against Christ, and openly professe idolatry and compell others to doe the same. And euen so doth [Page 63]the Pope, euen so, I say, the Pope doth wholly oppose him­selfe against Christ, persecute the faith of Christ, tread vn­der his feet the lawes of Christ, openly professe idolatry, and compell others to doe the same. But he is said priuily to bring indamnable heresies, not because he doth not open­ly professe them, but because he bringeth them in vnder­hand, by goodly pretences and colourable shewes, by fai­ned & faire glossing words, hiding therewith so much as he can the iniquity and impiety that is contained in them. In which sort Saint Paul saith, that 1. Tim. 4.1.2 the spirits of errour shall speake lies in hypocrisie, so that though the doctrines which they teach be doctrines of diuels, yet they shall colour them with faire pretences of piety and religion, that they may not seeme to be that that indeed they are. For in this sort the Pope deliuereth all his lies, colouring all with the pre­tence of the name of Christ. He is the vicar of Christ and whatsoeuer he doth, he doth it by the authority of Christ. He setteth vp faires and markets for selling and buying for­giuenesse of sinnes, and we must thinke that he doth it by a power receiued from Christ. He teacheth men to com­mit idolatry in the worshipping of images, but he beareth them in hand that therein they honour Christ and the ser­uants of Christ. It would be too long fully to discouer how Babylon being Reuel. 17.5. the mother of the whoredomes and abomina­tions of the earth, yet doth all in amystery, 2. Thess. 2.7.a mystery of ini­quity, as the Apostle calleth it, giuing her poison in a golden cup, and by golden termes commending those things whereby shee impiously prophaneth the true worship of God. Whereas M. Bishop saith, that Antichrist will not suffer any God to be worshipped but himselfe, it is a fable. Hee shall not deny the worshipping of God, but 2. Thess. 2.4. he shall ex­alt himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped. So hath the Pope done, lifting vp himselfe aboue God in that hee taketh vpon him to dispense against the Law of God, to repeale what God hath established, to vnsay what Christ hath said, and to say otherwise what he list, verify­ing [Page 64]in himselfe that which S. Hierom saith of Antichrist; Hieron. in Dan. cap. 7. Eleuatur supra omne quod di­citur Deus cun­ctam religio­nem suae subij­ciens potestati. He shall subiect all religion to his owne power. Nothing is Gods word but as he expoundeth it; no article of faith is to be taken but as he declareth it; nothing to be approoued for religion that hath not warrant from him, and what he list to warrant must be taken for religion. M. Bishops third exception is vpon a false ground. These words, saith he, are most falsly and fondly applied to vs Romane Catholike Priests; for that false god of Antichrist shall not be aduanced by the Romans, but fought against and foiled by them. A meere fancie: for that Part. 2. in the defense of M. Perkins Prologue. pag. 39. &c. Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist hath been alreadie proued, and that must stand till by M. Bishop it be disproued. The words of Daniel, The Galls and Romans shall come vpon him, &c. belong not to Antichrist but to Antiochus, who though in his outrage and furie against the Temple and people of God he prefi­gured the abomination of desolation that should stand in the ho­ly places of the Church; and the prophecie of Daniel be so farre forth to be extended both to the one and to the other, yet in the same prophecy had many things otherwise pro­per to himselfe, which to apply to Antichrist is most ridi­culous and vaine, and that the rather for that there is menti­on made of some nations therein which were being in the time of Antiochus, and the prophecy in them was accom­plished, Dan. 11.41. the Edomites, the Ammonites and Moabites, wher­of there is now no more name or remembrance vnder hea­uen, that the prophecy of Antichrist should be expected to be verified in them.

23. As for couetousnesse and desire of filthy lucre, and ma­king merchandise of soules for the satisfying thereof, it pro­perly concerneth Romish Priests. It is well knowen to the world by what meanes they haue formerly gotten the ri­ches of the world into their hands. By the same meanes now do Seminary Priests feed their bellies and cloath their backs; if not in such maner as they desire, it is but with them as many times it is with whoremongers and drun­kards [Page 65]who are content to liue otherwise in penury & want, so that they may haue but to continue them in their beast­ly and filthy life. But, M. Bishop, we too well see that you and your fellowes haue too little cause to complaine there­of. A friend of yours could once familiarly tell an acquain­tance of his what base reckoning is made of our Ministers, but for them how they were magnified and honoured, and where they came had all things at command. The trueth is, that according to the world it is better with you than it is with many of them whom you enuy for their Bishop­ricks and Deanries, and many other also that are honester than you be. As for Tyburne you haue not to feare it for religion but for treason only, because you yeeld your loy­altie and fidelity from your Souereigne and naturall Prince to an vsurping forren Priest. So long as you doe so, whatsoeuer your colours be, iustly shall Tyburne belong to you. I know how much adoe you haue made both in the beginning and end of your booke to acquit your selfe in that behalfe. You shot out your bolt to the King, God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessitie may constraine and driue men vnto at the length. You are desirous to per­swade vs that that was but a friendly caution against that you feared might come to passe, not any threatning of any thing to be done. And although the words were vsed when the powder-treason was in hand, yet it was not meant therof, neither were any of their part consenting or willing to it but a few greene heads, some rash vnaduised Catholicks for the greater part decayed in their estates. But his disloiall and traiterous minde therein appeareth, that he thus drei­ueth this matter to a few greene heads, when as by course of legall proceeding and by the Kings Maiesties Declaration to forren States it is made manifest that that hellish design­ment had the priuity and consent of sundry their principall Iesuites, and there were then commonly amongst them all prayers for the successe of some speciall enterprise in their behalfe, though they knew not what it was. For my part [Page 66]concerning all that iustification of his, I briefly answer with the words of S. Austin; August. in 1. Ioan. tract. 3. Opera loquun­tur & verba requirimus? Quis enim ma­lus non benè vult loqui? Your deeds speake, and shall we li­sten after your words? for who is so bad but he will say well? S. Austin sayd to Petilian the Donatist; Idem. cont. lit. Petilian. l. 2. c. 64. De ve­stra mansuet [...] ­dine non tuae voces; sed Cir­cumcellionum fustes interro­gentur. Of your gentlenesse we will not aske your words, but the bats and clubs of the Cir­cumcellions. So say I to M. Bishop; Of your fidelitie wee will not question your words, but the continuall and ma­nifold plots of villanies and treasons that haue proceeded from your consorts.

24. The conclusion of his Preface concerneth me. He telleth his Reader, that he shall seldome light vpon any Diuine that dealeth more vnsufficiently or perfidiously, that I set a bra­sen face vpon the matter, speake confidently, conuey cunningly, gild artificially, seeming some iolly fellow and a rare flourishing writer, and being one of the most shallow and beggerly writers of these dayes; a very Mount-banke, setting forth for fresh and new merchandise the very rif-raf and refuse of other Protestant authours, bringing nothing that hath not been by their part, so shaken, battered and beaten, that it can not be but a foule dis­grace among the learned to put into light and to set to sale so base, ouerworne, threed-bare and ragged stuffe. But what, M. Bishop, is all that I haue sayd so threed-bare, so ouer­worne, so many times answered in so many of your books, and could not you all this while contract so much marrow and pith out of your large volumes as should serue to reply to one whole part of that that hath been answered to you? I smile at his folly heerin, and can not withall but pitie him, that he hath not so much wit as to thinke that euery man will wonder, that against such a writer and such an answer he should not be able in three yeeres and more to defend so much as his Epistle to the King, yea and that to make good that which he saith, he can bring no better excepti­ons than he hath heere done. I see that he is not willing to make sale of me; he would faine haue me sticke stil to him, and so, God willing, I will, till my rags haue choaked him, and my threed-bare stuffe haue worne him so bare, as that [Page 67]he shall be ashamed to come any more into the companie of honest men.

25. In the meane time and vntill I can giue further de­fense against his Reproofe, I pray thee, gentle Reader, by some few examples to take knowledge what sinceritie or fidelity thou art to expect of him who hath so deeply char­ged me with the want thereof. And heere first I wish thee to obserue how, that he may lay an imputation of vntruth vpon me, he sticketh not to eat and deny his owne words. I sayd in my Epistle Dedicatorie to the King, that he char­geth the religion professed by his Maiestie with heresies, im­pieties, blasphemies, &c. He answereth me thus: Reproofe, pag. 25. 26. You in the weightier part falsly slander me, which I will proue euen by your owne testimonie; for I say, as it may be seene in your owne booke, that I will let passe their impietie that make God the au­thour of all wickednesse, and say nothing of their blasphemy who touch our Sauiour with doubting, if not with despaire of his owne saluation; in which speech I tax by the way Caluin and Beza and som other, &c. Whereas both in my booke and in his owne his words are generall as touching the Prote­stants religion which the King professeth: Answer to the epistle. sect. 13.14. pag. 109. 121. Thus much for my first reason collected from the vntruth of the Protestants re­ligion. The second shall be grounded vpon the vngodlinesse of it, where I will let passe that high point of impietie that they make God the authour of all wicked actions, &c. and will beside say nothing of that their blasphemy against our Sauiour, &c. See heere, the protestants religion, the vngodlinesse of it, they make God the authour of sinne, their blasphemy against our Sauiour, all in generall, no shew of restraining it to Caluin and Beza, and yet, as if he presumed that the books were all lost and no further to be seene, he dareth to challenge me for slan­dering him, and to refer me thereupon to mine own booke, where he saw and where it is open for euery man to see that he himselfe lieth: but this is a trifle perhaps, to denie his owne words; thou shalt discern him much more plain­ly in the vsage of mine. In Pag. 12. answer to the second section [Page 68]of his Epistle I say thus: Bulla Pij. 5. & de Maior. & obed. cap. Vnam sanctam. Behold, sayth the Pope, we are set ouer nations and kingdomes, to build vp and to plant, to pull vp and to destroy, &c. and therefore what the wisdome of God sai­eth, as M. Bishop alleageth,Prou. 8.15.By me Kings raigne, the same the Pope blasphemously applieth Ceremon. ec­cles. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 2. Ad sum. mum pontificem D [...]i vices geren­tem in terris tanquoam ad eum per quem reges regnant, &c.to himselfe, Per me reges reg­nant, By me Kings raigne. To prooue that the Pope saith, that By him Kings raigne, I alleaged his owne booke, Sacrar. ceremon. eccl. Rom. l. 1. c. 2. where it is expresly sayd, that it is he by whom Kings doe reigne, as I haue now set downe in his owne words euen as supra. sect. 5. before I noted him, saying of the Emperour, By me he reigneth. Now in setting downe my text in Reproofe. pag. 82. his booke hee quite leaueth out the citation, and then telleth his Reader, Pag. 84. This is the fift lie that he makes within the compasse of lesse than halfe a side: for albeit the Pope vse the words spoken to the Prophet Ieremy, Ecce nos constituti sumus, &c. yet doth he not those by King Salomon vttered in the person of Gods wisdome, which M. Abbot deceitfully shuf­fleth in. But, M. Bishop, do I lie indeed? What, will you tell me that I lie, and in the mean time suppresse the proofe whereby it should appeare that I doe not lie? If I should thus deale, I know what you would terme it, and I could not but acknowledge it; what it is in you, let the world iudge: I forbeare to giue it the right name. Another prank he plaieth of as great honesty as this, in putting in of words which are none of mine. Answer to the epistle, sect. 3. pag 19. Our faith therefore, say I, 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 procued to be an Apostolike church. At the end of which words M. Bishop Reptoofe, pag. 103. in setting downe my text hath put in &c. as if there were something els to come in than he hath expressed, and in the rehearsing of them in his answer addeth these words, Pag. 114. And is the only true Catholike church; as if I had said, that our Church of England is the only true Catholike church, and is proued by perfection of doctrine to be the only true Catho­like church, heereupon running vpon mee for saying the [Page 69]same which I reproued in the Donatists; wheras the words against which hee fighteth are none of my words, but are most leaudly and falsely thrust in by himselfe. You tell me of tricks, M. Bishop, but if I had vsed such tricks as these and many other of yours, I would be ashamed euer to set pen to paper again. Remember what your selfe haue said, Reproofe, pag. 283. The diuels cause it is that needeth to be bolstered out and vn­derpropped with lies.

26. Yet further, gentle Reader, to giue thee some small taste of his answers to the authorities by me alleged, thou maiest first take knowledge of those words of Austin; Answer. to the epistle, sect. 3. pag. 18. ex August. cont. lit. Petilian. l. 3. c 6 Siquis si­ue de Christo si­ue de e [...]us eccle­sia, siue de quae­cunque re quae pertinet ad fi­dem vitam (que) nostram, non dicam, Nos, &c. sed si ange­lus de caelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in scriptu­ris legalibus & Euangelicis ac­cepistis, anathe­ma sit. If any man, nay if an Angell from heauen shall preach vnto you concerning Christ or concerning his Church or concerning any thing pertaining to our faith and life but what ye haue receiued in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospell, accursed be he. What saith M. Bishop heere? Reproofe, pag. 112. To S. Austin I answer, first, that those are not his formall words which he citeth. Is that all? But if those be not his formall words, why doth he not tell his Reader what his formall words are? Surely if hee were a man formally honest, he wold deale more material­ly than to mocke his Reader in this sort. Well, though he will not tell the formall words, yet he expoundeth the mea­ning to be; if any shall preach contrary to that that is written, whereas S. Austin telleth vs, that August. de Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt, inueniun­tur illa omnia quae continent fidem mores (que) vinendi. in those things which are plainely set downe in the Scripture are found all those things which conteine faith and conuersation of life, and therefore meaneth not only, if any preach contrary, but as his words are, if any preach any thing beside that that is written, accur­sed be he.

27. I alledged that S. Paul writing his epistle to the Romans Answer to the epistle, sect. 4. pag. 24. ex Theodo­ret. praefat in epist. Pauli. comprehended therein, as Theodoret saith; omnis generis doctrinam & accuratam copiosamque dogmatum per­tractationem; doctrine of all sorts, or all kind of doctrine, and very exact and plentifull handling of the points thereof. The first part of these words in Latin he leaueth out in my text, and in his answer saith to it thus, Reproofe, pag. 132. 133. That you may see how no­thing [Page 70]can passe his fingers without some legerdemaine, marke how he Englisheth Theodorets words; Dogmatum pertracta­tionem, the handling of opinions is by him translated, all points of doctrine, whereas it rather signifieth some than all opinions or lessons. But M. Bishop this dealing of yours is somewhat too grosse. Mee thinkes you should seeke to be acquainted with some Aegyptians, that you may learne of them some­what more cunningly to shift and conueigh. Thou seest, gentle Reader, that he hath dashed out Omnis generis Do­ctrinam, all kinde of Doctrine, wherein the force of the words consisteth, and then saith that by legerdemaine I haue Englished, Dogmatum pertractationem, all points of Doctrine. Doe not maruell that he doth so, because he well perceiued that by these words of Theodoret his Reader should see that if the Apostle comprehended in that epistle all kinde of Doctrine, then the doctrine of the church of Rome, that now is, cannot be the same that it was of old, because they haue so many Doctrines now, whereof there is nothing conteined in that epistle.

28. I produce Agatho Bishop of Rome professing Answer to the epist. sect. 4. pag. 29. duty of obedience to the Emperour Constantinus the fourth, and taking vpon him obediently to performe what the said Em­perour commanded. Heare his owne words, gentle Reader, and iudge thereof. Agatho. epist. in synod. 6. Con­stantinop. Act. 4. Meliori re­sectus sum con­fidentia paula­tim quae per mansuetissimae fortitudinis ve­strae sacram du­dum praecepta sunt efficaciter promptam obse­quentiam exhi­bere, vt personas quales se [...]undū tempor is huius defectū ac ser­uilis prouinciae qualitatē pote­rant inueniti pro obedientiae satisfactione inquirerē, &c. Olim hoc quod vix tandē nunc fieri potuit, stu­diosa obedien­tia noster fa­mulatus imple­ret. &c. secundum pijssimam iussionem a Deo protegendae mansuetudinis vestrae pro obedientia quam debuimus; non pro confidentia corum scientiae quos dirig imus praesentes confamulos nostros, &c. curauimus demandare, &c. Hoc imperialis vestra benignitas clementèr iul ens hortata est & nostra pusillitas quod iussum est, obsequentèr impleuit, &c. Et paulò ante. Pro quibus flex [...] mentis poplite, supplicitèr vestram clementiam deprecamur vt acceptione eos dignos efficiat, &c. I am incouraged effectually to shew rea­dy obedience to the things commanded by your Maiesties writ; to inquire out for giuing satisfaction of my obedience such per­sons as by the scarsenes of this time and state of this seruile Pro­uince may be found; this our seruice would long agoe haue per­formed with carefull obedience, according to the most godly commandement of your Maiesty I haue had care for the obedi­ence that I owe, not for the confidence of the learning of them [Page 71]that I send, to direct vnto you such and such my fellow seruants; this your Imperiall grace with gentlenesse commanding hath wished, and my pusillity hath obediently performed your com­mandement; for whom with bowing the knee of my heart I humbly beseech your clemency to vouchsafe to grant them ac­ceptance. We heere see what Agatho saith; now let vs vn­derstand M. Bishops answer: obserue it well and thinke whether thou hast knowen any mans forehead so hard as his. First, he saith, Reprofe pag. 180. that he findeth no such words in the place by me quoted, marry, that he hath indeed but the abbridge­ment of the letter as it stands in the summe of the Councels. But it is strange that hee should light vpon such an ab­bridgment whence he would take words going before and words following after, as he hath done, and could light vp­on none of these. This smelleth somewhat strong, but thou shalt perceiue him by and by to stinke outright. For­sooth he will not stand vpon deniall of the words, but by this kinde of arguing, he saith, I might prooue euery Pope to professe due obedience to euery priuate seruant of God, because his ordinary stile is, The seruant of Gods seruants. But M. Bishop, I argued not; do not seeke to blind your Reader in this sort; I did not of other words conclude a duty of obe­dience, but I brought the Bishop of Rome in his owne words acknowledging this duty. The Pope calleth him­selfe indeed the seruant of Gods seruants, but wee doe not heare him say, that hee oweth obedience to any, which hee scorneth to professe or yeeld to the Emperour his Lord and Master, and we know the seruice which he professeth towards the seruants of God standeth not in obeying but in ruling and commanding them. But we heare Agatho professing in terminis, that he oweth obedience to the Empe­rour, that he was carefull to giue satisfaction of his obedience, that he obediently performed the Emperours commandement; that in his minde and affection being absent, he did bow the knee to intreat the Emperours fauour towards those whom he sent. How leaudly then doth M. Bishop presume of [Page 72]the blindnesse of his Reader that thus goeth about to per­swade him that both these cases are alike? Well yet, all that we shall haue is but this, that Pag 170. they are common and vsuall words of courtesie, Pag. 181.words vttered of custome & courtesie in all countries, and it is but a miserable shift of mine to vse such words for sound proofes. Whether it be a miserable shift of mine let the Reader iudge, but sure I am that he hath put it off with a very miserable and shamelesse answer. If all Ita­lians and Frenchmen, saith he, that will say they are your ser­uants should be taken short at their word and thereby be pressed to your obedience and seruice you might soone become a great signiour ouer many stately seruants that will doe what they list. Yea but, M. Bishop, we see that Agatho doth performe obedience and seruice, and acknowledgeth to owe the same, and therefore what is that to this? And what; are all your Italians and Frenchmen so courteous as that they will pro­fesse by way of courtesie to owe obedience, and take vpon them for giuing satisfaction thereof to doe what they are com­manded? Surely, Sir, we see that you haue learned much courtesie in Italy, and France, but we say commonly, Much courtesie, much craft, and therefore it is that heere together with your courtesie you haue shewed vs your craft also. You should not thinke any man to be so ignorant as not to know that though men vse such complementall words of seruice each to other, yet neuer doth the superiour take vpon him to owe obedience to his inferiour, specially one that is so infi­nitely superiour, as they say the Pope is to the Emperour, and surely the Pope now, as courteous as he is, is farre from that courtesie. I cited Leo to the same purpose, but it would be too long heere to shew how he abuseth him, and there­fore I leaue it to a larger answer.

29. I alleadged Gelasius Bishop of Rome affirming that in the Sacrament Answer to the epist. sect. 4. pag. 27. ex Gelas. contra Eutych & Ne­stor. Nec tamen esse desinit sub­stantia vel na­tura panis & vini. there ceaseth not to be the substance or na­ture of bread and wine. He answereth, that Reproofe pag. 162. the meaning is, that the nature of bread doth not wholly cease to be in the bles­sed Sacrament because the form, taste & sauour of bread which [Page 73]be naturall qualities thereof doe still remaine, though the whole inward substance be turned into the body of Christ. Compare his answer, I pray thee, with the allegation, and see how well and hansomly they agree, Gelasius saith, that there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread, and his meaning is, saith M. Bishop, that the substance doth cease to be, being whol­ly turned into the body of Christ. Gelasius saith, that the sub­stance of bread remaineth, M. Bishop saith that he meaneth that the forme, taste and sauour of bread remaineth, but the substance remaineth not. Doest thou not thinke that this man hath a wonderfull dexterity in answering, or canst thou wonder that with little adoe, if need were, hee should answer all the Fathers, yea and the whole Bible also that can tell vs that where it is said, it ceaseth not, the meaning is, that it doth cease? But yet hee saith that Gelasius in that place signifieth so much in that he affirmeth, that by the o­peration of the holy Ghost the bread and wine doe passe into a diuine substance. And it is true indeed that Gelasius so saith: But M. Bishop, did your eies serue you to looke no further? Gelas. vt su­pra. Indiuiuam transennt san­cto spiritu per­ficiente substan­tiam, perma­nent tamen in suae proprietate naturae. They passe, saith he, into a diuine substance, but yet they re­maine in the propriety of their owne nature; euen as to the same purpose Theodoret saith; Theodoret. dial. 1. Symbola & signa quae videntur appel­latione corporis & sanguinis honorauit, non naturam qui­dem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens. Christ honoured the visi­ble signes with the name of his body and bloud, not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature. Now if they still continue in their owne nature as before, then they doe not so passe into a diuine substance but that there is still the substance of bread and wine. The thing whereto Gelasius driueth that speech, is to shew against Eutyches, that as in the Sacrament the bread and wine become vnto vs the bo­dy and bloud of Christ and yet retaine the same nature and substance as before, so the manhood of Christ being ioined into one person with the Godhead is not thereby drowned or swallowed vp, but continueth in substance the same that it was from the beginning. This he imagined to be very di­rect against the heresy of Eutyches, but by M. Bishps tran­substantiation it proueth wholly to the aduantage thereof, [Page 74]for that it may bee said that as in the Sacrament the sub­stance of bread and wine are extinguished though there remaine the shew and likenes and taste therof, so in the vni­on of the man-hood with the god-head there cōtinued the semblance and likenes and outward appearance of a man, but the substance thereof was swallowed vp and continued not. And this M. Bishop helpeth to strengthen by expoun­ding nature to be vnderstood of naturall qualities, whereas Gelasius as he speaketh of the bread and wine, there cea­seth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, so saith of Christ, Gelas ibid. Dicimus propri­etatem vniuscu­ius (que) substantiae vel naturae in Christo manere perpetuam. We say that the propriety of ech substance or na­ture abideth continually in Christ, vnderstanding still by na­ture the same that he doth by substance, as hee hath said be­fore, Ibi. Substan­tia nulla est quae non natura di­catur. There is no substance but it is called nature, euen as Austin saith, August. cont. Iulian. li. 1. ca. 3. Natura est ipsa substantia. & cont. serm. Ari­anor. c. 36. Vni­us eiusdem (que) substantiae vel vt expressiùs di­camus essentiae, quod plantùs dicitur, vnius eiusdem (que) na­turae. The nature is the very substance, and, Of one and the same substance or essence, is more plainly said, of one and the same nature; which made the Euty chians that they could not endure to name Gelas ibid. Quis ferat eos dedignari voca­bula promere naturarum? two natures in Christ, because thereby should be imported two entire and perfect sub­stances. And albeit it be true that sometimes the name of nature is vsed to signifie some intrinsecall properties issu­ing immediately from the essence of the thing, yet he that shall say that the nature of bread and wine is the forme and taste and sauor thereof may be thought to speake like a na­turall rather than like a learned man. His exception that this Gelasius was not Bishop of Rome, is vaine. It hath beene still and is printed by themselues vnder his name. The conclusion doth giue token that it was his; Ibid. in fine. Hanc regulam Catholicae fidei, &c. cùm sedem Apostolicam vestram dile­ctio vnanimitèr teneat, cōstātèr praedicet, sapiē tèr (que) defendat. seeing you beloued doe with one minde hold fast the Apostolike sea, there­fore constantly preach and wisely defend this rule of the Catho­like faith, yea and that very fragment which wee now haue, is cited by Bibliot. sanct. Patr. edit. 2. Iom. 4. pa. 557. Iohn the first his successour soone after to the same very purpose whereto he wrot it, which alone is sufficient for approbation thereof. Againe I cited Pag. 35.35. The­odoret making mention, that the Councell of Laodicea did forbid to pray to Angels or to worship them, and I alleaged [Page 75]Austin noting them for heretikes that did so. To S. Austin M. Bishop answereth nothing at all, with whom, as I cited, they are recorded for heretikes, and termed August. ad Quod vultd. haer. 39 Angeli­ciin Angelorum cultu inclinati. Angelici, who were bowed downe in the worship of Angels. How trimly he answereth to Theodoret and the Councell of Laodicea shall be the better discerned if I first set downe the words of Theodoret himselfe. Who handling the words of the Apo­stle, Col 2.18. Let no man at his pleasure be are rule ouer you by hum­blenes of minde and worshipping of Angels, saith thus, Theodoret. in Col. 2. Qui le [...] g [...]m defende­bant eos etiam ad angelos [...]o­lendos induce­bant, dicentes fuisse legem per eos datam. Mā ­sit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia & Pi­sidia. Quocircae Synodus quo (que) quae conuenit Laodiceae quae est Phrygiae me­tropolis lege pro­hibuit ne precae­rentur Angelos. Et in hodiernū vs (que) diem licet videre apud illos & eorum finiti­mos oratoria sancti Michae­lis. Illi ergò hos consulebant hu­militate vten­tes, dicētes, vni­uersorum deum nec cerni nec comprehend [...] nec perueniri ad e­um posse, & oportere per Angelos diuinam sibi heneuolentiam conciliare. Hoc antem dixit Apostolus, In humilitate & cultu Angelorum. They who defended the law did induce them (the Colossians) to wor­ship Angels, saying that the Law was giuen by them. And this corruption continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia. Wherefore the Councell of Laodicea the chiefe City of Phrygia, did by de­cree forbid to pray to Angels. And euen to this day we may see amongst them and others neere to them Chapels of S. Mi­chael. And this they perswaded pretending humility, saying that the Lord of all might not be seene nor comprehended nor come vnto, and that by the Angels we must procure or obtaine the good will or fauour of God. And this, saith he, the Apostle meant by humility and worship of Angels. And what doth M. Bishop now say to this? The Councell forsooth meant it Reproofe pag. 238. of leauing our Sauiour, Iesus Christ, to commit idolatry to the Angels, preferring the Angels before him. But Theoderet knew well the meaning of the Councell. Theodoret knew the occasion of that decree, namely a superstition brought in by the false Apostles to worship Angels and to pray to them, and that vnder the same pretence by which the Pa­pists excuse their praying to Saints and Angels, that we may not presume immediately to goe to God himselfe, but must by them procure fauour and make way to him. This superstition continued, he saith, in Phrygia and Pisidia. They builded Oratories and Chapels in the names of the Angels whither they assembled themselues for the exer­cise of this deuotion. This saith Theodoret was the thing [Page 76]which the Councell condemned. Yea, but see the Canon, saith M. Bishop, and you shall finde M. Abbots legerdemaine. But why did not hee himselfe set downe the Canon? Hee knew well that he wrot to them that would neuer see the Canon, and doth he thus let the matter slip, with See the Canon? Be well assured, gentle Rreader, that he would neuer haue omitted to set downe the Canon if there had beene any thing in it, either to helpe himselfe or to crosse me. The Canon is this; Concil. Lao. dicen. c. 35. Quod non opor­tet Christianos relicta Dei ec­clesia abire ( [...]) & an­gelos compellare vel congregatio­nes facere, quod est prohibitum. Siquis ergò in­uentus fuerit huie occultae ido­loatriae vacare, sit anathema; quia reliquit dominum no­strum Iesum Christum & ac­cessit ad idoloia­triam. That it behoueth not Christians forsaking Gods Church to goe and call to the Angels, or to make assemblies, which is forbidden; if any man therefore be found to giue himselfe to this secret idolatry, accursed be he, because he hath forsaken our Lord Iesus Christ and hath resorted to idolatry. Marke well the Canon, I pray thee, and see whe­ther thou canst finde that I haue committed any legerde­maine, or whether it be not rather one of M. Bishops trickes of legerdemaine, thus to obiect the same to me, that he in the meane time may be thought to be free from it, with whom indeed is no other but legerdemaine. The Coun­cell plainly instructeth vs that to pray to angels is idolatry; that the assemblies of those superstitious people to pray to Angels were assemblies of idolatry; and that to forsake the Church to goe to pray to Angels, is to forsake Christ and to repaire to idolatry, leauing vs thereby consequently to vnderstand, that to bring inuocation of Angels into the Church, as the Papists haue done, is to bring idolatry thereinto. M. Bishop would make vs beleeue that the Councell meaneth not that it is vnlawfull to pray to An­gels, but so to pray to them as to forsake Christ, and to pre­fer them before Christ, whereas the Councell saieth not a word of preferring the Angels before Christ, nor speaketh of forsaking Christ, but it saith that to forsake the church to goe to pray to angels, is to forsake our Lord Iesus Christ to runne to idolatry, plainely resoluing that to pray to an­gels is idolatry and in no sort to be receiued in the Church of Christ. We conclude therefore against M. Bishop, that [Page 77]the Church of Rome in praying to angels doth commit idolatry, and is not now all one with the ancient Church of Rome that did condemne the same. This then is the ad­uantage that M. Bishop hath gotten by referring his Rea­der to the Canon, that we are to account his talke of leger­demaine but as the preaching of the fox, crying out vpon falsehood that he himselfe may the more securely practise it, as I might further shew, but that for a taste I haue said e­nough already by his answers concerning Carpocrates and Marcellina and concerning a Canon of the Councell of Gangra in the very same place.

31. To shew his treacherie in citing antiquities, one or two examples shall suffice. To attribute vnto the Bishop of Rome a soueraigne power for the assembling of Coun­cels, he allegeth certaine words written by some Easterne bishops, as to Damasus bishop of Rome; Reproofe, pag. 176. By the com­mandement of letters sent the last yeere by your reuerence vnto the most roiall Emperour Theodosius we vndertooke the iour­ney euen to Constantinople; whereas those words were not written to Damasus onely, but also to Ambrose, Britto, Va­lerian, Acholius, Anemius, Basil, and other holy Bishops as­sembled in the citie of Rome; neither are as he citeth, By the commandement of letters, &c. but, Theodoret. hist. lib. 5. cap. 9. Concurrera­mus Constanti­nopolim ad ve­strae reuerentiae literas post con­ciliū Aquileiēse missas Theodo­sio summa pie­tate Impera­tori. Vpon the letters of your reuerence sent after the councell of Aquileia to Theodosius the most religious Emperour we assembled together at Constanti­nople. Did he heere meane any truth that would bring that as proper to the Bishop of Rome which was common to a whole Synod of Bishops, and would translate letters of commandement where there appeareth nothing at all but that they were letters of request? In the very next words he committeth the same fraud, alleaging that in the Coun­cell of Chalcedon the Bishops of Maesia writing vnto the Emperour Leo, doe say; that many holy bishops met together in the citie of Chalcedon by the commandement of Leo bishop of Rome, who truely is the head of bishops; whereas it is not there onely Concil. Chal. ced. epist. epis­cop. Maesiae ad Leonem Impe­rat. per iussio­nem Leonis Ro­mani pontificis qui vere caput est episcoporum & venerabilis sacerdotis & patrairchae A­natolij concilio celebrato. by the commandement of Leo bishop of Rome, [Page 78]but it is added, and of the reuerend Bishop and Patriach Ana­tolius; so that Anatolius the Patriarch of Constantinople, is made heere a commander as well as the bishop of Rome, ech of them of those bishops which within their seuerall precincts and bounds were subiect vnto them, and both by vertue of the Emperours writ, as appeareth plainly for that Ibid. Act. 1. Facta est syno­dus ex decreto fidelissimorum Imperatorum. &c. & in Epist. Concil. act. 3. Synodus secun­dum Dei grati­am & sanctio­nem vestrae pie­tatu congre­gata. the Councell is said to haue beene assembled by the Decree of the Emperours Ʋalentinianus and Martia­nus, and so in an Epistle to the said Emperours professeth it selfe, by the grace of God, and by their commandement, to be there gathered together. It were woorth the while, but that I am loth heere to be ouer-long, to declare how nota­bly he abuseth his Reader concerning Tertullian and the Montanists. I will for the time only note first, that where­as I set downe Tertullians relation of the arguments vsed by the Catholike Church against him and the rest of his sect, the knowledge whereof is very effectuall to giue light of iudgement concerning the point in hand, he vnder a ly­ing pretence that I haue Reproofe, pag. 222. 224. mangled them, and peeced them together at my pleasure, very trecherously suppresseth them, as before I shewed he did in the very same sort, the words of Methodius concerning originall sinne; and se­condly, that he saith that Ibid. pag. 223. Tertullian confesseth there that Catholikes held themselues bound to fast the Lent, and on Wednesdaies and Fridaies, whereas in Tertullian there is no such matter, and hee contrariwise plainely saith of them Tertul. de ieiun. Certè in Euangelio illos dies ieiunijs de­terminatos pu­tant in quibus ablatus est spon­sus; & hos esse iam solos legiti­mos ieiuniorum Christianorum. that in the Gospell they thought those daies determined for fa­sting wherein the Bridegroome was taken away (which were good Friday and Easter euen) and that these onely were the daies by law appointed for Christian fasts. Such iugling tricks are not daintie with him, and thou shalt see store enough of them when heereafter we shall come to examine him more at large.

32. Now heere to obserue the same course that he hath done, it shall not be amisse before I end with him to shew by one or two places with what conscience he carieth him­selfe [Page 79]in the vsage of holy Scripture. And first I note his pro­digious impudencie in the defense of that damnable praier which heeretofore they haue vsed as touching Thomas Becket, who though by vndue course, yet died no other but a rebell and traitour to his Prince;

Breuiar. in translat S. Thom. Cantu­ariens.
Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit,
Fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit.
By the bloud of Thomas which for thee he did spend,
Make vs O Christ to climbe whither Thomas did ascend.

This praier the masters of the Church of Rome were asha­med of; and in the reforming of their Portesses they haue put it out, it being one of the great infamies of their church that euer it came in. But this iolly gamester resoluing to play at all, will haue vs thinke that they were fooles and did more than they need to doe, because this praier may be warranted Reproofe, pag. 109. 110. by example of the like, recorded in the old Testament, Lord remember Dauid and all his mildnesse; for why may we not (saith he) as well beseech God to remember the constant fortitude of S. Thomas, as they did the mildnesse of Dauid? he should say, the affliction or trouble of Dauid. But did he not know that sundry great authours both old and new, and namely, Leo in Nati­uit. dom. ser. 4. Hinc Dauid promissionem Dei prophetico spiritu canit, dicens, Iurauit dominus Dauid & non frustra­bitur. &c. Leo Bishop of Rome, haue taken that Psalme to haue beene written by Dauid himselfe, and doe thereby exclude that blasphemous construction of his? And if it were not so, will he make it all one for the people to beseech God to remember Dauids trouble, and for vs to pray by the bloud of Thomas to be brought to heauen? The people intreat God to remember the affliction of minde and care that Dauid had for the building of the Temple, vpon which God tooke occasion to make pro­mise to him of his sonne to sit vpon his throne by whom that should be done. To this care of Dauid, and to the pro­mise thereupon made, they desire God in the beginning of Solomons reigne to giue effect. Chrysostome maketh it the praier of Solomon himselfe, and giueth the effect ther­of thus; Chrysost. in Psal. 131. Quo­niam genus ab co duxi & qu [...] ­mam cum tibi acceptum fuis­set cius studium & diligentia dixisti te eius genu & regnū erec [...]urum, propterea haec pacta conuenta nunc a te exigi­mus. Because I am borne of him, and for that when his [Page 80]studie and diligence was acceptable to thee, thou saiedst that thou wouldest raise vp his stocke and kingdome, therefore we now desire of thee the things that thou hast couenanted and pro­mised. Now this being so plaine and cleere a meaning of that place, what may we thinke of him that would thus im­piously wrest it to the maintenance of a horrible blasphe­mie, which farre hath it beene from any ancient Christian writer to imagine to be meant, either there or any other­where.

33. Againe, Answer to the epistle sect. 25. the Apostle, say I, in expresse termes af­firmeth the imputation of righteousnesse without works. The words are plaine, Rom. 4.6. Dauid declareth the blessednesse of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works. Now what doth he say heereto? Forsooth Reproofe, pag. 135. touching impu­tation of righteousnesse, the Apostle speaketh not like a Prote­stant of the outward imputation of Christs iustice vnto vs, but of inherent iustice, to wit, of faith which worketh by charitie, which are qualities powred into our hearts by the holy Ghost; so that, saith he, there is onely a bare sound of words for the Protestants, the true substance of the text making wholly for the Catholikes. Thus he confesseth, that the words sound for vs; and may we be sure that the Apostle hath any other meaning than hee soundeth by the words? Forsooth M. Bishop telleth vs so, and we must so beleeue it, though his exposition be a meere contradiction to the words of the A­postle. Inherent righteousnesse is the righteousnesse of works. The Apostle speaketh of imputation of righteous­nesse without works. And yet we must thinke that hee speaketh of imputing inherent righteousnesse. Surely the very phrase of imputing inherent iustice is in the Apostles drift a thing very absurd (for Origen. in Rom. cap. 4. Quid videbitur gratiae iusto re­putari iustiti­am ad iustiti­am?what grace or fauour should it seeme to be, saith Origen, that to a iust man his iustice should be reputed for iustice?) but to say that by the imputing of righteousnesse without works, is meant the imputing of inhe­rent iustice, that is, the imputing of the righteousnesse of works, it is a construction so frantike, so senslesse, so shame­lesse, [Page 91]as that we haue good cause to feare that the authour of it hath desperately resolued himselfe rather to say any thing than to confesse the truth. The thing is plaine by the words in which the Apostle saith, that Dauid declareth the blessednesse of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righte­ousnesse without works, namely, Psal. 32.1. Blessed are they whose ini­quities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne. Whereby it is manifest, that not the imputing of inherent iustice but the forgiuenesse of sinnes by faith in Christ is the imputing of righteousnesse without works. Man hauing no works whereby to appeare iust in the sight of God, yet by for­giuenesse of sinnes is reputed iust, because August. Re­tract. li. 1. c. 19. Omnia manda­ta facta repu­tantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur. all the com­mandements of God are reputed as done when that is pardoned which is not done. Now what impudency is this man grown to, that dareth thus apparently delude & abuse the world? Surely these shifts of his are such, so wilfull, so wretched, as that they giue all men iust occasion to detest him, crying out of falsifying and corrupting, of cosenage and deceit, when hee himselfe intendeth and practiseth nothing else. Such as thou hast seene him heere gentle Reader, such shalt thou finde him almost in all his answers throrowout his whole booke; which when I shall haue stript out of those ragges wherewith he hath clothed them, thou shalt see him a poore Doctour, and shalt well perceiue that he was put to a cruell shift and streining of conscience for the writing of this booke.

34. In the meane time I callenge him to giue an answer to this aduertisement. He hath with wide mouth cried out vpon me for false and corrupt dealing. I challenge him to make good his accusation against this briefe Defense. I know he loueth not to meddle with the answering of long books, and when I shall haue giuen checke to his Reproofe, he will not be at leisure to giue me at large a countercheck. I challenge him therfore to cleere himselfe, if he can, against those exceptions that I haue heere taken against him, and [Page 92]setting downe plainly the authours words in their owne tongue, as I haue done, to make it appeare, if it bee so, that in charging me with falshood and lying, hee hath done the part of a trusty and honest man, being no further so to be taken, if hauing made such a clamour against me of lying, lying, it now prooue to be but a cry of course, not for any matter in me, but onely of forme in him. I pray thee gentle Reader, to vrge him by all meanes thereunto. Tell his friends and followers, that if in these few matters hee cannot better acquit himselfe, it shall be a shame for them to suffer themselues any longer to bee deluded by such a shamelesse man. If he say he will doe it in his second part, vnderstand that he doth but mocke thee. The booke that he hath now published, was comming foorth without any name of the first part. The Presse being then surprised, they haue since by some common aduice amongst them re­uiewed and better furnished it, and now for a colour haue called it The first part. Thou hast beene three yeeres and more in the expectation of this little peece; let him not hold thee three yeeres more in the expectation of another part. But whether it be this peece or that part, thou maiest now by thine owne experience iudge of both. If God con­tinue my health and strength, and the vse of those eies at the distemper and sorenesse whereof hee so often sporteth himselfe, I will by the assistance of his grace giue thee fur­ther experience of him in the rest. Albeit I thinke thou wilt not wish that I either trouble thee or my selfe with all his wandring discourses, his idle descants, his fond surmi­ses, his imagined contradictions. Much worke he maketh that I should say, Reproofe, pag. 50. I would stop the aduersaries mouth, and leaue him nothing to reply. But let him remember that to that part whereof I said so, he hath yet replied nothing, and let him vnderstand withall, that I take not euery dogs barking to be a reply: He chargeth me with Ibid. pag. 62. contradicti­on, for that I say that in his dedication he had no hope to preuaile with his Maiestie, and yet I say that in his booke [Page 93]he thought himselfe to haue performed some great ex­ploit, that is, saith he, to preuaile maruellous much with his Maiestie. But his Commentarie fitteth not my text, be­cause his great exploit there intended, was not in preuailing with his Maiesty, but as I there declared, in writing a fa­mous and woorthy worke, the marrow and pith of many large volumes contracted and drawen into a narrow roome. Another contradiction he fancieth in that I Ibid. pag 267. 268. &c. say that he re­uealed a counsell and secret of his owne and his fellowes, in saying, God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessitie will driue men vnto at length, and yet I bid him be of good cheere, and tell his fellowes, that we knew their mind be­fore. I answer him, that in their desire it is a secret which by all means they conceale and hide, and which they would not haue vs by any means or in any sort to imagine of thē; and yet by experience wee haue learned to iudge of them, that they are, as there I said, trecherous, false-hearted, faith­lesse, waiting for time and opportunitie, if power would serue, to compell his Maiestie to their order. Now to what end should I spend either time or paper for the examining of such dreames? To the matter and question of religion, or if there be any thing else materiall, I will answer him, if God will; the rest which serueth onely for the lengthning of his booke, I will passe by with contempt.

35. Now then to leaue M. Bishop for the time, I come to M. Higgons, who hauing vpon meere discontentments lately reuolted from vs, and being strangely become a pro­selyte of the Church of Rome, to the great griefe of his fa­ther, the vntimely death of his mother, the wonder of all who haue knowen what formerly he was, hath of figtree leaues like Adam made him a mantle to couer this naked­nesse and shame, deliuering vnder the name of motiues cer­taine fantasticall apprehensions, whence as he pretendeth he tooke the occasion of this reuolt. In these motiues ta­king vpon him to censure the state and proceedings of our church, and to tax sundry of our men who by writing [Page 94]haue applied themselues for the defense thereof, he pick­eth heere and there some petit quarels against me amongst the rest, as if in writing against Doct. Bishop I had not dealt syncerely and vprightly in the report and allegation of some things. The matters are but few, and those such, as that I shall not need to stand long vpon any of them. The matter that chiefly troubled his head, & gaue him occasiō of this apostasie was, as he pretendeth, our deniall of Pur­gatorie and praier for the dead, which he now vpon the sudden hath learned to be an Apostolicall tradition. And a­mongst other reasons that haue induced him so to con­ceiue of it, one is a proposition deliuered by Doct. Field, that First Motiue of T.H. book. 1 part. 1 ch. 2. § 2. num 8. whatsoeuer all or the most famous in all ages or at least in diuers ages haue constantly deliuered as receiued from them that went before them (no man doubting or contradicting it) may be thought to be an Apostolicall tradition. This he affir­meth to be true of praier for the dead, that the most famous and renowmed in all ages, haue constantly deliuered it as re­ceiued from them that went before, and none haue gainsaied it but damned heretikes, and therefore that it must by Doct. Fields rule be taken to be an Apostolicall traditi­on. Whence, saith he, I was compelled to inferre, that Doct. Abbot doth willingly deceiue himselfe, saying, that praier for the dead is a tradition and ordinance of the Church, to which purpose he misinforceth the testimony of Epiphanius, whereby he would exempt Aerius from the crime of heresie iustly laied vnto his charge by S. Austin and many others. But I answer him, that though as a man I may be deceiued, yet God hath giuen me more grace than that in these matters I will wil­lingly deceiue my selfe. In this matter of Epiphanius I do not take my selfe in any sort to be deceiued. His conclusi­on against Aerius as touching praier for the dead is this: Epiphan. haer. 75. Ecclesia ne­cess [...]r [...]ò hoc per­ficit traditione à patribus ac­cepta; quis au­tem poterit sta­turum matris dissoluere aut legem patris, velut Solomon dicit, Audi fili, fermones patris tui & ne repu­dies statuta ma­tris tuae? osten­dens per hoc quòd & in scriptu & sine scripto decuit pater; mater autem nostra ecclesia habet statuta in se po­sita indissolubi­lia quae dissol­ui non p [...]ssunt [...] Cùm ita (que) ordi nata sint in ec­clesia statuta & benè se ha­beant & omnia mirab [...]ittèr fi­ant, confuta [...]us est tursus eti­am hic sedu­ctor. The Church necessarily doth this by tradition receiued from the Fathers, and who may dissolue the statute of his mother or the law of his Father? as Solomon saith, My sonne heare thy Fathers words, and refuse not thy Mothers statutes? heereby [Page 95]shewing that both in writing and without writing the Father hath taught, and our Mother the Church hath statutes set downe in her which are inuiolable and may not be broken. See­ing then, saith hee, that there are statutes ordeined in the Church, and they are well and all things are admirably done, this seducer is confuted. Now then, doe I say that praier for the dead is a tradition? Epiphanius saith the same, that the Church doth it by tradition from the Fathers. Doe I say that he maketh it a statute or ordinance of the Church? He himselfe expresly calleth it so, and finally presseth the au­thority of the Church onely for the confuting of Aerius. He alleageth no Scripture, his words import that he hath none to alledge; Onely to grace the ordinances of the Church he wresteth a saying of Salomon nothing perti­nent thereto, as if we were taught that God without scrip­ture teacheth vs by the Church. And if he meane any o­therwise but that it is the ordinance of the Church, very vainly and idlely doth he heere name the ordinance of the Church. But M. Higgons will say, that though Epiphani­us name it thus a tradition and an ordinance of the Church, yet he meaneth it to be such a tradition and ordinance as is from the Apostles. But let him meane what he will, yet so long as he maketh it a tradition without Scripture, my words stand good which I vsed to M. Bishop; Answer to Doct. Bishops epistle. sect. 10. pag. 79. 80. Epiphanius resol­ueth vs that praier for the dead is a matter of tradition and an ordinance of the Church, and therefore freeth vs from any trespasse against any thing that Moses or the Prophets or Christ and his Apostles in the Scriptures haue deliuered vnto vs. If it be no matter of Scripture with Epiphanius, then I say rightly that he cleereth vs from impugning therein any thing that is deliuered in the Scriptures. Albeit because it is by Epiphanius his confession a tradition without Scrip­ture, therefore we resolue vndoubtedly that it came not from the Apostles, because whatsoeuer they taught concer­ning faith and saluation, is conteined in the Scriptures, as before hath beene shewed at large. Yea and how vnsound­ly [Page 96]Epiphanius vrgeth Apostolike tradition is to be seene in the point which he speaketh of immediately before, where he saith, that Epiphan. haer. 75. Decreuerunt Apostoli quarta & pro­sabbato ieiuni­um per omnia excepta Pente­coste, & de sex diebus Paschatis praecipiunt nihil omninò accipere quàm panem & salem & a­quam. the Apostles decreed a fast vpon Wednesdaies and Fridaies continually, saue betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide, and that six daies before Easter men should receiue nothing but bread and salt and water, whereas S. Austin professeth, that Aug. epist. 86. Quibus diebus non oporteat ie­iunare & qui­bus oporteat praecepto Domi­ni vel Apostolo­rum non inuenio de finitum. what daies to fast or what daies not to fast, he findeth it not defined or set downe by any commandement of Christ or his Apostles; and by Tertullian it appeareth, that the Primi­tiue Church alledged against the Montanists, Tertul. de ie­iunio. sic & A­postolos obser­nasse, nullum aliud imponen­tes iugum certo­rū & in cōmune [...]mnibus obeun­dorum [...]etuno­rum. that the Apostles imposed no yoke of standing and common fasts; and of the Lent-fast Socrates resolueth, that Socrat. hist. li. 5. c. 21. Quo­niam nemo de ea praeceptum literarum mo­numentis prodi­tum potest ostē ­dere, perspicu­um est Aposto­los liberam potestatem in eadem cuius (que) menti & arbitrio permisisse vt quis (que) nec metu nec ne­cessitate inductus quod bonum est faceret. because no man can shew any written commandement thereof, it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to euery mans will and discretion that with­out feare or necessity euery man should doe what good is. Now we cannot wonder that he that would thus vnaduisedly name Apostolike tradition for the one, should do the same for the other also. Albeit if M. Higgons can iustifie praier for the dead according to Docter Fields rule, we will not sticke with him to grant it to be an Apostolicall tradition. But he might haue seene that I had put it without the com­passe of that rule, if he had been desirous to know the truth and had not resolued first vpon other occasions to fall a­way and afterwards to seeke shifts to excuse his fall. I shewed by Origen that the Church at first vsed no praier for the dead; by the authour of the ecclesiasticall Hierar­chy that when it was first vsed, it was vsed onely for iust and holy men of whose soules they were resolued that they were in heauen, for what causes I haue expressed there; by Epiphanius, that they added afterwards to pray for euill men also and publicke offenders; by Austin that there was not knowen any definite and certaine vse and ef­fect of praiers and offerings for the dead, and that many in his time did plead that if any good were to be done for [Page 97]the soule after death it should rather be by it owne confes­sion of sinnes than by offerings procured by other men. And lastly whereas praier for the dead by M. Higgons con­fession dependeth vpon Purgatory, I shewed by Austins expresse words that he had no certaine beleefe or know­ledge of any such place, which are more cleere to that pur­pose than that by any Popish sophistications they can be shifted or deluded.

36. Albeit I did not only alledge him doubting of Pur­gatory, but also plainly excluding it vpon occasion by de­nying any third place. This deniall of a third place M. Higgons Book 1. part 1. ch. 2. § 4. num. 10. acknowledgeth, and noteth me in his margent for citing the places where it is denied, but seeketh to auoid it by saying that Austin thereby onely denied against the Pelagians any third place of eternall rest heere vpon earth after the day of iudgement for children dying without baptisme; for this is the briefe of the differences that hee hath there set downe. But this will not serue his turne, be­cause Austin doth not meerely deny their third place, but from the absolute denial of a third place inferreth that their third place cannot be. August. de peccat. mer. & remiss. l. 1. cap. 28. Non est vllus vlli medi­us lo [...]us vt pos­sit esse nisi cum diabolo qui non est cum Christo. Hinc & ipse do­minus volens auferre de cor­dibus malè cre­dentium istam nescio quam medietatem quam conantur quidam parun­lis non baptiza­tis tribuere, &c. definitiuam pro­tulit ad haec ora obstruenda sen­tentiam vbi ait, Qui mecum non est, contra me est. There is not any middle place for any man, saith he, that he may be but with the diuell that is not with Christ. He addeth. Heereupon the Lord himselfe also willing to take away from the hearts of misbeleeuers this I know not what middle place which some seeke to assigne to children vnbaptised, hath to stop their mouthes pronounced a definitiue sentence, where he saith, He that is not with me is against mee. There is then no middle place for infants vnbaptised be­cause there is not after death any middle place for any man and therfore doth the Lord pronounce that definitiue sen­tence, from which how M. Higgons will shift Purgatory I cannot well tell. The other sentence is as plaine; August. Hy­pognostic. lib. 5. Da mihi praeter hunc alterum locum vbi vitae possit requies esse perennis. Primū enim lo­cum fides Ca­tholicorum di­uina authoritate credidit regnum ess [...] coelorum, &c. Secundum Gehennam vbi omnis Apostata vel à fide Christi alienus aeterna supplicia experietur. Tertium penitùs ignoramus, imò nec esse in Scripturis Sanctis inuenimus. Giue me beside this, (that is, the kingdome of heauen) any other [Page 98]place where there may be perpetuall rest of life. For the first place the faith of catholick men by diuine authority haue belee­ued to be the kingdome of heauen. The second hell fire, where euery Apostata and alien from the faith of Christ shall feele euerlasting punishments. A third we are vtterly ignorant of, yea wee finde by the holy Scriptures that there is none such. Where we see that S. Austin taking in hand to refute the third place affirmed by the Pelagians, distinguisheth gene­rally how many places there be, and resolueth that that third place of theirs cannot be, because there is no third place. Heauen and hell he saith he findeth in the Scrip­tures, but third place he findeth none, and therefore ma­keth vs confident against beleeuing any Purgatory, be­cause in the Scriptures we find none. The Papists say they find it there, but they say vntruely; they finde it in their owne constructions, forced vpon the Scripture, but in the Scripture it selfe they finde it not. All the places which they alleage haue their iust and perfect vse euen by the exposition of the fathers themselues, without any Purga­torie to be inferred thereby.

37. In the same chapter num. 12. he toucheth me again, for that wheras Austin reuerenceth Epiphanius as a holy man, and famous in the Catholike faith, it seemeth good to me to iu­stifie Aerius a damnable heretike against him. But I reue­rence Epiphanius as farre as Austin did, or teacheth me to doe. I acknowledge hee was a holy man, and famous in the Catholike faith, but yet I say of him as S. Austin saide of Ambrose another holy man, and famous in the Catholike faith, August. con. Pelag. & Cele. lib. 1. cap. 43. Quantis praedi­cat laudibus quamlibet san­ctum & doctū virum nequa­quam tamen authoritati Ca­nonicae Scriptu­rae comparan­dum. Though he were a holy and learned man, yet is he not to be compared to the authoritie of the Canonicall Scripture. I dissent from Epiphanius as Austin himselfe did concer­ning fasting daies, as I touched a little before, who denieth that to be Apostolike tradition which Epiphanius affirm­eth to be so. I iustifie Aerius against Epiphanius in one point, as in another point S. Hierome did, as I haue shewed also Sect. 21. before; not reiecting a truth, for that either an here­tike [Page 99]hath affirmed it, or a Catholike doctour hath denied it, but therefore embracing it wheresoeuer I finde it be­cause God hath taught it. And although Aerius for Aria­nisme were iustly to be accounted a damnable heretike, yet doe I not thinke that M. Higgons can make good his word which before hee hath giuen, that for those matters wherein we approoue him, there were beside Epiphanius and Austin many other, that did condemne him. Epipha­nius indeed doth so, and Austin professing to follow Epi­phanius, transcribeth the same from him; but Philaster and Theodoret writing of heresies, mention no such mat­ter; neither doe I thinke that M. Higgons can bring vs any father or story of those times that taxeth Aerius in that behalfe. Yea, I may not omit that which I pointed at be­fore, that when Dulcitius mooued the question to Austin, Aug. ad Dul­cit. quaest. 2. Vtrum oblatio quae fit pro qui­escentibus ali­quid eorum conferat ani­mabus, &c. Ad quod multi dicunt quòd si aliquis beneficij in hoc locus esse possit post mor­tem, quantò magis sibi ani­ma ferret ipsa refrigeria, sua per se illic confi­tendo peccata, quàm in eorum refrigerium ab alijs oblatio procuratur. Whether the offering that is made for the dead, doe auaile their soules any thing, he setteth downe the opinion of ma­ny in that time concerning that point; Many say to this matter, that if heerein any good were to be done after death, how much rather should the soule it selfe obtaine ease to it selfe by confession of sins there, than that for the ease thereof an of­fering should be procured by other men, which opinion hee would neuer haue set downe, neither would Saint Austin haue let it goe without hard censure, if it had beene then publikely taken for heresie so to thinke; yea Dulciti­us would neuer haue mooued the question thereof, if Pur­gatory had been a knowen and vndoubted point of faith as M. Higgons would faine haue it thought to bee. But this is not all that hee hath heere to blame me for; for in the margent he chargeth me, that I peruert the sense of Epi­phanius, as though the church had praied for the Saints, &c. If they did not so, what is it then that Epiphanius re­porteth? Epiphanius reporteth, saith he, that when we make a memoriall of Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, &c. we se­parate Christ from the order of men, by the honour and ado­ration [Page 100]which we performe vnto him, that is to say, saith hee againe, We doe not offer thanks for him as wee doe for some other men but vnto him as being God of equall Maiesty with his Father. But it is he himselfe indeed that by this expo­sition doth manifestly wrest the words of Epiphanius, the circumstance whereof by him guilefully omitted, doth cleerly conuince that they can by no means be taken as he expoundeth them. His words are these: Epip. haer. 75. Verū enimuerò eò quòd nos sae­pe dum in mūdo sumus fallimur & erramus tū inuiti, tum vo­luntariè, quòid quod perfectius est significetur & pro iustis & pro peccatoribus memoriam faci­mus; pro pecca­toribus quidem misericordiam dei implorantes; pro iustis verò & patribus, & Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apo­stolis, Euange­listis, &c. Vt do minū Iesum Christum ab ho­minum ordine separemus per honorem quem ipsi exhibemus & vt adoratio­nem ipsi praeste­mus, illud men­te voiētes quòd dominus non est alicui homini adaequatus [...]ti­amsi millies & vltra in iustitia degat vnus­quis (que) homo; quomodo enim possibile fuerit? Ille enim est Deus, hic homo; & ille in coelo, hic in terra per reliquias in terra. Verily for that whilest we are in the world, we are often deceiued, and go awry both vnwillingly and with our will, to the end that that which is more perfect may be signified, we make a memoriall both for the iust & for sinners; for sinners intreating the mercy of God; but for the iust, the Fathers, the Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Martyrs and Confessours, the Bishops and Anchorites, and the whole order that wee may separate our Lord Iesus Christ from the order of men, by the honour which wee yeeld vnto him, and may performe worship vnto him, waighing this in our minde, that the Lord is not compa­red to any man, though a man liue in righteousnesse a thou­sand times and more; for how should it be possible? for the one is God, the other man: the one in heauen, the other in earth by remainder of his body in the earth. Where thou art to note, gentle Reader, that Epiphanius saith not as M. Higgons reporteth; Wee make a memoriall of the iust, of the Patriarchs, &c. but for them; neither doth hee say onely, we make a memoriall for the iust, but we make a me­moriall for the iust and for sinners; meaning by sinners such as had beene publikely noted some way or other for euill life. Now the phrase being one, & the act one both for the one and for the other, how shall M. Higgons perswade vs that it was a praier for the one, & only a thanksgiuing for the other? Epiphanius saith not so, nor giueth any ground whereupon to conceiue it to be so; and that this memoriall or commemoration was a praier for them that were thus re­membred, [Page 101]appeareth by S. Austin, saying, that Aug. de cura pro mortuis ge­renda cap. 4. Supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum quas faciend as pro omnibus in Christiana & Catholica socie­tate defunclis sub generali commemorati­one suscepit ec­clesia. the church hath receiued vnder a generall commemoration, to make sup­plications for the spirits of the dead, euen for all that are dead in the Christian and Catholike society. Now if it were a praier which was vsed for all that haue died in Christian society, then it was a praier which was vsed for the Saints, Martyrs, Confessours. &c. Therefore Chrysostome faith, that Chrysost. de sacerdot. lib. 6. Deprecator est apud Deum vt hominum omni­um non viuen­tium modò sed etiam mortuo­rum peccat is propitius fiat. the Priest praied to God to be mercifull to the sinnes of all, both quicke and dead. I question not heere what con­struction latter times made heereof; I know that this cu­stome as it grew to be vsed, grew to be questioned; and because it seemed absurd to pray for them that already are in heauen, which notwithstanding the church formerly had done, as out of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy I most cleerely prooued, therefore though the forme of words were one and the same for all, yet by interpretation they made them a praier for some onely, and a thanksgiuing for the rest, S. Austin I take it being the first that euer brought in that rule, that August. de Verb. Apost. ser. 17. I [...]uria est orare pro martyre. he doth wrong to a martyr that praieth for him. But let M. Higgons wrangle heereof all hee can, by the very place of Epiphanius, that which I say is plain­ly euicted. For when he saith, that wee often are deceiued and goe awry so long as we are in this world; hee thereby ex­presseth the cause why they did make that memorial both for the sinners and for the iust, there being none so iust but that that is verified in them, that they are often deceiued and go awry. Now will M. Higgons make Epiphanius to say of the Saints and iust men, that because so long as they were in this world they were often deceiued and went a­misse, therefore now wee giue thanks for them? It were very absurd to say so; but the other way the words are cleer, that because we are all subiect to sinne, therefore we pray for all. And if by this it be not plaine enough, the rest shall make it more plaine. For out of this reason issu­eth another of as great effect, when he saith, that this me­moriall is made for iust and holy men, that we may separate [Page 102]our Lord Iesus Christ from the order of men, by the honour that we do vnto him. Which honour wherein it standeth, is vnderstood by those former words, that that which is more perfect may be signified; noting it to be the acknowledging of his most high and glorious perfection; he onely being free from all spot and staine of sinne and vncleannesse, but all other carying the marks of frailty and corruption, be­tokened, not in giuing thanks, as I hope M. Higgons will confesse, but rather in praying for them. To which pur­pose he yet further more plainly addeth those other words, And that we may yeeld worship to him. But how? Waighing in our mindes that there is no man compared to him, though a man liue in righteousnesse a thousand times and more. By which words it is cleere as the light, that that separation whereof hee speaketh, hath no intendment of the difference which M. Higgons mentioneth of giuing thanks to the one and for the other, but that it concerneth righteousnesse and sinne, it being to be knowen by this memoriall, that all the Saints, euen they that atteined to the greatest measure of righteousnes, yet being men, were sub­iect to infirmities and imperfections; that so Christ alone may haue the glory to be transcendent and beyond the condition of fraile and sinfull flesh. Now because no part of this could be imported in that memoriall, if it were a thankesgiuing for the Saints, therefore whether M. Hig­gons will or not, it must necessarily be taken to haue been a praier for them. And heereof there is one argument more in the last part of the comparison, when he saith of Christ that he is in heauen, and of the Saints that they are in the earth by their bodies yet resting in the earth. Where it hath some reason that they should say, We pray for them as respecting that their bodies lie yet in the dust of the earth, expecting a blessed and happy resurrection, which we craue to bee reuealed vpon them, but to say that they meant to giue thanks to God for that the bodies of the Saints lie buried in the earth, it were senslesse and absurd. [Page 103]And because it is confirmed vnto vs by the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy, that the Church did pray for the dead, in re­spect of the resurrection, therefore wee cannot doubt but that the memoriall heere spoken of by Epiphanius, vsed for the Saints in respect of their bodies in the earth, was a praier for them to wish their full and perfect consumma­tion by the resurrection from the dead. My former con­clusion therefore hence deduced, standeth good, that sith the ancient Church thus praied for the Saints and Mar­tyrs, therefore that certaine it is, they did not pray vnto them. And because they thus praied for the Saints, whose soules they were assured were in heauen, therefore they praied for the dead without respect of Purgatory, which now is made the onely ground and reason of praier for the dead.

38. The next matter for which he questioneth me is concerning the opinion of the Greeke churches as touch­ing Purgatory and prayer for the dead. My words are such as might haue serued to weaken his motiue, had hee not beene resolued without any motiue to remooue and run away. What could he haue better to resolue him then that which I say, that the Papists themselues confesse that Purgatory was not receiued or beleeued in the Greeke Chur­ches, and therefore that it is certaine that they had no re­spect of Purgatory in their praier for the dead? I did not onely say, that the Papists confesse it, but I cited the places of their confession. Alfonsus De Castro saith; Alfons. De Castro adu. hae­res. lib. 8. tit. de Indulgent. In antiquis scriptoribus de Purgatorio feré nulla mentio, potissimum a­pud Graecos Scriptores: quae de causa vs (que) in hodiernum di­em purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum. Of Purga­tory there is in a maner no mention at all with the ancients but specially with the Greeke writers; for which cause Purgatory is not beleeued of the Greekes vntill this day. Yea not of the Greekes only, but of the Armenians also, he acknowledg­eth, that Ibid lib. 12. de purgatorio vnus ex notissi­mis erroribus Graecorum & Armeniorum est quo docent nullum esse Purgatorium, &c. they teach there is no Purgatory, calling it an er­rour well knowen, concerning them both. The words of Roffensis their great and holy Martyr I cited out of Poly­dore Virgil: Polyd. Virg. de inuent. rer. lib. 8. cap. 1. ex Roffensi. De Purgatorio apud priscos nulla vel quàm rarissima fiebat mentio; sed & Graecis ad hunc vs (que) diem non est creditum esse. Of Purgatory there was none or very rare mention made amongst the ancient Fathers; yea and with [Page 104]the Greekes it is not beleeued till this day. Thus did they in­genuously acknowledge as the truth is, and did it nothing stagger M. Higgons to finde this so plainly acknowledg­ed? Did it make him nothing doubt of his imagined mutu­all dependance of Purgatory and praier for the dead? Sure­ly he was a very voluntary conuert, or else he might easi­ly haue seene that it is no good connexion to say, They praied for the dead, therefore they beleeued Purgatory; but rather, they beleeued not Purgatory, therefore they praied not for the dead in any such meaning as the Papists now doe. He might haue remembred that which I told Doct. Bishop, that many amongst vs of custome, and of humane affection of loue, doe vse many times words of praier for the dead, who notwithstanding from the bot­tome of their hearts doe vtterly defie both Purgatory and the Pope.

39. In another place hee saith, that it is Book 1. part. 2. cap. 3. ¶ 4. num. 2. to our great disreputation that I name the Albigenses as professours of the same faith and religion which we now prefesse. But why? Forsooth he knoweth no cause himselfe, but referreth his Reader to Parsons the Iesuit, in his treatise of the three conuersions of England. Yea M. Higgons, would you make Parsons his narration a motiue of your recantation? Would you giue heed to him whom you knew by the te­stimony of his owne fellows to be a man of Belial; an in­famous wretch, a meere politizing Atheist, and therefore likely, if it were to serue his turne, to deale with the sto­ries of the ancient Christian Martyrs as he hath done with M. Foxes story, carying himselfe in all that worke like a very Porphyrie or Iulian, applauding himselfe and seek­ing to bee applauded in a iollity of forcing all things euen against the haire to scorne and mockery? You say, the Albigenses in their opinions followed the Waldenses, as indeed they were the same, some part of them onely be­ing so called of the towne wherein they dwelt; and would you beleeue Parsons concerning the opinions of the Wal­denses, [Page 105]who Exam. of Fox his calen. cap. 3. num. 13. Of these Waldēses see at large Si­mon Goulart. Catalog. test. veritatis. lib. 15. Where thou shalt see how leaudly Parsons hath dealt with them. disclaimeth Aeneas Syluius, who was af­terwards Bishop of Rome, testifying their faith and do­ctrine vprightly and faithfully as of his owne knowledge, that so he may giue way to other either carelesse or mali­cious reporters, who impiously fathered vpon them strange paradoxes, in no other sort than Friar Edm. Campi. decem. rat. cap. 8. & passim. Campian lately dealt with vs? Yea and is not ashamed to cite Three Con­uers. pag. 2. c. 10. num. 29. Pra­teolus and Sanders for witnesses thereof, whose ioy it hath been to finde out any thing, were it neuer so vntrue, which they might report opprobrious and disgracefull to them? I doubt not but that the Waldenses and Albigenses might happily in some things be otherwise minded than we be (and what? are they in the church of Rome all in all things of one and the same minde?) but if wee respect the sub­stance of their faith and doctrine as we may discerne the same, not only by Aeneas Sylu. de Origen Bo­hem. cap. 35. Aeneas Syluius, but also by Alfons. adu. haeres. passim. Alfon­sus De Castro, and specially by Sleidan. Com­ment. lib. 16. the confession of their faith exhibited to the French King, as Sleidan hath recor­ded, it shall be no disreputation to vs that we haue ioined with them, neither shall it be to M. Higgons any reputati­on with God that he hath departed from them.

40. I may not omit that mentioning elsewhere, that Luther termeth their religion by the name of Popery, though this were but a very small occasion, yet his gall casting vpon the sudden he addeth: Book. 2. p. 1. c. 1. ¶. 1. num. 7. Whom I might more iustly call a foul-mouthed-dogge, then D. Abbot bestoweth this homely courtesie vpon a very learned Priest, meaning thereby T. Wright. Let the Reader esteeme whether it were not a meet courtesie for him that was not ashamed to set it downe for an article, Certaine Articles or forc [...]ble rea­sons, &c. part. 2. art. 5. That the Protcestants make God the authour of sinne, the only cause of sinne, that man sin­neth not, that God is worse than the diuell. If Luther haue any where in that leand and impious maner calumniated the Church of Rome, I will not deny but that M. Hig­gons should haue cause to stile him afoul-mouthed dogge; but if he haue not so done, then is M. Higgons to blame [Page 106]to assigne to him that which of right belongeth to another man. Whom indeed we thinke to be a man of some kind of learning whereby he can audaciously and impetuously wrangle where he may haue his way; but he that would giue forth to the world for forcible reasons such misshapen stuffe, as specially some of those are which he hath publi­shed, is very far from the woorth, where he is vprightly iudged, to be accounted a very learned Priest.

41. His last matter touching me concerneth a difference betwixt Doct. Field and me. Doct. Field thinketh that the cause why Aerius was condemned of hereticall rashnes, was for that he durst condemne the laudable custome of the commemoration of the dead by way of giuing thankes for them. Against this opinion of Docter Field hee produceth mee amongst others for a witnesse, though mangling and disor­dering my words to other purpose in some sort than I in­tended them. But the summe of all is, that I hold it to haue beene the cause why Aerius was taxed of heresie for that he reprehended and denied praiers and offerings for the dead. Whereupon D. Field groundeth his opinion I cannot tell: by Epiphanius and Austin I conceiue that it is right which I haue said. But vpon this occasion M. Higgons, because I had said that Austin and the Papists as touching the end of praier for the dead, did agree like harpe and harrow, retur­neth my phrase and saith; Doe not these men agree like harpe and harrow? Where I cannot but thinke that he was very idlely disposed and wanted matter that would so much trouble himselfe as hee hath done with a difference of so small effect. If Doct. Field conceiue rightly of the opini­on of Aerius, then in the condemning of Aerius we al accord with him. If we conceiue more truely of Aerius that it was praier for the dead which he impugned, then in the appro­uing of Aerius Docter Field accordes with vs. And may we not thinke this to be a great matter to trouble M. Hig­gons minde? Did he see no greater differences than this in the Church of Rome? Had he not found in Bellarmine [Page 107]concerning sundry waighty points of faith, a first opinion of such a one, a second opinion of such a one, a third, yea a fourth opinion of such and such? To let other matters goe, did you not M. Higgons remember your two great Cardinals, Ba­ronius and Bellarmine standing in great difference, the one that it is directly, the other that it is indirectly, that the Pope hath a power ouer Kings and Princes to depose them; yea and another opinion regnant amongst many of your great Diuines, that the Pope hath no such authority either way, and that they are but Parasites and pickthankes that sooth him in so vniust and vndue a claime? Goe, M. Higgons, goe and tell your owne Cardinals, haec est menda­ciorum natura vt probè cohaerere non possint, for the third o­pinion prooueth them to bee liars on both sides. As for your selfe you are now become one of those pedling mer­chants, in the exercise of whose trade you shall indeed finde it true, that they cannot thriue at all vnlesse they can lie much.

42. I pity your folly, M. Higgons, and cannot but for your friends sake lament that miserable state whereinto you haue wilfully cast your selfe. Surely it was a strong and a strange humour that possessed both your head and your heart, that could driue you to this extremity for Pur­gatory and prayer for the dead. Doubtlesse it was not Pur­gatory nor praier for the dead that you respected; but when you had resolued to run into this ruine, you thought these points most plausible and ready whence your wit might weaue some spiders webs for the hiding of your shame. I doubt not M. Higgons, but if you were heere as you would wish to be, you are able your selfe to shew that all you haue said is no other but a spiders web. God giue you grace to vnderstand what you haue done, that if it be possible you may returne againe out of the snare of the di­uell and out of that hell of inward terrours whereinto you haue desperately plunged your owne soule. I know you are in the hands of Gryphes and Vultures that doe not ea­sily let goe the prey that they haue once seazed vpon, but [Page 108]I commend you to his mercy who is able to doe more than we can any way expect of you.

43. And so for the time I leaue both M. Bishop and M. Higgons, but with minde speedily to take M. Bishop in hand againe. The meane while, gentle Reader, I haue gi­uen thee this Aduertisement for some satisfaction concer­ning his late booke, that thou maiest with the more pati­ence expect the full answer thereof. And albeit I haue heere made it appeare that he hath prostituted his consci­ence, and set himselfe to sale, to say and face and outface any thing to serue the Popes and his owne turne, so as that heereby he hath voided himselfe of that credit which hee would detract from me, and his booke shall remaine for no other but the record of his owne shame, yet I will not so leaue him but will goe forward, if God will, more thorow­ly to pull the vizard from his face and to make him ap­peare in those colours that doe belong vnto him. Assist mee with thy praiers vnto God for the doing of the worke of God, that it may be to his glory, to the conuincing of the aduersarie, and to the edi­fication of the church of Christ. Amen.

Some faults escaped to be corrected thus.

PAg. 126. line 5. roome, read no roome. p. 129. l. 3. in marg. vitiosas, r. vitiosus. p. 139. l. 4. integrity, truth, r. integrity and truth. p. 143. l. 2. visibly, r. visible. p. 175. l. 17. publike, r. publick. p. 190. l. 8. striue, r. stirre. p. 195. l. vit. see in the, r. see the. p. 201. l. 12. most ancient, r. the ancient. p. 214. l. 37. the article, r. that particle. p. 215. l. 2. certainly in the, r. certainly the. p. 262. in marg. l. 24. ipè, r. sibi. p. 368. l. 16. ap­prooued, r. reprooued. Ibid. l. 26. the Church, r. that the Church. p. 380. in marg. l. 5. obiurat, r. obdurat.

Thus farre I saw the booke before it came foorth: what faults shall follow, I must pray thee by thine owne iudgment to amend.

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.