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 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 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.

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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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) 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 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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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: 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.

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; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Caluin therefore willing, ſaith he, to meete with Ʋalentine, auoucheth the contrary, namely that the Sonne is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and by Origen Origen. in Ioan. tom. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that meaning wherein Valentinus ſpake, therefore Caluin to auouch the true Godhead of Chriſt, affirmed him to bee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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, that 2. 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. 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

If they were enemies to Gods omnipotencie alone, it might 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.

Here M. Biſhop going about to diſcouer impiety in vs, bewraieth exceeding great ignorance in himſelfe, not hauing 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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. So Pſal. 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 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 from him, ſo much the more betaketh himſelfe to all moſt vngodly and reprobate courſes. When God left 2. 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 purpoſe Aug. 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, and Idem 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, that Baſil. 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, that Auguſt. 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 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 called Eſa. 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 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, when Greg. 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 them Rom. 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 heauy Aug 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 ſo Pſal. 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 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 that Diſt. 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? 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, that Sphynx 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 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 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 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 that Ca • 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 expounding Ambroſ. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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: 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.

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 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 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 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.

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; 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.

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, 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.

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 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, 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?

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 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 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 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 • ū 〈…〉 illa faciunt. We are not to take all things heere to 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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, and So 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 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 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. 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 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 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, that Luther. 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, that 2. 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 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.

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, 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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. 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 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 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.

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.

The Proteſtants doe not maintaine, that the Church, the beloued ſpouſe of Christ ſhould continue but a ſmall time, but 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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, 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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. 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, 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, 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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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.

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 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 eccleſiae catholike 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 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 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 of Reu. 18.13. the 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 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 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 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 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? 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 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, 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 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 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.

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.

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 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, 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. 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: 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.

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 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.

M. Biſhop, ſaue that he was diſpoſed to cauill, knew well enough what M. PERKINS meant by the perpetuall incarnation 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.