their saying doe alleage this Canon which maketh nothing at al for them because it speaketh only of a Priest that had a wife in times past Qui vxorem habuit that had a wife not that hath a wife Such men that vvere once married after their vviues death we doe admit to be Priests and to offer sacrifice condemning the Eustachians or vvhosoeuer else vnder pretence of their former mariages doth seeke to debarre them from that sacred function Marry such sensual or weake men that cannot or wil not refraine from marriage or company of their wiues vve doe wholy exclude from the celebration of the holy misteries And verily ignorantly and sawcily doth Mathew of Paris or any other late writer reprehend Gregory the seauenth for forbidding al men to be present at their Masses For it argueth great and grosse ignorance in al learned antiquity to account it a strange thing that Priests keeping company with their wiues should be repelled from the Altar vvhen not only Gregory the great Leo the great and Epiphanius vvhose sentences I haue before recited but also euen by M. Abbots owne confession Pope Stritius with the Clergy of Rome and S. Hierome did teach the very same little lesse then a thousand yeares before Mathew of Paris daies to omit sundry other ancient Fathers and decrees of approued Councels so that it was no strange example or vnaduised act to forbidde such fleshly fellowes to celebrate Masse neither could any but loose libertines be offended at it ROBERT ABBOT THE Valentinian Heretikes and Heracleonites Irenae lib. 2. cap. 18. Epiph. Haeres 36. August de Haeres 16. were condemned by the old Church of Rome for vsing expiations and redemptions by anointing men vvhen they were about to die yet thereof hath the Church of Rome now framed to themselues their Sacrament of Extreme vnction WILLIAM BISHOP HERE are but a few lines and yet not free from some lies The Church of Rome hath her Sacrament of Extreme vnction registred in the holy Scriptures as M. Abbot knoweth wel enough in these wordes Iacob 5. vers 14. Is any man sicke among you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and let them pray ouer them anoiling them with oile in the name of our Lord and the praier of faith shal saue the sicke and our Lord lift him vp and if he be in sinnes they shal be remitted him Where we see a set holy ceremony which was instituted by Christ and published by his Apostle S. Iames to be vsed ordinarily by the Priests for remission of sinnes which doth conuince it to be a true and proper Sacrament A fond fiction then was it to say that it was after the Apostles time inuented by Heretikes and that the Church of Rome hath borrowed it of them vvith which foolish deuise of theirs it hath also very smal affinity for their dreame was that by the pronouncing of certaine vnknowne Hebrew vvordes ouer the head of the sicke their soule was made inuisible and incomprehensible Epiph. Haeres 36. euen vnto the infernal spirits as M. Abbots owne authour witnesseth Briefly they differed in forme of wordes in substance of matter and in the state and intention of the Minister They vsed certaine Hebrew vvordes Messia Vphared and such like vvhich are set downe by Epiphanius We these God of his most pittiful mercy and by this holy anointing forgiue thee thy sinnes They vsed oile or some other ointment mixed with vvater We oile alone blessed by a Bishop Any lay person of their brother-hood might minister their drugs Our Sacrament is to be administred by a Priest only Their intention was to make the soule inuisible to the infernal spirits But ours is according to the doctrine of the Apostle to purge the sicke from the relikes of sinne and to giue him comfort and strength to resist the assaults of the ghostly enemy There being so great difference in al the essential points of these two anoilinges judge what a wonderful inginer M. Abbot did take himselfe to be when he conceited that he could by his fine pen shal I say or brazen fore-head make them seeme al one to the simple ROBERT ABBOT IT vvas heresie in the Pelagians with the old Church of Rome to affirme in this life a possibility perfectly to fulfil the law of God and S. Hierome as touching this point L. 1 2. 3. aduers Pelag. expresly disputeth against them but now it is heresie with the Church of Rome to affirme and teach the same that Hierome did as M. Bishop afterwardes giueth vs to vnderstand The same Pelagians were accounted Heretikes for saying that a man in this life might be anamarticos without sinne and that by baptisme he becommeth so but now the Church of Rome teacheth the same And M. Bishop in plaine tearmes telleth vs Page 32. That there is no more sinne left in the new baptized man then was in Adam in the state of innocency to vvhich state of baptisme they also equal a man vvhen he is shriuen to the Priest and of him hath receiued absolution from his sinnes I reserue the Pelagian doctrine of Free-wil and Satisfaction to their due place vvhere God-vvilling it shal appeare that therein also the now Church of Rome approueth those points as Catholike and true for which the ancient Church of Rome condemned them Yea so farre is the Pelagian heresie in request vvith the Papists as that Faustus a Bishop of France at that time a maintainer thereof Bignae Bibliot sacrae Tom. 2. Osor de Inst lib. 9. is by some of them recorded for a Saint and his booke vvhich he hath vvritten in behalfe thereof is called Opus insigne A notable worke And by some other the doctrine of S. Augustine against the Pelagians concerning Predestination is repugned which of old vvas acknowledged by the Church of Rome to be the Catholike doctrine of the Church WILLIAM BISHOP M. ABBOT comes now to make an end of his slanders and false imputations against the present Catholike Roman Church after the same sort as he hath heretofore vsed to wit with wrested and vntrue reportes of the old Heretikes opinions and the ancient Fathers refutations of them The Pelagians did teach indeed that it was possible to keepe Gods Cōmandements but therefore they were not accounted Heretikes for the same doth both S. Augustine and S. Hierome that writ against them approue and confirme in many places I wil touch some of each of them S. Augustine hauing alleaged certaine texts of holy Scripture to proue the same doth conclude thus By these and innumerable other testimonies De Peccatis Meritis Remissione lib. 2. cap. 6. I cannot doubt either that God hath commanded man any thing that is impossible for him to doe or that it is impossible for God to helpe man to fulfil whatsoeuer he hath commanded him and therefore a man holpen by God may if he wil be without sinne De Grat. l. Arbit ca. 16. And
beene supreme gouernour of Christes Church To vvhich fallacy it is most easie to answere First that albeit the Patriarke of Constantinople could not so cal himselfe in a lawful good meaning but proudly and wickedly because he had his jurisdiction limited vvithin the boundes of his owne Patriarkship had nothing to doe with any other churches that vvere vvithout it so that his power was in no sence vniuersal that is spred ouer al the world yet this name might in some good sence notwithstāding haue beene giuen vnto the Bishop of Rome as S. Gregory himselfe in one of the same Epistles vvhich M. Abbot citeth doth intimate For vvriting to the Patriarke of Alexandria he saith Lib. 4. Epist 36. Your Holinesse knoweth that by the Councel of Chalcedon vvhich vvas one of the foure first general Councels most highly esteemed off by S. Gregory this name of vniuersallity was offered to me as Bishop of the Apostolike See for as he testifieth Epist 32. of the same booke that name was in honour of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles attributed by many in that Councel vnto the Bishop of Rome yet saith he none of my Predecessours consented to vse it because verily if one Patriarke be called vniuersal the other are made no Patriarkes at al. Briefly then to dispatch this great matter that name vniuersal as it was challenged by Iohn Patriarke of Constantinople who had no right to it in any good sence was presumptuous peruerse and prophane in vvhich consideration S. Gregory so tearmed it Neither vvould he nor any of his predecessours vse that name though in that sence that they had charge and command ouer the vniuersal Church it might haue beene attributed to them yet because it was subject to another construction to wit that the Bishop of Rome was the only truly proper Bishop of euery Diocesse and other named Bishops were not true and proper Bishops there of but the vniuersal Bishops Vicars Suffraganes and Substitutes therefore they vtterly auoided that name as matter of jealousie and scandal choosing the humble stile of seruus seruorum Dei The seruant of Gods seruants For the further satisfaction of the learned reader I wil proue out of S. Gregory in the very same place quoted by M. Abbot both that he wrote against the name of vniuersal Bishop in the later sence And that notwithstanding he refused that name yet that he acknowledged and taught the Bishop of Rome to haue supreme authority ouer al the Church of Christ Touching the first the wordes before alleaged out of his 36. Epistle Lib. 4. Epist 36. doe demonstrate so much to wit If one Patriarke be called vniuersal the other are made no Patriarkes at al vvhich can haue no other sence then that the calling of one Patriarke or Bishop Vniuersal doth signifie him so to be a Bishop in euery place that no other besides him can be truly and properly called Bishop but must be his Vicar and Subdelegate The like saith he in his 34. Epistle to the Emperesse Lib. 4. Epist 34. That his brother and fellow Bishop Iohn striued to be called Bishop alone And in the 7. booke and 69. Epistle to Eusebius he saith Si vniuersalis est restat vt vos Episcopi non sitis If one Bishop be vniuersal it remaineth that you be no Bishops This then is most certaine that S. Gregory spake against the name of Vniuersal Bishop taken in this sence that he was so a Bishop as no other but he could be Bishop in any place Marry if we vnderstand by it one man to haue the general charge of al the Churches in the vvorld yet so as there be also Bishops and Archbishops his brothers who haue the particular and proper gouernement of their seueral Diocesse then S. Gregory telleth vs plainely that S. Peter and his Successours the Bishops of Rome were such these be his wordes Lib. 4. Epist 76. It is manifest to al that know the Gospel that the charge of the whole Church was by our Lordes owne mouth committed to S. Peter Prince of al the Apostles And againe in the same Epistle Behold Peter receiued the keies of the Kingdome of heauen the power of binding and loosing is giuen to him the charge and principality of the whole Church is committed to him vvhich is also repeated in one of the Epistles cited by M. Abbot Lib. 4. Epist 32. And that by S. Peter this vniuersal charge and authority was left vnto the Bishops and See of Rome no man can vvitnesse it more manifestly then S. Gregory hath done First hauing proued out of the word of God S. Peters supremacy he adjoyneth Lib. 6. Epist 201. Therefore though there were many Apostles yet for the principality it selfe the only seate of the Prince of the Apostles hath preuailed in authority As farre as the See Apostolike is euidently knowne to be set ouer al Churches by the authority of God So farre amongst other manifold cares that doth greatly occupy vs when for the consecration of a Bishop our sentence is expected Againe Lib. 2. Epist 69. Lib. 7. Epist 64. For whereas he the Patriarke of Constantinople acknowledgeth himselfe to be subject vnto the Apostolike See of Rome I know not what Bishop is not subject vnto it Moreouer What thing soeuer shal be done in that Councel without the authority and consent of the See Apostolike it is of no strength and vertue Whereas on the other side he saith Those thinges that are once ratified Lib. 7. Epist 69. by the authority of the See Apostolike neede no further strength or confirmation If any man desire to see how S. Gregory himselfe practised that soueraigne authority ouer al the parts of the Christian world let him but reade his Epistles and he shal finde it most perspicuously Magdeburg Centur. 6. In Indice verbo Gregorius euen as their owne great writers of the Centuries doe testifie directing them to the places in his workes where they shal finde the same How devoide then was M. Abbot of al good conscience and honest dealing that vvould vnder the colour of his writing against the name of vniuersal in that sence perswade the simple that S. Gregory vtterly misliked of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Now because that S. Gregory hath beene alwaies highly esteemed and greatly respected of both Latin and Greeke Church for his singular holynes and learning and was besides the principal cause vnder God of the conuersion of vs English-men vnto the Christian faith I wil note out of his workes summarily what was his opinion of many of the questioned points of faith betweene the Protestants and vs because M. Abbot citeth him against vs that euery one may see vvhat religion was first planted amongst vs English-men and continued for a thousand yeares Of the Supremacy and Merit of good workes hath beene spoken already Concerning the sacrifice of the Masse it was daily offered vp to God in his age
not a word out of him that wil greatly helpe their cause For what saith he that we say not we hold with him that the want of knowledge of the Scriptures is the cause of heresie for he that knoweth and vnderstandeth wel the holy Scriptures can neuer fal into errour or heresie Besides vve denie not but that it is expedient for al men either to reade the Scriptures or to heare them to reade them themselues if they be men of judgement and indued with a lowly spirit carrying with them this rule of S. Peter 2. Pet. 1. vers 19. That the Scriptures as they were not written by a priuate spirit so they must not be vnderstood by a priuate interpretation vvherefore in al darke and doubtful places they must not trust to their owne wit but make their recourse vnto the Catholike Church Ioh 14. v. 26. Ioh. 16. v. 13. 1. Tim. 3. vers 15. Which is directed by the spirit of God into al truth and therefore called the pillar and ground of truth for the true sence and meaning of them Al the rest both Men Women and Children we would haue to heare the holy Scriptures read vnto them and expounded by their lawful Pastours and approued Preachers who are chosen and sent to feede their soules with that heauenly foode of the word of God So that Gregory the ninth differeth nothing from Paul the fift the present Pope of Rome who is fully of the same opinion And M. Abbots audatious assertions to the contrary are but meere slanders For we hold it not pernitious for al sortes of people to reade the Scriptures vnlesse it be in such false translations as the Protestants haue made but haue our selues translated them into the vulgar tongue that al Godly wel minded people of any reasonable capacity may diligently and deuoutly reade them at their good oportunity M. Abbot vvas wont heretofore to alleage some authour or other to giue the better countenance to his lies but now he is faine to face them out himselfe without the helpe of any other and hauing put his special confidence in lying as they did of vvhom the Prophet speaketh Esai 28. Posuimus mendacium spem nostram We haue put our hope in lying he thrusteth them out lightly by huddles False then it is first that we teach the people to be secluded from the reading of Scripture as dogges are from holy thinges for vve would haue none other debarred from reading of them but wauering wilful and peruerse fellowes 2. Pet. 3. vers 16. Who as S. Peter teacheth abuse the holy Scriptures to their owne destruction and to the seducing of others Secondly it is a lie in graine to auouch that we teach the knowledge of the Scriptures to breede errour and heresie vnlesse he meane the corrupt and peruerse knowledge of them which is rather to be tearmed the ignorance of them for the true knowledge of them deliuereth vs from al errour and heresie and settleth vs in the sound doctrine of the Catholike Roman Church True it is that many now a-daies vvho haue some smattering in the vvordes and verses of the text hauing itching eares and wauering minds are the sooner lead away through their little skil in the Scriptures and ouer-great presumption of their owne wits for hearing Heretikes cite for proofe of their heresie some texts of Scripture which they know to be Gods vvord and hauing neither sufficient learning to answere them nor grace to aske counsel therein of the true Pastors of Christs Church vvho would rightly informe them become a pray to the rauening vvolues Againe the very experience of this age doth sufficiently informe an vnderstanding man that the ouer common reading of Gods word by the more rude and vnruly sort hath rather ingendred a corruption of manners then bredde any amendment thereof for euery peeuish scripturist puffed vp with the opinion of his owne learning wil rather take vpon him to be a teacher of others then a practiser of them himselfe And often very preposterously Women wil teach Men Children their Fathers Sheepe their Pastours in a word many wil be jangling about matter of religion and very few studious to liue religiously These disorders I graunt doe not spring directly out of Gods word but out of our corrupt nature too too prone to presumption on our owne skil And there fore let any reasonable man judge vvhether they did not more vvisely who vsed to bridle this itching appetite of reading in the curious and thought it better to binde them to follow the aduise of their spiritual guides which haue charge of their soules then our new bretheren who allow euery Man Woman and Child to read vvhat bookes of Scripture they list and to wrangle about them so commonly S. Paul insinuateth that al places of Scripture are not fit for al sortes of men but in some parts 1. Cor. cap. 3. vers 2. There is milke for sucklings and in others Strong meate for the more perfect And our Sauiour Christ IESVS spake much in parables vvhich are not for euery ones capacity A sword is a good weapon but put it into the hand of a madde man it wil doe more harme then good so if some men get a smattering in holy Scriptures they wil vse it ful madly Wherefore the Catholike Church though shee wish euery child of hers to know so much of the Scriptures as vvil doe them any way good yet shee knowes it to be holesome and very necessary that a moderation be vsed therein according to the discreet aduise and judgement of Godly and prudent Ghostly Fathers ROBERT ABBOT HIEROME and RVFFINVS by the doctrine of the Church of Rome Hier. in Prolog Galiat in Praefat. lib. Salomonis Ruffin in expositione Simboli excluded from Canonical Scripture the same bookes that we doe the bookes of Iudith Tobias Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Baruch and the rest they say plainly Non sunt in Canone non sunt Canonici They are not Canonical nor in the Canon The Church readeth them for instruction of manners not to giue any authority to any Ecclesiastical doctrine But now the Church of Rome wil haue them to be receiued and beleeued for Canonical Scriptures and of equal and like authority withal the other bookes WILLIAM BISHOP I Obserue first that M. Abbot forgetting himselfe vvhich is a foule fault in a liar and leauing his owne prescript order is now fallen cleane from S. Peter and S. Pauls successours the Bishops of Rome Secondly that he neuerthelesse holds his old custome in lying I winke at that petty lie that he thrusteth in Baruch among the rest vvhich his Authors doe not but may not dissemble this greater for whereas he saith Hierome and Ruffinus by the doctrine of the Church of Rome exclude from Canonical Scripture the same bookes that we doe therein he fableth for though they so did yet did they it not by the doctrine of the Church of Rome For Innocentius the first Pope of Rome
vvhom S. Augustine alleageth stiling him a Saint and ranking him with S. Ireneus S. Cyprian and S. Ambrose in these wordes August lib. 1. cont IulianuÌ„ cap. 4. Cùm hijs etiam ipse considet etsi posterior tempore prior loco In time somewhat after some of them but in dignity of place before them This holy and learned Bishop of Rome I say vvho flourished in S. Hieromes daies or else S. Augustine vvho was in manner his equal Epist. 3. ad Exuper cap. vltimo could not haue cited his testimony doth expresly declare those very bookes to be Canonical Scripture I trust his declaration that ruled that See of Rome wil rather be taken for the doctrine of the Church of Rome then any other mans besides Againe Pope Gelasius the first who liued not long after him which also is one of M. Abbots chosen patrons did in publike assembly In Decret de Libris sacris in 2. tomo CoÌ„ciliorum assisted also vvith 80. other Bishops define the same bookes to be Canonical Scripture who can then doubt but that the Church of Rome in S. Hieromes and Ruffinus daies tooke those bookes to be Canonical Scripture wherefore it was but M. Abbots addition to the text to affirme that Hierome and Ruffinus according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome did so say Besides the third Councel of Carthage holden at the felfe-same time CoÌ„cil 3. Carthag cap. 47. doth declare the said bookes of Tobias Ecclesiasticus c. to be Canonical Scripture affirming also that therein they followed the sound judgement of their Ancestours Lib. 2. de Doctrina Christ cap. 8. Lib. 18. de Ciuitat cap. 36. S. Augustine in sundry places of his workes doth by name declare the bookes of Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Tobias Iudith and the two bookes of the Machabees to be Canonical Scripture and seemeth to expound S. Hieromes sentence in these wordes The bookes of the Machabees the Iewes indeede doe not receiue but the Church of God taketh them for Canonical Scriptures Whence we after the auncient Lib. 7. Etimolog cap. â— learned and holy Bishop Isidorus doe collect this distinction The Canon of the Scriptures is twofold the one of the Hebrewes the other of the Christians that of the Hebrewes vvas compounded long before Christes daies in which these bookes of Wisdome Ecclesiasticus c. are not comprehended because they vvere written in later times and not in the Hebrew tongue Prolog Galiator Of this Hebrew Canon speaketh S. Hierome in that Prologue as it wil be manifest to al that shal but reade it for he saith first That the Hebrewes haue but 22. letters and according to the same number but 22. bookes in their Canon then reckoning them vp by name inferreth therefore the booke of Wisdome c. be not in the Canon to wit that Canon of the Hebrewes whereof he there spake vvhich also appeareth more euidently by his answere to Ruffinus vvho objected against him as a shameful reproach that he rejected certaine Chapters of Daniël because they were not in the Hebrew though they were in the Septuaginta S. Hierome excuseth himselfe saying Lib. 2. cont RuffinuÌ„ versus finem That therein be shewed the opinion of the Hebrewes but did not deliuer his owne sentence And as he there saith That he who would calumniate that his doing should shew himselfe a sycophant so he doth thereby giue al others to vnderstand that he vvho would after that faire warning build any Catholike conclusion vpon his relation of the Hebrewes opinion should proue him selfe a foole in trusting to so sandy and slippery a foundation And yet further in his Preface vpon the booke of Iudith he teacheth That the Hebrewes did not take that booke of Iudith for Canonical yet the first Nicene Councel vvhich is the most authentike of al general Councels did account it in the number of holy Scripture so that in S. Hieromes opinion also though these bookes were not in the Canon of the Hebrewes yet they may be very sincere Canonical Scripture with the Christians vvho haue the spirit of discerning and judging of such Canonical bookes as wel as the ancient Hebrewes had But S. Hierome saith in the later place That the Church doth not vse them to establish Ecclesiastical doctrine I answere that the Churches of Afrike did vse them euen in his owne time and the Church of Rome which is the principal of al Europe at the least as hath beene proued before so that his vvordes must needes be restrained vnto some Churches in Asia where he liued for the most part or it may be said that the Church had not then when S. Hierome so wrote generally declared them to be Canonical though very shortly after euen before his dying day they were in the most principal places of the Church both declared and receiued for Canonical That the Church had sufficient authorâ—ty by declaration to make bookes of Scripture Canonical that before were not generally taken for such the Protestants themselues must needes confesse because they take for Canonical the Epistle to the Hebrewes and diuers others with the Reuelation of S. Iohn which vvere doubted off by many of the learned Christians in the primitiue Church Lib. 3. Hist. Eccles c. 10. 19. as witnesseth Eusebius ROBERT ABBOT VIGILIVS borne at Rome and Bishop of Trent according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that then was affirmeth That the body of Christ when it was vpon the earth Vigil coÌ„t Eutich lib. 4. was not in heauen and that now because it is in heauen it is not vpon the earth But now the Councel of Trent and Church of Rome perswade vs that the very body of Christ though it be in heauen yet is really and substantially here vpon earth also vpon the Altar and in the Pix and in the Priests belly and in the bellies of as many as are partakers of the Sacrament WILLIAM BISHOP In vita S. Sisinnij THIS large amplification is shortly answered Vigilius though a holy Catholike Bishop as his praying to Saints doth demonstrate yet was none of S. Peters successours neither doth he speake any thing against Christs real substantial presence in the Bles SacrameÌ„t if his wordes be taken in his owne meaning to wit that Christ since his ascention is not here in that maÌ„ner and fashion as he did conuerse vpon the earth with his Disciples that is in the forme of man Which I gather out of Vigilius his owne wordes for he saith that Christ is departed from vs in the forme of a seruant and so according vnto that forme of a seruant in the habit and likenesse of a man he is not present with vs but the very same body vnder the forme of bread is in as many places as the blessed Sacrament is consecrated See for this more in the question of the Real presence ROBERT ABBOT Hier. in Catalogo TERTVLLIAN being for enuy of
the graue counsel of that sage Lawier Sr. Edward Cooke whose booke â—e citeth wherein is said In the preface of his fift of reportes That controuersies in religion are to be handled with al candor and charity and not with bitter invectiues like men transported with fury To end this point if he hold â—n that course of scurrility he wil driue me and others to giue him ouer in the plaine field for a foule-mouthed wrangler that deserueth no answere Thus much by the way of the manner of his inditing Now to the matter of his booke which doth principally consist in allegation of Authors and applying their sentences to his purpose How insufficiently he hath behaued himselfe therein shal be particularly discyphered 〈◊〉 their proper places I wil here only for a tast of his judgement and sinâ—erity therein giue a touch vnto some general heades thereof First doth 〈◊〉 not euidently proue great want of judgement and discretion to alleage 〈◊〉 vpright witnesses in matters of controuersie such authors as are knowne to al the world to be professed parties of the same side If I should cite for confirmation of the Catholike cause D oct Harding D oct Sanders D oct Stapleton or any other Catholike late writer would not the vnpassionate reader take me for very simple if I thought that any man would the sooner beleeue me for their opinions that were men though most learned and right honest yet not indifferent because they were professed aduocates of the same cause Euen so a man of any wit cannot but maruaile where M. Abbots senses were when he so commonly and confidently for proofe of any doubt doth produce the authority of Bale a late Irish Apostata Frier whome be sometime also calleth Balaeus to make him seeme two worshipful authors that is not worthy to be halfe one Fox Iewel Humphrey Holinshed Sr. Edward Cooke the Magdeburgenses Kemnitius Illyricus Sleidan Hospinian and many others open and professed aduersaries of the Catholike Roman Church and therefore no vpright and fit witnesses against it He without doubt may garnish his margent with variety of quotations that blusheth not to cite so frequently as M. Abbot doth such partial writers But no man I hope wil be so foolish as to giue credit vnto any thing that is no better verified then by the verdict of such false witnesses For to cal one of them to giue testimony is no better then after our English prouerbe to hidde a man aske one of his fellowes whether he be a theefe or no. Againe there is another circumstance in the citing of his late partial authors which maketh it yet more absurd and ridiculous For he sticketh not to produce the credit of a seely writer of this last hundred yeares for verification of a matter done more then a thousand yeares before he was borne For example to proue that Pope Eleutherius acknowledged Lucius King of our Country 1400. yeares past to be supreame gouernour in causes Ecclesiastical Page 26. M. Abbot alleageth Holinshed a Chronicler of our age what a jest is this how knew this late writer what passed so long before his owne time was there not any one Hystoriographer more ancient then he neither Latin nor English that could tel any tidings of such a matter And yet M. Abbot is so il aduised as to perswade vs to receiue it vpon his seely poore credit Of the like stuffe is that in another place of his booke Page 60. to wit that Syritius Bishop of Rome who liued about 1200. yeares agoe was a noueller and that by the worshipful verdict of Polidore Virgil who liued eleauen hundred yeares after him What are learned men growne so carelesse of their credit that they dare let passe to the print such doting follies and so grosse absurdities this may serue for a note of his ouersight in alleadging his owne pew-fellowes for vpright and indifferent vmpeers and late moderne authors for the certainety of ancient matters Now to his citations of the more authentike approued writers whome he doth greatly abuse in diuers and sundry fashions The first and most gentle is when he doth cite their wordes truly but doth apply them cleane contrary to their meaning For example in his Epistle to the Kinges Majesty be approueth his Highnesse course for the answering of Catholike bookes producing for it this sentence out of S. Bernard That though thereby the Heretike arise not from his filth yet the Church may be confirmed in her faith M. Abbot meaning as the sequele of his speech doth import that if thereby men of the Roman religion wil not be conuerted from their errors yet the good Protestants may be confirmed in their new faith which is very farre wide from S. Bernardes expresse declaration as else-where so in that very place For that deuout holy Father was so farre off from disswading any man from the Roman faith that he wisheth al men to make their recourse vnto the See of Rome for resolution of al doubts in faith these be his wordes to Pope Innocentius We must referre to your Apostleship Epist 190. al the scandals and perils vvhich may fal in matter of faith specially because the defects of faith must be holpen where faith cannot faile for to what other See was it euer said Luc. 22. vers 31. I haue prayed for thee Peter that thy faith doe not faile See then what Church S. Bernard would confirme in her faith not the Protestant but the Roman Moreouer in that very discourse out of which M. Abbot â—icketh the former sentence Serm. 66. S. Bernard doth in particuler describe those Heretikes whome he perswaded to arise from their filth to be such as held the Church not to haue beene visible for many yeares but to haue lyen hidde in corners Item that vvould not beleeue â—hat any soules departed went to Purgatory but either to heauen or to hel presently and so defrauded the dead of the prayers of the liuing Also such as vvould disswade from praying to the Saints these and such like are those Heretikes by S. Bernardes judgement whome he would haue to rise from the drosse and dregs of such erronious opinions and returne vnto the Roman Catholike faith Now judge with what conscience M. Abbot could cul some wordes out of the same discourse to perswade men by the countenance of S. Bernard to forsake praying to Saints and for the dead and the whole Roman religion so strongly established by that reuerend religious Father in the very same place This may suffice for a proofe of his misapplying the Fathers sentences wherein he offendeth as often and as grieuously I thinke as euer did any Christian writer as shal be hereafter shewed Now to another tricke of his no lesse shameful which is the misconstruing of their wordes let this serue for a paterne Against the worshipping of Images he produceth the authority of S. Gregory Bishop of Rome Page 104. Commending as he fableth the zeale of
of al Churches Item In decreto de libris sacris Ecclesiasticis tom 2. Concil Distinct 15. Sancta Romana c. That the See Apostolike takes great heede that it be not stained with any touch of peruersity or any kinde of contagion Finally Gelasius assisted with seauenty other B shops doth declare the bookes of Wisdome Ecclesiasticus Tobias and of the Machabees to be Canonical Scripture and the Epistles Decretals of the ancient Bishops of Rome to be of sacred and sound authority and to be receiued vvith reuerence al vvhich the Protestants deny ROBERT ABBOT LEO Bishop of Rome speaking of the Martirs saith Epistola 81. That although the death of many Saints hath beene pretious in the Lordes sight yet the death of no innocent person hath beene the propitiation of the world that the righteous receiued crownes but gaue none and that the fortitude of the faithful haue growne examples of patience not gifts of righteousnesse that their deaths as they were seueral persons were seueral to euery of themselues and that none of them by his death paide the debt of any other man because it is only our Lord Iesus Christ in whom al were crucified al dead al buried al raised againe from the dead But now the Church of Rome hath changed that language and telleth vs that there are superabounding passions and satisfactions of the Saints Bellar. de Indulg l. 1. c. 2. Rhem. Annot. in col 1. v. 24 wherein they haue suffered more then is due for their owne sinnes vvhich doe serue to supply the necessity and want of others and that they doe thereby pay the debt of other men that hereof is growne a treasure in the Church of Rome which is to be dispensed and disposed by the Pope and that hence his Indulgences and pardons haue their ground WILLIAM BISHOP HERE are many vvordes of a right reuerend Father cited to smal purpose for the Church of Rome hath not yet changed one sillable of the same her old language Shee doth maintaine with S. Leo That no man how holy soeuer he were hath by his death or otherwise paid the ransome of any other mans sinnes or satisfied God for any one mortal sinne either of his owne or of any other mans but that it is Christ alone who with the price of his pretious bloud hath fully satisfied his Fathers justice for al and euery such deadly offence and for the eternal punishment which was due to the same and this is al that S. Leo teacheth Neuerthelesse we hold and that vvith S. Leo that after the guilt of such sinnes is through Christ released vs yet are we on our owne partes to endure some temporal punishment for the same offences by Christes order and appointment both to apply vnto vs the vertue of his owne sufferinges as also to make vs that are members of his body like vnto him our head Whereupon the Apostle saith Rom. 8. v. 17. That we be the sonnes of God and coheires with Christ Si tamen compatimur vt conglorificemur If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him of this matter see more in the question of satisfaction This to be our doctrine M. Abbot could not be ignorant Page 118. because it is word by word deliuered euen by M. Perkins himselfe in that place Now that S. Leo vvas wel acquainted with such satisfactions as we on our partes are bound to make his learned workes doe yeeld plentiful testimony I wil cite but a place or two thus he answereth vnto Nicetus vvho did write vnto him to know how he should deale with some Christians vvho being taken prisoners of the Infidels had there among them polluted them selues with eating of meates offered vp to Idols Epist 77. c. 5. Let them saith Leo be purged with satisfaction of penance which is not so much to be weighed by length of time as by compunction of the hart And againe speaking of certaine Priests that were doing of penance he saith Wherefore such men as these who haue fallen Epist 99. ad Rusti cap. 2. must relieue themselues in priuate Ad promerendam misericordiam Dei To deserue the mercy of God Vt illis satisfactio si fuerit digna sit etiam fructuosa That the satisfaction may be fruitful to them if it be worthy that is if it be correspondent to their faults alluding to that of S. Iohn Baptist Math. 3. Doe fruites worthy of penance so that by the judgement of S Leo and the ancient practise of his time men that truly repented them of their sinnes vvhereby the guilt and eternal punishment was abolished were afterwardes put to penance and to doe worthy satisfaction and that not only to satisfie the cōgregation or other men as the Protestants fable vvho haue a greater care to please men then God but to be purged of their fault and to deserue mercy at Gods hand as S. Leo doth plainly teach Now that this temporal punishment which is due to euery Christian after the eternal is through Christ forgiuen him may be released and pardoned by the gouernours of the Chuch and principally by the Pope as chiefe Pastor thereof vnder Christ and that through the superaboundant sufferings of some others is a matter so wel knowne to Antiquity that he must needs confesse himselfe a very puny therein that thinketh it to be a new deuise of the late Church of Rome For that S. Gregory the great who liued aboue a thousand yeares past D. Tho. alij in 4. sent dist 20. instituted Stations to diuers Churches in Rome and granted great Indulgences and Pardons vnto al that with due preparation visited the same is so wel knowne that few learned Protestants doe doubt of it or dare deny it S. Leo himselfe vvho vvas S. Gregories Ancestor more then an hundred yeares in the said Epistle to Nicetus doth plainely signifie as much for he leaueth that enjoined penance of the conuerted party Epistola 77. numer 6. to the discreet moderation of the Bishop to be shortned and released as he shal see cause which is properly a Pardon or Indulgence Moreouer Pope Siluester vvho vvas S. Leo his Predecessour by more then an hundred yeares Antiodor l. 4. summae cap. de relaps at the request of S. Helen Constantine the great his mother consecrated a Chappel in Rome called Sancta Croce in Hierusalem the vvhich he did both beautifie and enrich with diuers Relikes of Saints and granted large Indulgences to al that should with deuotion visit the same as the ancient Records of the same place doe testifie And that the Pastours of other Countries yet more ancient then the former were very wel acquainted with this language of this superaboundant passions and satisfactions of some Saints let that most learned Archbishop of Carthage in Afrike glorious Martir S. Cyprian beare witnesse He instructing the Christian prisoners and most noble Confessours for vvhose triumphant sufferinges the vse
A REPROOFE OF M. D OCT. ABBOTS DEFENCE OF THE CATHOLIKE DEFORMED BY M. W. Perkins WHEREIN His sundry abuses of Gods sacred word and most manifold mangling misaplying and falsifying the auncient Fathers sentences be so plainely discouered euen to the eye of euery indifferent Reader that whosoeuer hath any due care of his owne saluation can neuer hereafter giue him more credit in matter of faith and religion THE FIRST PART Made by W.B. P. and D oct in diuinity As Iannes and Mambres resisted Moyses so these also resist the truth men corrupted in minde reprobate concerning the faith but they shal prosper no further for their folly shal be manifest to al as theirs also was 2. TIM 3. vers 8. 9. ¶ Printed with Priuiledge Anno Domini 1608. THE PREFACE TO THE READER GOOD CHRISTIAN READER I doe voluntarily confesse that after I had seene M. Abbots answere to my Epistle vnto his Majesty I was a long time vnwilling to reply vpon it not for that I esteemed it to containe any such extraordinary learning as be too too fondly vaunteth off for I dare be bold to say that in a skilful mans judgement there are more pregnant proofes of their new doctrine in two leaues of M. Perkins booke then in tenne of his but cleane contrary I finde so little substance in his worke and so great store of impertinent and vile stuffe such superfluity of idle amplifications so many vnciuil and foule wordes that I could not thinke the time wel bestowed which should be spent in so friuolous and paine an altercation Notwithstanding being often admonished by my friendes that diuers Protestants much commended M. Abbots discourse some for the stile and his cunning and confident carriage in it others for that they saw it thicke interlaced with sundry ancient Authors sentences and thereby thought and gaue out that he refused not to deale with vs at our owne weapons Herevpon I resolued at length to afford it some answere specially for such good peoples sake who are desirous to bolt out that truth of God which only can saue their soules and are not willing to be deceiued with fine tricks nor doe wittingly suffer themselues to be carried away with faire glozing speeches or stout brags when they finde no correspondence of sound and wel grounded matter To giue the man his due I acknowledge that he inditeth not amisse if he did not defile and poison his penne with so huge a multitude of ougly venimous and vnsauoury tearmes But what account is to be made of choise picked and pleasing wordes when they be imployed not only to abuse and beguile simple soules but also to disgrace the sincere verity of Gods word surely for the debating of controuersies in religion plaine vsual speeches without painting or superfluity haue alwaies beene taken by the learned for most decent and expediēt according to that ancient Adage simplex est veritatis oratio the stile of truth is simple and plaine And where much colouring and flourishing is vsed there is no smal suspition of a badde cause and fraudulent dealing What neede bad M. Abbot to fil vp thirty sheetes of paper to giue answere vnto one sheete and halfe of mine doth it not argue to a man of vnderstanding that what he could not answere vnto directly in few wordes he would at least cloake with long circumstances and cast a mist before the Readers eies with gay glorious phrases that he might not see and discerne the truth Touching his frequent disgraceful and odious tearmes and most bitter rayling against the best sort of men on our side I would gladly learne how it can stand with Christian charity and modesty Sure I am that it consorteth ful euil with that sacred rule of the Apostle 2. Tim. 2. vers 24. The seruant of our Lord must not wrangle but be milde towardes al men apt to teach patient with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth And S. Peter telleth vs that the natural property of a true Christian is 1. Pet. 3. vers 9. To be modest and humble and not so much as to render euil for euil or curse for curse so farre off was he from encouraging any man to reuile and raile at them who neuer gaue him any one foule word in al their liues yea whome he neuer saw And he further biddeth vs to follow the example of Christ our great master who did not reuile when he was reuiled but hath in expresse wordes forbidden vs to vse any contemptuous or opprobrious speeches against our bretheren assuring vs before hand that he Math. 5. vers 23. Who shal say to his Christian brother thou foole shal be guilty of hel fire This and an hundred times more to the same purpose being set downe in the diuine Scriptures against bitter and barbarous speeches yet M. Abbot a professed Diuine seemeth to take a special delight in them and to esteeme them no smal ornaments of a Diuines stile otherwise he would not so often vse them I wote wel that the most milde and sweet pen-men are sometimes through zeale of the truth or by the ouerthwart dealing of their aduersary moued to let slip now and then a hard word or two but ordinarily or vpon euery smal occasion to fal into a fit of rayling and to vomit vp most rustical and ruffianlike taunts cannot but discouer a very corrupt and venimous stomacke In this one discourse of M. Abbots a diligent scauenger may rake together wel-neare a tumbrel ful of them I doe intreate the gentle Reader not to be offended with me if I doe here for verification of what I say trouble him with the view of some few of them The Bishop of Rome is seldome called by his right name but Antichrist Page 118. 124 146. 150. 162. the man of sinne that harpie of Rome filthy harlot filthy and vnnatural strumpet the whoore of Babilon and such like Religious men he tearmeth idle lossels and filthy belly-gods swarmes of Locusts Romish vermine ful gorged Friers and so foorth My selfe and others my bretheren False harlots witlesse sophisters blind Doctors abhominable hypocrites lewd caytifs the seede of the Deuil vncleane beasts foule mouthed dogs like vnto other swine of his fraternity base fugitiues false traytors the villany of our profession and innumerable others which cannot but conuince and demonstrate M. Abbot to be one of them whome the spirit of God hath liuely described when he wrote Rom. 3. vers 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre with their tongues they deale deceitfully the venim of serpents is vnder their lips their mouth is ful of malediction and bitternesse their feete swift to shedde bloud destruction and infelicity is in their waies and the way of peace they haue not knowne there is no feare of God before their eies And if M. Abbot scorne to be aduised by me his aduersary to forgoe this rude rhetorike of brabling and scolding women in latin called Canina eloquentia let him follow