not what blasphemy is For God doth not withdraw his loue and liking from any man that he once loued and doth not abhorre his soule vnlesse that man doe first forsake God and commit some offence against his diuine Majesty as all diuines agree but to imagine that our Sauiour committed any offence against his heauenly Father as impious Caluin doth insinuate is flat blasphemy against his immaculate purity In c. 27. Mat. and against the holy Scriptures that doe testifie Hebr. 7. vers 26. Our high Priest to be holy innocent impolluted segregated from sinners higher then the heauens c. That had no necessity to offer for his owne sinnes How therefore could his heauenly Father abhorre his soule or how could he be so euil perswaded of so good a Father God indeede to shew the rigour of his justice against our sinnes for which Christ suffered and the better to declare Christs inuincible fortitude and most feruent loue towardes vs was content not to yeeld vnto Christs humanity vpon the crosse so much as the ordinary inward comfort vvhich he affordeth vnto al that suffer for his names sake and that only did Christ in the name of his humanity expresse where he said My GOD my GOD why hast thou forsaken me and doest not afford me so much as that inward consolation which thou grantest to others But he was at the very same instant most assured that euen then God did loue him more ardently if it were possible then at any time in his vvhole life before because that then he did for his sake according to his heauenly decree and to satisfie his vvil and pleasure suffer the greatest sorrowes that the nature of man could sustaine and that without any kinde of extraordinary or ordinary helpe comfort or consolation but of this I haue spoken more in the Preface before alleaged Here I am only to note how M. Abbot slandereth me in this place with that whereof he himselfe cleareth me afterwards in his booke Let vs goe on vvith his reproches He saith That we be but sicophants and hirelings to the Pope for whose sake we must gale and disgrace howsoeuer there be no truth in that we speake How proueth he this is it not the part of a notable sicophant indeede to vpbraide a vvhole order of men vvith so great crimes vvithout any proofe at al How many learned Catholike writers be there in the world that neuer receiued one peny from the Popes holynesse no nor neuer so much as saw him or had any particular dealings with him what they doe out of their duty towardes God and of zeale to his sacred truth that M. Abbot vvould haue seely soules to beleeue to be done only of constraint and feare or for some hope of worldly gaine Perge mentiri goe on Sir with your tale By which meanes saith he many of your subjects are intangled in a misconscience of religion and thereby drawne from their true loialty and prepared for seditious practises so saith he both simply and falsly without any colour of proofe But we say that by the Catholike doctrine al subjects consciences are rightly informed in the waies of God and thereby instructed to be true and faithful to their Princes and to hate al such practises as tend to the perturbation of the vveale publike Yea vve doe more forcibly and effectually by the Catholike doctrine moue al subjects vnto dutiful obedience then the Protestants doe Caluin lib. 4. Instit ca. 10. num 5. Perkins reformed catholike pag. 157. for they hold that Christian liberty alloweth al men the free vse of al thinges indifferent and that such thinges may not be made necessary in conscience so that if the Prince goe about to restraine his subjects of that liberty they are not bound to obey him vvhereas we al maintaine that al men are bound in conscience to obey al such just lawes of Princes as are not directly against the law of God our doctrine therefore doth farre excel the Protestants in the matter of true loialty And to answere here by the vvay to that odious argument of theirs That the Papists forsooth are but halfe subjects because in matters of religion they are not ruled by their King and his lawes but doe depend vpon the Pope I say that if al they who in matters of faith and saluation doe not take their temporal Prince to be their supreme gouernour should be esteemed but halfe subjects then the mighty Monarkes of France and Spaine and al other Catholike Kings or Princes of the vvorld haue not any one whole subject for none of their people acknowledge them for chiefe cōmanders in Ecclesiastical causes then also for a thousand yeares together our former Kinges were wholy destitute of true and loial subjects for they depended no lesse then we doe vpon the Bishop of Rome for declaration and decision of spiritual affaires as it is very particularly demonstrated in that learned answere vnto Sr. Edward Cookes fift booke of reportes Briefly if this their reason vvere good the Apostles and al the first and best Christians vvere but halfe subjects for in matters of faith not one of them vvould be ruled by the Roman Emperors or other their temporal Princes but did al acknowledge and confesse some other supreme gouernour in those spiritual cases wherefore they must either allow vs to be perfect loial subjects notwithstanding our dependance vpon the Popes holynesse in causes Ecclesiastical or else condemne as disloial al the best Christian subjects that euer vvere euen since Christes owne daies And thus much may serue for this place to shew that they are to be reputed vvhole subjects and that of the best marke who doe giue vnto Math. 22. vers 21. Caesar that which is Caesars reseruing neuerthelesse vnto God and his Vicar that vvhich to him appertaineth I returne to M. Abbots accusations They haue beene bold already saith he to tel your Majesty that if you wil not yeeld them what they desire God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity wil driue them to at length meaning as he expoundeth it that if we could not get vvhat vve desire by vviles like Aspes we would like raging Lions seeke it by open violence These wordes of M. Abbots maketh me remember that worthy saying of a graue wise author Sr. Thomas Moore Take away lying and railing from Heretikes and you shal leaue them little or nothing This one little sentence of mine whereon he makes a whole discourse a part and doth glance and girde at it very often elsewhere thinking to haue gotten thereby a great aduantage against al Catholikes he could not propose to his Majesty without a lease of lies The first is that he auoucheth my only feare and conjecture to be the constant opinion of al Catholikes they haue beene bold saith he vvhen he citeth my only vvordes vvriting in mine owne name wherefore he doeth open wrong to others to impute that to them whereunto they were not
and to the publike tranquillity of the common vveale Now let the indifferent reader consider vvhether there be any one word in this supposed letter that carrieth meate in mouth as they say to feede the Protestants faith so that here is an ancient and reuerend Fathers letter cited to no purpose But M. Abbot saith that now a-daies not the King but the Pope is Gods Vicar and his Vicar general for al Kingdomes True it is the Pope is Gods Vicar in al Christian Kingdomes Sext. proem in glossa though there be not one vvord of any such matter in the glosse cited by him but that is in Ecclesiastical matters vvhich nothing hindereth but that the King is also Gods Vicar in temporal affaires for he may be called a Vicar that doth Vicem gerere alterius that is another mans Deputy Lieutenant or Substitute One King may haue many Vicars that is substitutes or deputies to whom he committeth some principal charge King Henry the eight for example hauing giuen him by the Parliament supreme power in both Ecclesiastical and Temporal causes had one Vicar for spiritual causes and many other for the temporal so God hath the Bishop of Rome for Christes Vicar general in causes of the Church and Kinges in the administration of the common vveale And the very Canon cited by M. Abbot would haue taught him so much if he had read it vvith a minde to learne the truth rather then to sucke out some matter of cauil out of it Distinct 96. Si Imperator for therein be these wordes The Emperour hath the priuiledges of his power which he obtained of God for the administration of publike lawes Marke here the Pope acknowledgeth the Emperour to be Gods Deputy and Vicar in the administration of the common lawes vvhich in the Canon that goeth next before is confirmed for there Gelasius an ancient Pope speaketh thus to Anastatius the Emperour Ibidem duo sunt There be two thinges ô Sacred Emperour wherewith this world is principally gouerned to wit the holy authority of Bishops and the power of Princes These two then be both Gods Substitutes and Vicars the one for spiritual causes the other for temporal wherefore M. Abbot reasoneth very childishly vvhen he goeth about to proue that we deny the King to be Gods Vicar because we teach the Pope to be Gods Vicar for vve hold that they both be Gods Vicars though in distinct and different matters Neither lastly can he take any aduantage of the word gouerne if it be in that letter for King Lucius demand was for the Imperial lawes to gouerne the temporal state of his realme vvherefore it is euident that he spake there of temporal gouernement and not of spiritual Now because the maine question is whether Kings haue authority ouer Bishops in Ecclesiastical causes or Bishops ouer Kinges let vs heare some two or three of S. Peter and S. Paules Successours M. Abbots owne vvitnesses deliuer their knowledge thereof The first shal be the same learned and holy Pope Gelasius last named he affirmeth in the same Epistle vvhich vvas written to the Emperour himselfe that the authority of Bishops in spiritual causes doth extend it selfe ouer Kinges and Emperours these be his vvordes Distinct 96. Duo sunt Thou knowest ô Emperour thy selfe to depend on their judgements and that they cannot be reduced to thy wil and pleasure therefore many Bishops fortified with these ordinances and with this authority supported haue excommunicated some Kinges others Emperours And if a particular example be demanded of the persons of Princes blessed Innocentius the Pope did excommunicate the Emperour Archadius for consenting vnto the deposition of S. Iohn Chrisostome And blessed S. Ambrose though a holy Bishop yet not Bishop of the vniuersal Church for a fault that to others did not seeme so grieuous excommunicating Theodosius the great did shut him out of the Church c. Is not this plaine enough and directly to the purpose that Bishops haue power ouer Princes in Ecclesiastical causes and the authority of Gelasius is of such vvaight with M. Abbot shortly after that here he cannot gaine-say it vvith any honesty I vvil joine to him Anacletus vvhom M. Abbot also noteth the next who succeeded immediately after Clement S. Peters Scholler he saith expresly Epistola 1. prope finem That the Church of Rome receiued by our Sauiour Christes order the primacy and preeminence of power ouer al Churches and ouer the whole flocke of Christian people If then M. Abbot vvil allow that Kinges be any of Christes people the Pope hath authority ouer them S. Clement himselfe one of S. Paules Philip. 4. v. 3. coadjutors and whose name is in the booke of life hath left this vvritten among the constitutions of the Apostles Lib. 2. c. 11. Wherefore ô Bishop endeauour to excel in sanctity of workes knowing thy place and dignity thou art Gods Lieutenant and placed ouer al Lordes Priests Kinges and Princes Fathers Sonnes Masters and al Subjects joined together Ibid. cap. 33. And in the same booke touching by the vvay the dignity of Bishops repeateth these memorable wordes out of holy Scripture spoken to Moyses as a King Bishop Exod. 7. v. 1. Ecce constitui to Deum Pharaonis Behold I haue created thee the God of Pharao vvho was King of the land of Aegipt vvhere both Moyses and al the children of Israel then liued see the dignity of a Bishop aboue his owne King And the 38. chapter of the same booke of Clement is formally intituled That Priests are more excellent then Kinges and Princes And finally that the gouernement of the whole Church was committed to Bishops that vessel of election S. Paul is a sufficient witnesse vvho saith Act. 20. v. 28. Take heede to your selues and to the whole flocke wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud If then M. Abbot wil allow that Kinges be any of Christs flocke and that he purchased them with his bloud they are to be ruled by Bishops who are placed by the holy Ghost to rule the whol◠flocke of Gods Church Hitherto comparing the Bishop of Rome with temporal Princes I haue proued the prerogatiue of Ecclesiastical gouernement to appertaine to the Bishops Now a word or two of the preeminence of the Church and See of Rome ouer al other Churches vvhich shal be briefly verified euen by the testimony of some of the most ancient and most holy successours of S. Peter and S. Paul to whom M. Abbot attributes so much The afore named Anacletus who succeeded next after their owne Disciple S. Clement hauing shewed that al Ecclesiastical causes belong to Bishops euen as temporal causes doe to the temporal Magistrate Epistola 1. ad omnes Ecclesias addeth that if more difficult questions shal arise as the judgements of Bishops and greater causes let them if any appeale be made
sute of diuers Bishops of the East he did solemnely summon S. Athanasius that most learned and valiant Patriarke of Alexandria to appeare at Rome before him there to answere vnto such crimes as were indeede most vvrongfully objected against him Lib. 4. hist Tripart c. 6. Nicephor lib. 9. cap. 6. thus saith the holy History The Pope following the law of the Church commanded them also to come vnto Rome and according to the rule of the Canons cited the venerable Athanasius to judgement Athanasius obediently appeared but his aduersaries knowing that their lies in that place vvould soone be discouered durst not appeare vvhereupon Athanasius was purged of those imputations Ibid. cap. 12. and restored to his Bishoprick Vnto the same Iulius not long after Athanasius being pittifully abused by the Arrians repaired the second time for aide vvhere he found diuers other Bishops of the East namely Paulus Bishop of Constantinople Marcellus Bishop of Ancony Asclopas Bishop of Gaya and Lucianus Bishop of Adrianople al Easterne Bishops and yet appealing to Iulius Pope of Rome for remedy of the wrongs done them by the Arrian Heretikes which doth most manifestly testifie that in the primitiue Church al other Bishops acknowledged the Bishop of Rome for the supreme Pastour of Christes Church vvhich also Zozomenus doth confirme shewing how Iulius restored them al Tanquam omnium curam gerens Zozom l. 3. hist. cap. 8. propter propriae sedis dignitatem As one that had care ouer them al for the dignity of his owne See And Iulius his owne wordes recorded by no meaner a man then S. Athanasius doe declare the same for blaming the Bishops of the East he saith Athanas in Apolog. 2. Why did you not write vnto vs especially you of Alexandria are you ignorant that the custome is that we should first be written vnto that from hence it might be defined what was right therefore if you haue any quarrel against any Bishop you ought to haue referred it hither to our Church c. And shortly after I signifie to you such thinges as were receiued from the blessed Apostle S. Peter c. vvhere M. Abbot may see that one of S. Peters successours of great worth and authority doth tel the Bishops of the East Church that by order set downe by S. Peter himselfe Bishops causes of al countries ought to be referred vnto the definition of the Bishop of Rome he therefore is their superiour I adde hereunto because it belongeth both vnto Pope Iulius and this present purpose of their supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes this sentence taken out of the Ecclesiastical history The Councel holden at Antioch was not good Hist Tripart lib. 4. cap. 9. for that Iulius Bishop of Rome was not there present nor sent any Legate in his place because the Ecclesiastical Canons doe command that Councels ought not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome ROBERT ABBOT GELASIVS Bishop of Rome saith as we say Gelas cont Eutich Nestor That in the Saâ—rament is celebrated the Image or resemblance of the body and bloud of Christ and that there ceasseâ—h not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine But now the Romish religion maketh them Heretikes that say the Sacrament is the Image or resemblance of the body bloud of Christ and not the body and bloud of Christ it selfe or wil not beleeue that the bread and wine are substantially and really turned into the same body and bloud Albeit they beleeue with the same Gelasius that the Sacrament is a diuine thing and that thereby we are made partakers of the diuine nature euen of Christ himselfe really and substantially but yet spiritually vvith al his riches becomming ours and being eaten of vs not by our teeth into our bellies but by faith into our harts vnto life euerlasting WILLIAM BISHOP FIRST I say that M. Abbot hauing his eie-sight sore troubled with a grosse defluxion of salt rhewme taketh a Rowland for an Oliuer that is one Gelasius an vnknowne Grecian for Gelasius an African borne yet Bishop of Rome That he was not Gelasius the Bishop of Rome appeareth plainly out of that very treatise cited by M. Abbot for that Gelasius professeth to alleage the testimony of al the learned Fathers who wrote before him yet he maketh no mention of the most renowmed authours in the Latin Church as of S. Hillary S. Augustine S. Hierome and of Pope Leo al vvhich wrote before Gelasius the Bishop of Rome and were had in very great estimation by him as may be seene by his declaration of the Canonical Scriptures of the most approued fathers workes Dist 15. SaÌ„cta Romana Ecclesia Ibidem Againe that Gelasius citeth often and relieth much vpon the authority of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea vvhereas Gelasius the Pope hath noted his vvorkes for little better then Apocryphal so that nothing is more like then that the good man hath mistaken his marke and is fallen from the successours of S. Peter and S. Paul vpon I cannot tel whom yet because he is an old writer though of what credit it be vncertaine I wil not refuse him And to the former part of his sentence that in the Sacrament there is an Image or resemblance of Christes body I answere that vve Catholikes doe say as much in effect for euery Sacrament is a visible signe of an inuisible and holy thing and so Christs body vnder the forme of bread and wine is a resemblance of his body parted from his bloud on the Crosse and the body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and vvine as it is in the Sacrament is a picture also or resemblance of the vnion of his mistical body in faith and charity euen as the bread is made of many graines of corne and the vvine pressed out of many clusters of grapes The later part of his sentence may also haue a good meaning and stand wel with our doctrine for the nature of bread doth not wholy ceasse to be in the blessed Sacrament because the forme sauour and tast of bread which be natural qualities thereof doe stil remaine though the whole inward substance be turned into the body of Christ which that Gelasius doth in the same place signifie when he there saith The same bread to be changed into the diuine substance that is into the substance of Christ by the operation of the holy Ghost whereby the receiuers are made partakers of the diuine nature And M. Abbots glosse vpon these later wordes is very extrauagant for we cannot in property of speech be said to be partakers of Christs nature really by being made partakers of his riches for it is one thing to be partaker of a mans nature really another farre different to be partaker of his goodes and benefits And as for the receiuing of Christ spiritually by faith that may be done vvithout receiuing any Sacrament at al but Gelasius either speaketh of receiuing Christ in the
excelling in integrity of life in sound doctrine and charity towardes al we ought truly to rejoice but if any man among you be so hardy and audacious that he shal enterprise to commend and praise those plagues of the Church Eusebius Theognis his insolency shal presently be punished by the worke and diligence of Gods seruant euen by me This is vvord for word out of the Authour so that the Emperours threat of punishment was only to the citizens of Nicomedia not to any Bishop or Clergy-man Which if it be compared with M. Abbots corruption either you must take him for a very grosse pate and more then poore-blinde that could not discerne to whom or of whom the Emperour spoke or else so feruently set to deceiue others that he cared not to straine courtesie with his Authours and to belie them a little so that he might for a vvhile til it were discouered be taken for one that had found out some special proofe that made much to the purpose ROBERT ABBOT Page 192. THEREFORE Constantine accepted of Appeales vvhen they were made to him from the judgement of Bishops and either heard matters himselfe or appointed those that should heare them And so we find that Foelix a Bishop August Epist 162. By the commandement of the same Emperour had his cause heard and was acquited before his Proconsul or Lieutenant And where the Donatists said That a Bishop should not haue his purgation before the Lieutenant S. Augustine answereth As if saith he the Bishop himselfe had so taken course for himselfe and the Emperour had not commanded that the matter should be inquired off to whose charge whereof he was to giue account to God that matter did specially belong And so doth he send for the Bishops Socrat. lib. 1. Hist. cap. 22. Zozom lib. 2. cap. 27. Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 2. that by his commandement were assembled in a Councel at Tyrus to giue account to him of that they had done there and in his hearing to shew him how truly and sincerely they had carried themselues in their judgement whereby as by many other arguments it is manifest to al men that Constantine held himself to haue a supremacy ouer Bishops and to be Iudge of their judgements and that M. Bishop seeketh meerely to abuse his Majesty in alleaging the example of Constantine against him WILLIAM BISHOP LIKE vvil to like quoth the Deuil to the Colliar as it is in our old Adage M. Abbot is so blindly bent to his errours that for vvant of more worthy Presidents he wil not sticke to flie for succour to both Donatists and Arrians old rotten and reprobate Heretikes Who were they that appealed from the judgement of Bishops to the Emperour Constantine vvere they honest Godly men whose example a good Christian may follow nothing lesse Heare S. Augustine August Epist 166. out of whom you craftily cul certaine wordes to deceiue your reader Your Ancestours saith S. Augustine to the Donatists brought the cause of Cecilianus before the Emperour Constantine put vs to proofe of this and vnlesse we proue it doe with vs what you can The Donatists then were the men that appealed from the Bishops judgements to the Emperour but though they vvere otherwise wicked Heretikes yet in this point perhaps they did not amisse saith M. Abbot a deare child of the Donatist Yes marry did they witnesse first Constantine himselfe who hearing of the Donatists appeale was maruailously moued with it as testifieth Optatus Bishop of Mileuitan that liued in the middest of them these be his wordes Lib. 1. cont Parmen Donate the fire of the Donatists thought good to appeale from Bishops to the Emperor c. to which appeale the Emperor Constantine answereth thus O rabida furoris audacia sicut in casu Gentilium fieri solet appellationem apposuerunt O madde pange of fury they haue put in an appeale as the Heathens are wont to doe Obserue how this good Emperor liked of their appeale esteeming them madde men and like to the Pagans that did make it Another vvitnesse shal be S. Augustine and in that very Epistle out of which M. Abbot doth sucke his poison for he doth most sincerely deliuer the whole circumstance of this matter Epist 162. these be his wordes Constantine the Emperour gaue the Donatists another hearing or judgement at Arles in France not that it was then needeful but condescending to their peruerse stubbornesse and coueting by al meanes to suppresse their impudency Neither durst the good Emperour so admit of their seditious false complaints that he himselfe would judge of the sentence of those Bishops who sate at Rome but assigned them other Bishops as I said from whom they yet againe appealed to the Emperour himselfe Wherein how be detested them you haue heard and I would to God they had at last vpon his judgement made an end of their most outragious animosities And as he yeelded to them so farre forth as to judge of that cause after the Bishops a sacris Antistibus postea veniam petiturus minding afterwardes to aske pardon of the holy Bishops because he did it that the Donatists might haue no excuse left them if they did not obey vnto his sentence vnto whom they themselues appealed so they would once at the lenght yeeld to the truth There you see first how the Donatists contrary to law and custome appealed to the Emperor which S. Augustine doth in other places also most formally teach Secondly that the Emperour did vehemently dislike of their appeale and put it off from himself to Bishops of whose causes and after whom he knew did professe that it did not appertaine to him to judge Yet finally to stoppe the impudent mouthes of the Donatists and to leaue them cleane vvithout al excuse of their obstinate stubbornesse he cōdescended to heare the cause himselfe after the Bishops not that he thought himselfe to haue any right so to doe but meaning to craue pardon of the sacred Bishops for that he had intermedled in their matters further then he ought to haue done Al this is taken out of S. Augustine vvord by word in that very place vvhich M. Abbot alleageth for himselfe Is not he then a very conscienslesse and most perfidious man that would thus vnder the colour of some broken wordes beare his reader in hand that the Emperour Constantine tooke himselfe in his owne right to be the supreme judge of Bishops and that euen by the testimony of S. Augustine who so plainly in the same place relateth the cleane contrary But Foelix saith he a Bishop by the commandement of the same Emperour had his cause heard and was acquited before his Lieutenant True but how came it to passe that the good Bishop was cōuented before them not by any his owne seeking or liking but through the most important sute of the Donatists August ibid. Epist 166 Qui quotidianis interpellationibus taedium Imperatori fecerunt dicentes
illum esse traditorem Who with their daily out cries were tedious to the Emperour affirming Foelix to be a traitour Whereupon because the Donatists would not admit of any ordinary judge of Bishops vvithin or without Afrike the innocent Bishop was content to referre his cause to be heard by any vvhomsoeuer for so it followeth in the very next vvordes of that same Epistle of S. Augustine For they that is the Donatists had made the Emperour arbitrator and judge of that cause who first sued to him afterwardes appealed vnto him and yet in the end would not stand to his judgements but seing that he gaue sentence against them they like frantike fellowes cried out against the same as vnlawful which vvas their owne seeking and then affirmed contrary to their former opinion and practise that a Bishop was not to haue his trial and purgation before a secular Iudge Whereupon S. Augustine inferreth If he be blame-worthy whom a temporal Iudge acquited when he himselfe sought after no such Iudge how much more are they to be blamed who would needes haue an earthly King to be judge of their cause Iudex eligitur Imperator The Emperour was by the Donatists chosen for their Iudge but the Emperour giuing sentence against them he was by them condemned thus S. Augustine Are not these shuttle and giddy headed Heretikes sure cardes for M. Abbot to build the Princes supremacy vpon a sandy and slippery foundation yet meete for such a peece of worke But S. Augustine doth say That the Emperour caused the matter to be diligently enquired of to whose charge whereof he was to giue account to God that matter did specially belong I answere that the Emperour hauing taken the matter into his handes by the importunate sute of the Donatists and by the consent of the other party was afterwardes bound in honour and conscience to see it throughly sifted out and most vprightly determined But this furthereth nothing M. Abbots pretence of the Emperours supremacy vvhen first the Emperour himselfe acknowledgeth most ingeniously and perspicuously that he judgeth in such cases against his wil and as it were vnder the correction of the Bishops And S. Augustine as manifestly teacheth that neither Foelix nor any other Catholike Bishop required the Emperour for their judge of their owne free choise but that being thereunto constrained by the impudency and head-strong wilfulnesse of the Donatists who would be judged by no other Neither yet vvould they finally yeelde to the Emperours owne judgement which they so earnestly sued for against the Canons of the Church Were not these head-strong Donatists a most perfect patterne of heretical obstinacy and fit men to be propounded for an example to follow by M. Abbot if any man desire to see more of S. Augustines minde in this matter let him reade his 48. and 166. Epistles and the first Chapter of his third booke against Iulian the Pelagian vvhere he cutteth those Pelagian Heretikes short who hauing beene once condemned by a Councel of Bishops in Palestine vvould haue appealed to the Emperour and did then alleage the Example of the Donatists for their President Lib. 3. cont Iulian. cap. 1. as M. Abbot now doth Not so saith S. Augustine your cause hath bad a competent and sufficient trial before many Bishops neither are you to be dealt withal any further concerning the right of examination and trial it only now remaineth that you quietly accept of the sentence pronounced of this cause so that in S. Augustines judgement the competent lawful and ordinary trial of Ecclesiastical causes is before Bishops from which none but Heretikes doe appeale and flie And touching the Donatists whose example the other Heretikes alleaged Ibidem this holy Father saith They were so violent and withal so stronge that we were forced to follow them appealing to the Emperour for they ranged and raged with such fury almost al Afrike ouer that they would not suffer the Catholikes to preach or to liue in peace by them but by fire sword and forrage put the whole country in garboile and combustion wherefore the Bishops were compelled for the suppressing their fury and for to bring them to reason to conferre with them before the lay Magistrate Thus much of M. Abbots former instance of the Donatists Now to his other borrowed from the Arrians who were assembled in a very wicked conuenticle at Tyre to condemne the most innocent Prelate and Saint of God Athanasius vvho besides also was Patriarke of Alexandria the chiefe seate of al the East and therefore rather to judge ouer them then to be judged of them yet those most malitious Arrians to wreake their teene on him inuented most strange crimes of Rape Murder and Treason against the man of God and had false vvitnesses in readinesse to testifie vvhat they would desire yet were they so prudently encountred and al their most wicked plots so plainly discouered by the grace of God and S. Athanasius most vigilant industry that they fel at last to conspire his death by open violence Al which being related to the Emperour he wrote a most sharpe letter to those bloudy conspiratours and willed them to come to the place where he then made his abode there in his presence and hearing to shew whither that which they had done there were equal and just He doth not say as M. Abbot falsly reporteth that the Bishops were to giue him account of that they had done but according to Athanasius request Socrat. lib. 1. Histor c. 22. vvhich was as it is set downe in the same letter Vt eo accederetis quo nobis praesentibus de injuria qua passus fuerit necessitate coactus posset expostulare That the Councel might be remoued to the Emperours Court to the intent that Athanasius compelled by necessity might expostulate and complaine in the Emperours presence of the injury done vnto him First note that the holy Patriarke compelled by necessity of the Arrians fury repaired to the Emperour Secondly that he desired the matter might be heard though in the Emperours presence yet by the Bishops assembled in that cōuenticle for he had reason to thinke that they vvould not for very shame suffer the matter to be so partially and furiously handled if that good Emperour were present and did but looke on them Thirdly note that there vvas no matter of faith in question but capital crimes and temporal affaires of the state objected against Athanasius wherein the lay Magistrate hath more special interest Briefly here is no mention of the Emperours judging ouer Bishops but only of a sending for them to come to him to handle so waighty a matter before him which any temporal Prince for aught I see may demand and also command of Bishops that be his owne subjects vvhen cause of the temporal state is touched Out of the premises it followeth most euidently that M. Abbot hath not one plaine word to proue the Emperour Constantine to be supreme judge in Ecclesiastical
censure and touch of reproach vpon the same his worke called Bibliotheca Patrum Lastly concerning the doctrine of Predestination I reade not that the Pelagians were called in question about it nor yet for Satisfaction vvherefore M. Abbot must first out of some good Authors shew their errours therein before he goe about to slander vs vvith the imitation of them but as I am vvel assured of the later so I thinke he wil not in hast performe the former ROBERT ABBOT I Omit many other matters that might here be added perswading my selfe that I said enough to trouble M. Bishop in the prouing of that that he hath so propounded that the principal pillars of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate taught in al points of religion the same doctrine that now shee holdeth c. only for conclusion let me aske him what Bishop of Rome there was for the space of a thousand yeares that practised or taught that concerning Pardons which is now practised and taught in the Church of Rome that the Bishop of Rome hath any authority to giue such libels of pardon or that it is in him to giue faculties and authority to others to graunt the like vvith reseruation of special causes to himselfe or that he can for saying such and such praiers or for doing this or that release a man from Purgatory for so many hundred or thousand yeares vvhat Bishop of Rome was there that did proclaime a Iubilee vvith promise that al that would come to Rome to visit the Churches that yeare should haue ful and perfect forgiuenesse of al their sinnes or that did charge the Angels as did Clement the sixt that vvhosoeuer should die in his journey thitherward they should bring his soule into the glory of Paradise Balaeus in Clem. sexto which of them did take vpon him to Canonize a Saint vvho euer beleeued or taught as it is now receiued in the Church of Rome that the Bishops blessing is the forgiuenesse of venial sinnes Sextus in proem in glossa Rhem. Test in Math. 10. vers 12. Other innouations I wil passe ouer to further occasion but concerning these matters in this place I would pray M. Bishop to let vs be satisfied how the principal pillars of the Church of Rome haue in al points taught the same that the Church of Rome teacheth now The truth is that as the name of Theseus shippe continued a long time vvhen as it was so altered by putting in of new plankes and boordes as that it had nothing left of that that was in it when it was first built by Theseus so the Church of Rome stil continueth her name and would be taken to be the same albeit by chopping and changing shee is come to that passe that shee hath in a manner nothing left of that doctrine for vvhich shee vvas first called the Church of Rome But M. Bishop taketh vpon him to proue the contrary let vs now examine what his proofes are WILLIAM BISHOP YOV doe wisely to omit many other matters that you might haue added if they be like vnto these vvhich you haue already put downe for they are proued to be nothing else in manner but falsifications of the ancient Fathers vvritinges or fond illations of your owne bolstered out with a huge and shamelesse troupe of vntruthes the more one omitteth of such baggage and paultry stuffe the more it maketh for his credit Wherefore if M. Abbot had let al this alone no doubt but he should haue saued much of his reputation which by such vnchristian like and vnhonest dealing he is like to leese with the indifferent juditious reader If he perswade himselfe that he hath put me to some paines and trouble to trace out the vntruth of his allegations he is not deceiued for he produceth them so corruptly with such additions substractions misconstructions and euil applications that euery place he cites must needes be turned vnto in the Authours owne workes before a man can repose any trust in him or shal know what answere to make I pray you good Sir if there be any sparke of Christian sincerity left in you let this admonition serue to intreate you not to put your aduersary or reader to such trouble any more Either for loue of the truth or for feare of Gods judgements and rebuke of honest men forbeare to misreport your Authours If it be a shame to bely the Deuil vvhat impudency and impiety is it to bely most reuerend holy and learned Doctors and which much increaseth that hainous crime thereby to blinde Christian people and to draw them along with him to the bottomelesse pit of hel It hath I willingly confesse more troubled me to spend my spare time in discouering vntruthes and dishonest shifts trickes then it should haue done to haue bestowed it in substantial arguing and in round debating of questions in controuersie with short and sound arguments But I hope by this the vpright reader hath seene that M. Abbot was so farre off from troubling me to proue The principal pillars of the Roman Church in her most flourishing estate to haue taught the same doctrine that the present Church of Rome no teacheth that he hath rather furthered it by ministring vnto me so fit an occasion yea omitting others which I could choose my self for my better aduantage I haue not refused to verifie and make good the present doctrine of that Church euen by the testimony of those very authours of vvhich M. Abbot himselfe made choise as of men that spake most against it If then by their verdict who are thought by our aduersaries to be most estranged from vs our cause is confirmed and proued to be most just and veritable vvho is so carelesse of his owne saluation that had rather follow a lying Master leading to perdition then to imbrace so manifest a truth drawing towardes saluation May I not here justly exclaime with the holy King and Prophet and say Psalm 4. O yee Sonnes of men how long wil you be so heauy harted why are you so farre in loue with vanity and seeke after leasing he that is the true light Iohan. 1. who doth illuminate euery man that commeth into this world of his infinite goodnesse and mercy lighten your vnderstanding and incline your harts that you may perceiue and receiue that ingrafted word that truth of Christ preached by his Apostles approued by the most honourable Senate of the ancient Fathers beleeued al the world ouer that hath also continued euer since inuiolably vvhich only and none other can saue your soules Now for a conclusion and vpshot of this matter M. Abbot would faine know What Bishop of Rome for a thousand yeares after Christ had authority to giue any such libel of pardons as are now giuen or that could graunt to others any such faculty with reseruation of special causes to himselfe c. I answere if these be the greatest difficulties that with-hold him from approuing the doctrine
cap. 21. by the best Hystoriographers and other approued authors of the auncient Church for denying Priests to haue power to forgiue some sort of the more hainous crimes Our Protestants exceede the Nouatians therein for they hold that Priests haue no power to pardon any sinne at al either little or great but only to pronounce them absolued for the satisfaction of the congregation And M. Abbot doth vpon meere surmises goe about very ignorantly to colour their deceit Page 187. in saying that the Nouatians denied absolution not from any sinnes but only from the sentence of excommunication Ibidem for both Socrates and Sozomene doe affirme in plaine tearmes the Nouatians to haue taught that it lay not in the power of a Priest but in God alone Illud genus peccati ignoscere To pardon and forgiue that kinde of sinne And againe That hope of pardon was not to be expected of the Priests but of God who could remit sinnes And there is no mention of any sentence of excommunication pronounced against them but that the offendours through the enormity of their sinnes had depriued themselues of the benefit of the Priests absolution And because M. Abbot saith yet further that Nouatus denied absolution to one only kinde of sinne let vs heare how formally that most graue Doctor S. Ambrose hath 1200. yeares before confuted him these be his wordes The Nouatians say Ambros de Poenitent cap. 2. that excepting some of the grieuous sinnes they doe giue pardon vnto the lighter offences But S. Ambrose replieth thus So did not Nouatianus the authour of your errour For he held that penance was not to be injoyned to any sinne at al vpon this consideration that he would not binde that which afterwardes he could not loose least by binding he might put them in hope of loosing Therefore doe you condemne the sentence of your owne Master because you put that difference betweene sinnes that some of them may be forgiuen and other some you thinke remedilesse But God maketh no such distinction who hath promised his mercy vnto al and hath giuen licence vnto Priests to pardon without any exception Obserue how directly that auncient Father doth crosse our new Masters in witnessing that both Nouatianus himselfe denied Priests to haue power to pardon not only the greater but any sinne at al And on the other part that God gaue vnto Priests authority to pardon al sorts of sinnes without any exception of the most grieuous Hieron 〈◊〉 Epist de errorivus MoÌ„tan Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 43. Math. Paris in Henrico 3. Guido de lacobis cap. 2. The Montanists also as I rehearsed before out of S. Hierome did jump with the Nouatians in this point Afterwardes as heresies in tract of time grow more formal about the yeare of Christ 600. there sprong out of that corrupted roote certaine lewd impes called Iacobites who did teach in terminis That it was not necessary to confesse our sinnes to a Priest but it would serue to confesse them only to God Doe our Protestants differ from them any one jote therein That the Manichees among many other errours did deny Free-wil al Antiquity doth confesse The same doe the Protestants though not altogither after the same manner nor vpon the same groundes For the Manichees denied freewil aswel to sinne as to doe vvel Aug. 1. Retract 15. de duobus naturis cont Manich. for they dreamed that there vvas in a man both a good soule which they supposed to be a part of the good God and an euil soule descended of the nation of darkenesse Out of the forcible operation of the one of these two soules they imagined al good and badde deedes of man to proceede vvithout the free choise or consent of his owne wil. M. Abbot craftily to cleere their party from the infamy of the one branch of the Manichean heresie doth deny that they doe agree with them in the other True it is that the Protestants doe not deny vs free-wil to doe euil as the Manichees did yet doe they agree with them in the other part attributing the vvhole vvorking of good vnto grace as the Manichees did to the good soule without any free choise or consent of ours And albeit S. Augustine in refuting them doe most coÌ„monly insist vpon their denial of liberty to doe euil In disput coÌ„t FortunatuÌ„ in actâ—s cum Foeliâ—e cap 12. as being the more euident eminent absurdity yet doth he in sundry places intimate that the Manichees held it absurd to affirme that we had free wil to doe good The Donatists vvere of opinion that the visible Church of Christ was perished in al other parts of the world and only remained vndefiled in those coasts of Afrike where their heresie bare the sway August ad Quodvult alibi and vvere therefore by the verdict of Antiquity declared blinde Heretikes The Protestants as obstinately and more blindly doe auouch that the visible true Church was for 900. yeares togither banished out of the world and was of late restored from that long exile by Friar Luther and his followers and doth yet remaine only vndefiled in those corners of Europe where their new Gospel doth domineer they are therefore in that point Donatists It was a very preposterous shameful inuention of the Arrians yet of necessity imbraced afterwardes by other Heretikes to appeale from the judgement of their spiritual Pastors vnto the lay Magistrate thus writeth S. Ambrose of the Arrian Bishop Auxentius He being brought vnto an exigent doth flie vnto that suttle tricke of his predecessours to draw vs into the Emperours displeasure Orat. tertia cont Auxentium affirming that he being but a young-man and a Nouice in the faith ignorant also of the holy Scriptures as commonly other Princes are must notwithstanding in his Consistory determine this Ecclesiastical cause so did the Donatists appeale from the judgement of Bishops vnto the Emperour Epist 48. 162. Lib. 3. cont Iulian. cap. 1. as witnesseth S. Augustine And so the Pelagians would haue done if they could haue preuailed therein as the same most graue Father hath also recorded And is not this as it were the foundation and shot-anker of al the Protestants superstitious proceedinges Another rotten twigge of the same Pelagians heresie it was Aug. de Peccat Merit lib. 1. cap. 9. To deny children to be purged from original sinne by baptisme attributing that rather to a couenant made long since to old father Abraham most learned Protestants be of the same minde And al of them agree vvith Proclus the condemned Originist Epiph. Haeres 64. vvho taught Original sinne to be so in seperably joined with our mortal bodies that til death it is not clearely purged of it The Antidicomarianitae that is Epiph. Haeres 78. enemies of the blessed Virgin Mary were scored vp for Heretikes for denying that most holy Mother of God to be worshipped and honoured yet doe the Protestants
al one to say the vniuersal particular Church here is a vvel shapen argument and worthy the maker it consists of al particular propositions which euery smatterer in logicke knowes to be most vitious besides not one of them is good but al are sophistical and ful of deceit First concerning the forme if it were currant one might proue by it that no one Church in the vvorld vvere Catholike take for example the English congregation vvhich they hold to be most Catholike and apply M. Abbots argument to it thus The Catholike Church is the vniuersal Church but the Church of England is a particular Church wherefore to say the English Church is Catholike is to say a particular Church is an vniuersal His first fault then is in the very forme of reasoning which alone is sufficient to argue him to be a sophister and one that meaneth to beguile them that vvil trust him now to the particulars His first proposition the Catholike Church is the vniuersal Church is both absurd because the same thing is affirmed of himselfe for vniuersal is no distinct thing but the very interpretation of the vvord Catholike and also captious as hauing a double signification For the Catholike Church doth signifie both the vvhole body of the Church compacted of al the particular members vnited and joyned together in one in which sence no one particular Church can be called the Catholike Church because it is not the vvhole body spread ouer al the world for it is totum integrale to vse the schoole tearmes and not totum vniuersale quod dicitur de multis Secondly the Catholike Church doth also designe and note very properly euery particular Church that embraceth the same true Christian faith which hath continued euer since Christs time and beene receiued in al countries not only because it is totum similare as M. Abbot speaketh vvherefore euery true member of the Catholike Church may be called Catholike but also because each of the said particular Churches hath the same Faith the same Sacraments and the same order of gouernement al vvhich are as it vvere the soule and forme of the Catholike Church vvhich M. Abbot acknowledgeth and further also confesseth out of S. Augustine that Christians were called Catholikes Ex communicatione totius orbis Epistola 48. By hauing communion of faith with the whole world If then by his owne confession euery particular Church yea euery particular Christian that embraceth and professeth that faith which is dilated al the vvorld ouer be truly called Catholike how fondly then did he goe about to proue the Church of Rome not to be Catholike and Papists not to be Catholikes because forsooth they were particulars Yet that he may be thought not to doate outright but rather to dreame he addeth That at least the Church of Rome hath no reason to assume to her selfe the prerogatiue of that title because that euery Church where the true faith is taught is truly called Catholike and no one more then another I note first that this man is as constant and stable as the weather-cocke on the toppe of a steeple before he proued stoutly as you haue heard that no particular Church could be called Catholike now he wil haue euery particular Church that receiueth the true faith to be called Catholike Neither doe vve say that any one Orthodoxe Church is more Catholike then another if the word Catholike be taken precisely though we hold that among al the particular Catholikes the Roman holdeth the greatest priuiledges both of superiority in gouernement and of continuance and stability in the same true Catholike faith which is deduced out of the word of God because that Church Math. 16. vers 18. Is the Rocke according to the exposition of the ancient Fathers vpon which the whole Church was built and against which the gates of hel should neuer preuaile Againe the Bishop of Rome succeedeth lineally vnto S. Peter Luc. 22. vers 23. Whose faith through the vertue of Christs praier shal neuer faile wherefore S. Ireneus a most learned Archbishop of Lions in France and a glorious Martir of great antiquity saith That al Churches ought to agree with the Church of Rome Lib. 3. cap. 3. for her more mighty principality S. Cyprian Archbishop of Carthage in Africke affirmeth Li. 1. epist 3. That perfidiousnesse and falshood in matters of faith can haue no accesse vnto the See of Rome S. Ambrose taketh it to be al one to say the Catholike and the Roman Church in these vvordes If he shal agree with the Catholike that is De ob Satyri Hieron in Apolog 1. cont Ruffi cap. 1. with the Roman Church So doth S. Hierome when he saith of Ruffinus What faith doth he say his to be if the Roman faith we are then Catholikes affirming men to become Catholikes by holding the Roman faith a De Praescript Tertullian b Epiphan Haeres 27. Epiphanius c Lib. 2. cōt Parmeni Optatus d August Epist 165. S. Augustine doe proue their Churches to be Catholike and themselues to be Catholikes by declaring that they doe communicate vvith the Church of Rome in society of faith and doe condemne their aduersaries to be Schismatikes and Heretikes because they did not communicate vvith the same Roman Church And vvhich is greatly to be noted no general Councel of sound authority vvherein the Christian truth hath beene expounded and determined but is confirmed by the Bishop of Rome And on the other side no heresie or errour in faith hath sprong vp since the Apostles daies that did not oppose it selfe against the Roman See and was not by the same finally ouerthrowne Whereupon S. Augustine had good reason to say That that chaire obtained the toppe of authority De vtil cred cap. 17. Heretikes in vaine barking round about it This little I hope vvil suffice for this place to declare that there is great cause vvhy vve should attribute much more to the Roman Church then to any other particular Church whatsoeuer and yeeld to it the prerogatiue of al singular titles in a more excellent manner Here comes in M. Abbots second proposition but the Church of Rome is a particular Church in which is as great doubling and deceit as in the former for albeit the Church of Rome doe in rigour of speech only comprehend the Christians dwelling in Rome yet is it vsually taken by men of both parties to signifie al Churches of vvhatsoeuer other Country that doe agree vvith the Church of Rome in faith and confesse the Pastour thereof to be the chiefe Pastour vnder Christ of the whole Church Like as in times past the Roman Empire did signifie not the territory of Rome alone or dominion of Italy but also any nation that vvas subject to the Roman Emperour Euen so the whole Catholike Church or any true member thereof may be called the Roman Church à parte principaliore because the Bishop of Rome is the supreme head
Finally he doth absurdly apply S. Augustines wordes spoken against the Donatists to vs they vvil much better fit the Protestants vvho imitate their errours in most points as I haue proued already who also may be more aptly resembled to children that stand in neede of a rodde because their religion is euery vvay childish as being young and of late borne phantastical and without any sound ground of mature judgement as changeable also as children according to the diuers humour of the state and time SECT 4. W. BISHOP VERY many vrgent and forcible reasons might be produced in fauour and defence of the Catholike Roman religion whereof diuers haue beene already in most learned Treatises tendered to your Majesty wherefore I wil only touch three two chosen out of the subject of this booke the third selected from a sentence of your Majesty recorded in the aforesaid conference And because that argument is as most sensible so best assured which proceedeth from a principle either euident in it selfe or else granted and confessed to be true my first proofe shal be grounded vpon that your Highnesse resolute and constant opinion recorded in the said conference Page 75. to wit That no Church ought to separate it selfe further from the Church of Rome either in doctrine or ceremony then shee hath departed from her selfe when shee was in her most flourishing and best estate from whence I deduce this reason The principal pillars of the Roman Church in her most flourishing estate taught in al points of religion the same doctrine that shee nâ—w holdeth and teacheth and in expresse tearmes condemneth for errour and heresie most of the articles which the Protestants esteeme as chiefe partes of their reformed Gospel therefore if your Majesty wil resolutely embrace and constantly defend that doctrine which the Roman Church maintained in her most flourishing estate you must forsake the Protestant and take the Catholike into your Princely and Roial protection ROBERT ABBOT YOV talke M. Bishop of many vrgent and forcible reasons but you talke as your fellowes doe like mount-bankes and juglers You haue much prating and many wordes but your reasons vvhen they are duly examined are as light as feathers before the vvinde neither vvould they seeme other to your owne followers but that you bewitch them with this principle that they must read nothing written on our part for answere to them we see your vrgent and forcible reasons in this booke vvhich you tel vs is the marrow and pith of many volumes I doubt not but by that time I haue examined the same your owne pupils and schollers if they reade the answere wil account you a meere seducer a cosener and abuser of them and wil detest you accordingly But to beginne withal you offer three reasons to his Majesty in this your Epistle for the justifying of your Romish religion for the impeaching of ours Two chosen out of the subject of this booke the third selected from a sentence of his Majesty Now if these reasons proue reasonlesse then your reason M. Bishop should haue taught you more manners and duty then thus to trouble his Majesty vvith your reasonlesse reasons To examine them in order the first reason is grounded vpon a principle most judiciously soundly affirmed by his Majesty That no Church ought further to seperate it selfe from the Church of Rome in doctrine or ceremony then shee hath departed from her selfe when shee was in her flourishing best estate and which is subtilly left out by M. Bishop from Christ her Lord and head For seeing it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome vvas once sound and vpright in faith the Apostle bearing witnesse Rom. 1. That their faith was published throughout the world it must needes follow that vvhat shee hath not since that time altered is stil vpright and sound and therefore to be embraced Now from thence M. Bishop argueth thus The principal pillars of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate taught in al points the same doctrine that shee now teacheth and in expresse tearmes did condemne of heresie most of the articles of our religion ergo c. but soft and faire M. Bishop there is no hast c. WILLIAM BISHOP TRVE there is no hast indeede for M. Abbot comes faire and soft to the matter What a number of idle vaunting wordes and vaine repetitions be here as though any juditious man vvere to be perswaded by bare wordes and voluntary supposals before he see any proofe S ir I doubt not but the indifferent reader vvil suspend his judgement and deeme nere the worse of my vvriting for your empty censure til he see good reason to the contrary Sure I am that some Catholikes hauing read your booke doe like much the better of mine and esteeme yours a very fond peece of worke ful of babble lies and foule wordes void of found proofes and farre from common ciuility Who are more circumspect then you your selues to keepe your followers from reading our bookes vvho first imprison any that wil helpe to print them then set fines on al their heades that shal keepe them and make very diligent search after them so that al these common wordes may most truly be returned vpon your selfe Mutato nomine de te narratur fabula You note that I subtilly left out of his Majesties speech from Christ her Lord and head but shew no cause why and no maruaile for none indeede can be shewed they are needlesse wordes as being comprehended in the former For if the Church of Rome departed not from her selfe vvhen shee was in her most flourishing and best estate shee cannot depart from Christ her Lord and head vvherefore to note this for a subtle tricke giueth the reader cause to note you for a wrangler and one that is very captious where no cause is offered M. Abbot comes at length to my first reason and goeth about to disproue it thus ROBERT ABBOT WE hope you wil not deny but the Apostle S. Paul was one principal pillar of the Church of Rome vvho there shed his bloud He vvrote an Epistle to that Church vvhen the faith thereof was most renowmed throughout the world He vvrote at large comprehending therein as * Theodor. in praefat epist Pat. li. Theodoret saith doctrine of al sortes or al kinde of doctrine Et accuratam copiosamue dogmatum pertractationem An exact and plentiful handling of al points thereof Now in al that Epistle what doth he say either for you or against vs nay what doth he not say for vs against you he condemneth the Rom. 1. v. 23. changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man and worshipping the creature in steede of the creatour It is for vs against you for you by your schoole-trickes doubt not to teach men by the Image of a man to worship God and by religious deuotion of praiers and offerings to worship Saints and Saints Images
Sacrament or else M. Abbot doth fondly alleage his wordes against the real presence wherefore his later paraphrase is a meere trifle and a vaine shift See more of this man and matter in the question of the real presence Let vs proceede ROBERT ABBOT De consecrat dist 2. comperimus THE same Gelasius when he vnderstood that some receiuing only the portion of the sacred body of Christ did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud did forbidde that superstition and willed that either they should receiue the Sacrament whole or be kept from the whole because the diuiding of one and the same mistery cannot come without great sacriledge But now the Church of Rome is so farre off from acknowledging the diuiding of that mistery to be sacriledge as that shee pretendeth to be moued with just causes reasons Concil Trid. Sess 5. Can. 2. such as Christ and his Apostles and the primitiue Church had neuer the vvit to consider off to administer the Sacrament to the people only in one kinde and pronounceth them accursed that say shee erreth in so doing WILLIAM BISHOP NOW we come to Gelasius the Pope indeede and by his very phrase related by M. Abbot you may plainely perceiue that he beleeued firmely the sacred body of Christ and his pretious bloud to be really present in the blessed Sacrament for thus he speaketh We haue found that certaine men hauing receiued the portion of the sacred body doe abstaine from the Chalice of the sacred bloud Neither doe his wordes fit M. Abbots turne for the peoples receiuing vnder one kinde for he speaketh of Priests that doe consecrate both together vvho therefore must receiue both together that he may be partaker of the sacrifice which he himselfe hath offered For as it is said in the Canon next before De consecrat dist 2. relatum est Quale erit illud sacrificium cui nec ipse sacrificans particeps esse dignoscitur what kinde of sacrifice is that whereof he that sacrificeth doth not participate Wherefore it is by al meanes to be obserued that how often the Priest doth sacrifice the body and bloud of our Lord IESVS Christ vpon the Altar so often he exhibite himselfe a partaker of the body bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. These wordes taken out of the Councel of Toledo goe immediately before those wordes which M. Abbot citeth and doe euidently shew that they are to be vnderstood of the Priest only that consecrateth the Sacrament as also the very title would haue told M. Abbot if he had beene disposed to take them right It is that the Priest ought not to receiue the body of Christ without his bloud So that here is not a vvord against the giuing the blessed body of Christ alone to the people But M. Abbot is forced like an euil Apothecary to take quid pro quo as they say one thing for another or else he should not be able to furnish his poore erring customers vvith any sort of pleasing drugges to feede their corrupt tast and grosse humours He doth by a parenthesis enterlace That Christ nor his Apostles nor the primitiue Church had euer the wit to consider any just cause of giuing the Sacrament in one kinde to the people vvhich is spoken too too like a blasphemer to touch our Sauiour Christ Iesus with lacke of vvit skil or due consideration who as diuers ancient Doctors doe testifie ministred the blessed Sacrament himselfe to two of his Disciples at Emaus vnder one only kinde of bread Luc. 24. vers 30. He tooke bread and blessed and brake and did reach it to them and their eies were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight vvhere the circumstances August lib. 3. De consensu Euang. c. 25. Epist 59. ad Paul q. 8. Hier. in Epitaph Paulae of blessing breaking and giuing bread as he did at his last supper and the maruailous operation of it doe very probably proue it to haue beene the blessed Sacrament after which giuen in one kinde IESVS vanished out of their sight * Isichius lib. 2. in cap. 9. Beda in Theophil in eâ—m locum Lucae Opus imperfectuÌ„ in Mat. homil 17. In the Apostles time also very vsually the Sacrament vvas administred in one kinde They were perseuering in the doctrine of the Apostles and in communication of the breaking of bread and praiers vvhere breaking of bread being joined with preaching and praier doth conuince it to be spoken of the blessed SacrameÌ„t Againe saith S. Luke In the first of Sabaoth when we were assembled to breake bread Paul disputed with them c. This assembly vpon a Sonday furnished with S. Paules sermon must needes be to be made for the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament as a August Epist 86. Beda in illum locum S. Augustine and venerable Bede doe testifie In al which places following the expresse letter of the Scripture and the interpretation of many holy Fathers we haue warrant for the administration of the Sacrament to the people vnder one only kinde they then I hope vvanted not wit to know a cause of giuing the Sacrament in one kinde Lastly that in the primitiue Church the Sacrament was receiued vnder one kinde is most manifest by the testimony of b Tertull. lib. 2. ad Vxorâ—m Cyprian sermone de lapsis Ambros de obitu Satyri Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose and many others who declare how the Christians in those times of persecution carried to the sicke and reserued in their owne houses the blessed Sacrament viz. vnder the forme of bread to receiue it when they were in danger of torments or death for their more comfort and strengthning against those assaults Thus much by the way of administring the Sacrament vnder one kinde vnto the laity out of the practise of the primitiue Church the Apostles and our Sauiour himselfe in answere vnto M. Abbots parenthesis Now ere I take my leaue of this holy and most reuerend Pope Gelasius I vvil note briefly some branches of the Catholike faith which he doth formally deliuer to counterpoise those friuoulous objections vvhich M. Abbot haleth in obtorto collo as the Latin phrase is by the heeles out of his writinges First I haue declared out of him already Epist. ad Anast Imperat. In Epist ad Episcopos Daâ—daniae how that Bishops haue power and authority ouer Kinges and Emperours in Ecclesiastical causes so farre forth as to excommunicate them when vrgent cause so requireth He saith further That the Canons of the Church doe ordaine that from any part of the world appeale may be made to the See of Rome and that from it no man is suffered to appeale Againe That euery Church in the world doth know that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle hath right and power to loose and vnbinde that which is bound by the sentences of what Bishop soeuer as that See which hath lawful authority to judge
any greater cause arise and diuers such other plaine and cleare markes of superiority that euen M. Abbots badde eies may easily serue him to discerne them Seing then S. Leo thought himselfe and his predecessours to haue ful authority and that by the holy Canons made by diuine inspiration to delegate ouer the Churches of the East vvhere was most doubt of his authority such power vnto others Can it be doubted but that he vvas most certainly perswaded that the Bishop of Rome hath and alwaies had supreme command in Ecclesiastical causes al the world ouer And that you may see that S. Leo vvas not only of that opinion but that the best most learned of the East Church of that time were also as fully perswaded of the Church of Romes authority ouer al the world I wil adjoine hereunto the sentence of Theodoretus one of the soundest Catholikes and one of the most learned and famous authours of those daies He being Bishop of Cyrus in Asia doth write vnto Renatus a Priest of Rome thus Theodoret. Epistola 2. The Heretikes haue spoiled me of my Priestly function and seate they haue cast me out of the citties hauing no respect vnto my gray haires nor regard of my time spent in religion wherefore I pray you that you wil perswade the most holy Archbishop Leo that he wil vse his Apostolike authority and command vs to come to your Councel for that holy See doth hold the sterne of gouernement ouer al the Churches in the world Another Epistle this holy Father did write vnto Leo himselfe wherein he saith I doe expect the sentence of your Apostolike See and doe humbly beseech your Holinesse to succour me appealing to your just judgement c. And that you may yet further perceiue that S. Leo his sentence was of force to restore him being a Bishop in Asia to his former dignity and seate these few vvordes out of the Councel of Chalcedon wil sufficiently proue thus speaketh the Councel Actione 1. Let the most reuerend Bishop Theodoret enter in that he may be partner of the Councel because the most holy Archbishop Leo hath restored him to his Bishopricke Now I come to answere M. Abbots goodly proofes and vvise glosses to the contrary S. Leo saith he would not take vpon him to cal general Councels That is false for he did cal a general Councel in the West witnesse these his wordes vnto Tuilius the Bishop of Asturicensis Epistola 91. numer 17. I haue sent letters to our bretheren and fellow Bishops of Carthage in Afrike Tarragone in Spaine Portugal and France Eisque concilium Synodi generalis indiximus And haue summoned them to meete at a general Councel And that could not escape S. Leo his knowledge vvho vvas most skilful in al Antiquity which by tradition descended vnto one of his successors Pelagius the second who was S. Gregory the great his predecessor to wit Epistola 1 ad Orientales that the authority of calling general Councels was through the priuiledge of S. Peter giuen vnto the See Apostolike But he made request saith M. Abbot vnto Theodosius first and after vnto Martianus the Emperors that they would command a general Councel to be holden in Italy which they would not doe but chose rather another place Be it so for sometimes such mighty Monarkes take more state vpon them then Christian dutie doth permit And as for Theodosius the younger though he were a good Emperour at the first yet afterward it is euident that he assisted the Heretike Eutiches his Patron Dioscorus too farre in that wicked assembly at Ephesus See Actionem primam Concil Chalced. Liberatus cap. 12. the place by him assigned for that general Councel The reason that moued S. Leo to request those Emperours to cal a Councel was not for that he doubted of his owne authority therein but for diuers other good respects First because as I before signified the Bishops to be assembled vvere for the most part the Emperours subjects in temporal affaires and therefore were not vvithout his priuity to be called so farre from their residences And for this cause the Kinges of euery country being aduertised by the Popes Holinesse of a general Councel doe to this day as it appeared in the last general Councel of Trent summon the Bishops of their Realmes to the said general Councel and command them to make choise of some to send thither vvhich doth nothing derogate to the Popes general summoning Besides the Heretikes of those times vvould not obey the Pope nor their lawful Pastours command no more then these of our time wherefore the Emperours power vvhich they dreadded and stoode in more awe off vvas to be joined with the Popes authority wherefore he had good cause to request it Yet that the vnderstanding reader may perceiue how S. Leo euen then did fore-see that some inconuenience might happe to follow of his condescending so farre vnto the Emperours pleasure about the place and time of that Councel he as it were to preuent it doth yeeld his consent in such sort that no great aduantage can be taken of it Epist 41. ad Martian thus he vvriteth to the Emperour Martian I required indeede of your most gratious clemency that the Synode which you thought necessary to be assembled as we also required for the restoring of vnity in the East Church might be for a time deferred that the mindes of men being more settled those Bishops which for feare of enemies are staied at home might also meete but for that you doe zealously preferre Gods cause before the affaires of men and are wisely and Godly perswaded that it wil further the wealth of your Empire to haue the Priests of God in vnity and the Gospel preached without dissention Ego etiam vestris dispositionibus non renitor I doe not withstand or striue against this your ordinance Here you may see that he did not yeeld vpon obedience vnto the Emperours order but moued vpon good consideration would not contend against it his very wordes yet giuing that he might haue withstoode him if he had thought it more expedient for the common good Againe in his letters to the same Councel of Chalcedon he putteth in a caueat by vvhich they might vnderstand that this his condescending to the Emperour should not be taken for a prejudice against the authority of the See of Rome for calling of Councels these be his wordes Epistola 45. ad Synod Chalced. I had wished indeed most dearely beloued that al the Priests of God did agree in one profession of the Catholike faith c. but because many thinges are done of which we often repent c. the religious aduise of our most gratious Emperour is to be embraced mouing your holy brother-hood to assemble your selues together for the ouerthrowing of Sathans sleights and for the restoring of vnity in the Church Beatissimi Apostoli Petri sedis jure atque honore seruato the right
the hope of eternal life is recouered that they who had lost the gift of regeneration condemning themselues by their owne judgement might attaine vnto remission of their sinnes the aide of Gods goodnesse being so disposed that pardon from God cannot be obtained but by the supplication of Priests For the Mediatour of God and Man the man IESVS Christ hath giuen this power vnto the Prelates of the Church that they may both enjoine satisfaction to the penitent and that they may also admit them being by the same holesome satisfaction purged through the gate of reconciliation vnto the communion of the Sacraments Where he further teacheth That they who die without this gift of pardon shal neuer be saued and doth also greatly blame them who deferre their confession til toward the point of death when saith he there is scarce space either for the confession of the penitent or for the reconciliation of the Priest It vvas not then vndoubtedly treason in S. Leos daies to be reconciled by a Priest seing he so often and so much recommended it to al Christian people and held it the only gate to re-enter into Gods fauor for al such Christians as were fallen from the grace they had before receiued in the Sacrament of Baptisme That Bishops Priests Deacons yea and Subdeacons should not marry and if any married man vvere chosen a Subdeacon that he should refraine from the company of his wife S. Leo is very plaine thus he decreeth Epist. 82. ad Anastasium Thes num 4. It is free for men that be not of the Clergie to marry but to shew the purity of perfect continency carnal copulation is not graunted so much as to Subdeacons that they who haue wiues be as though they had them not and they who haue them not doe continue single And if in this order which is the fourth from the head with the Protestants it is no order at al it is meete that chastity be kept how much more is it to be obserued in the first second and third that no man be esteemed worthy either of the place of a Deacon or honour of a Priest or excellency of a Bishop who is discouered not to haue yet bridled himselfe from the pleasure of wiuing This of the continency of Priests Wil you heare S. Leos opinion of the Vowes of religious men and women which the false Father Abbot scornefully tearmeth Monkish Epist 90. ad Rusti Norb. cap. 12. The profession of a Monke saith he vndertaken by a mans owne free choise and desire cannot be forsaken without sinne because that must be performed which we haue vowed to God Wherefore he that forsaking the profession of a single or solitary life is turned souldier or fallen to marriage is to be purged publikely by the satisfaction of penance for albeit warre-fare may be harmelesse and marriage honest yet is it a transgression and offence to haue forsaken the better choise It followeth in the next number Ibid. ca. 13.8 Maidens who not constrained by their parents command but of their owne accord haue made profession of Virginity and receiued the habit if afterwardes they desire to marry they doe sinne though they were not yet consecrated Ibidem 14. but if after both profession and consecration they should fal to marry it cannot be doubted but that they should commit a very hainous crime For if mans decrees cannot be infringed without punishment what shal light vpon them who haue broken the couenants of the diuine mistery How forcibly doth this chast doctrine of S. Leo batter and beate flat to the earth the voluptuous loosenesse of runnegate votaries and giues checkmate to the Protestants for vpholding the same as wel done That you may yet further perceiue what an euil Protestant and a perfect Papist S. Leo was he commendeth highly the Emperour Martianus his vertue and Godlinesse for receiuing with worthy honour the holy Relikes of blessed Flamianus departed who a little before was Patriarke of Constantinople And for praying to Saints you haue heard before Serm. 5. de Epiphania how he encouraged al men Eorum ambire suffragia earnestly and as it were ambitiously to sue for the aide of their praiers Againe he exhorteth his auditours to celebrate vvith him the Saturday following the Vigils of the most happy Apostle S. Peter Ser. 8. de Iejunio decim Who saith he with his praiers wil vouchsafe to helpe our praiers fastings and almes-deedes Behold he made no question but that S. Peter both knew their desires and deserts and would also further them vvith the aide of his effectual praiers In briefe then we haue that the most learned and holy Pope S. Leo the first taught praying to Saints and worshipping of their Relikes the vowes of Monkes and professed Virgins that Priests and al in holy orders should not marry but liue continently that Priests haue power to reconcile and to forgiue sinnes and that euery man who hopeth for any pardon of his sinnes at Gods handes must particularly confesse them in priuate to a Priest and by due satisfaction purge himselfe from them that in the Sacrament there is the same true flesh of Christ which was crucified and did arise from death that Masse is to be said euery holy day wherein the sacrifice of Christs body is offered that S. Peter was the supreme Pastour of Christes Church and that the Bishop of Rome is his lawful successour therein hauing supreme authority ouer both East and West Church These with such like points which may by diligent perusing his most eloquent and diuine workes be gathered doe most perspicuously demonstrate the Church of Rome in his time vvhich vvas neare 1200. yeares agoe to haue held the selfe same language concerning matters of faith vvhich the same Church of Rome at this day speaketh And that M. Abbot in seeking to proue the contrary did but shew himselfe either very ignorant in his workes or ouer studious not to take his Author right as his manner is but to picke some matter of cauil out of him thereby to blinde and deceiue the simple reader Now to the next ROBERT ABBOT PELAGIVS the Bishop of Rome the first of that name admitted a married man to be Bishop of Syracusa only putting in a caution that he should not dilapidare the Church goodes and transferre the same to his wife and children Dist. 28. de Syracusana The danger whereof he signifieth was the cause of that constitution which did forbidde a man hauing a wife and children to be preferred to a Bishopricke otherwise a man is not repelled for hauing wife children saith the Glosse because the Apostles permitted the same But now the Church of Rome Glossa ibidē wil by no meanes admit men to be Bishops or Priests not for that they would auoide the dilapidating of the Church goodes for that is a thing common with the Popes themselues Platina in vita Iohan. 16. To apply al to satisfie the
of the present Roman Church he may vpon very smal consideration be reclaimed and brought to reforme his errours For to S. Peter himselfe who was afterwards Bishop of Rome was giuen euen by our Sauiour Christ IESVS ful power and authority to pardon whatsoeuer he saw fit to be pardoned Math. 16. vers 19. To thee I giue saith he the keies of the Kingdome of heauen whatsoeuer thou loosest or doest pardon vpon earth shal be pardoned in heauen And if S. Peter might loose any sinne how hainous soeuer much more might he release some part of the temporal paine which was due to sinne vvhich is properly to giue a libel of pardon the like power had S. Paul who did in the person of Christ 2. Cor. 2. vers 10. Cyprian l. 3. Epist 15. Pardon the incestuous Corinthian by cutting off some part of his penance vvhich otherwise he had beene to suffer for his former sinnes vvhich were then forgiuen S. Cyprian and the Bishops and Clergy in those auncient daies of the primitiue Church did vse to pardon and release the penance injoyned to grieuous offendours after their repentance at the intercession and request of the Confessors and designed Martirs as hath beene before declared The most authentike Councel of Nice doth declare Cōcil Nicen. cap. 12. that it is lawful for Bishops to deale more mildly and fauourably vvith them vvhom they saw to performe their injoyned penance seriously vvhich was to graunt them a pardon Leo. Epist 77 ad Nicetum num 6. The very same doth Leo the great vvho was Bishop of Rome aboue 1100. yeares past teach most plainly willing the Bishop to release of the due penance injoined what he thought good which is properly to giue indulgence or pardon I omit here Pope Siluester his predecessour and S. Gregory the great one of his successours because I haue before alleaged them not doubting but that these few so auncient so graue so learned vvil suffice to satisfie and instruct him that is willing to learne And as for communicating the same authority to others vvho can reasonably doubt of it considering that the power of absoluing from sinne which is farre greater then the other is imparted to al both Bishops and Parish Priests I haue also before proued most manifestly Leo. Epist 82 ad Anastat Gregor lib. 4. Epist 6. ad Episcop Arelat that both S. Leo and S. Gregory most worthy Bishops did as delegate their authority vnto other Bishops so reserue vnto their owne hearing and judgement the causes of greatest difficulty vvherefore M. Abbot if he wil hearken vnto reason cannot choose but hold himselfe therein fully satisfied He recuiles backe to Indulgences and multiplieth his demands about one and the same matter like to a Cooke that hauing but one sort of meate to serue in doth mince it into many mammocks and then make thereof sundry dishes Can the Pope saith he for saying such or such praiers or for doing this or that release a man from Purgatory for an hundreth or a thousand yeares What a question is this if the Pope can distribute indulgences as hath beene before proued no doubt but he can the rather doe it by injoyning the party that receiueth them to say vvithal some praiers or to doe some other good vvorkes for thereby the party doth the better deserue to be made partaker of the other grace But can he release a soule out of Purgatory for a thousand yeares Yes marry can he and that too not for some certaine number of yeares but for euer and euer The reason is for that the soules there are members of the same body that we are and there capable of the same graces of pardon vvhereof also they stand in very great neede according to the truth of Christian doctrine howsoeuer the Protestants doe erroneously thinke the contrary reade the Question of Purgatory And touching the present purpose among many other pardons graunted by S. Gregory the great there is to be seene vntil this day one Altar by him erected in the Monastery of S. Andrewes in Rome where he was himselfe first Nouice and afterwardes Abbot where at vvhosoeuer said Masse for a soule in Purgatory shal deliuer one there-hence Concerning the Iubilee which is free and ful pardon graunted once in fiue and twenty yeares vnto euery one that shal visit seauen Churches in Rome that yeare some fifteene times or thereabouts what new difficulty can there be about that yea it is as the most renowmed pardon that is graunted so the most reasonable for it can be obtained but once in fiue and twenty yeares and then exceeding hardly by vnder going a long costly and painful journey to the citty of Rome and by exercising there al the workes of piety and mercy as fasting praying and giuing of almes making general confession and receiuing the blessed Sacrament and often visiting of many Churches and Altars Those most godly meanes of training men to true repentance and satisfaction for their former faults and amendmēt of their liues if the Protestant religion were acquainted withal there would be among them some checke and stoppe of their vvicked courses But if they vvil needes sinne on themselues and neuer giue ouer nor amend vntil Gods judgments fal vpon them yet let them not be offended at vs that doe aduise al men to labour in time for such indulgences that they may escape the due punishment of their sinnes either in this vvorld or in the next Is it not also most probable and likely if those good soules vvho to doe some satisfaction for their former euil liues and to serue God more deuoutly in those holy places where some of the holy Apostles and an innumerable company of valiant Martirs and holy Confessors liued and died doe die by the way in that Godly purpose that they are carried by Angels to heauen as Lazarus was into Paradise we pray to God to command such by his holy Angels to be brought into Abrahams bosome as may be seene in the Masse for the dead But Balaeus in Latin and Bale the Irish Apostata in English M. Abbots worthy authour reporteth that Clement the sixt himselfe did command the Angels to carry them into Paradise No great regard is to be had vvhat such a lying lewd fellow relates and so I thinke him vnworthy any other answere Touching Canonization of Saints we hold that the Bishops of the prouinces vvhere their vertuous liues and most godly deathes cōfirmed by miracles are best knowne did alwaies from the beginning of christian religion declare and testifie to the Church that they were to be esteemed of al men for Saints Since it hath beene found most expedient that the vvhole course of the life and death of such being by most diligent inquisition tried out and taken in the places of their aboade be afterwardes sent to Rome there to be also throughly examined first and then accordingly to be declared Saints by the highest Pastor of the Church that
care of prouiding for wife children doth wholy extinguish or greatly diminish their good house-keeping and prouiding for the poore as the lamentable experience of our very time doth sufficiently instruct vs. What if some Popes or other Clergy-men haue beene too forward to satisfie the greedy couetousnesse of their carnal friends that is their owne fault contrary to the prouident order and law of the Church and if the corrupt nature of man be so inclinable to fauor them that be next in bloud to them was it not right vvisely ordained by our Church that Clergy-men should haue no wiues and children for that men naturally doe loue them most dearely and vse al meanes to prouide for them But how carelesly herein doe the Protestants carry themselues vvho doe encourage and as it were push their Clergy-men forward to haue wiues and children vvho being thereby clogged with the cares of this world bidde adieu to al courteous and plentiful hospitality and leaue the poore to shift as they can for themselues for they haue more then enough to doe to prouide for their owne wiues and children The second lie is shuffled into the parenthesis taken out of Platina to vvit That vnder the name of nephewes commonly goe their bastards vvhich is not in his authour but a most malitious slander deuised of his owne head and auouched without any testimony and therefore to be contemned The third is in that he maketh Platina to affirme it to be a common thing with the Popes which he only noteth for a special fault in some few Is this man worthy thinke you the sacred title of a Diuine or of the common name of an honest man vvho doth in manner nothing else but sow lies together and that sometimes so thicke that for euery line neere hand there is onelie or other vvas his meaning trow you to giue instruction to the ignorant and satisfaction to the learned as often he vaunteth or rather to blinde the simple and to feede the vaine folly of the ouer credulous Protestant Prouerb 10. Qui nititur mendacijs saith the vvise man hic pascit ventos Idem insequitur aues volantes He that relieth on lies doth feede the windes that is may please vaine and light heades He doth also follow birdes flying in the aire that is doth feede the humour of hawty wauering and vnsettled spirits but can neuer giue contentment or satisfaction to any graue modest and discreet man who doth flie from a crafty and subtle liar as from the very off-spring of that Serpent which with lying deceiued our first mother Eue. But goe on vvith your lies seing it wil be no otherwise ROBERT ABBOT THE Emperours of Rome Theodosius and Valens according vnto the doctrine of the ancient Church of Rome Petri Crinit de honest disciplina lib. 9. cap. 9. Vpon care of preseruing the religion of the high God did forbidde the making grauing or painting of the Crucifix and commanded it vpon penalty to be abolished wheresoeuer it was found But now not the making â—nly but also the vvorshipping of the Crucifix is a matter of high religion in the same Church of Rome WILLIAM BISHOP VERITAS non quaerit latebras Truth is not ashamed of her selfe nor coueteth to hide her head in corners vvhen shee may with safety be suffered to shew her face publikely That decree of the Christian Emperour Theodosius is extant and to be seene in the very corps of the ciuil law vvhat needed then M. Abbot to runne vnto a late obscure authour called Petrus Crinitus Peter with the long haire to seeke that which is of so good record in so famous a volume thinke you that it is without some mistery that he being thirsty would leaue the fresh fountaine and runne to drinke of the dirty puddle Latet anguis in herbae There is a padde in the straw A strange longing he had to finde out some cauil against any part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome and because that could not be by the true and ful report of the Catholike Emperours decrees he would needs fly to some broken relation of he cared not whom to blinde his vnwary reader vvithal The decree then as it vvas made by the Emperour and standeth Authentikely in the Code maketh much for the honour of the Crosse for he commanded That the signe of the Crosse should not be ingrauen Lib. 1. Codi tit leg Cùm sit nobis or painted on the pauement Ne sacrum signum pedibus calcaretur that the holy signe of the Crosse might not be trodden vnder feete Which said decree of Theodosius the elder the Emperour Tyberius the second one of his Godly successours vnderstanding wel vvhen he espied a Crosse cut in marble lying on the ground he commanded it to be lifted vp saying Paul Diaconus lib. 18. Rerum Romanarum We ought to blesse our fore-head and breast with the Crosse of our Lord and we treade it vnder our feete In what high estimation the signe of the Crosse was vvith that most bright mirrour of Emperors Constantine the great and how gloriously it was placed in their Diademes Pallaces and publike places no man can be ignorant that is acquainted with their Hystories And somwhat I haue said thereof already in the question of Images therefore I doe here omit to speake any more of a matter so euident I might here by the way blame M. Abbot not only for his deceitful dealing but also because he forgetteth vvhereabout he goes for his drift here is to teach that S. Peter and S. Paules successours the Bishops of Rome did of old teach another doctrine then these of later yeares doe now of vvhich number of Bishops Theodosius the Emperour was none but many such faults as this I let passe vvittingly or else I should neuer make an end And vvhereas he addeth That these Emperours did forbidde the making of the Crosse according vnto the doctrine of the ancient Church of Rome Obserue first that it is so said only without any proof and besides it is auouched very impudently as being flat repugnant vnto the knowne and notorious practise of Constantine the great their late and most famous predecessour Now to the next ROBERT ABBOT Greg. lib. 9. Moral ca. 1. 14. GREGORY Bishop of Rome taught That al the merit of our vertue al our righteousnesse is but vice and vnrighteousnesse if it be stricktly examined it needeth therefore praier after righteousnesse saith he that whereas being sifted it would quaile it may by the only mercy of the Iudge stand for good Bernard in Annot. 1. De lib. Arbit Grat. In fine Trident. sess 6 cap. 16. Yea and Bernard by the same doctrine of the Church of Rome saith That mens merits are not such as that eternal life is due vnto them of right or that God should doe wrong if he did not giue the same they are the way to the Kingdome saith he but not the cause of obtaining the
Kingdome But now the * Rhem. Test Annot. in 2. Tim. 4. v. 8. ad Hebr. 6. vers 10. Church of Rome attributeth so great perfection of righteousnesse to good workes as that they fully satisfie the law of God and worthily deserue eternal life yea they affirme them to be so farre meritorious as that God should be vnjust if he rendered not heauen for the same chargeing the justice of God not in respect of his promise but in respect of the merit and desert of the workes WILLIAM BISHOP NOW that M. Abbot is driuen to flie to that most holy and renowmed Pope S. Gregory the great for defence of their doctrine he is like to speed wel no doubt for he was the first founder of the Catholike religion amongst vs English-men and a great maintainer of it al the world ouer as shal appeare to the eie of euery vnpartial man that wil but reade that little which shal by me hereafter be produced out of him First touching the merit of workes we beleeue the same that S. Gregory taught to wit That al the merit of our owne vertue al our owne righteousnesse that is al that vertue and righteousnesse which we haue by our owne nature or strength is rather vice and iniquity then vertue And therefore that vve had neede most humbly to sue and pray to God for mercy and forgiuenesse of our sinnes and for the assistance of his heauenly grace which is the roote and fountaine of al good workes and merits M. Abbot therefore mistakes S. Gregory grosly if he thinke him to deny any true merit or righteousnesse to be in a vertuous Christian for though he say that our owne to wit that which we doe by vertue of our owne natural power be nought vvorth yet he teacheth most expresly that good workes done by the helpe of Gods grace doe merit life euerlasting Thus he hath left vvritten vpon that verse of the Psalme I haue meditated in thy workes Gregor in Psal 141. He that acknowledgeth the riches of this world to be deceitful and doth through the loue of heauenly thinges contemne earthly that man doth meditate vpon good workes which when this life doth passe away shal remaine yeeld the reward of eternal life For we liue not here profitably Nisi ad comparandum meritum quo in aeternitate viuatur But to get merits by which we may liue eternally And vpon these wordes of the 101. Psalme Their seede shal be directed for euer Our workes are therefore called seedes saith he because like as we gather fruit of seede euen so doe we expect reward of our workes for the Apostle saith Gallat 6. Whatsoeuer a man wil sow that shal he reape He therefore that in this life soweth the seede of good workes shal in the life to come reape the fruit of eternal recompence And in the same booke of his Morals out of vvhich M. Abbot snatched his darke wordes S. Gregory declareth clearely Greg. lib. 4. Moral c. 42. That as there is among men a great difference of workes in this life so in the next there shal be as great distinction of dignities that how farre here one man exceedes another in merits so much shal be there surmount the other in rewardes If then according to S. Gregories plaine doctrine grounded vpon the Royal Prophets Dauid and the Apostle S. Paul good workes be the seedes vvhich bring forth life euerlasting If the merit of this life be that wherewith we must liue eternally hereafter If according to the difference of merits in this life we shal receiue distinct dignities in the life to come can any man of judgement doubt but that he most perspicuously taught both that there be true merits in vertuous and good workes and also that according vnto the different degree of merits distinct dignities of glory shal be rendred in heauen The most sweet and religious father S. Bernard is haled into this ranke of S. Peters successours against al due order because he was no Bishop of Rome but our prophane Abbot saith that the holy Abbot Bernard herein agreeth vvith the ancient Church of Rome How may we know that Is it because that godly and deuout man did in al points imbrace and follow the ancient Roman faith L. 2. de Cons ad Euge. In Vita lib. 2. c. 3. 6. Item lib. 4. cap. 4. Lib. 3. cap. 5. Serm. 66. in Cant. lib. Sententiarū non procul ab initio then it is a cleare case that the Bishop of Rome is supreme gouernour of Christes Church that the sacrifice of the Masse is a most true holy sacrifice and that the same body that was borne of the blessed Virgin Mary is really and substantially there present that it is flat heresie to deny either praier to Saints or praier for the dead that euery one must confesse his sinnes to a Priest that the vowes of Monkes and religious persons are most pretious jewels and ornaments of a Christian soule vvhereof he was so earnest a Patrone and perswader that in his * In Vita life-time he instituted 160. Monasteries Briefly there is no branche of the present Roman faith which may not be confirmed out of his godly and learned workes Wherefore if S. Bernard agreed vvholy with the doctrine of the ancient Church of Rome so doth the Church of Rome that now is But if M. Abbot wil say that in this point of merits only he jumpeth vvith the auncient Church though in none of the rest should he not rather haue proued it to be so then to haue taken it as granted Yes verily vnlesse he vvould be esteemed for such a trifler as ordinarily doth petere principium begge that which he should principally proue To the purpose then I say that neither the ancient Church of Rome doth deny the merits of good workes as may be seene in that question nor yet S. Bernard for when he saith That our merits doe not in justice deserue heauen he vnderstandeth that of our merits taken by themselues without Gods promise and appointment of heauen for the reward of them the which secluded excepted God should not doe any body wrong if he gaue not heauen for the same but Gods ordinance promise presupposed and the grace of Christ by which the merit is wrought then it doth euen in S. Bernards opinion of right deserue heauen and God should doe wrong not to repay it with heauen And this in effect doth S. Bernard himselfe teach in the second place cited by M. Abbot vvhere he saith That it is just that God pay that which be oweth De Lib. Arbitrio In fine but he oweth that which be promised the promise was indeede of mercy but now to be performed of justice which justice though it be also principally Gods because it proceedes from his grace yet it hath pleased God to haue vs to be partners of that his justice that he might make vs merit ours of his