de notis eccles cap. 7. Si solae vna prouincia retineret veram fidem adhuc verè propriè diceretur ecclesia Catholica dummodo clarè ostenderetur eam esse vnam eandem cum illa quae fuit aliquo tempore vel diuersis in toto mundo if one only countrey should retaine the true faith yet the same should truly and properly be called the Catholike church so that it might cleerely be shewed to be one and the same with that which hath been at any time or times ouer the whole world For by this rule nothing hindreth but that our church though now it be not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world yea if it were but in one onely country yet may truely and properly be called the Catholike church if it be prooued to be one and the same with the church which at any time heeretofore was spred ouer all the world But that our church is the same with that which at the first was spred thorowout the world it is very euident as Tertullian teacheth vs to prescribe g Tert. de praescript adu haeret In eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae by consanguinity or agreement of our doctrine with the doctrine of that church For by the Gospell which the Apostles preached the church was founded thorowout the whole world h Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Quod quidem tunc praeconiauerunt postea per dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum The gospell which the Apostles preached they afterwards by the will of God deliuered to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith The same Gospel deliuered to vs in the Scriptures we receiue we adde nothing to it we take nothing from it as we finde it so we teach it Our faith therefore is the same with the faith of that church which at the first was planted thorowout the whole world There is no cause then for vs to forsake our owne church or to thinke that the same began with Friar Luther as this dreamer imagineth which by so plaine deduction is approoued to be the same with the first church and consequently to be truely and properly the Catholike Church Finally saith he they beleeue no church in all points of faith But doth his wisedome finde it in the articles of the Creed that we are to beleeue any church in all points of faith The church how farre to be beleeued in points of faith We are taught there to beleeue that there is a holy catholike Church which is the communion of Saints but nothing doe we finde there of beleeuing any Church in all points of faith We beleeue the Church in points of faith so farre as she yeeldeth herselfe like a faithfull and obedient spouse to be guided by the voice of her Lord and husband Iesus Christ But if the Church preferre her owne will before the word of Christ as the proud harlot of Rome doth it should be a wrong to Christ to beleeue the Church and a way to set vp humane errour in stead of diuine truth It is not the voice of the Church but the word of the written Gospell which God hath appointed as Irenaeus euen now hath told vs to be the foundation and pillar of our faith For the words of the Church are many times the words of errour and vntruth and therefore if we should relie our saluation vpon the credit thereof wee should indeed relie vpon an vncertaine ground and erring guide but the word of the Gospell is alwaies one and the same without any variablenesse or vncertainty and therefore safely may wee relie our saluation thereupon Now therefore it cannot be said but that wee alwaies beleeue one holy catholike Church according to the profession of faith specified in the Creed though sometimes and in some things we doe not beleeue that is credit the visible Church as touching points of faith because the Church sometimes teacheth vs to beleeue otherwise than God hath taught Which though it seeme strange to M. Bishop in that language which he hath learned to speake yet to vs it is not strange who in the Canonicall histories of the Churches both of the old and new Testament do so often see them diuerting and turning from the right way As for that hee saith that our learned masters doe commonly cashiere out of the Creed the addition of the cōmunion of saints it is but a fruit of the harnessing of his face and he is therefore bold to say it because he hath learned not to be ashamed of any thing that he list to say That by the Saints are there meant al good Christians all the faithful whether aliue or dead we will not denie Communion of Saints implieth neither Purgatorie nor praier to saints but that either praier to saints or praier for soules in purgatorie belong to this communion of Saints we neuer yet learned and are too old to learne it now For as for the Saints in heauen i Aug. de vera relig cap 55. Honoramus eos charitate non seruitute honorandi propter imitationem non propter religionem adorandi We honour them with loue as Austin saith but not with seruice to follow them by imitation not to adore them by religion and therefore not to pray vnto them Further entercourse as yet there is none betwixt them and vs because k Esay 63.16 they know vs not nor are acquainted with vs nor can we any way acquaint them what wee say vnto them Now beside the Saints triumphant in heauen wee acknowledge none but those that are militant vpon the earth because the holie Ghost diuideth the whole body of the Church into l Eph. 1.10 Col. 1.20 those that are in heauen and those that are in earth and pronounceth them all m Reu. 14.13 blessed that are dead in Christ as who rest from labours and sorrowes and thereby are discharged from all Purgatorie paines But if there be any soules in Purgatorie to which all good Christian soules should yeeld and affoord their helpe to doe them ease and this be one matter of the entercourse and communion of Gods Saints why doth the Pope violate the communion of Saints by withholding from those tormented soules that helpe and ease which he is able to affoord them Surely if he cannot doe them ease then is he an impudent liar and a notable impostour and cozener of the world If he can do it then is he a cruell wretch that without compassion suffereth poore souls to lie broiling in those fierie flames But we rather approoue the former member of this diuision and take him for a liar both for that without warrant hee thrusteth in Purgatorie into the articles of our faith and with lesse warrant challengeth the same for a iurisdiction to himselfe 13. W. BISHOP 10 The forgiuenesse of sinnes
Sunne and in the Moone and vpon the crosse that is in many places and that c Idem in Ioan. er 31. Cùm ad alium locum venerit in eo loco vnde venit non est When he is come to another place he is not in the place from whence he came and therefore that d Vigil cont Eutich lib. 4. Quando in terra fuit caro Christi non erat vtiâ— in coelo nunc quia in coelo est non est vtique in terra The body of Christ when it was vpon earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen it is not vpon the earth that e Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 24. Ergo non supra terram nec interra nec secundum carnem ti quaerere debemus si volumus inuenire c. Stephanus tetigit quia quaesiuit in coele If we will find Christ we must not seeke him in the earth nor vpon the earth nor according to the flesh but in heauen They would neuer haue spoken thus without any limitation or exception if they had beleeued that which M. Bishop heere would make vs beleeue out of the doctrine of the church of Rome that the body of Christ may be in infinite places at once that it may be together both in heauen and earth with forme and without forme both visible and inuisible both circumscribed and vncircumscribed that is to say by a plaine contradiction both that that it is and that that it is not Surely they would haue saied as we doe If it be visible it cannot be inuisible or if it be inuisible it cannot be visible if it haue forme then it is not without forme or if it be without forme how should it be said to haue any forme both these cannot stand together True saith M. Bishop in one and the same maner of existence and being And say I if it be but one and the same body it can at once haue but one maner of existing and being for according to the same or totally to be thus not thus cannot agree to one and the same thing As for his instances whereby hee would take away the improbabilitie of this fancie they are altogether ridiculous Christ saith hee when hee was transfigured had another maner of outward forme and appearance then he had before and after his resurrection when it pleased him hee was visible to his Apostles and at other times inuisible And what then Ergo Christs body may be in many places at once it may together be both visible and inuisible and whatsoeuer pleaseth them But a man may euen as well say M. Bishop is sometimes hot and sometimes cold somtimes asleepe sometimes awake sometimes sober sometimes merrie sometimes like a schollar sometimes like a swaggerer sometimes at Rome sometimes in England ergò hee may at one time be together both asleepe and awake both visible and inuisible both at Rome and in England and in many places at once so that though by Parsons procurement he were fast laied vp in prison yet he might at the same time be personally before the Pope to acquaint him with the appeale of the secular Priests and the exorbitant dealing of the Iesuites against them What will he not call him a dreaming Sophister that should conclude thus Well then let him for his paines take his fellow to him and learne to argue more wisely another time But marke heere gentle Reader that M. Bishop maketh Philosophie a witnesse of this matter We haue thought heeretofore that they rested the same wholly and meerely vpon the omnipotent power of God and haue obserued how their schoole-philosophers when they speake of relation of bodies to their places do except this matter of the reall presence as a matter of irregularity not comming within compasse of the rules of Philosophy but farre transcendent aboue all their learning Now M. Bishop will make vs beleeue that it standeth with good Philosophy and that all their Philosophers haue all this while beene deceiued marrie it is woorth the while to note in what termes and how warily he hath set it downe The externall relations of bodies vnto their places do no whit at all destroy their inward and naturall substances as all Philosophy testifieth You say well M. Bishop and very wisely Indeed it is not relation to a place but the want of relation to a place that taketh away the nature of a body For f Aug. epist 50. spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt take from bodies space of place saieth Austin and they shall be no where and because they shall be no where they shall not be at all g Cyril de Trinit lib. 2. si corpus in loco omninò in magnitudine in quantitaete si quanta facta esset non effugeret cireumscriptionem If it be a body saith Cyrill then verily it is in a place and hath greatnesse and quantitie and if it haue quantitie it cannot be but that it must be circumscribed h Didym de spâ—sancto l. 2. si spiritus veritatis iuxta naturas corporum circumscriptus est certo spacio alium deserens locum ad alium commigrauit It is the nature of a body saieth Didymus to be circumscribed in a certaine space and therefore by comming into one place it must forsake another You therefore affirming the body of Christ vncircumscribed and hauing no commensuration or space of place and comming into one place without the leauing of another doe thereby vtterly destroy the nature of a body i Ibid. Impossibile est impium ista quae diximus in corporalibus credere It is impossible and a thing impious saith Didymus to beleeue these things concerning bodily substances This was the Philosophy that these Fathers had learned They knew by Philosophy and by trueth that a body must haue extension of parts and one part different and distant from another and place correspondent to euerie part so that where one part is there another cannot be and the whole so limited to one place as that without leauing that place it cannot be in another but neither did Philosophy nor Diuinitie teach them that vncircumscribed body which M. Bishop speaketh of 3. W. BISHOP Secondly Master PERKINS chargeth vs with disgrading Christ of his offices saying that for one Iesus Christ the only King law-giuer and head of the Church they ioine vnto him the Pope not only as a Vicar but as a fellow in that they giue vnto him power to make lawes binding in conscience to resolue and determine infallibly the sense of holy Scripture properly to pardon sinne to haue authority ouer the whole earth and a part of hell to depose Kings to whom vnder Christ euery soule is subject to absolue subjects from the oath of allegeance c. Answer Here is a bed-role of many superfluous speeches for not one of all these things if
we admit them all to be true doth conuince vs to haue disgraded Christ of his offices which are these to appease Gods wrath towards vs to pay the ransome for our sinnes to conquer the Diuell to open the Kingdome of heauen to bee supreme head of both men and Angels and such like He may without any derogation vnto these his soueraigne prerogatiues giue vnto his seruants first power to make lawes to binde in conscience as he hath done to all Princes which the Protestants themselues dare not denie then to determine vnfallibly of the true sense of holy Scripture which the Apostles could doe as all men confesse and yet do not make them Christs fellowes but his humble seruants to whom also hee gaue power properly to pardon sinnes Luc. 24. Ioan. 20. Mar. 16. Matt. 28. Whose sinnes you pardon on earth shall be pardoned in heauen and finally to them he also gaue authoritie ouer the whole earth goe into the vniuersall world Ouer part of hell no Pope hath authoritie and when he doeth good to any soule in Purgatory it is per modum suffragij as a suppliant and entreater not as a commander Whether hee hath any authoritie ouer Princes and their subiects in temporall affaires it is questioned by some yet no man not wilfully blinde can doubt but that Christ might haue giuen him that authority without disgrading himselfe of it as he hath imparted to him and to others also faculties of greater authoritie and vertue reseruing neuerthelesse the same vnto himselfe in a much more excellent maner As a King by substituting a Viceroy or some such like deputie to whom he giues most large commission doth not thereby disgrade himselfe of his Kingly authority as all the world knowes no more did our Sauiour Christ Iesus bereaue himselfe of his power or dignitie when hee bestowed some part thereof vpon his substitutes He goes on multiplying a number of idle words to small purpose as that we for one Christ the onely reall Priest of the new Testament ioyne many secondary Priests vnto him which offer Christ daily in the Masse Wee indeed hold the Apostles to haue beene made by Christ not imputatiue or phantasticall but reall and true Priests And by Christ his owne order and commandement to haue offered his body and bloud daily in the sacrifice of the Masse what of that see that question Furthermore he saith for one Iesus the all-sufficient mediatour of intercession they haue added many fellowes to him to make request for vs namely as many Saints as be in the Popes Kalendar yea and many more too For we hold that any of the faithfull yet liuing may bee also requested to pray for vs neither shall hee in haste bee able to prooue that Christ onely maketh intercession for vs though he be the onely mediatour that hath redeemed vs. R. ABBOT Christ by his office is our Prophet our Priest and our King Christ degraded by the Pope As a Prophet he hath declared fully and finally the whole counsell and way of God for the attainment of eternall life As a Priest he hath offered a sacrifice for our redemption and by vertue of that sacrifice is our Mediatour to intreat mercy for vs. As a King he prescribeth lawes whereby to gouerne vs and hauing a Matt. 28.18 All power giuen to him both in heauen and earth exerciseth the same to safegard and defend vs. In all these offices of which M. Bishop speaketh as if he vnderstood not what they meane the Church of Rome offereth most high indignity to the Son of God To take the points spoken of in order as they are first they are iniurious to the kingdome of Christ in that they giue the Pope authority to make lawes to bind in conscience which Christ only hath authority to doe b See hereof part 2. pag. 17.18 To bind in conscience is to tie the conscience and inward man to an opinion of holinesse and spirituall deuotion in the thing which is done so as to account the same a worship of religion whereby God is truly serued and honoured yea and further according to Romish fancies the means of remission of sinnes and the merit of eternall life This whosoeuer doth sheweth himselfe a deceiuer and an Antichrist and the Pope in so doing is found to be he of whom the Apostle prophecied c 2. Thess 2.4 that he should sit as God in the temple of God domineering in the hearts and consciences of them of whom it is said d 2. Cor. 6.16 Ye are the temple of the liuing God If Princes attempt to make lawes in this sort they are therein vniust and presumptuous against God Otherwise to speake of Princes lawes God himselfe bindeth the conscience to yeeld the outward man in subiection to the Prince when notwithstanding the conscience it selfe remaineth free as touching the thing which the Prince commandeth I know that in outward things it is true which the Apostle saith e 1. Cor. 6.12 10.23 All things are lawfull for mee I may doe all things God hath giuen mee no restraint To eat or not to eat to weare such a garment or not to weare it to doe thus or thus it is all one with God I am no whit the better the one way nor the worse the other way Neuerthelesse if my Prince command mee either way God requireth mee to abbridge my selfe of the outward vse of that liberty which he otherwise hath giuen mee and to performe obedience to my Prince yet still retaining inwardly the same opinion and persuasion of the thing in it selfe that I had before and therefore content to tie my selfe outwardly to do thus because I know inwardly that it is indifferent to God either to doe thus or thus The second presumption of the Pope against Christ is in taking vpon him infallibly to determine the sense of holy Scripture By which pretense he most impudently carieth himselfe bringing all abhominations into the Church and corrupting all religion and seruice of God and yet affirming that he doth nothing contrary to the Scripture because whatsoeuer the words of Scripture are yet the sense must be no other but what he list But well might we be thought to be without sense if so senseles a tale should preuaile with vs a thing which in the ancient Church for so many hundreds of yeeres amidst so many questions and controuersies was neuer dreamed of What needed the fathers so much to busie themselues and out of their owne exercise and experience prescribe rules to others for finding out the true sense of Scripture when as a Pope with a wet finger could haue helped them to the certaine and infallible truth thereof Yea why haue we so many Commentatours of the Church of Rome so various and diuers in their expositions and interpretations of Scripture and why doth not the Pope rather by one commentary of his illuminated vnderstanding reconcile all differences dispatch all doubts and resolue at once
lambe slaine from the beginning of the world To faith therefore Christ from the beginning of the world was ascended into heauen because they so beleeued in him as if he were already ascended In effect then Christ was the first that ascended into heauen because no other ascended but by the faith of his ascension As for the places cited by M. Bishop they make nothing to the contrary as which belong properly to the question of the resurrection of the dead to signifie that Christ is the first that Å¿ Rom. 6.9 rose from death to die no more and in whom all the rest shal so rise againe but as touching the state of the soules departed it prooueth nothing As touching the being of Christ in heauen Christ vntill his second comming abideth in heauen onely we teach nothing but what hee himselfe hath taught If M. Bishop will call it a locking of him in heauen it is not we that locke him but he himselfe hath locked himselfe who hath told vs that t Iohn 12 8. we shall not haue him alwaies with vs that u Acts 3.21 heauen must containe him vntill the time that all things bee fulfilled which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his Prophets since the world began x Heb. 10.12.13 that he is at the right hand of God hencefoorth expecting or waiting till his foes be made his footestoole To affirme then that Christ is in heauen only and not vpon the earth and that he so abideth vntill the time that he shall come againe to iudge the quicke and the dead is not to locke vp Christ in heauen but to iustifie the words of Christ They may rather be said to locke vp Christ who of their owne heads so tie him by the words of the Priest as it were by a charme to their consecrated hoast as that y See the Answer to the Epest sect 14. so long as the forme of bread continueth he may by no meanes be released though he passe by the stomacke into the draught though he be eaten by mice or dogges or swine though he be cast into the dirt and teach it to be heresie to affirme the contrary Of the meaning of Christs sitting at the right hand of his father I know no difference at all but that all acknowledge it to import the exaltation of the humane nature of Christ to the communion and fellowship of the maiesty and glory of God so as that all creatures both in heauen and earth are made subiect vnto him He referreth vs to Conrad some wizard or other but if that which Conrad saith be not woorth his reporting we hold it not woorth our seeking nor list to looke after euery foole which will sucke fancies out of his fingers ends and then make vs the authours of them As for that which Caluin saith How Christ shall continue or cease to sit at the right hand of God that after the last iudgement Christ shall no longer sit at the right hand of God in that meaning wherein he speaketh it it is very true not for that there shal be absolutely any end of his kingdome which the Angell saith z Luk. 1.33 shall continue for euer and shall haue no end but he shall thenceforth reigne only in personall vnion with the Godhead who now raigneth by delegated office a Iohn 5.22.27 hauing all iudgement committed vnto him in that he is the Sonne of man For wee must vnderstand that God who ruleth and gouerneth the world yet doth it not now immediately by himselfe but vseth thereto the ministery and seruice of men and Angels and performeth all things by meanes But for the execution of this gouernement he hath specially exalted his sonne euen the man Iesus Christ in whose obedience and humbling of himselfe hee tooke that delight as that as it were in hew thereof he would set him vp according to his humane nature b Ephe. 1.21 farre aboue all Principalities and Powers and Might and Dominion and aboue euery name that is named not onely in this world but in that that is to come c Mat. 28.18 giuing vnto him in special manner all power both in heauen in earth that as he had purchased the church with his pretious blood so for the behoofe of the church hee might haue a soueraignty and dominion ouer all creatures to limit their power to determine their courses to command or compell their seruice to doe by them and with them whatsoeuer is to be done till he fully and for euer accomplish the perfection thereof Which being done and the end come and all rule and authority and power abolished there shall be a cessation of that commission because there shal be no further vse therof d 1. Cor. 15.24 he shal deliuer vp the kingdome to God the father and with vs according to his manhood shall bee subiect vnto him that put all things vnder him that God may be all in all Not for that he is not now according to his manhood subiect to the father but he is now in such sort subiect as that for the father in his manhood he exerciseth a kingdome of power for the confusion of his enemies and preseruing of his from the force of them Not for that hee shall not then also raigne for euer God and man but hee shall not raigne in that sort as man because all aduersary power being vtterly abolished and for euer there shall bee no neede of such a kingdome his reigning being thencefoorth the enioying of them whom he hath redeemed purchased not the rescuing or defending of them And thus doth Saint Austin set downe from some ancients a stinting of the kingdome of Christ as now he raigneth e August lib. 83. q 69. Oportet eum regnare donceponat omnes inimicos suos sub peaibus suis quâ—a talis regni quale habent principes armatorum nulla exit causa hoste ita subiecto vt rebellare non possit Nam vtique dictum est in Euangelio Et regni cius non erit finis secundum quod regnat in aeternum secundum autemâ—d quòd aduersus diabolum sub eo militatur tamdiu erit vtique ista militia donec ponat c. postea verò non erit cum pace perpetua perfruemur He must raigne till he put all his enemies vnder his feet because there shall bee no cause of such a kingdome as haue Princes or Captaines of armed men when the enemy shall be so subdued as that he cannot rebell for it is said indeed in the Gospell Of his kingdome there shall be no end according to that he raigneth for euer but according to that we warre vnder him against the diuell so long shall this warfare be till he put all his enemies vnder his feete afterwards it shall not be when as we shall enioy euerlasting peace Thus and no otherwise doth Caluin say that Christs sitting at the right hand of God is but for
ouerthroweth with a distinction taken as he saith from the best authours but hee saith it very falsly and vnhonestly not being able to bring one good authour for the approouing of it The word religious saith he is ambiguous and principally signifieth the worship onely due to God but it is taken some other time to signifie a worship due to creatures And as well he may say that the word mariage is ambiguous and principally signifieth the bond that is betwixt the husband and the wife but yet is with the best authours taken some other time for that affiance that is betwixt the fornicatour and the harlot so that lawfully may the one enioy the other because there is betwixt them a bond of mariage We are told that religion in Ecclesiasticall vse belongeth onely to God and that no seruice of religion is to be done to creatures and he telleth vs that religion belongeth principally to God but that there is religion also belonging to creatures yea euen to vile and abominable idols And what maruell is this whenas wee see the Valentian Iesuit distinguish in like sort of idolatry that because S. Peter nameth l 1. Pet. 4.3 abominable idolatries therefore we should vnderstand that there are idolatries which are not abominable and that m Greg. de Valent de idolat lib. 2. c. 7. Quid attinebat ita determinatè cultus simulachrorum illicitos notare si omninò nullos simulachrorum cultus licitos esse censuisset some idolatrie is lawfull Surely religious worship giuen to creatures is no other but idolatrie but yet forsooth wee must not condemne it because all kinde of idolatrie is not to bee thought vnlawfull These are men of sharpe wits and can if yee will put them to it distinguish God out of heauen and Christ out of the Creed or by a distinction can bring a great number of gods into heauen and a great many Christs into the Creed As for vs wee take the fathers before alleaged to be herein ingenuous and honest as we are and that they did not intend with one breath to appropriate religion vnto God and to blow it from him with another Albeit not onely vnder the name of religion but vnder the name of worship also they haue affirmed the same to belong to God onely as namely u Cypria de exhort martyr ca. 2. Quod Deus solus coiēdus sit that God onely is to bee worshipped o Origen cont Cels lib. 1. Cultus adoratio nulli creaturae concedi potest absque diuinitatis iniuria that worship and adoration can bee giuen to no creature without iniurie and wrong to God p Hieron◠aed Ripar adu Vigilant Ne solem quidem Lunam non angelos non archangelos non Cherubim non Seraphim omne nomen quod nominatur in praesenti seculo in futuro colimus adoramus that we worship neither Sunne nor Moone neither Angels nor Archangels neither Cherubim nor Seraphim nor any other name of any creature that is named either in this world or in the world to come Therefore of the Virgin Marie Epiphanius saith q Epiphan haer 79. Collyrid Sit in honore Maria Pater Filius Sp. Sact adoretur Mariā nemo adoret Let Mary be in in honour elt the Father Sonne and holy Ghost bee worshipped but her let no man worship and Ambrose r Ambros de Sp. Sancto l. 3. cap. 12. Maria erat templum Dei non Deus templi ideo ille solus adorādus qui operabatur in tēplo Marie was the temple of God but not God of the temple and therefore he onely is to be worshipped who wrought in the temple Thus the fathers knew no religion they knew in religion no worship but what belongeth to God alone and M. Bishops distinction both in the one and in the other was wholly vnknowen vnto them But it is woorth the while to note how the said distinction such as it is is applied by him to pictures and images Religious worship saith he doth sometimes signifie a worship due to creatures for some supernaturall vertue or qualitie in them But good Sir tell vs what supernaturall vertue or qualitie is there in your images and pictures If any religious worship be due vnto them you tell vs that it must befor some supernaturall vertue or qualitie in them If there bee no such then how shall religious worship bee due vnto them May we not thinke that you haue sent vs a very naturall distinction that giueth supernaturall vertue and qualitie to stocks and stones But if supernaturall vertue qualitie doe yeeld a title of religious worship how is it that ſ Reu. 19.10 the Angell refused to be worshipped of S. Iohn and t Act. 10.25 the Apostle Peter of Cornelius seeing it cannot bee doubted but that there was a supernaturall vertue and qualitie in them Well hee will tell vs that the next time in the meane while he giueth vs leaue to thinke their Romish fauorites to be very naturally affected that conceiue so supernaturally of the deuisers of such blinde and witlesse tales As for that he saith that they doe not binde God and his hearing of vs to certaine things and places because they hold that God may be worshipped in all places hee saith no more than Ieroboam hath in effect said before for the setting vp of his idols no more than the Pagans and Heathens conceiued that their gods were in heauen and therefore that in all places they might pray and sacrifice vnto them Notwithstanding as they thought that to pray before their Images was a more speciall and solemne deuotion and they had there the heauenly powers more neerely present vnto them so haue they beene affected in Poperie and haue thought those praiers to bee most effectuall which they haue made in the presence of filthy idols and to that end haue taken great paines to goe long iourneies and pilgrimages vnto them But saith M. Bishop the sight of such holy things doth breed more reuerence and deuotion in vs and better keepe our mindes from wandering vpon vaine matters He should haue said if hee would haue spoken as the truth is that they breed superstition and errour rather than reuerence and deuotion that they cause God and his Saints to bee contemned in that stoliditie and blockishnesse of dumbe idols or at leastwise doe hold the minde so intangled heere vpon the earth as that it hath not power and libertie of affection to ascend to heauen as hath beene u Of Images sect 5.8 before sufficiently declared and needeth not heere to bee repeated His coupling of Churches and Images is like x Deut. 22.10 the yoaking of an oxe and an asse because Churches haue their vse for yeelding conueniencie of place and assemblie for praier for hearing of Gods word and ministration of his Sacraments for which vses onely it is that they are holie but Images haue no vse at all to
condition of fraile and sinfull flesh Now because no part of this could be imported in that memoriall if it were a thankesgiuing for the Saints therefore whether M. Higgons will or not it must necessarily be taken to haue been a praier for them And heereof there is one argument more in the last part of the comparison when he saith of Christ that he is in heauen and of the Saints that they are in the earth by their bodies yet resting in the earth Where it hath some reason that they should say We pray for them as respecting that their bodies lie yet in the dust of the earth expecting a blessed and happy resurrection which we craue to bee reuealed vpon them but to say that they meant to giue thanks to God for that the bodies of the Saints lie buried in the earth it were senslesse and absurd And because it is confirmed vnto vs by the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy that the Church did pray for the dead in respect of the resurrection therefore wee cannot doubt but that the memoriall heere spoken of by Epiphanius vsed for the Saints in respect of their bodies in the earth was a praier for them to wish their full and perfect consummation by the resurrection from the dead My former conclusion therefore hence deduced standeth good that sith the ancient Church thus praied for the Saints and Martyrs therefore that certaine it is they did not pray vnto them And because they thus praied for the Saints whose soules they were assured were in heauen therefore they praied for the dead without respect of Purgatory which now is made the onely ground and reason of praier for the dead 38. The next matter for which he questioneth me is concerning the opinion of the Greeke churches as touching Purgatory and prayer for the dead My words are such as might haue serued to weaken his motiue had hee not beene resolued without any motiue to remooue and run away What could he haue better to resolue him then that which I say that the Papists themselues confesse that Purgatory was not receiued or beleeued in the Greeke Churches and therefore that it is certaine that they had no respect of Purgatory in their praier for the dead I did not onely say that the Papists confesse it but I cited the places of their confession Alfonsus De Castro saith k Alfons De Castro adu haeres lib. 8. tit de Indulgent In antiquis scriptoribus de Purgatorio feré nulla mentio potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores quae de causa vsque in hodiernum diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum Of Purgatory there is in a maner no mention at all with the ancients but specially with the Greeke writers for which cause Purgatory is not beleeued of the Greekes vntill this day Yea not of the Greekes only but of the Armenians also he acknowledgeth that l Ibid lib. 12. de purgatorio vnus ex notissimis erroribus Graecorum Armeniorum est quo docent nullum esse Purgatorium c. they teach there is no Purgatory calling it an errour well knowen concerning them both The words of Roffensis their great and holy Martyr I cited out of Polydore Virgil m Polyd. Virg. de inuent rer lib. 8. cap. 1. ex Roffensi De Purgatorio apud priscos nulla vel quà m rarissima fiebat mentio sed Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum esse Of Purgatory there was none or very rare mention made amongst the ancient Fathers yea and with the Greekes it is not beleeued till this day Thus did they ingenuously acknowledge as the truth is and did it nothing stagger M. Higgons to finde this so plainly acknowledged Did it make him nothing doubt of his imagined mutuall dependance of Purgatory and praier for the dead Surely he was a very voluntary conuert or else he might easily haue seene that it is no good connexion to say They praied for the dead therefore they beleeued Purgatory but rather they beleeued not Purgatory therefore they praied not for the dead in any such meaning as the Papists now doe He might haue remembred that which I told Doct. Bishop that many amongst vs of custome and of humane affection of loue doe vse many times words of praier for the dead who notwithstanding from the bottome of their hearts doe vtterly defie both Purgatory and the Pope 39. In another place hee saith that it is n Book 1. part 2. cap. 3. ¶ 4. num 2. to our great disreputation that I name the Albigenses as professours of the same faith and religion which we now prefesse But why Forsooth he knoweth no cause himselfe but referreth his Reader to Parsons the Iesuit in his treatise of the three conuersions of England Yea M. Higgons would you make Parsons his narration a motiue of your recantation Would you giue heed to him whom you knew by the testimony of his owne fellows to be a man of Belial an infamous wretch a meere politizing Atheist and therefore likely if it were to serue his turne to deale with the stories of the ancient Christian Martyrs as he hath done with M. Foxes story carying himselfe in all that worke like a very Porphyrie or Iulian applauding himselfe and seeking to bee applauded in a iollity of forcing all things euen against the haire to scorne and mockery You say the Albigenses in their opinions followed the Waldenses as indeed they were the same some part of them onely being so called of the towne wherein they dwelt and would you beleeue Parsons concerning the opinions of the Waldenses who o Exam. of Fox his calen cap. 3. num 13. Of these Waldēses see at large Simon Goulart Catalog test veritatis lib. 15. Where thou shalt see how leaudly Parsons hath dealt with them disclaimeth Aeneas Syluius who was afterwards Bishop of Rome testifying their faith and doctrine vprightly and faithfully as of his owne knowledge that so he may giue way to other either carelesse or malicious reporters who impiously fathered vpon them strange paradoxes in no other sort than Friar p Edm. Campi decem rat cap. 8. passim Campian lately dealt with vs Yea and is not ashamed to cite q Three Conuers pag. 2. c. 10. num 29. Prateolus and Sanders for witnesses thereof whose ioy it hath been to finde out any thing were it neuer so vntrue which they might report opprobrious and disgracefull to them I doubt not but that the Waldenses and Albigenses might happily in some things be otherwise minded than we be and what are they in the church of Rome all in all things of one and the same minde but if wee respect the substance of their faith and doctrine as we may discerne the same not only by r Aeneas Sylu. de Origen Bohem cap. 35. Aeneas Syluius but also by ſ Alfons adu haeres passim Alfonsus De Castro and specially by t Sleidan Comment lib. 16.