worke it Lastly the same Apostle teacheth that sinne hath no dominion ouer them that are vnder grace which were false if concupiscence were properly sinne for that hath such dominion ouer euery good body that they cannot auoid the motion and sting of it No not S. Paul could be clearely deliuered 2. Cor. 12. vers 8. from that pricke of the flesh though he praied most earnestly for it wherefore by the testimony of S. Paul himselfe concupiscence is not properly sinne no more is it to lust if lust be taken for the first motions of concupiscence But concupiscence when it hath conceiued Iacob 1. vers 15. as S. Iames speaketh that is by our liking beginneth to take hold on vs bringeth forth sinne yet but veniall marry when it is consummate by our consent or long lingring in it then it engendreth death that is mortall sinne R. ABBOT EVen so might the adulterer pleade for himselfe that as Christ is said to haue been made sinne and yet is not properly sinne so adultery though it be called sinne yet is not so called because it is indeede and properly sinne but only because it is an effect of sinne and draweth on to many sinnes Surely in what manner the Apostle saith that adultery is sinne in the same manner doth he say that concupiscence is sinne and very vntowardly and shamefully doth M. Bishop bring that as a speech of the like kinde whereby it is said that a 2. Cor. 5. 2â— Christ for vs was made sinne As for that which he citeth out of St. Austin I haue b Of Original sinne after Baptisme sect 9. elsewhere before examined the places and haue shewed at large how falsly and wickedly they abuse him St. Austin neuer denying concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne but only as sinne implieth a guilt of punishment which to the faithfull is remitted and therefore the condition of sinne in that respect abolished If we consider the nature of sinne in the corruption and vncleannesse of it St. Austin acknowledgeth concupiscence to be such an euill quality as maketh vs euill which nothing can doe but sinne yea he saith that it is c August coÌ„t Iulian. l. 6. c. 5. Tale ac tammagnum malum tantum quia inest quomodo non tenerâ—t in morte c. so great an euill as that only for that it is in vs it should hold vs in death and bring vs to euerlasting death but that the bond that is the guilt thereof is loosed in baptisme by the remission of all our sinnes I note these things but briefly because I choose rather to referre the Reader to the treaty hereof at large And thereby he shall perceiue how vntruly M. Bishop here saith as by the doctrine of St. Austin that if by the helpe of Gods grace we represse concupiscence we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it Indeede St. Austin saith so much of the guilt but neuer did he say or thinke that we are or shal be deliuerâ—â—â— from the infection and vncleannesse of it d Aug. Epist 54. Malos diâ—it propter vitia infirmitatis humanae donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum transeat in eam vitam vbi nihil omninò peccabitur vntill all whereof we consist healed from all corruption shall passe into that life where there shall be no sinne But if St. Austin will not take his part he will proue that which he saith by St. Paul himselfe in the same Chapter He demandeth saith he Who shall deliuer me from this body of death and answereth presently The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. Where we see how according to his vsuall manner he setteth downe the wordes as to haue his Reader thinke that he tendereth him a proofe of that which he saith but neuer goeth about to shew how that which he saith is to be deduced therfrom And here his falshood is the greater for that hee alleageth the Apostles wordes for that which he saith whereas that which he saith is vtterly ouerthrowen by the wordes which he alleageth For let me aske him doth the Apostle by deliuerance from this body of death meane a deliuerance from the infection of originall sinne He will say yes because for proofe thereof he citeth the Apostles wordes Well but tell vs then doe you not beleeue that St. Paul was a partaker of the grace of God and did thereby represse and resist the motions of concupiscence Neither will he here dare to say nay and if he should what Christian man would not spit at him But then we will aske him againe if the Apostle by the grace of Christ did resist concupiscence and euery one that so doth be deliuered from the infection thereof how standeth it that the Apostle did yet remaine in case to be deliuered from this infection Marke I pray thee gentle Reader the Apostle saith who shall deliuer me giuing thereby to vnderstand that he was not as yet deliuered He saith the grace of God shall deliuer me but he doth not say it hath deliuered me from the infection of concupiscence Here M Bishop is mute he hath taken a fall in his owne trippe and knoweth not which way to recouer himselfe The Apostle St. Paul though by the grace of God he resisted the motions of concupiscence yet was not as yet deliuered from the infection of it It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith that if by the helpe of the grace of God we represse it we are deliuered from the infection of it I haue e Of Original sinne sect 4. before shewed that the Apostle in naming this body of death hath reference to this infection meaning thereby f Rom. 6. 6. the body of sinne as he hath termed it in the former Chapter g August de Temp. â—er 45. Per concupiscentiam dâ—ctum est hoc nostrummortis corpus which is to be destroyed and to which by and for concupiscence belongeth death It is true then which M. Bishop saith that the Apostle in desiring to be deliuered from this body of death did thereby intend a release from the infection of concupiscence but where was his vnderstanding that could not see that this maketh directly against himselfe and plainly sheweth that this release and deliuerance is yet to come and befalleth not vnto vs so long as we continue clothed with mortality and corruption But he telleth vs yet further that St. Austin out of the same sentence where concupiscence is called sinne Now not I worke it any more but sinne that dwelleth in me argueth very soundly that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly which cannot saith he be committed without consent of the minde He quoteth for this Lib. 6. cont Iulian. cap. 23. whereas in that sixt booke there are but thirteene Chapters But the place which he meaneth I take to be in the eleuenth Chapter of the same booke where St. Austin hauing mentioned those words of the Apostle goeth
worthy to be noted how M. Bishop trippeth and crosseth himselfe who hauing first told vs that the whole value of our merits whereby we deserue eternall life proceedeth of the dignity of Gods grace in vs presently altereth the case and saith that we must concurre with grace to the effecting of good works and this our working with the grace of God deserues heauen Surely if the whole value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace then the desert of heauen ariseth not of our working with grace or if the desert of heauen doe arise of our working with grace then it doth not wholly arise from the dignity of grace But hereby wee may see that all the wordes which they vse as touching grace are but hypocrisie and deceipt and that their true resolution is that the desert of heauen issueth out of the free will of man vsing grace as a toole or instrument for the doing of workes whereby to deserue the same Thus of gift they make no gift and turne all wholly into merit and by the free will of man doe vtterly ouerthrow the grace of God carrying notwithstanding in the meane time a conscience of shame of that they teach and colouring all with good workes as Pelagius the Heretike and his followers in the same case were wont to doe But M. Bishop will proue all that he saith by another sentence of the same Epistle to the Romans r Rom. 2. 6. God will render to euery man according to his workes c. where he saith we may see in expresse termes eternall life to be rendered and repaid for good works Where wee rather see his pertinacy in errour who rather chooseth to make the Apostle to contradict himselfe then to yeeld to the truth plainly deliuered by the Apostle But nothing can be deuised more fit for answere to him or more effectuall to stoppe his mouth then that which Gregory Bishop of Rome hath purposely set downe for satisfaction to those wordes f Gregor in Psalm Poeâ—itent 7. Quòd si illa Sanctorâ— soelicitas miserecordia est nö meritis acquiritur vbi erit quod scriptum est Et tu reddes vnicuique secundum opera sua si secundum opera redditur quomodo miserecordia a stimabitur sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In co enim quod secundum opera dicitur ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur vt cuiâ—s apparuerint bona opera eius sit retribut o gloriosa Illi namque beatae vitae in qua cum Deo de Deo viuitur nullus potâ—st aquari labor nulla opera comparari praesertim cùm Apostolus dicat Non sunt condignae passiones c. If the felicity of the Saints bee mercy saith he and be not obtained by merits how shall it stand which is written Thou shalt render vnto euery man according to his workes If it be rendered according to workes how shall it be esteemed mercy But it is one thing saith he to render according to workes and another thing to render for the works themselues For in that it is said according to workes the very quality of the workes is vnderstood so as that whose good works shall appeare his reward shall be glorious For to that blessed life wherein we shall liue with God and of God no labour can be equalled no workes can be compared for that the Apostle telleth vs The sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the glory to come that shall be reueiled on vs. Where we see how he setteth it downe as a thing without question to be confessed that eternall life is mercy only and is not to be purchased or gained by merits and that the Scripture in saying that God rendereth to euery man according to his workes doth not import that God in giuing reward vnto good workes doth any thing for the workes sake as if he regarded the merit or value thereof but respecteth only the quality of our workes as vsing the same for a marke only wherby he will take knowledge of them to whom he intendeth to shew mercy At these wordes of Gregory me thinks I see how M. Bishop biteth the lippe and chafeth in his minde to heare him thus distinguishing like a Protestant and seriously approuing that which he with scorne hath reiected being spoken by M. Perkins t Of Merits sect 17. O sharpe and ouer-fine wit saith he doth God render according to the workes and doth he not render for the workes What M. Bishop will you mocke Gregory in the same sort and twite him with a sharpe and ouer-fine wit He hath taught vs to distinguish thus he telleth vs that it is one thing to render for workes another thing to render according to workes which sith you admit not why doe you dâ—ale so impudently in chalenging to your selues a full and perfect agreement with the ancient Church of Rome I might further enlarge this matter out of Gregory by sundry speeches tending to the disabling of all humane works but that it followeth more properly to speake thereof in the thirteenth Chapter CHAP. XI That concupiscence or lust is sinne euen in the very habit and first motions of it ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE HE telleth vs againe and againe that concupiscence is sinne to lust is to sinne c. to S. Paul saith of the spirit of adoption c. W. BISHOP THe Apostle telleth vs againe and againe that our Sauiour Christ Iesus was made 2. Cor. 5. v. 21. sinne and yet no Christian is so simple as to take him to be properly sinne but the host or satisfaction for sinne so when the Rom. 8. vers 3. Apostle calleth concupiscence sinne wee vnderstand him with S. Augustine that it is not sinne properly yet so called not vnaptly both because it is the effect L. b. 1. cont duas Epist Pelag. cap. 10. Lib. 1. de Nupt Concupisc cap. 23. and remnant of originall sinne and doth also pricke vs forward to actuall sinne but if by helpe of the grace of God we represse it we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it Which S. Paul in the very same Chapter declareth when he demandeth Who shall deliuer me Ibid. vers 25. from this body of death he answereth presently the grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. And againe that profound Doctor S. Augustine argueth very soundly out of the same sentence where concupiscence is called sinne but now not I worke it any more but the sinne that is in me that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly which cannot saith he be committed Lib. 6. cont Iulian. c. 23. without the consent of our minde but that had no consent of the minde to it because it was not the Apostle that did worke it Now how can that be the euill worke of a man if the man himselfe doe not worke it as the Apostle saith expresly not I doe
rebelleth against the law of the minde and holdeth vs captiue to the law of sinne l Gal. 5. 17. it lusteth against the spirit and these are contrary one to another so that we cannot doe the things that we would and therefore cannot fulfill the law Why will M. Bishop goe about to dispute against so certaine so cleare and manifest truth Now then vnderstanding the iustification of the law as he doth of the righteousnesse commanded by the law it is true that the end of Gods sending his Sonne was that sinne might be condemned in the flesh that the power and life thereof in vs might be abolished and it vtterly destroyed that sinne being taken away the iustification or righteousnesse of the law may be entirely and perfectly fulfilled in vs for euer This we say that God hath intended to doe and hath already begunne to bring it to effect but he hath begunne only and noâ— perfected this worke nor will doe till this body of ours raised againe from death and out of the dust of the earth haue cast the slough of sinne and become clothed with immortality and incorruption In the meane time m August de ciuit Dei l. 19. c. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta â—st in hac vita vt potiùs remissione peccatorum constet quà m perfectione virtutum our righteousnesse in this life saith St. Austin consisteth rather in the forgiuenesse of sinnes then in the perfâ—ction of vertues and n Greg. Mor. l. 5. c. 9. Ipsa perfectio nostra culpa non caret nisi hanc seuerus iudex in subtili laÌ„ce examinis misericorditèr penset our very perfection saith Gregory is not free from blame vnlesse God in the precise ballâ—nce of his examination doe mercifully waigh the same And from Gregory did St. Bernard learne to say that o Bernard in fest omn. SaÌ„ct fer 1. Si districtè iudicetur iniusta inuenietur omnis iustitia nostra minus habens Sir Greg Mor. l. 9. c. 11. l. 21. cap. 15 all our iustice or righteousnesse if it be narrowly sifted will be found vâ—iust and defectiue because p August coÌ„t Iulian l. 2. Memores conscij illa ipsa corpora vitioruÌ„ omnium esse materiem pro qua polluti sordidi nihil in nobis munduÌ„ nihil innocens obtinem ex Plilario being polluted and filthy by reason of the corruptions of our sinnefull bodies as Austin alleageth out of Hilary we haue nothing in vs cleane nothing innocent q Hilar. in psal 118. Gimel Et nisi glorificatâ— in naturaÌ„ spiritus corpore vita vera in nobis non potest esse natura neither can there be in vs saith he the nature of the true life vntill the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit Now seeing the case of our righteousnesse in this life iâ—â—aâ—h certayne it is that the righteousnesse of the law is not so fulfilled in vs in this life as that thereby we can be iustified in the sight of God Yea r Leo in Anniuers suo ser 1. In isto seculo si iniquitates Dominus obseruaret nullus iudiciùm suum sustineret in this world saith Leo according to the words of the Psalme if the Lord would take knowledge of iniquities none should be able to beare his iudgement and therefore it remaineth which the same Leo elsewhere saith that Å¿ Leo Epist 81 In quo solo homo se inuenit innocentem in Christ only a man findeth himselfe innocent or iust t Greg. Moral lib. 3. cap. 11. Per hoc cuncta iustificat quod eum qui sine peccato est pro peccatoribus damnat God hereby iustifying vs as Gregory saith for that for vs sinners he condemneth him who is without sinne u Idem in Ezech hom 7. Justus aduocatus noster iustos nos defendet in iudicio quia nosmetipsos cognoscimus accusamus iniustos Our iust Aduocate therefore saith the same Gregory will in iudgement defend vs for iust if we know and accuse our selues to be vniust x Idem in EuaÌ„gel hom 25. Paratus est poenitentiam nostraÌ„ nobis ad innoceÌ„tiam deputare God being ready for his sake to repute vnto vs our penitency for innocency Here is then our iustification before God not in that the righteousnesse of the law is fulfilled in vs but in that vpon our true repentance God reputeth vs innocent for Christs sake and in Christ whom as a sinner he condemned to death and punishment for our sakes Now by that that hath beene said appeareth the answere to his next place y Rom. 13. 8. 10. Loue is the fulfilling of the law and he that loueth his neighbour fulfilleth the law For what is said of iustice or righteousnesse must be also vnderstood of loue because our righteousnesse inherent consisteth in loue and according to the measure of our loue so is the measure of our righteousnesse z August de Nat. Grat. c. 70. Charitas inchoata inchoata iustitia est charitas prouecta prouecta iustitia est charitas magna magna iustitia est charitas perfecta perfecta iustitia est Charity begunne saith Austin is righteousnesse begunne charity increased is righteousnesse increased great charity is great righteousnesse perfect charity is perfect righteousnesse Sith then our iustice or righteousnesse is very defectiue and vnperfect as hath been shewed the like must be conceiued of our loue and therefore though loue be the fulfilling of the law yet in vs it is not the fulfilling of the law because in vs it is vnperfect and farre short of that which the law requireth As we haue the beginnings of loue so we haue the beginnings of fulfilling the law but that is not sufficient to iustification by the law because the law requireth absolute a Gal. 3. 10. continuance in all that is written therein Therefore St. Austin very directly to our purpose saith b Aug. Epist 29. Plenissima charitas qua iam augeri non potest quamdiu hic homo viâ—it est in nemine Quamdiu autem augâ—â—â—i potest prosectò illad quod minus est quà m debet ex vitâ—o est Ex quo vitio non est iustus in terra qui facit bonum non peccat Ex quo vitio non iustificabitar in coâ— spects Dei omnis viuens The most perfect charity which can now no further be increased so long as a man liueth here is found in none and so long as it may be increased that that is lesse then it ought to be is by reason of some vice or corruption in vs by reason whereof there is not a man iust vpon earth that doth good and sinneth not by reason wherof no man liuing shall be iustified in the sight of God In a word loue is the fulfilling of the law when as there is loue according to the tenour of the law The law saith c Deut. 6. 5. Luke 10. 27. Thou shalt
Resurrection of our Lord Iesus This is our religion and herein their example iustifieth vs but their doctrines of transubstantiation and reall presence and concomitancy and sacrifice propitiatory for quicke and dead with the rest of that kinde are additions of theirs whereof the institution of Christ which togither with vs they recite maketh no shew at all If they should haue disclaimed redemption and remission of sinnes by the bloud-shed and death of Christ Christian people would haue defied them therefore they left the name thereof in the Church which is our religion but they defeated the power of it by briâ—ging in a thousand other deuices wherby men should redeeme themselues and purchase the remission of their owne sinnes It is our religion to acknowledge Christ to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man and this they would neuer disauow but to Christ they haue ioyned the Saints also to be our Mediators It is our religion to teach that God is to be worshipped and all spirituall deuotion is to be done vnto him and this they cannot deny but they haue added hereto the worshipping of Saints and Saints Images and thereby haue defiled the worship of the immortall God They deny not grace which our religion teacheth but they put to it the power of nature and free will They dare not but confesse Christ to be the head of the Church which our religion teacheth but they haue added the Pope to be another head and so haue made the Church a Monster with two heads Thus in euery point of doctrine take away those patcheries and additions of theirs which are things not taught vs by the word of God and euen in their religion that which remaineth is our religion the very truth of the Gospell of Iesus Christ For these and such other propositions of true faith the Diuell could neuer abolish out of the Church only by Antichrist he suppressed the knowledge and vse of them and to this wholsome wine put such abundance of his corrupt and poisoned waters as might frustrate the power and effect thereof Wherein notwithstanding he could not so farre preuaile but that the light here and there brake forth by such chinks and lattises as were remaining which many of our forefathers in the time of that Aegyptian darkenesse did discerne and see to their euerlasting comfort and soules health Yea M. Bishop knoweth well that there were in those times both Pastors and Flocks not in one only Countrey but in many who detested those blendings and mixtures of theirs and kept themselues either wholly or for the most part to the entire truth of our religion the light whereof euen then shined vnto them out of the very darkenesse of the Church Which notwithstanding we wonder not that he pretendeth not to know who will seeme not to know that our religion hath spred it selfe into Italie and Spaine when as all the world knoweth that the Inquisition hath shed the bloud of many thousands there only for the profession of our religion Yea the principles of our religion are so residing will they nill they in the very bowels of Popery as that they are forced to vse many sinister courses to drowne and stifle them and to keepe the people from taking knowledge thereof because they see that if there be but winde to blow away the ashes our fire will straightwaies burne amongst them and the flame presently ascend to the consuming of their roofe they see that if men be but stirred a 〈…〉 awaked out of their sleepe they will be forthwith ready out of the very common instinct of Christianity to beeleeue as we doe In Greece in Africa in Asia wheresoeuer the Gospell is there is no other but our Gospell because there is no Gospell but that which the Euangelists and Apostles haue recorded in the writings of the Gospell neither is Christ any where knowen but where he is knowen by that Gospell Therein hath our Gospell beene spred ouer the whole world therein we communicate with the Church of the whole world wheresoeuer this Gospell is free there our religion is not bound but thereby euen amidst errour and apostasie b wisedome is iustified of her children and God Mat. 11. 19. according to the purpose of his grace giueth light vnto euerlasting life As for the Indians lamentable experience haue they had of the Popish Gospell Neuer any Apostle or Euangelist carryed their religion abroade as the Papists haue done thither and they haue cause to wish that the Roman Church had neuer beene so Catholike as to extend to them Vpon some few of the remainder of them they haue forced baptisme some of their ceremonies but they haue taught them nothing of religion nothing of the Gospell of Iesus Christ How otherwise their religion hath beene spred ouer the whole world enough hath beene said already in briefe I say here that they can alleage no age nor time wherein they can make good that it hath so beene We know they can talke at will but farre are they from proofe that their doctrines of the Popes Supremacy his Pardons and Iubilees of Purgatory of Transubstantiation of their priuate Masse and halfe Communion with a number of such other were euer or at any time receiued throughout the whole world CHAP. IIII. That the Church before Christ euen from the beginning was a part of the Catholike Church and that the faith and religion of the new Testament differeth not in substance from the old A BRIEFE DEFENCE OF THE KINGS SVPREMACY ECCLESIASTICALL ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE NOw as of this Catholike Church from the beginning to the end there is c. to Now whereas he alleageth c. W. BISHOP §. 1. WE agree in this that there is but one faith one baptisme one spirituall foode and one religion in the Catholike Church but M. Abbot is fouly ouer-seen about the time when the true Church beganne first to be called Catholike which was not before Christs time but afterwards according to that alleaged out of Pacianus an ancient Author who writeth of the name Catholike saying Pacian Epist ad Simphor de nomine Catholico Christian is my name Catholike is my surname For when among Christians some beganne to teach false doctrine and to draw others after them into sects they that remained sound and did cleaue fast vnto the whole body of the Church were intituled Catholikes to distinguish them from Heretikes that did not ioyne with the vniuersall corps of Christians in faith and religion which M. Abbot before did in plaine words confesse see his text afore where he beginneth to argue of the word Catholike And the reason is most perspicuous why the Iewes and their religion could not be called Catholike though it were right and according to the will of God for that time because Catholike signifieth that which is spred all the world ouer and receiued of all nations so was not the law of Moyses and the manner of seruing God therein prescribed but was peculiar
Iewish Church before receiued not But let him report my wordes as he findeth them and then they shall stand good that Christ taught no other but the same faith and religion that was deliuered by Moses and the Prophets to the former Church which is not hindered by that he instituted new Sacraments because I haue already shewed that in diuersity of Sacraments there is still the same faith Which how handsomely he hath confuted hath before appeared and I suppose by that time he hath further considered of the matter he will finde cause to seeke for a better confutation But yet taking it vpon him that he hath confuted me he goeth on saying And here I adde that then Christians may haue many wiues togither as the Iewes had and may giue their wiues vpon any displeasure a libâ—ll of diuorce Where we may well thinke that he was scant in the right that tooke the lawfulnesse of many wiues and the giuing of a bill of diuorce to a wife to haue beene matters of the Iewes faith and religion towards God I haue cited Leo Bishop of Rome saying that h §. 2. of this Chapter the faith whereby we liue hath neuer differed in any age and will M. Bishop inferre against him as he doth against me that Christians then may haue many wiues and husbands may vpon euery displeasure giue their wiues a bill of diuorcement to put them away as it was amongst the Iewes Did not his discretion serue him to put difference betwixt matters of faith and of manners betwixt articles of religion and offices of conuersation Faith and religion import that deuotion seruice which is immediately performed to God and what letteth but that in their lawfulnesse of many wiues they might yeeld to God the same deuotion that we doe and we in single marriage the same that they But haply somewhat it was that he aimed at which his troubled head serued him not to expresse I said in my answere as touching those Fathers of the old Testament According to the approued example of their life we also teach men to liue Now I imagine hereof it is that he meant to say that then Christians may haue many wiues and at their pleasure giue their wiues libels of diuorce If this were his meaning he should haue bethought himselfe where their example in these things is found any where to haue beene approued because I made mention only of approued example For our parts we hold plurality of wiues in those times to haue beene permitted but not approued tolerated by dispensation as i Gregor exposit in 1. Reg. c. 2 l. 2. Quaedam in sacra Scriptura inuenâ—untur praecepta quae dispensatâ—oâ—â— qâ—idâ—m Dâ—â— praecepta sâ—nt sed non amore Deâ— Gregory saith some things were of old but not warranted by institution And of that dispensation the same Gregory taketh an example of the Iewes giuing a bill of diuorce concerning which we see how the Pharisees alleage in the Gospell not that God ordained it but only that Moses so commanded or rather suffered and the reason thereof giuen k Mat. 19 78. because of the hardnesse of their hearts and therefore we hope M. Bishop vpon better aduice will not of vnity of faith conclude any more that it should now be lawfull for vs to doe the same As for the iudiciall law of the Iewes it is wholly without the occasion and compasse of my speech and briefly I answere him that though there be the same faith and the same rules of duty and conuersation yet it doth not therefore follow that censures and punishments or trials and legall proceedings must be the same In a word whatsoeuer the Apostles decreed in their Councell at Hierusalem for the abrogating of the law we acknowledge and obey and that more faithfully then the Papists doe who as M. Bishop confesseth doe hold it their grace still to hold a conformity with the ceremonies of the law Yet againe if the Apostles saith he were simply and nakedly to preach to the Gentiles the law of Moses he should say without ambiguity the faith and religion of the Patriarchs and Prophets stript of types and shadowes why then were they commanded to preach vnto them the sacraments of Baptisme and of the Supper of the Lord An idle question and it is already answered that in deliuering other Sacraments they taught no other but the same doctrine and faith The Sacraments are water in Baptisme bread and wine in the Lords Supper different from those of old The doctrine of faith is the death of Christ and shedding of his bloud for the cleansing of our soules and remission of our sinnes which was the same in all the Sacrifices and Sacraments of the Church since the world beganne And this one doctrine I said the Apostles by the commandement of Christ so taught as that they added nothing of their owne This saith M. Bishop is very false for many things were left by our Sauiour to their disposition Now thou must vnderstand gentle Reader that I vsed not those wordes as mine owne but did set them downe in a distinct letter quoting Tertullian in the margent as the authour of them The whole passage of those words shall giue some light to the matter here in hand l Tertul. de Praescript Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet sed ne eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit Apostolos Domini habemuâ— authores qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent clegerunt sed acceptam à Christo disciplinam fidelitèr nationibus adsignauerunt We may not saith he giue our selues liberty of any thing at our owne discretion nor make choise of any thing which any other man hath brought in of his owne minde We haue the Apostles of the Lord for our leaders who did not of their owne will or discretion make choise of any thing to bring in but the doctrine which they receiued of Christ they faithfully deliuered to the nations Here then M. Bishop giueth Tertullian the lye and telleth him that it is false which he saith dissembling in the meane time the sight of Tertullians name and making shew as if he spake it to me only Thou art now at thy choise gentle Reader whâ—ther thou wilt rather beleeue Tertullian or M. Bishop If thou wilt rather beleeue Tertullian in a worke generally approued then thou must say as we say that the Apostles added nothing of their owne but taught only what they receiued of Christ according to the commission giuen vnto them m Mat. 28 20. Teaching them to obserue whatsoeuer things I haue commanded you But to shew that our Sauiour left many things to the disposition of the Apostles he alleageth those wordes of St. Paul n 1. Cor. 11. 34. Other things I will dispose or set in order when I come Where I would pray him to tell vs in good sadnesse whether the meaning of those wordes be I
sect 18. elsewhere and I should wonder but that it is his manner so to doe that the absurdity thereof being so displayed he would thus repeate it againe almost in the same wordes It shall be here sufficient thence briefly to answere him that the iustifying faith of a Christian man is not incident to the Diuell But the Diuell is capable of beleeuing all â—o bee true which God hath reueiled The Diuell could beleeue that God according to his promise would giue Abraham a sonne and make him the father of many nations Therefore iustifying faith is more then to beleeue all to be true vvhich God hath reueiled That more is plainly gathered of that which Cyprian saith d Cyprian de dupl martyrio Non credit in Deum qui non in â—o solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam He beleeueth not in God that doth not place or repose in God only the confidence and trust of his whole felicity and happinesse Iustifying faith then is the reposing of trust and confidence in God only to obtaine of him eternall blisse and happinesse through the merits and mediation of Iesus Christ And this was Abrahams faith not a carnall beliefe only that God vvould giue him a sonne and a great posterity of many nations but a beleefe of a spirituall e Gen. 12. 2. Gal. 3. 8. 9. blessing in his seede according to the promise of God both to himselfe and to all the nations of the earth And this vve see in the place which M. Bishop citeth vvhere the Apostle alleaging that Abrahams faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse addeth f Rom. 4. 23. Now it is not written for him only but also for vs to whom it shall be imputed for righteousnesse What to beleeue that old and barren persons may haue children if God say the word as M. Bishop in the place before mentioned very rudely expresseth the faith of Abraham Nay but to beleeue in him that raised vp Iesus the Lord from the dead who was deliuered to death for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification This was it which the faith of Abraham respected By beleefe of the promise of God g Iohn 8. 56. he saw the day of Christ He beleeued that of his seed should come a Sauiour both to himselfe and to vs who should be deliuered to death for our sinnes and rise againe for our iustification and by this faith he was iustified For the same faith saued Abraham that now saueth vs as hath beene before shewed But the faith that saueth vs is the faith of the Gospell the faith of Iesus Christ the faith of his Crosse the faith of his Bloud the faith of his Death and Resurrection Therefore this was also the faith that saued Abraham Thus M. Bishops heapes of testimonies proue for his part heapes of chaffe and not of corne they carry a shew of multitude but say nothing at all for him He is a â—aiâ—e man that goeth about by such allegations to impeach any peece of the Protestants iustification When he hath spent all his paper-shot the Protestants iustification vvill remaine still W. BISHOP §. 3. NOw I come to the other points named by M. Abbot There is nothing saith he in S. Paul for the merit of single life But he is greatly mistaken for the Apostle saith That the care of the single and vnmarried 1. Cor. 7. vers 32 33. 34. is to please God and their study to thinke vpon those things that appertaine vnto God and how they may be holy both in body and in spirit which must needes be more acceptable in Gods sight then to be carping for this world and caring how to please their yoke-mate To this wee adde Monkish vowes of which if hee were worthy to be a good Abbot he would speake more respectiuely somwhat S. Paul hath of the vow of chastiâ—y which is one of their principall vowes for he auoucheth certaine widdowes worthy of damnation because 1. Tim. 5. v. 12. they broke the same former vow of chastity And S. Paul himselfe shoare his head in Cenchris because Act. 18. vers 18. he had a vow which was the vow of a Nazarite not much vnlike for the time though much inferiour vnto the vow of religious persons see of that vow the sixt Chapter of the booke of Numbers There is nothing saith M. Abbot in S. Paul of prayer for the dead which is not true for he teacheth that some of the faithfull who haue built vpon the right foundation hay 1. Cor. 3. vers 13. stubble and such like trash shall notwithstanding at the day of our Lord bee saued yet so as through fire Which the ancient Doctors doe take to be the fire of SS Aug. in psal 37. Hieron lib. 2. cont Iouin 13. Ambros in hunc locum Gregor in psal 3. Poenitentialem Purgatory Now if many whiles the drosse of their workes be purged doe lie in fire it will easily follow thereof that euery good soule who hath any Christian compassion in him will pray for the release of their Christian brother out of those torments R. ABBOT THou maiest here see gentle Reader M. Bishops tergiuersation and manifest shifting I propounded out of Theodoret that the Epistle to the Romans containeth all manner doctrines of faith Vpon this ground I noted that the doctrine of Popery is to be condemned for that it containeth so many points as necessary articles of faith whereof there is nothing to be found in the Epistle to the Romans Herewith M. Bishop found himselfe greatly distressed On the one side he durst not openly reiect the testimony of Theodoret fearing least that haply might be some preiudice to him On the other side he saw he could not finde their religion in the Epistle to the Romans Now therefore silently he stealeth away and betaketh himselfe to the rest of Pauls Epistles not vpon any hope that he hath that he can thence make good his cause but for that hee findeth there some speeches deliuered vpon occasions whereby hee can better giue colour to some doctrines of theirs of which the Apostle neuer thought He telleth his Reader that I say there is nothing in St. Paul for the merit of single life But my saying was that in the Epistle to the Romans which Theodoret affirmeth to containe all kinde of doctrine there is nothing said for the merit of single life Well let him yet haue his way let vs giue him full liberty of the rest of St. Pauls Epistles and what hath he there for the proofe of it Forsooth he telleth vs that the Apostle saith that the care of the single and vnmarried is to please God and their study to thinke vpon those things that appertaine to God and how they may be holy both in body and in spirit which saith he must needes be more acceptable in Gods sight then to be carking for this world and caring how to please their yoke-mate But here he
the soule going from the body he shall hold it with him for euer without any change that neither being exalted it can come downe to punishment nor being drowned in eternall punishments can thence forth rise to any remedy of saluation If after death there be no deliuerance if there be no change but as the Angell either good or badde receiueth the soule out of the body so it continueth for euer either exalted to ioy or drowned in punishment then there can be no Purgatory then there can be nothing but either heauen or hell where they that come shall abide for euer Hee citeth for this the same wordes of Salomon that we doe and of which Olympiodorus a writer of the same time saith k Olympiodor in Ecclesi asâ— cap. 11. In quocunque loco seu illustri seu tene 〈◊〉 depreâ—edatur â—omo cum moritur mâ—ode gradu atque ordine poriâ—â—net in aeternum nam vel requieseâ—â— in lumine foelicitatis aeterae cum iustis Christo Domino vel in tenebris cruciatur cum iniquis huius mundi principâ— Diabolo In whatsoeuer place either lightsome or darke a man is taken when he dyeth in the same degree and order he abideth for euer for either he resteth in the light of eternall felicity with the iust and with Christ our Lord or else he is tormented in darkenesse with the wicked and with the Prince of this world the Diuell But Gregory againe writeth an Epistle to his friend Aregius a Bishop to comfort him concerning the death of some belonging to him wherin it is worthy to be obserued how consonantly he carrieth himselfe to the doctrine of the Scriptures Amongst other wordes wee reade these l Gregor lib. 7. indict 2. Epist 111. Indecens est de illis taedio afflictionis addâ—ci quos credendum est ad veram vitam moriendo perue nisse HabeÌ„t for sitan illi iustam longi doloris excusationem qui vitam alteram nesciunt qui de hoc seculo ad mâ—lius transitiâ— esse non confidunt nos autem qui nouimus qui hoc credimus docemus coÌ„tristarinimium de obâ—â—ntibus no debemus ne quod apud alios tenet pietatis speciem hoc magis nobis in culpa sit Nam dissidetâ—c quodamodâ— genus est cotra hoc quod quisque pradicat torqueri moestitia dicente Apostolo Nolumus autem vos ignorare fratres c. Hac itaque ratione perspecta studendum nobis est vt sicut dixâ—mus de mortâ—â—â— non esslâ—gamur sed affectuÌ„ viuentibus impendamus quibus pictas ad 〈◊〉 sit ad sâ—uct◠〈◊〉 It is vndecent for vs to giue our selues to long affliction of sorrow for them whom wee are to beleeue to haue come by death vnto the true life They haue haply iust excuse of long sorrow who know not any other life who doe not beleeue the passage from this world to be to a better world but wee who know who beleeue and teach this are not to be too heauy for the dead least that which with others carryeth a shew of piety be to vs rather a matter of blame For it is in a manner a kinde of distrâ—st to be tormented with heauinesse contrary to that which he himselfe doth teach Hereof he citeth the wordes of Saint Paul to the Thestalonians which I haue before set downe and then addeth This therefore seeing we know wee are to haue care as I haue said not to be afflicted for the dead but to bestow our affection vpon the liuing to whom our piety or denotion may be profitable and our loue may yeeld fruit Surely he leaueth no place for Purgatory that teacheth to beleeue that the faithfull in death doe attaine vnto true life and that their passage from this world is to a better neither doth he acknowledge any vse of Prayers of Masses and Trentals and other Offices and Obsequies for the dead who saith that our deuotion and loue yeeldeth no fruit or profit to them He would not haue bidden Aregius not to be afflicted for the dead but to bestow his affection vpon the liuing if hee had thought the dead to be in a Purgatory where they should and might be releeued by the deuotions of the liuing Thus he beleeued and taught where he taught aduisedly according to the Scriptures and thus wee beleeue accordingly and what hee casually taught otherwise wee reckon it for wood and straw and stubble which hee built vpon the true foundation which now the day-light of the Gospell hath reueiled and the fire of Gods word consumeth though hee himselfe by the faith of the said foundation hath attained peace And this wee hold to be the only true application of the Apostles wordes and most fitting to the processe of the text the Apostle making himselfe a builder by his preaching laying Christ for the foundation of his doctrine and therefore consequently vnderstanding gold siluer pearles wood hay stubble to be the rest of the doctrine that is preached concerning Christ either true signified by gold and siluer and pearles or false signified by wood and hay and stubble So did Tertullian of old vnderstand it m Tertul. coÌ„t Marc. l. 5. Super quod prout quisque superstruxerit dignam scilicet vel indignam doctrinam opus â—ius per ignem probabitur merces â—iâ—s per ignem rependetur As euery man saith he buildeth vpon the foundation doctrine worthy or vnworthy his worke shall be tryed by fire his reward shall be repaied him by fire In the like sort doth Ambrose expound it n Ambros in 1. Cor. 3. Tria genera posuit praeclara in mundo in quibus bonam doctrinam significauit c. Tria alia genera posuit sedfriuola In his corrupta vana doctrina designata di nâ—scitur He setteth downe three kinds of things that are excellent in the world gold siluer pearles by which he signifieth good doctrine three other things he setteth downe which are but base wood hay stubble and by these corrupt and vaine doctrine is designed Now if by these things doctrine bee designed then the fire whereby triall must be made of these things must be vnderstood accordingly That cannot be of the Popish Purgatory fire for it cannot in this sense bee fitted to Purgatory fire which the Apostle saith Euery mans worke shall be made manifest for the day shall declareâ— because it shall bee reueiled by fire for it is not declared or manifested by Purgatory fire whether doctrine bee true or false sith it selfe is so obscure and darke as that no man knoweth where it is Is it made manifest to vs by Purgatory fire whether ours or the Popish doctrine bee the more true Nay but by the word of God this triall is made and thereby it appeareth what is truth and what is falshood what is right and what is wrong and the truth as the gold and siluer is approued and iustified thereby but errour and false doctrine as wood and
mandauerunt c. the bodies of the iust and faithfull which the holy Ghost hath vsed for instruments and vessels to all good workes are not to be despised and cast away inferreth that therefore the funerals of the iust of old were with all officious piety regarded their exequies celebrated and their buriall prouided for and they themselues whilest they liued gaue charge to their children for the burying of them or else for transferring them from the place where they were to be buried otherwhere He alleageth examples that Tobie in burying the dead is commended to haue pleased God that our Sauiour Christ commended the good worke of the religious woman which powred the pretious ointment vpon his body as of purpose for his buriall that they are laudably mentioned in the Gospell who tooke the body of Christ from the Crosse and vsed care to haue it diligently and honorably buried And thus Origen professing q Origen coÌ„t Cels lib. 8. Solas rationales animas honorare nouimus earli instrumenta solenni honore sepulturae dignamur Meretur enim rationalis animae domicilium non temerè proijci sicut brutorum cadauera praesertim quod fuit anima benè ac sanctè instrumento suâ— in certaâ—inibus vsae receptâ—culum to honour only the soules endued with reason sheweth what this honour is Their instruments that is their bodies we vouchsafe the solemne honour of buriall For the habitation of the reasonable soule is of more worth then carelesly to be cast away like the carkasses of brute beasts specially that which hath beene the receptacle of a soule that hath in spirituall fights and combates well and holily vsed the body Now if it be the honour that is to be done to the bodies of the Saints to bury them in the ground then is it a barbarous dishonour that is done to them in Popery vnder the name of piety to pull them out of their graues and to rent them in peeces and carry one peece this way and another another way the skull to one place the toe or finger to another one tooth hither and another thither as amongst them hath beene accustomed to be done Wherein how farre they haue departed from the ancient Church of Rome appeareth by Gregory Bishop of Rome who for his time affirmeth that r Gregor lib. 3. Epist 30. In Romanis totius OccideÌ„tis partibus omnino intolerabile est atque sacrilegum si sactorum corpora tagere quisquam fortassè praesumpserit Quod sl praesumpserit certum est quia bâ—c temeritas impunita nullo mâ—do remanebit in the Roman Church and whole Westerne parts it was a thing altogether intollerable and a matter of sacriledge to presume to touch the bodies of the Saints and if any man doe presume so to doe saith he certaine it is that his rashnesse shall by no meanes remaine vnpunished And hauing shewed diuers examples of them who aduenturing too neare to the stirâ—ing or touching of the bodies of some holy persons were thereupon greatly frighted or by death miscarried he concludeth Å¿ Ibid. Quis tam temerarius possit existere vt hâ—c sciens â—orum corpora non dico tangere sed vel aliquatenùs praesumat inspicere Who then knowing these things can be so rash as that he will presume I will not say to touch the bodies of such but in any sort to looke vpon them How is the world now changed in the Church of Rome that they dare not only looke vpon such buryed relikes but pull them out of their graues touch them kisse them carry them about as hath beene before said and will M. Bishop still notwithstanding be so impudent as to say that the religion of the church of Rome is now the same that of old it was For conclusion of this passage he alleageth t Heb. 11. 21. that Iacob adored the toppe of Iosephs rodde which was a signe of his power which he saith giueth all iudicious men to vnderstand that the Images of Saints for their holy representation ought to be respected and worshipped But what a spiâ—e hath the Apostle put him to thus to seeke for Images vpon the toppe of Iosephs rodde What meant he to be so sparing in the behalfe of the Roman Church as that hee would not name so much as one holy man to whom an Image had beene set vp to be worshipped in his name But the Apostle knew no such Marry M. Bâ—shop is able by a Romish art to supply that want by fetching an image out of the toppe of Iosephs rodde He had heard of Garnets image in the straw and hee thought the toppe of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rodde or staffe to bee much more capable of an image But for the bringing of this about hee betaketh himselfe to a translation which is manifestly false the Greeke text not saying that he worshipped the toppe of his rodde but â— he worshipped vpon the toppe of his rodde that is as we translate it hee worshipped God leaning vpon the end or toppe of his staffe This Thomas Aquinas acknowledgeth and telleth vs the whole reason hereof u Tho. Aquin. in Heb. 11. sect 5. Super fastigium vt habetur in Graeco c. Ipse erat senex ideò portabat virgam vel recepit sceptrum Joseph donec iâ—rasset antequam redderet ei adorauit non ipsam virgam nec Joseph vt quidam malè putaueruÌ„t sed ipsum Deum innixus ad cacumen vel super fastigium virgae cius Iacob was an old man saith he and therefore carried a rodde or staffe or else he tooke the scepter of Ioseph vntill Ioseph had sworne namely that he would bury his father in Canaan according to his desire and before he restored it to him he worshipped not the rodde nor Ioseph as some haue thought amisse but God himselfe leaning at the toppe or vpon the toppe of his rodde We neede no more this is enough to dash M. Bishop out of comfort and to bereaue him of all hope to finde any succour for his Images in this place But if any man desire further satisfaction let him see this place handled at large in the question of Images the sixteenth section W. BISHOP §. 5. WIth as great facility and no lesse perspicuity we doe collect out of S. Paul that the Saints in heauen are to be prayed vnto for he doth hartily craue the Rom. 15. ver 30. Romans to helpe him in their prayers and hopeth by the helpe of the Corinthians prayers to be deliuered 2. Cor. 1. ver 11. from great dangers Whence we reason thus If such a holy man as S. Paul was stood in neede of other mens prayers much more neede haue we poore wretches of the prayers of Saints S. Paul was not ignorant how ready God is to heare vs nor of the only mediation of Christ Iesus and yet as high as he was in Gods fauour and as well informed of the office of
is therein approued by the Councell of Ephesus n Cyril Epist 10. ad Nestor Nec praeter ipsum alteri cuipid homini siue sacerdotij nomen siue rem ipsam ascribimus We ascribe not the name of Priesthood or the thing it selfe to any other but to Christ only o August coÌ„t Faust l. 22. c. 17 Vnus verus Sacerdos Mediator Dei hominum c. The only true Priest as St. Austin calleth him p Ibid. l. 20. c. 18. Verum sacrificium c. quo eius Altare solus Christus impleuit Who only saith he hath filled Gods Altar with true sacrifice Whilest he limiteth the sacrifice of Christ to his q Heb. 7. 27. 10. 10. once offering of himselfe r Heb. 9. 12. by the shedding of his bloud and denyeth plainly his Å¿ Heb. 7. 27. 9. 1. 25. often offering he disclaimeth the Popish sacrifice which is often offered not from yeare to yeare only but from day to day after the manner of the Leuiticall sacrifice which is therefore argued not to haue taken away sinnes t Heb. 10. 1. 2. because it was often offered For u Vers 18. where there is remission of sinnes there is no more offering for sinne Where there is therefore still offering for sinne there is a deniall of the purchase of remission of sinnes But in the x Mat. 26. 28. shedding of the bloud of Christ who doubteth but that there is remission of sinnes Who then can doubt but that after the shedding of the bloud of Christ there is no more offering or sacrifice for sinne Therefore St. Austin saith y Aug. cont aduersar leg proph lib. 1. cap. 18. Singulari solo vero sacrificio Christi pro nobis sanguis effususest For the soueraigne and only true sacrifice the bloud of Christ was shed for vs. If the shedding of the bloud of Christ be the only true sacrifice then is there no true sacrifice in the Popish Masse and therefore St. Austin neuer vnderstood the Apostles words of any Popish sacrifice Well though the Apostle say nothing for the sacrifice yet he saith somewhat M. Bishop telleth vs for the principall part of the Masse which is the Reall presence But what is the Reall presence now the principall part of the Masse They will haue vs by the Masse to vnderstand a sacrifice and the Reall presence may stand without any sacrifice and so by this meanes wee shall haue a Masse without a Masse But what saith the Apostle for the Reall presence Forsooth he deliuereth it in as expresse termes as may be euen as he had receiued it from our Lord This is my body which shall be deliuered for you c. and addeth that he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord. Wee see the wordes we reade them daylie but we cannot see in them the Reall presence Christ saith there This is my body but he doth not say This is my body really present He telleth vs that the vnworthy receiuer incurreth iudgement for not discerning the Lords body but he doth not tell vs that this is for not discerning his body really present M. Bishop should here haue giuen vs a sound reason that these wordes doe necessarily enforce a reall presence and cannot be verified but by the granting thereof For if there may be another interpretation of these wordes standing well with Scriptures approued by Fathers confonant and agreeable to the nature of all Sacraments then how childishly how vainly doth he deale only to set downe the place and to say it is a proofe for the reall presence Nay see how by alleaging places in this sort he circumuenteth himselfe and destroyeth by one place that which he seeketh to fortifie by another For whereas Transubstantiation is the foundation and ground of Reall presence the latter place which he citeth is the bane of Transubstantiation and giueth vs a conuenient and true exposition of the former wordes without any necessity of Reall presence For how can it stand which the Apostle saith z 1. Cor. 10. 16. The bread which we breake is the coÌ„munion of the body of Christ if the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation be true that there is no bread to breake It is true which St. Paul saith that it is bread which we breake therefore it is false which the Papists say that the bread by consecration is substantially turned into the body of Christ and ceaseth thenceforth to be bread And this the Apostle inculcateth againe and againe in the former place a 1. Cor. 11. 26. 27. 28. As oft as yee shall eate of this bread c. Whosoeuer shall eate of this bread c. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread c. and yet notwithstanding all this it must be denyed to be bread But of this bread he telleth vs that it is the communion or participation of the body of Christ and thereby giueth vs a true and certaine exposition of the wordes of Christ This is my body that is this bread is the communion or participation of my body signifying that though in naturall substance and being it be but bread yet by sacramentall vnderstanding and effect it is to the due and faithfull receiuer the communion of the body of Christ. For by Gods institution and ordinance b Cypr. serm de Resurrect Christi Quod videtur nomine virtute Christi corpus censetur the visible element as Cyprian saith is accounted both in name and power the body of Christ and therefore in the due receiuing of the Sacrament is the participating of Christs body as on the other side the not discerning of the Sacrament is the not discerning of the body of Christ which to vs the Sacrament is though in it selfe it be not so Now the body of Christ is here vnderstood as giuen for vs and his bloud as shedde for vs and therefore the communion of the body and bloud of Christ is the participation of his Passion Death and Resurrection so that the Sacrament is to vs as Optatus saith c Optat. cont Parmen lib. 6. Pignus salutis aeternae tutela sidei spes resurrectionis the pledge of eternall life the protection of our faith the hope of our resurrection There was cause therefore why our Sauiour Christ should say of the Sacrament This is my body because to vs it is in effect the body of Christ though really it be not so but d Tertuâ—l coÌ„t Marc. lib. 4 Hoc est corpus mâ—um id est figura corporis mei the figure of his body as Tertullian expoundeth e August coÌ„t Adima â—t c. 12. Non dubitauit Dominus dicere Hoc est corpus meum cum daret signum corporis sui the signe of his body as St. Austin speaketh f Hieron in Mat 16. Vt veritatem corporis sangâ—â—is sui