by occasion to a comparison betwixt the new that is and that that of old was the religion of the Church of Rome consisting specially of three parts In the first I shewed that neither the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans which is the briefe of the religion which they at the first receiued and containeth as I shewed out of Theodoret all manner doctrine of faith nor yet the two Epistles of S. Peter whom they make the founder of their Church doe containe any defence of the doctrine now taught at Rome but doe teach only our religion In the second I set downe sundry definitions and doctrines of the ancient Roman faith deliuered by the Bishops of Rome and other Authours that haue witnessed the doctrine of that Church wholly consonant and agreeable to that that we teach and altogether impugned by the Roman Church that now is In the third I declared that there were sundry heresies condemned of old by the Roman Church which the Church of Rome now embraceth and defendeth The points of this comparison I then set downe only positiuely the occasion requiring no more not respecting what cauillations the aduersary might bring for oppugning thereof the matter being by that light that I gaue very cleare that the Church of Rome is not now the same that it was of old This matter I afterwards thought worthy of a larger treatise and purposed when opportunity should serue a more full prosecution of it thinking it would bee a great comfort and establishment to the consciences of many men perhaps to some an occasion of better minde when they should see in that Church of Rome that now is such a plain repugnancy to that that of old was which notwithstanding taketh vpon it impudently to haue beene alwaies the same and to bee the only certaine rule and oracle of true faith In this meane time Doctor Bishop fearing lest his silence should make his cause suspicious and therefore thinking it necessary whether right or wrong to say somewhat publiâ—â—eth A Reproofe of the defence of the Reformed Catholike setting vnder this title a Gorgons head to affright all men concerning me as hauing abused Gods sacred word mangled misapplyed and falsified the ancient Fathers sentences so that whosoeuer hath any due care of his owne saluation can neuer hereafter credit me in matter of faith and religion Concerning which hideous outcry of my falsifications I referre thee to the Aduertisement which I haue added to my third part of the defence of the Reformed Catholike where thou shalt see that as hee hath laied himselfe open so I haue scourged him accordingly But in that Reproofe of his very little is it that hee hath said for iustifying what he himselfe had before written not being able indeede to defend any one point thereof only he found somewhat whereof to cauill concerning my debating of the name Catholike and the comparison which I made betwixt the old and new Roman Church and thereof as touching the matter of substance he hath framed his booke To this therefore I haue addressed my description of the ancient Roman Catholike forbearing that more orderly course which I had intended for the performance of this worke and choosing rather to follow him steppe by steppe as formerly I haue done only beginning where hee commeth to the purpose and leauing all his vagaries and affected discourses to be more briefly touched in the end of all Of this worke I haue yet finished but only one part wherin I haue at large discouered their vaine ostentation of the Catholike name and faith and shewed plainely that the Romish religion now accordeth not with S. Pauls Epistle to the Romans no nor with his other Epistles which M. Bishop calleth to assist him because he findeth nothing to helpe him in that Epistle to the Romans In all which I haue beene carefull gentle Reader to giue thee satisfaction by the cleare testimony either of some learned Bishops of Rome or of some other famously approued and commended in that Church Being now required a seruice of another kinde so that I cannot yet goe forward with the rest I haue thought good to publish this in the meane time If I haue promised any thing in this that is not here performed expect it in that that is to come Assist me I pray thee with thy prayers vnto almighty God by whose grace I hope in due time to supply that that is wanting now The Contents of this Booke CHAP. I. THat the Church of Rome doth vaineâ—y and absurdly challenge to it selfe the name of the Catholike Church and hath no priuiledge from God either of superiority in gouernement or stability in faith CHAP. II. The comparison betwixt the Papists and the Donatists is iustified and enlarged CHAP. III. That the name of Catholikes is abused by the Papists and is in their abuse a Donatisticall and hatefull name of faction and schisme that being in that sort substantiuely and personally vnderstood it was not vsed for three hundred yeares after Christ and therefore being abused may bee left againe that Popery properly so called is nothing but additions of latter time to our religion 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 M. Bishops proofes for Popery out of the old Testament are shewed to be ridiculous and vaine In the end is a briefe defence of the Kings supremacy in causes Ecclesiasticall CHAP. V. That faith and religion cannot be safely grounded on the example of Fathers and fore-fathers and that the Popish agents and factours doe in this pretence also abuse the credulity of ignorant men CHAP. VI. That the reasons of Popery where there is not a minde preiudicate are not vrgent or forcible and that M. Bishop was iustly censured for that in repeating a rule deliuered by the Kings Maiestie for iudgement of true religion he left out some words thereof CHAP. VII Of the flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome and of the testimony of Theodoret concerning fulnesse of doctrine contained in the Epistle to the Romans and that the Apostle there condemneth Popery of idolatry in worshipping Saints and Images CHAP. VIII That iustification before God consisteth not in proceeding from faith to workes but in the continuation of faith to faith and that this faith notwithstanding cannot be separated from charity and good workes CHAP. IX That the iustification of man before God is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes CHAP. X. That eternall life is meerly and wholly the gift of God and cannot be purchased by merit or desert CHAP. XI That concupiscence or lust is sinne euen in the very habit and first motions of it CHAP. XII Of the spirit of adoption giuing witnesse to the faithfull that they are the sonnes of God CHAP. XIII That the good workes or sufferings of this life are not meritorious or worthy
men p Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentâ—rem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt vndique fideles in que semper abhis qui sunt vndique conseruata est ea qua est ab Apostolis Traditiâ— To this Church saith he because of her more potent principality it is necessary for euery Church to accord that is the faithfull euery where wherein the Tradition which came from the Apostles hath beene alwaies preserued Now take this reason added by Ireneus which by M. Bishop is concealed and it will plainly appeare why it was necessary for other Churches to accorde with the Church of Rome For this Church for the renowme and famousnesse of the place being then the seate of the Empire was the most eminent Church in the world and therefore continuing still in the doctrine of the Apostles without alteration or change it was most fit of all other to be propounded as a patterne to other Churches whereto to conforme themselues and with which whosoeuer accordeth not did thereby swarue from the doctrine of the Apostles But the case is now altered because the Church of Rome it selfe is now questioned for swaruing from the Tradition of the Apostles which being so that cannot be said to be necessary now which was necessary so long as shee continued in that Tradition And thus sarre we finde only a necessity of consenting then in doctrine with the Church of Rome but for her superiority in gouernement wee finde nothing Yes saith M. Bishop for Ireneus attributeth to the Church of Rome a mightier or more potent principality which what should it import will he say but a superiority of Dominion and gouernment ouer all other Churches But I answer him that principality doth not enforce soueraignty and dominion for he himselfe is holden for a principall man amongst the Seminary Priests and yet hee hath no rule or dominion ouer them Principality importeth specialty and chiefty and noteth an honour of estimation and account and thus the Church of Rome though hauing no title of dominion for ruling and gouerning yet had the honour to bee a chiefe and principall aboue other Churches Now principality is alwayes potent and they that are chiefe and eminent aboue others sway much by their example and perswasion and their very names are very auailable to induce other whom notwithstanding they haue no authority to command according to that which Hilary saith that q Hilar. Epist apud August tom 7. Plureâ— sunt in Ecclesia qui authoritate nominum in sententia tenentur aut ad sententiam transferuâ—tur in the Church there are many who by authority of names are moued either to hold still their opinion or to alter and change the same Such and no other was the potent principality of the Church of Rome and thus doth Ireneus in the same place say that that Church r Iren. vt supr scrip Sit qua est Româ— Ecclesia potentissimas literas Coâ—inthijs c. wrote most potent letters to the Corinthians namely such as were effectuall and strong to moue them and the rather for that they came from such a famous and renowmed place And that M. Bishop may vnderstand that I doe not answere him by a deuice of mine but according to the truth he shall find that Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome Å¿ Cypr. lib. 1. Epist 3. Ad Petri Cathedram Ecclesiam principalem c. the principall Church and yet in the same place he denieth t Ibid. Nauigare audent ad Petri CathedraÌ„ c. Oportet eos quibus praesumâ—s non circumcursare c. Nisi paucis dâ—speratis â—erditis minor esse videtur authoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorlâ— c. the authority of the Bishops of Africa to be inferiour to the Bishop of Rome And thus the African Councell acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be u Conc. Afric cap. 6. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princâ—ps Sacerdotum aut summus Sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodi sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus the first or principall Sea and the Bishop thereof they terme the Bishop of the first or principall Sea and yet they denied to the Bishops of Rome to haue any authority ouer them Yea when Zozimus Bonifacius and Celestmus challenged the same by a forged Canon of the Nicene Councell those x Ibid. c. 101. Quia hic in nullo câ—diâ—â— Grâ—câ— ea poâ—â—imus inuenirâ— ex Orientalibus Ecclesijs vbi perhibetur eadem decreta posse etiam authentica reperiri magis nobis desideramus adferri African Bishops for the disprouing thereof sent to the Patriarches of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople for authenticall copies of the said Councell wherein they found no such matter and y Ibid. c. 105. Vt aliqui tanquam à tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur nulla inuenimus patrum Synodo constitutum Quod ex parte Nicem Concilij transmisistis in Concilijs verioribus tale aliquid non potuimus reperâ—â—e Executores Cleâ—icos vestros quibusque petentibus nolite mittere c. thereupon wrote to Celestinus that he should forbeare to send his Legates to entermeddle in their matters and z Ibid. c. 92. Non prouocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad primates Prouinciarium sâ—â—rum ad transmarina autem qui putauerit appellandum à nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiatur forbad all appeales saue to their owne Councels excommunicating them that presumed to appeale to Rome and in this recusancy of subiection they continued afterwards for the space of an hundred yeares vntill Eulalâ—â—s the Bishop of Carthage if it be true which is reported of him and not coyned at Rome betrayed the liberty of that Church and submitted the same to Boniface the second who doubted not most wickedly to say of those African Bishops of whom the learned Father St. Austin was one that a Bonifac. 2. Epist ad Eulal tom 2. Concil Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiâ— olim Episcopus cum collegis suis infâ—igante Diabolo superbire teÌ„poribâ— praedecessorum Bonifacij atque Celestini coÌ„tra RomanaÌ„ Ecclesiam coepit by the instigation of the Diuell they had then begunne proudly to demeane themselues against the Church of Rome As for that potent principality of the Roman Church and necessity of according therewith which M. Bishop intendeth Polycarpus knew it b Euseb hist l. 5. c. 23. Neque enim Anicetâ— suadere Polycarpâ— poterat ne seruaret c. quae semper seruauerat not when he would not be perswaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome to keepe the feast of Easter according to the manner of the Church of Rome Neither did c Ibid. cap. 22. Episcopis per Asiam qui morem ipsis ab antiquo traditum retineÌ„dum esse affirmabant prâ—erat Polycrates Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus with the rest of the Churches of Asia acknowledge
I will take it here in his due place making it to appeare that this mistaking in a circumstance altereth nothing of the substance of that comparison which I had there in hand The first branch then of the comparison shall bee this The Donatists did set vp a particular Church to be the Catholike Church all of them first in the south of Africa some of them afterwards namely the Rogatists at Cartenna in Mauritania and so haue the Papists done at Rome in Italie Against this branch as it was before set downe hee giueth two exceptions First that they doe not hold it so to be at Rome aâ— the Rogatists did at Cartenna And what is the difference Marry they hold it to be so at Rome as that it is dispersed also all the world ouer but the Rogatists held it to be wholly included in the bounds of Cartenna and confines thereof The first part of which answere on their owne behalfe is false and the second part thereof concerning the Rogatists is vaine For it is false that hee saith that their Romish Church is dispersed all the world ouer and hee knoweth well that the Churches of Greece and all the Easterne Churches are holden by them to be Schismatikes because they disclaime subiection to the Church of Rome True it is they would haue it all the world ouer and they make simple fooles beleeue that it is so but they themselues know that the skirts of it are too short to reach so farre and that a huge part of the Church there is that will haue nothing to doe with them And this drew from Bellarmine that caution that I before mentioned in the first Chapter that a Supra cap. 1. §. 1. though one only Prouince did imbrace the true faith yet the same should truly and properly be called the Catholike Church so long as it could bee plainly shewed that it is one and the same with that which at any time or times was ouer the whole world Now hereof it followeth that the other part of his exception concerning the Rogatists is vaine For although the communion of the Church of Rome be farre larger then that was of the Rogatists at Cartenna yet doth neither of them containe any more but a part and their doctrine as touching their communion sorteth all to one For whereas M. Bishop saith that the Rogatists included the Church within the bounds of Cartenna and the Countrey thereabout it was not by position of doctrine that they so included it as if it could not be any where else but because they pretended that the Church was only in their communion and there were none in any other part of the world that tooke part with them it followeth of this defect that they so included it But though there were now not aboue b Aug. Epist 48. Tu cum decem Rogatistis quâ— remansistis c. ten or eleuen Bishops of them remayning as Saint Austin obiecteth to them yet by that hee vpbraideth them with this number remayning it appeareth that they had beene of greater number and extent and wee cannot doubt but that they would as willingly haue had the whole world to ioyne with them as the Church of Rome would Now inasmuch as they held themselues only to bee the Catholike Church And there were none of them otherwhere to bee found to Baptise and reconcile peâ—itents but only within the confines of Cartenna Saint Austin rightly obiecteth it as an absurdity ensuing thereof that c Ibid. Quisquis fâ—â—rit hac praedicatione commotus in qualibâ—t paâ—te orbis terâ—arum nisi quaesierit inuenerit latentâ—m in Mauritania Caesariensi Cartennensem Vincentium aut aliquem ex cius nouâ—m aut decem conâ—ortibus dimitti ei peccata non posâ—int c. Nisi Cartennas venerit aut in viâ—â—iam Cartennensium mundari omninâ—â— delictis suis non potâ—rit then whosoeuer there were in any part of the world that were moued with the preaching of the Gospell vnlesse he did seeke and finde out Vincentius Bishop of Cartenna lurking in Mauritania Caesariensis or some one of his nine or ten consorts he could not haue remission of sinnes or as otherwise hee expresseth it except hee came to Cartenna or into the Countrey neare adioyning hee could not bee clensed from his sinnes Now although the Roman Church as M. Bishop vnderstandeth it is of much larger extent and stretcheth it selfe into sundry Countries and Nations yet being but of small compasse in comparison of the whole world the exprobration of the same madde fancy lyeth vpon it that whosoeuer in the further parts of the world shall be moued with the preaching of the Gospell and conuerted thereby vnlesse hee come to Rome or into some part of the world where he may meete with a Popish Priest hee cannot bee baptised or reconciled to God hee cannot obtayne the remission of his sinnes it being by them resolued of themselues as by the Rogatists of themselues that out of their particular communion there is no saluation Therefore both Rogatists and Papists let them goe together and the truth is that in this behalfe there is no difference betwixt them As touching his second exception although it bee not generally true of the Donatists that they placed the Catholike Church at Cartenna yet it is not altogether vntrue because the Rogatists were Donatists d August vt supra Vos qui non solum cum illis communiter Donatistae a Donato verumetiam propriè Rogatisâ—â— a Rogatâ— appâ—llâ—nuâ— being in common with the rest called Donatists of Donatus as Saâ—nt Austin noteth and by a more proper name Rogatists of Rogatus For although they had in some spleene and vpon some peâ—uish quarrell diuided themselues from the rest yet the substance of their doctrine was still the same as before as appeareth by St. Austin who disputing against Vincentius the Rogatist chargeth him in effect with nothing else but the common positions of the Donatists and therefore they were all at once coÌ„monly comprehended vnder the name of Donatists The Donatists then though not all the Donatists but of them the Rogatists only placed the Catholike church at Cartenna and to the Rogatists then being a part of the Donatists the Papists are like who doe in the same sort place the Catholike Church at Rome Yea and although the Donatists in generall did not seate the Church at Cartenna yet M. Bishop is not ignorant that they in generall before some quarrelling fell amongst them did in effect the same thing by designing the place thereof in Africa properly so called so as that none should be called Catholikes in any part of the world but such as did communicate with that African Church of theirs For although they acknowledged that the Church by the preaching of the Apostles had beene dispersed ouer the world according to the manifold testimonies and prophecies of holy Scripture in that behalfe which they professed to beleeue â—et they said that c Aug. de
vnit Ecclesiae c. 12. Ista inquiunt credimus copleta esse cofitemur sed postea oâ—bis terrarum apostatauit sola remaâ—sit Donati communio 〈…〉 postea cap. 15 Postea câ—terâ—s deâ—icientibus solam Christo Asâ—icam remansisse the Church afterward fell away by Apostasie and there remained only the communion of Donatus that the rest failing there remained to Christ Africa only Whereupon it was vrged vpon them as consequent of this opinion that either f Ibid cap. 16. Ostendat Ecclesiam vel in sola Africa perditis tot gentibus retinendam vel ex Africa in omnibus gentibus reparadam atque adimplâ—dam â—t ibid. Declaretur Africa vel in reliquis sola derelâ—cta vel ad priacip 〈…〉 â—â—nouandi atque implendi orbis solâ—â—â—ruata the Church was to be retained thenceforth in Africa only or else that from thence as the beginning the Churches of the whole world were to be repaired and restored againe The former they disauowed because they had their partakers till there fell out distraction amongst them not only in Africa but also in g Ibid. cap. 3. Epist 48. Mauritania Caesariensis in Tripolis Byzacium amongst the Auzuges in h Idem cont lit Petil. lib. 2. cap. 108. Spaine yea and at Rome also as followeth to bee said hereafter Yea by the wordes of the Catholike Bishops to Marcellinus the Lieutenant i Collat. cum Donatist 1. c. 16. Neque enim desperare debemus multò digniùs sacilius â—os velle vt parâ— Donati vniuerso â—rbi Christiano reconcilietur quà m vniuersus orbis Christianuâ— Ã parte Donati rebaptizetur hoping that the Donatists would thinke it more meete and more easie that their part should be reconciled to the whole world then that the whole world should be rebaptized by them it appeareth plainly that their opinion did not exclude the hauing of their communion throughout the whole world It remained therefore that Africa was to be as it were the head and foundation of their Catholike Church and from thence the Church through the world was to bee renued and restored againe by holding communion and fellowship with that Church Euen in the same sort standeth the matter with the Papists who tell vs that the Church in all the farre parts of the world hath failed that k Rhem. Testam Annotat. 2. Thess 2. 3. the Patriarchall and Apostolike Seas are all either extinguished or by Schisme and Heresie fallen away and only the Roman Church hath remained wherein only is the communion of the Catholike faith and whence the Church through the whole world is to be reedified and reduced to the obedience of the Pope And to that purpose they tell vs of strange wonders that they haue done and make as if they had conuerted whole worlds of nations to their Roman faith when as indeede they doe but mocke the world with lies and tales talking liberally of Countries whither they know it vnlikely for vs to come to search out whether they speake truth or not and the nations which they pretend to haue conuerted being either colonies of their owne people transported thither or some Insidels forced to accept baptisme without religion or such as by wiles they haue surprised to make profit of by trafficke and merchandise as in Iaponia the Iesuits most lewdly and trecherously haue done Thus then M. Bishop auoiding to be like the Donatists by putting the matter spoken of ouer to the Rogatists is in this point become like both to Rogatists and Donatists by tying the seate of the Catholike Church to one only particular place W. BISHOP §. 2. THe second is not vnlike The Donatists would haue the Church to be called Catholike not by reason of the communion and society therof through the whole world but by reason of the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments which they falsly challenged to themselues the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to her selfe Here are many faults the first is a grosse lie in the chiefe branch for the Donatists did not call the Church Catholike for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments see S. Augustine in both places who expresly deliuereth that it was for the fulnesse of Sacraments Ex plenitudine Sacramentorum Breui collat cap. 2. dici 3. Epist 48. or for the obseruation of all Gods Commandements Ex obseruatione omnium diuinorum praeceptorum of perfection of doctrine they said not one word they were more sharpe-witted as S. Augustine obserueth then to goe about to proue vniuersality by perfection which is not vniuersall But seeing well that they could not defend their congregation to be Catholike that is vniuersall but by some kinde of vniuersality they defended it to be so called for the vniuersality and fulnesse of Sacraments and Commandements that is because their Church retained all the Sacraments that the Catholikes did and professed to keepe all Gods Commandements as fully as they M. Abbots former fault then in this second point of resemblance and that a foule one is in that he belieth the Donatists And more palpably should he haue belyed the Roman Church if hee had iustly brought in the resemblance to wit if he had said as due proportion required that we hold our Church to be Catholike as the Donatists did theirs for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments which is so manifestly vntrue and so clearly against the doctrine of all Catholike writers that he that was wont to blush at nothing seemeth yet ashamed to auouch it openly and yet doth at last traile it in deceitfully As for perfection of doctrine and Sacraments though it be only in the Catholike Church yet it is so farre wide from the signification and vse of the word Catholike that none except such wise-men as M. Abbot is doe thinke any thing to be Catholike because it is perfect R. ABBOT THe second branch of this comparison betwixt the Papists and the Donatists I set downe thus The Donatists would haue the Church to be called Catholike not by reason of the communion and society thereof through the whole world but by reason of the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments which they falsly chalenged to themselues and the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to it selfe and will therefore be called the Catholike Church M. Bishop saith that there are many faults here yet he reckoneth but only two belike he would haue me thinke that he doth me a fauour to let passe the rest As touching the first he very grosly telleth me that in the chiefe branch there is a grosse lye for the Donatists saith he did not call the Church Catholike for perfection of doctrine and Sacraments For what then Marry for the fulnesse of Sacraments and for the obseruation of all Gods Commandements Well it is true indeede that Saint Austin challengeth Vincentius a Aug Epist 48. Acutum aliquid videris dicere cum Catholicâ—e nomen non ex totius orbis communione
interpretaris sed ex obseruatione omnium praeceptorum diuinorum omnium Sacramentorum for interpreting the word Catholike not of the communion of the whole world but fâ—r the obseruation of all Gods Commandements and all the Sacraments and in the other place bringeth them in saying that b Breuic collar cum Donatist diâ— 3. cap. 2. Donatistâ—e responderunt non Catholicum nomen ex vniuersitate gentium sed ex pâ—enitudine Sacramentoruâ—â— institutum the word was instituted not to import vniuersality of nations but fulnesse of Sacraments but did I amisse for a briefe hereof to name perfection of doctrine and Sacraments Is not fulnesse of Sacraments the same with perfection of Sacraments and when they professed the obseruation of all Gods Commandements did they not thereby pretend an obseruation both to teach and practise all that God had commanded and is there not perfection of doctrine in teaching all Or if M. Bishop be foolishly wilfull and will say still that he seeth not perfection of doctrine in those wordes yet he might haue seene it in the very next wordes to those that I alleaged where St. Austin expresseth the Donatists conceipt in other termes thus that c Idem Epist 48. Si sorte hinc sit appellata Catholica quod totum veraciter teneat the Church is called Catholike for that it holdeth all wholly what but the whole Christian faith according to truth for what is perfection of doctrine but the holding of all according to truth And whereas he saith that St. Austin obserueth the Donatists to bee more sharpe-witted then to goe about to proue vniuersality by perfection a very ridiculous iest because Austin only in mockery telleth Vincentius that hee seemed to himselfe in so expounding the world Catholike as before to speake very acutely and wittily meaning that he did nothing lesse let Gaudentius himselfe a Donatist and a chiefe man amongst them tell him that by Catholike they did meane perfect d Coliat 3. â—um Donatist cap. 102. Hoc est Catholicum nomen quod Sacramentis plâ—num est quod perfectum quod immaculatum The word Catholike importeth that which is full in Sacraments which is perfect which is vnspotted Now then as I haue in this point belyed the Donatists euen so and no otherwise in the application doe I belye the Roman Church M. Bishop saith that I should haue belyed them if I had sâ—id as due proportion required that they hold their Church to be Catholike as the Donatists did theirs for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments But was he blinde and did he not see that I said so much Are not my wordes very expresse and cleare The same perfection of doctrine and Sacraments the Church of Rome now arrogateth to it selfe and will therefore be called the Catholike Church And what doe I therein belye the Roman Church Aske his owne fellow Bristow the great Motiue-Master who saith to Doctor Fulke e Reply to Fulke Chap. 10. Dem. 6. We tell you with the wordes of St. Austin that the Church our Mother is called Catholike of this because shee is vniuersally perfect and halteth in nothing though the Donatists and other like Heretikes doe neuer so much triumph in that interpretation and is spred ouer all the world Both interpretations agree to our Mother saith he and we claime them accordingly And it is true indeede that St. Austin in a worke which he wrote in his yonger time and which hee himselfe for the imperfection thereof f August Retract l. 1. c. 18. Quâ—m neque â—d deram abolere decreueram had purposed wholly to suppresse doth giue that double interpretation of the word Catholike that the Church is so called g IdeÌ„ de Gen. ad lit imperf cap. 1. Quae Catholica diâ—itur ex eo quòd vniuersalitèr perfecta est in nullo â—laudicat per totum orbem dissusa est not only fâ—r that it is spred ouer all the world but also for that it is vniuersally perfect and halteth in nothing but in his further experience and iudgement hauing speciall occasion to discusse and examine that point he leaueth that interpretation wholly to the Donatists and neuer vouchsafeth once to make mention of it In the meane time notwithstanding seeing Bristow a Catholike writer of their creation hath so affirmatiuely told vs and claimed it to the Church of Rome to be Catholike in that sense let it be considered with what discretion M. Bishop saith that so to say of them is manifestly vntrue and clearely against the doctrine of all Catholike writers And whereas he concludeth that perfection of doctrine and Sacraments though it be only found in the Catholike Church yet is so farre wide from the signification and vse of the word Catholike that none except such wise men as M. Abbot is doe thinke any thing to be Catholike because it is perfect to say nothing that St. Austin when he gâ—ue that construction was vndoubtedly as wise as M. Bishop let the same wise M. Bishop tell vs what he thinketh of Cyril of Hierusalem who amongst diuers reasons of the name of the Catholike Church giueth one that it is so called h Cyril Hierosol Catech. 18. Quia docet Catholicè hoc est vniuersalâ—tèr sine vllo defectâ— vel differentia omnia dogmata quae deberent veâ—re in cognitionem because it teacheth Catholikely that is vniuersally and without any defect or difference all doctrines that are to be knowen Yea let him tell vs what he thinketh of Pacianus whom he named before as his Authour for i Pacian ad Symphâ—â—ian Catholicus vt doctiâ—es pâ—tant obedientia omnium nuncupatur â—â—ndatorum scilicet Dei Catholike to be the surname to Christian who noteth it for the opinion of the learned that Catholike signifieth obedience to all the Commandements of God Which I say not as to approue that which either Austin or Cyril or Pacâ—anus haue said in that behalfe but that it may appeare what wise men M. Bishop maketh of the Fathers yea and of his owne fellowes when he list not â—lieking to crosse both the one and the other so that hee can thereby shift for the present to saue himselfe But Bristow is our witnesse as we haue seene that the Church of Rome doth call it selfe Catholike as the Donatists did for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments and M. Bishop hath shewed himselfe scantly wise in the deniall of it because it being manifest to all that are not blinde that it is a meere foppery and cogging deuice of theirs to say that the Roman Church is spred ouer the whole world either he must proue the same to be Catholike by perfection of doctrine or else it must wholly leaue the name of the Catholike Church W. BISHOP §. 3. THe third particle of the resemblance is That from Cartenna the Donatists ordayned Bishops to other Countries euen to Rome it selfe And from Rome by the Papists order Bishops be
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
the Scots in the doctrine of the Church of Rome euen as Augustine was from S. Gregory into England From which the Scots Church neuer swarued vntill of late yeares Knoxe Buchanan and such like giddy headed and fiery spirited fellowes seduced them And M. Abbot most ignorantly or impudently affirmeth it to haue beene 1200. yeares after the incarnation of Christ ere the Popes authority could get any acknowledgment there for in the very same hundreth yeare by him named they were so farre off from denying the Popes authority ouer them in causes Ecclesiasticall that they did acknowledge him to be also their Protectour in temporall affaires For when King Edward the third would haue giuen them Iohn Balial for their King they answered him That they would not accept of him for such Walsingham in vita Edw. Anno 1292. without the Popes consent who had their country in protection as they then pleaded And M. Abbots argument to the contrary is most friuoulous Alexander the King bade the Popes Legate to enter his country at his perill ergo he did not acknowledge the Popes authority By the like argument one might proue that King Philip and Queene Mary did not acknowledge the Popes authority for they commanded a Legate of his to stay at Calis and to forbeare entrance into this Realme at his perill The Popes Legates then when they be sent about affaires that doe seeme to the Prince and his Councell preiudicious to the temporall slate may be refused without disparagement to the Popes supreme authority in causes Ecclesiasticall And the King of Scots had reason to refuse that Cardinall Legate whose speciall arrand was to collect money to maintaine the warres of the holy Land which was not to be spared in his Countrey Besides the very entertainement of such a great State so accompanied was reputed as needlesse so ouer costly for that poore Countrey If M. Abbot haue no better stuffe then this to vphold his badde cause he that best knew his owne meaning and designement hath to the life painted out himselfe where he saith They care not indeede what they say or write so that it may carry a magnificall and braue shew to dazell the eyes of them that are not well acquainted with their lewde and naughty dealing R. ABBOT a Bale Script BritaÌ„nic Cent. 1. oper minor PAlladius and Patritius were sent into Scotland by Celestinus Bishop of Rome to instruct the Scots against the doctrine of Pelagius the Heretike which is a certaine argument of the apostasie of the Church of Rome inasmuch as the Church of Rome now patronizeth and defendeth the doctrine of Pelagius as I haue b Of Free will sect 5. before shewed Little doth M. Bishop gaine by all this alleagement of teachers then sent from Rome We know what was then the religion of the Church of Rome and we know that the streame the longer it ranne the more soile it gathered but yet it was very pure and tollerable then in comparison of that that now it is There followeth now an assertion of mine that it was twelue hundred yeares after the incarnation of Christ ere the Popes authority could get any acknowledgement in Scotland which he saith I doe most impudently or ignorantly affirme But how doth it appeare that I so doe Forsooth in the very same hundreth yeare by him named saith he they were so farre off from denying the Popes authority ouer them in causes Ecclesiasticall that they did acknowledge him to be their Protectour in temporall affaires Marke well gentle Reader that I name twelue hundred yeares and he saith in the very same hundreth yeare and yet for the thing which he reporteth of the Scots alleaging that the Pope had their Countrey in protection he noteth the yeare 1290. which was almost a hundred yeares after the time by me set downe Be it M. Bishop that at the end of twelue hundred and ninety yeares they had receiued the Pope to be the Protectour of their Countrey that nothing hindereth the truth of my speech that for twelue hundred yeares they acknowledged not any authority of the Pope amongst them in Church affaires You should haue brought vs some records to shew that within the compasse of those twelue hundred yeares the Pope had without controllement exercised in the Realme of Scotland Ecclesiasticall and ordinary iurisdiction which seeing you doe not you iustifie my assertion and the impudency whereof you speake must be the staine of your owne face who will take vpon you to contradict me with such an impertinent and sleeuelesse tale To proue that there was no such iurisdiction acknowledged I referred the Reader to the King of Scots owne wordes who as Matthew Paris reporteth c Math. Paris in Henrico 3. Anno 1237. Volenti autem Domino Legato intrare regnum Scotiae vt ibi de negotijs Ecclesiasticis tractaret sicut in Anglia respondit Rex Scotiae Non memini Legatum in terra mea vidisse nec opus esse iquem esse vocandum Deo gratias nec adhuc opus est omnia benè se habent Nec â—tiam tempore Patris mei vel alicuius AntecessoruÌ„ meorum visus est aliquis Legatus intâ—oitum habuisse nec ego dum mei compos suero tolerabo when the Lord Legate was desirous to enter into the Kingdome of Scotland there to deale in Ecclesiasticall matters as he had done in England answered him I doe not remember that I haue seene any Legate in my Countrey nor that there hath beene any neede thanks be to God that any should be called neither is there any neede all things are well No nor in the time of my Father or of any of my Predecessours hath any Legate beene seene to haue had any entrance there neither will I suffer any so long as I am in my right wits This euidence is cleare none had entred in his time none had entred in the time of his Father or any of his Predecessours none should enter so long as he could keepe him in his right minde and though things were amisse yet none had authority to enter but as he should be called and warranted by him The same in effect he alleaged two yeares after when the Legate againe was attempting to goe into that Countrey and though after much adoe vpon intercession of the Nobles of England and Scotland he was content for once to admit him that he might not haue the disgrace of being repulsed yet it was with condition as I haue d See the Aduertisement concerning D. Bishops Reproofe sect 15. formerly declared that the said Legate should put in caution vnder his hand and seale that his entrance should not be drawen to a matter of example whereupon to presume the like another time This matter is more plaine then that M. Bishops paltry shifts can put it off King Philip and Queene Mary respited the entrance of a Legate for a time but wholly to deny him entrance for ordering matters
of that that we say that the best worke of the righteous man is stained with sinne you conclude Therefore as good to leaue all vndone as to doe any therefore all men are bound vnder paine of damnation neuer to doe any good deede I doe but only name those worthy disputes of yours referring the Reader to their proper places to see further the absurd inconsequence and vanity of them I might goe along your questions of that part and put you in minde of a great number of such illations but I will content my selfe to name an argument or two in the last only To proue the worshipping of Images e Of Images sect 16. you alleage out of the Psalme Cast downe your selues before his foote-stoole and conclude that much more Images may be worshipped Againe to proue that the Arke was worshipped you tell vs First none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was and it was carried before the campe with great solemnity when they were to fight against the Philistines they had great confidence in the presence of the Arke the Bethshamites were slaine for looking into it Oza was smitten of God for touching it You propound first that by these things it is euident that the Arke was worshipped and when you haue set them downe as it were to make your selfe ridiculous you demand Doth not all this conuince in what reuerence the Arke was had Anone f Sect. 17. after for confirmation of the same point that Images are holy and to be reuerenced you alleage that the place where Moses stood was holy ground that daies were called holy and worshipfull that the Priests Vestiments were holy from which wee wonder how you should dreame to deriue that conclusion which you intend Some man will haply excuse the matter that being towards the end of your booke you had spent your wits and knew not well what you said which we would easily admit but that we see that hauing refreshed your wits againe your arguments in this booke are found to be of the same stampe I require example out of the old Testament for the worshipping of Images and you answere that g Chap. 4. §. 3. the hauing of them in the Tabernacle and the Temple where it was neuer thought lawfull to set vp the Image of a man but only the Cheâ—ubins to vs vnknowen what they were and the pictures of Lyons and Buls and Palme trees and Flowers for garnishing the house and the sentence of the Psalmist Adore yee his foote-stoole and many such places and resemblances doe very strongly argue that Images are to be worshipped To proue the profession of Monkery amongst the Iewes you tell vs out of Iosephus of the Essees that were amongst them who with the Pharisees and Sadducees as I haue shewed were no other but Iewish Heretikes For example of Pilgrimages to Relikes and dead mens bones you answer vs that all the males amongst the Iewes were bound by the law to goe thrise in the yeare to the Temple of God at Ierusalem To make good that you may lawfully pray to haue your sinnes forgiuen by the bloud of Thomas Becket and by the same bloud to be brought to heauen you alleage that in the Psalme it is said h Ibid. §. 5. Lord remember Dauid and all his trouble To shew that St. Paul speaketh of the Masse you tell vs hereafter that i 1. Tim. 2. 1. he desireth that obsecrations prayers postulations thanks-giuings be made for all men What M. Bishop doe your iudicious Catholikes of whom you speake tell you that they like well of these proofes of yours And may not we then thinke that both you and they haue drunke of a spiced or rather an inchanted cup that will take such wilfull and affected Sophistications to be very vrgent and forcible reasons Surely M. Bishop with as much wit as you haue told vs here that some Catholikes like better of your booke then they doe of mine I might also tell you that many Protestants hauing seene these your collections and our solutions doe pitty your Catholikes that suffer themselues to be gulled and deluded with such reasonlesse reasons as before I affirmed them to be Yea so reasonlesse are they that when we haue shewed by answere how little reason there is in them we neuer doubt to commit them to the sight of all men And whereas you aske who are more circumspect then we are to keepe our followers from the reading of your bookes I aske of you what cause you your selfe haue to complaine in that behalfe Surely your bookes haue beene very openly and commonly sold and whereas you say that we imprison any that will helpe to print them you see your owne bookes printed for you and free for all men to buy that are desirous of them How many other of your books are there in the same sort common to the view of all men and by vs made common our care only being not to suffer poison to goe freely abroad without a preseruatiue therfore hauing ioyned answer to them we leaue euery one that list to reade at his liberty to iudge of both It would goe amisse with you M. Bishop if our books had that free passage amongst you that yours haue amongst vs. Your Kingdome would soone goe downe euen in Italie and Spaine if your men had liberty to reade our answeres togither with your books The last part of this passage concerneth his deliuery of a speech vttered by his Maiesty at the conference at Hampton Court That no Church ought further to separate it selfe from the Church of Rome in doctrine and ceremonie then shee hath departed from her selfe when shee was in her flourishing and best estate and from Christ her Lord and head In the rehearsall whereof I note him that subtilly he left out the last wordes And from Christ her Lord and head He telleth me that I shew no cause why I doe so and that indeede none can be shewed because they are needlesse wordes and comprehended in the former But we suppose that he needeth more vnderstanding that conceiueth those wordes to be needlesse which are no otherwise comprehended in the former then as the former are expounded by them For although in right meaning it be true which he saith that if the Church of Rome be not departed from her selfe when shee was in her flourishing and best estate shee cannot bee departed from Christ her Lord and head yet such a meaning he may make of her flourishing and best estate as that in that estate shee may be found somewhat to haue departed from Christ her Lord and head His Maiestie therefore to preuent this with great iudgement added And from Christ her Lord and head as to note that by her departing from Christ her Lord wee are to take knowledge of her departing from her selfe when shee was in her flourishing and best estate because then was her flourishing and best estate when shee was nearest to
Christ her Lord and head and most entire in the faith and doctrine which shee had receiued from him Of this flourishing and best estate we must consider in the next Chapter and therefore I cease here to speake any further thereof CHAP. VII Of the flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome and of the testimony of Theodoret concerning the fulnesse of doctrine contained in the Epistle to the Romans and that the Apostle there condemneth Popery of Idolatry in worshipping of Saints and Images ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE VVE hope you vvill not deny but the Apostle S. Paul vvas one principall pillar c. to Chap. 8. Paul saith and vve say the same that c. W. BISHOP §. 1. WHat a worthy graue Preface he vseth to assure men that we will not deny S. Paul nor his Epistle to the Romans which neuer were called in doubt by any man But good Sir whiles you muse and busie your head so much vpon bables you forget or wilfully mistake the very point of the question Was the Church of Rome at her most flourishing estate when S. Paul wrote that Epistle to the Romans was her faith then most renovvmed ouer all the vvorld as you write nothing lesse for not the ten thousand part of that most populous Citty was then conuerted to the faith and they that had receiued the Christian faith were very nouices in it and stoode in great neede of the Apostles diuine instructions Any reasonable man would rather iudge that the Church of Rome then came first to her most flourishing estate when Idolatry and all kinde of superstition was put to silence and banished out of her when the Christian religion was publikely preached and conntenanced by the Emperours authority which was not before the reigne of Constantine the Great our most glorious countrey-man wherefore M. Abbots first fault is that he shooteth farre wide from the marke which he should haue aimed at principally The second is more nice yet in one that would seeme so acute not to be excused It is that he taketh an Epistle written to the Romans for their instruction and correction as if it were a declaration and profession of their faith when as all men know such a letter might containe many things which they had not heard off before Further yet that you may see how nothing can passe his fingers without some legerdemaine marke how he englisheth Theodorets wordes Dogmatum pertractationem The handling of opinions is by him translated all points of doctrine whereas it rather signifieth some then all opinions or lessons But I will let these ouer-sights passe as flea-bitings and follow him whither he pleaseth to wander that euery man may see when he is permitted to say what he liketh best that in truth he can alleage out of S. Paul nothing of moment against the Catholike faith R. ABBOT WEe see here what great cause there was that his Maiesty should adde the wordes now spoken off And from Christ her Lord and head because it might be doubted what construction they or any other might make of the flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome I say that St. Paul wrote his Epistle to that Church when the faith thereof was most renowmed through the world This M. Bishop denieth and will not haue that to be taken for the flourishing and best estate of the Roman Church And why First not the ten thousand part of that most populous Citty was then conuerted to the faith and secondly they who had then receiued the Christian faith were very nouices in it and stoode in great neede of the Apostles diuine instructions So then he will haue vs to vnderstand that then was the flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome when there were in it the greatest number of Christians and they were so perfect in the faith as that they needed not the Apostles diuine instructions But when was that Not before the reigne of Constantine the Great saith he Well and was it then Nay he saith not so and we may well thinke that he knoweth not well when or what to say Certaine it is that Paganisme abounded in Rome after the time of Constantine who indeede for his time by lawes restrained the publike exercise thereof but yet a Relat. Symmach apud Ambros lib. 5. Epist 30 Diui ConstaÌ„tij factum diu non sletit that act of his saith Symmachus did not long stand good the people returning to their old superstitions and sacrifices vntill that by Theodosius and Gratian the Emperours of Rome they were repressed againe Which lawes of theirs Symmachus the Lieutenant of the city moued the next Emperour Valentinian in his owne name and in the name of the City and Senate of Rome to haue againe repealed who b Symmach vt supra Senatus me querelaruÌ„ suarum iussit esse I egatum c. Vt Praefectus vâ—ster gesta publica prosequor vt Legatus ciuium mandata commendo though he pretended a farre greater number of Senatours to ioyne with him then did as Ambrose sheweth yet cannot be doubted to haue had a great number also partakers with him beside the common multitude of the City whose affection how it stood we may gather by that that Hierome saith not much distant from that time that c Hieron in Esai lib. 16. c. 57. â—psaque Roma orbiâ— Domina in singulis insulis domibusque Tutela simulachrum cereis venerans ac lucernis quam ad tuitionem aedium isto appellant nomine Rome in euery house did with tapers and candles worship the image of Tutela whom they so called for the tuition and defence of their houses though elsewhere he testifie that d IdeÌ„ ad Marcel vt commigret Bethlehem Est ibi sancta Ecclesia c. gentilitate calcata in sublime se quotidiè erigens vocabulum Christianum Paganisme was decaying and the name of Christians arising and growing higher and higher from day to day But if it were yet growing then it was not at full growth and therefore when will M. Bishop say was the most flourishing and best time of the Church there Againe we desire to know of him when the time was that the Church of Rome stoode in no neede of the Apostles diuine instructions May we thinke M. Bishop that euer there was any such time Surely we know now what the cause is why the Apostles diuine instructions are so little set by at Rome They serued the Romans forsooth at first when they were but nouices in the faith but now they are growen ripe and haue no neede to be taught by him May we not thinke him a wise man that thus telleth vs that the Romans then stoode in neede of the Apostles diuine instructions as if there were any time since that they had not the like neede But I would aske him how it appeareth to him that the Romans were then but nouices in the faith The reason which his wordes imply is because
the Apostle wrote that Epistle to them But so did he write two Epistles to the Corinthians of whom notwithstanding he saith that e 1. Cor. 1. 5. in all things they were made rich in Christ in all kinde of speech and in all knowledge So did he to the Ephesians f Acts 20. 27. from whom he kept nothing backe but had shewed them all the counsell of God Yea and of the Romans the Apostle in that Epistle saith g Rom. 15. 14. I am perswaded of you that yee are filled with all knowledge and are able to admonish one another Neuerthelesse I haue somewhat boldly after a sort written vnto you as one that putteth you in remembrance It should seeme then that they were not nouices in the faith but fully instructed in all points and that the end of the Apostles Epistle was only to keepe the remembrance of those things which they had beene before taught Of that time Tertullian saith that h Tertul. de Praescript Foelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum suo sanguine prosuderunt the Apostles Peter and Paul together with their bloud poured forth their whole doctrine all that they taught to that Church and shall wee thinke that when the Apostles deliuered all their doctrine to that Church that Church did not receiue and learne the same Of that time we haue a more sure and vndoubted testimony then we can haue of times following that i Rom. 1. 8. their faith was renowmed throughout the whole world That therefore doe we hold to be the best state of the Roman Church and the most flourishing because we measure not the flourishing of it by number of professours or by glory of outward state but by integrity of doctrine and truth of faith Neuerthelesse because flourishing may seeme to import a reference to that outward liberty and exaltation which that Church as the rest receiued by the reigne of Constantine and enioyed vnder other Christian Emperours after him therefore his Maiesty with great caution and aduisednesse added the other wordes spoken of before to signifie that we are so to respect her in that flourishing estate as that alwaies for more assurance we haue respect to that that shee was at the first immediately from the Apostles and from Christ her Lord and head the liuely picture and description whereof is set forth vnto vs in the Epistle to the Romans Here M. Bishop though he haue not yet proued any first fault yet taketh vpon him to note a second that I take an Epistle written to the Romans for their instruction and correction as if it were a declaration and profession of their faith Where the Reader seeth that saue only I say the Apostle in that Epistle wrote at large I say nothing thereof my selfe but report only what Theodoret saith who if he had affirmed that the Apostle in that Epistle did set downe a declaration of the faith which the Romans then professed had said nothing amisse the care of the Apostle therein being both to confirme them in the faith which they had receiued and to testifie to posterity what that faith was All men know saith M. Bishop that such a letter might containe many things which they had not heard off before But we question not what such a letter might containe that is an idle and dreaming supposall of his but the point is what we are to thinke that Epistle doth containe This I declared by the wordes of Theodoret who giuing a reason why the Epistle to the Romans though written after diuers other yet was put in the first place alleageth this to be it k Theodoret. Praefat. Epist Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos praeposuerunt vt quae in se omnis generis doctrinam accuratam copiosamque dogmatum pertractationem for that it containeth doctrine of all sorts or all kinde of doctrine and very exact and plentifull handling of the points of faith This place dazeled his eyes he stood astonished at it and knew not which way to shift He grew therefore to a desperate resolution â—lectere si nequeam superos Acheronta mouebo Sith God and truth doe vs forgoe I will trie the diuell what he can doe My wordes in my answere speaking of St. Paul writing to the Church of Rome stand thus He wrote at large comprehending therein as Theodoret saith Omnis generis doctrinam accuratam copiosamque dogmatum pertractationem Doctrine of all sorts or all kinde of doctrine and very exact and plentifull handling of the points thereof He in transcribing my text setteth it downe thus comprehending therein as Theodoret saith doctrine of all sorts or all kinde of doctrine Eâ— accuratam copiosamque dogmatum pertractationem An exact and plentifull handling of all points thereof Where note how he purposely leaueth out the Latin wordes Omnis generis doctrinam and whereas in Englishing Dogmatum pertractationem I say the points thereof he in steede of the points saith all points thereof From this latter he frameth his miserable answere which is only an accusation of me for legerdemaine in the Englishing of Theodorets words And why Dogmatum pertractationem The handling of opinions saith he is by him translated all points of doctrine whereas it rather signifieth some then all opinions or lessons Thus he ouerslippeth the words that carry weight and force to the point in question and to colour this that the Reader may not espy it hee busieth him the while with an opinion of my false translation whereas the false translation is none of mine but by himselfe very lewdly foisted in But the Beare though thus broken loose must be brought to the stake againe Remember M. Bishop what I told you and answere vs directly to it Theodoret saith that the Epistle to the Romans containeth Omnis generis doctrinam All kinde of doctrine and doth not say it once only but saith it againe that l Idem Praefat Epist ad Rom. Variam quidem omnis generis doctrinam per haec scripta exhibet Apostolus the Apostle therein deliuereth manifold and not only manifold but all kinde of doctrine Now if all kinde of doctrine that concerneth the Christian faith be contained in the Epistle to the Romans then Popery is not the true Christian faith which teacheth so many points of doctrine whereof nothing is contained in the Epistle to the Romans Nay it doth not only say nothing for Popery but it also saith against it and instructeth vs to call that apostasie and heresie which they falsly call the Catholike faith Whether any thing be there to be found of moment to that purpose we shall see in that that followeth W. BISHOP §. 2. SAint Paul saith he is vvholly against you and for vs. Quickly said but will not be so soone proued First he condemneth the vvorshipping of Saints and Saints Images in that he reproueth the Heathens for changing the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of the Image of a
Creatio in libertatem voluntatis facta est sine nobis the creating of vs to freedome of will is wrought without vs that our freewill following he may â—oe with vs that good whereto we are now become willing And againe in the same place u Gregor Moral vt supra Diuina nos bonitas innocentes faciat praeucnit eandem gratiam nostrum liberum arbitrium sequitur The goodnesse of God prâ—â—tenteth vs to make vs innocent and our free-will followeth the same grace Thus x August de Grat. lib. Arbit cap. 5. Vt coÌ„uerteretur gratia Dei eraâ— sola our conuersion as St. Austin saith of the Apostle Paul is the grace of God only but when by conuersion he hath reformed our will and wrought in vs the loue of righteousnesse vve by this worke of grace in vs doe thenceforth apply our selues to worke with grace and the worke that we doe is Gods worke and it is our worke but no otherwise ours but that by the gift of God it is wrought in vs and so becommeth ours Therefore vve doe not say that the grace of God so doth all as that we doe nothing but whatsoeuer we doe the grate of God it is that worketh in vs to doe it y August coÌ„t a Epist Pelag. lib. 1. c. 6. Nos quidem ambulamus verum est nos obseruamus nos facimus sed ille facit vt ambulemus obseruemus faciamus We walke saith Austin it is true we obserue we doe but he maketh vs to walke to obserue to doâ— Euen so we suffer not sinne to reigne in our mortall bodies as the Apostle teacheth vs but it is â—â— that maketh vs not to suffer it to reigne We giue the poâ—ers of our soules as instruments to the producing of good workes as M. Bishop speaketh but it is he that maketh vs to giue them to be so who z August de Praedest sanct cap. 11. Promittit facturum se vt faciaÌ„t quae iubet vt fiant promiseth to cause vs to doe those things which he commandeth to be done Therefore â—ee pâ—each to the people of God as Leo Bishop of Rome did a Leo in Epiphan serm 5. Cooperatores simus gratiâ— Dei operaÌ„tis in nobis non enim dormientibus proueâ—it regnum coelorum nec otio deâ—â—d aâ—â— torpentibus beatâ—tudo â—ternâ—tatis ingeritur Let vs be ioynt-workers with the grace of God that worketh in vs for the Kingdome of heauen befalleth not to sleepers neither is the blisse of eternity thrust vpon idle and slothfull persons But yet withall we say with Gregory that b Gregor Moral lib. 29. c. 13. Quòd verba praedicationis dâ—i ab auribus ad corda desâ—eÌ„ lunt solo diuino munere agitur c. Per internam gratiam solus omnipotens Deus praedicantium verbis ad corda aud 〈…〉 um inutsibilitèr aditum prâ—stat it is by the only gift of God that the words of the preacher doe descend from the care to the heart that it is only the almighty God who by inward grace inuisibly giueth passage for the wordes of the preacher to the hearts of them that heare Yea with Leo himselfe we say that c Leo de Quadrag serm 101 Quod deitatis habâ—tacuâ—um licet inchoari perfici sine suo authore non possit habet tamen ab 〈…〉 sicante donatum vt etiam labore proprio quaerat augmentum the habitation and temple of God which is euery faithfull man which can neither be begunne nor finished without the authour of it hath it giuen of God by it owne labour to seeke it owne furtherance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It vvoâ—kein then with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it selfe to God but it hath it giuen to â—â— of God 〈◊〉 to worke with God By it owne labour it seeketh it owne encrease but it is the gift of God vvhereby it laboureth for this increase In a vvord vve say with Fulgentiâ—â— d Fulgent â—d 〈…〉 brâ—ter prohibemtam in nostra side quà m in nostro opere â—tanquam nostrum nobâ—t aeliquid vendcare We in no sort sâ—ffer nay we by who 〈◊〉 doctrine fâ—rbidden 〈◊〉 in our suit or in our workes to chalenge to our selues any thing for our owne Nothing is ours but in 〈◊〉 sort as Gregory faith e Gregor Moral l. 24. cap. 5. Iustitia nostra dicieâ—r non quae ex nostro nostra est sed quae diuinâ—â—argitate fit nostrâ— It is called our righteousnes which â—â— not ours as of our owne but which by the gift of God is made ours or as Hierome saith f Hieron Epist ad Demeâ—riad Velle nolle nostrumest ipsamque quod nostrum est sine miseratione Dei nostrum non est To will and to nill is ours but that which is ours without the mercy of God is none of ours This was the doctrine of the old Church of Rome concerning free-will this we approue and teach and because we approue this therefore we detest the doctrine that is now taught in the Church of Rome which is quite contrary to this But here M. Bishop being come away from iustification and fallen to a new matter yet bethought himselfe vpon a sodaine that he had some what further to say of it and therefore leapeth backe againe He was departed from it to free-will and yet before we depart from iâ— faith he you shall heare more of â—â— out of the same Apostle And vvhar shall we heare He teacheth expresly saith he that it man in the state of grace may fulfill the law The vvordes which he citeth for this purpose are these g Rom. 8. 3. that that was impossible for the law in that it was weakened by the flesh God sending his some in the similitude of sinnefull flâ—sh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vt which walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Concerning which place I haue giuen full answere and satisfaction h Of Iustification sect 38. 43. before to which Preferre the Reader all 〈…〉 it shall not be amisse here also to say somwhat of it And first it is worth the while to obsâ—rue with vvhat discretion he bringeth this place to proue in â—s here an ability to fulfill the law vvhen as the place ministreth to vs a certaine and infallible argument to proue the contrary For the Apostle here affirmeth an impossibility in the law to iustifie and saue vs not by any defect of it selfe but by reason of the weakenesse of the flesh So long then as this weakenesse of the flesh continueth so long must the same impossibility continue also But this weakenesse of the flesh continueth so long as we liue here So long therefore as we liue here there shall be an impossibility of being iustified by the law For i Rom. 8. 7. the flesh is not subiect vnto the law of God nor can be k Rom. 7. 23. it
Church neuer once dreamed of that e Duraeus coÌ„t Whitak lib. 3. In nullam planè aliam Catholicae Ecclesiae nomen quaecunque de Christi Ecclesia Prophetae praedixerunt quà m in Romanam conuenire possunt the name of the Catholike Church and those things which the Prophets haue forespoken of the Church of Christ can agree to no other but to the Roman Church Vpon this mad conceipt they haue made of the holy Catholike Church a holy Catholike Roman Church and wheras the Nicene Councell taught vs to say I beleeue one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church they teach vs to expound it f Bristow Reply to Doctor Fulke cap. 10. dem 6. I beleeue one holy Catholike and Apostolike that is Roman Church and therefore bind men by a principle of Catechisme g Ledesm Catechis traÌ„slat into English to beleeue all that the holy Catholike Roman Church beleeueth and holdeth It is not enough for interpretation of the Catholike Church in the articles of our beleefe to call it h Aug Hunae proaem Catechism Catholica Ecclesiae nomine intelligo perspicuum sensui expositum coetum illorum qui baptizativeram sinceramque Christi fidem profiteÌ„tur se Beati Petri successori Romano Pontifici vt Christi in terris Vicario subiectos agnoscunt the visible company of them that are baptised and doe professe the true and sincere faith of Christ vnlesse it be added and doe acknowledge themselues subiect to the successor of Peter the Bishop of Rome as Christs Vicar vpon earth Pope Goodface the eighth hauing declared it for a new article of Christian faith that i Extrauag de maiorit obedient e. Vnam Sanctam Subesse Romano PoÌ„tifici omnihumanae creaturae declaramus dicimus definimus pronunciamus 〈◊〉 esse de necessitate salutiâ— for euery humane creature it is necessary to saluation to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome So extremely they doate in this behalfe as that wheresoeuer they reade the name of the Church or Catholike Church they presently sing as the horse-bals in the poole amongst the apples nos poma natamus like children that imagine the bels in ringing to sound whatsoeuer they fancy so doe vndoubtedly imagine that the church spoken of must needes be meant of their Roman Church But for the pulling of this visard from their faces I noted the absurdity that is implied in that stile of the Catholike Roman Church for the Catholike Church say I is the vniuersall Church The Roman Church is a particular Church therefore to say the Catholike Roman Church is all one as to say the vniuersall particular Church Against this M. Bishop as a notable Logician taketh exception as an ill shapen argument consisting all of particular propositions as if I had here intended a Categorical syllogisme in moode and figure which no smatterer but himselfe would euer haue dreamed The wordes haue plaine implication of an Hypothetical syllogisme seruing to inferre an absurdity against them If the Catholike Church be the vniuersall Church the Roman Church a particular Church then to say the Catholike Roman Church is as to say the vniuersall particular Church But it is absurd to say the vniuersall particular Church Therefore it is absurd to say the Catholike Roman Church Will he haue it reduced for him to a Categoricall syllogisme in moode and figure Let him take it thus No particular Church can be the Catholike Church But the Church of Rome is a particular Church Therefore the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholike Church Must I proue the maior No particular Church can be the vniuersall Church But the Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church Therefore no particular Church can be the Catholike Church So learned a Doctor should not thus haue played boyes-play but should of himselfe haue conceiued these things being cleare and plaine without any new aduertisement thereof by the simple Minister But by this forme saith he a man might proue that no one Church in the world were Catholike But keepe your termes aright M. Bishop and say as you should that no one Church in the world is the Catholike Church and then it is true that by the same argument it is proued that no one Church in the world particular Churches being each and euery of them but a part can be called the Catholike or Vniuersall Church which is the whole And tell vs I pray good Sir haue yee found that any of ours hath entitled the Church of England to the name of the Catholike Church If not why then doe you thus abuse your Reader to put that for an instance as if we affirmed it so to be The truth is gentle Reader that M. Bishop seeketh to blinde thee by altering the termes that by mee were set downe naming a Catholike Church which importeth soundnesse of doctrine in any one Church whereas I mention the Catholike Church as importing the vniuersall extent of the whole Church It followeth not indeede that because a Church is particular therefore it is not Catholike that is sound in doctrine but it followeth that because a Church is particular therefore it is not the Catholike that is the vniuersall Church Let him direct the argument against the Church of England as I did against the Church of Rome and it shall be as strong against the Church of England as against the Church of Rome Let him say and wee will not contradict him The Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church the Church of England is a particular Church therefore to say the Catholike English Church is as absurd as to say the vniuersall particular Church or more nearely to his owne wordes Therefore to say the Church of England is the Catholike Church is the same as to say a particular Church is the vniuersall Church But he turneth the conclusion that the Church of England is not Catholike which we hold to be most Catholike declaring by that addition that he referreth Catholike by a Donatisticall fallacy to quality of doctrine and faith because more Catholike and most Catholike haue no vse but only in comparing truth and sincerity of faith This coâ—senage of his the learned see well enough but he careth not for that because his thrift lieth in abusing the ignorance of the more simple and vnlearned This not seruing his turne hee commeth to the particulars and of the first proposition The Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church hee saith that it is both absurd and captious And why absurd Forsooth because the same thing is affirmed of it selfe for vniuersall is no distinct thing but the very signification of the word Catholike But what is it now absurd to expresse the true signification of a word The one is Greeke the other is English and though there be no distinction in the thing yet is there not a distinction in the tongue Is the Roman Catechisme absurd because it saith k Catechism Rom. p. 1. c. 10. sect 16. Tertia
M. Bishop shew you selfe a man of your word let vs see that which you say is deduced out of Gods word for as for the exposition of the Fathers it auaileth not if it be not deduced out of the word of God Hee is dumbe and can say no more if you will take the Fathers exposition for a deduction out of Gods word be it so otherwise deduce he that can for M. Bishop can deduce nothing Albeit let vs aske him who be those ancient Fathers that haue expounded the Roman Church to be the Rocke vpon which the Church is built What M. Bishop are you afraid to name them Though you set not downe their words yet did not leisure serue you to quote them in the margent of your book that we might take knowledge of them It is true that St. Peter is sometimes termed the Rocke vpon which the Church was built but who euer said that the Rock is the Church of Rome or that the Church is built vpon the Roman Church The truth is that he belieth the Fathers and fathereth vpon them that which they neuer meant The Rocke vpon which Christ would build his Church is often by the Fathers expounded to be Christ himselfe and the true faith confession of Christ e Aug. de verb. Dom. serâ— 13. Super hanc Petram quam confessus es super hanc petraÌ„ quam cognouisti diceâ— Tu es Christus c. adisicabâ— Ecclesiam med id est super meipsum fiâ—ium Dei viui c. Vpon this Rocke which thou hast confessed saith Austin vpon this Rocke which thou hast acknowledged saying Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God I will build my Church that is vpon my selfe being the sonné of the liuing God f Hilar. de Trinit lib. 6. Super banc confessionis Petram Ecclesiâ— aedificatiâ— est c Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum est per hanc fidem infirma aduersus cam sunt portae inferorum hâ—c fides regni câ—lestis babet â—lâ—ues c. Vpon this Rocke of confession faith Hilary is the building of the Church This faith is the foundation of the Church by this faith the gates of hell preuaile not against it this faith hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen c. Chrysostome saith g Chrysost in Math. hom 56. Super hanc Petram id est fideÌ„ confessionem Vpon this Rocke that is this faith and confession Theodoret likewise expoundeth it h Theodor. in Cant. l. 2. PetraÌ„ appellat fidei pietatem veritatis professionâ— c. the piety of faith the profession of truth Anâ—brose saith i Ambros in Ephâ— c. 2. Super hanc petram c. id est in hac Catholicae fidei confessione statuam fideles ad vitam Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church that is in this confession of the Catholike faith will I stablish the faithfull vnto life and againe that those wordes of the Apostle k Ibid. In quo omnis structura c. Hic sensus est vnde Dominus aâ—t super hanc petram c. In him that is in Christ all the building is coupled together c. are the sense and meaning of that which the Lord saith vpon this Rocke will I build my Church And thus the whole number of the Bishops of Palestina in the Councell of Chalcedon vnderstood it l Epist Iuuenal Episc Palest in append Concil Chalced. Super hanc confessionem roberata est Ecclesia Dei Vpon this confession the Church of God is confirmed and strengthened By many other such like expositions of the ancient Fathers it may appeare that Christ Iâ—SVS euen the true faith of Christ for Christ is nothing to vs but by faith is the true Rocke whereupon the Church is builded that the gates of hell may not preuaile against it And to this St. Iohn accordeth m 1. Iohn 5. 4. 5. This is the victory that ouercommeth the world 〈◊〉 our faith for who is it that ouercommeth the world but he that beleeueth that Iesus is the sonne of God If Christ then be the Rocke by faith in him how falsly doth M. Bishop deale to foist in the Roman Church in steede of Christ or of the faith of Christ Now if Christ properly and truly be the Rocke then it can be but accidentally and vnproperly that Peter is so called only in respect of his doctrine and example of faith expressed and vttered in his confession n Math. 16. 16. Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God As Abraham is o Esa 51. 1. the Rocke from whence we are hewed so is Peter the Rocke whereupon we are built not for that either of them conferreth any thing to vs but only for that they stand before vs for patternes of imitation whereto we are to conforme our selues that togither with them we may be builded vpon the true Rocke p 1. Cor. 3. 11. that foundation beside which no other may be laid which is Iesus Christ. But in this Peter was not alone the rest of the Apostles as well as hee q Iohn 6. 69. beleeuing and knowing that Iesus was Christ the sonne of the liuing God Yea and in the place where Peter vttereth that confession as the question was asked of all the Apostles Whom say yee that I am so we must vnderstand also and so St. Austin affirmeth that r Augustin in Psal 88. Respondens Petrus pro omnibus vnus pro vnitate Peter answered for all one for vnity and consequently that all being in the like case the wordes which Christ returneth though in token of vnity vttered to one yet in that vnity did appertaine to all Therefore by the words there spoken to Peter Hiâ—rome concludeth that Å¿ Hieron in Amos lib. 3. c. 6. Petra christus est qui donauit Apostolis suiâ— vt ipsi quoque Petra vocentur Tu es Petrus super hac petram c. Christ the Rocke gaue not to one only Apostle but to his Apostles that they also should be called Rocks And in like sort Origen conceiueth it when he saith t Origen in Math. cap. 16. Quod si super vnum illum Petrum tantum existimas â—dificari totaâ— Ecclesiam quid dicturus es de Ioanne filio tonitrâ—i Apoâ—lolorâ—â— vnâ— quoque Quin alioqui num audebimus dicere quòd aduersus Petrum vnum noÌ„ prâ—ualiturâ— sinâ— portâ— inferorâ— aduensus caeleros auâ—â— Apostolos praeualiturae sinâ— ac noÌ„ potius in omnibus singuliâ—â—orum fit illud quod dictum est super 〈◊〉 Petram c. Quòd si dictum hoc Tiâ—i dabo claues c. câ—teris quoque commune est cur non simul omnia quae prius dicta sâ—nt quae sequuntâ—r 〈◊〉 ad Petrum dicta sunt omnium communia If thou thinke that the Church was built vpon Peter only what wilt thou say of Iohn the sonne of thunder euery of the Apostles shal we dare
g Gregor lib. 6. Epist 37. Sedes Apostolorum Principis in tribus locis vnius est vnius atque vna est sedes cui tres nunc Episcopi praesident Idem lib. 4. Epist 37. Apostolicam sede regis Idem lib. 6. vt supra Petri Cathedram tenet one with Peters chaire at Rome and saith of the Patriarchs there to the one that he gouerned the Sea Apostolike and to the other that he possessed Peters chaire But Hierome in the place alleaged disclaimeth Paulinus the Patriarch of Antioch that he might ioyne himself to Peters chaire signifying that Paulinus though succeeding Peter at Antioch yet sate not in Peters chaire because he taught not the faith of Peter Now if to be Bishop of Rome where is the place of Peters chaire be infallibly to sit in Peters chaire then to be Bishop of Antioch should be so also because there also is the place of Peters chaire Which appearing by Hierome to be vntrue it followeth that to be Bishop of Rome likewise is not necessarily to sit in Peters chaire because a man may be Bishop as of Antioch so of Rome and not teach the same as Peter did Of Peters faith and confession then it is that he saith Vpon that Rocke I know the Church to be built Erasmus very well noteth thereat h Erasm in Schol. Epist ad Damas Non super Romam vt arbitror nam fieri potest vt Roma quoque degeneret sed super cam fidem quam Petrus professus est Not vpon Rome as I suppose for it may be that Rome also may degenerate but vpon that faith which Peter professed euen as Gregory himselfe Bishop of Rome expoundeth i Greg. lib. 3. Epist 33. In petra Ecclesiae hoc est in consessione beati Petri. The Rocke of the Church to be the confession of St. Peter The communion of this faith is the house wherein Christ our Paschall Lambe must be eaten the Arke of Noc wherein who so is not shall be drowned If the Bishop of Rome shall thus sit in the seate of Peter wee are ready to accord with him and so farre as he doth so we still hold communion with him but that hee shall alwaies sit there we haue no warrant and we are sure that now hee doth not sit where Peter sate Now sith M. Bishop can giue vs no warrant that the Pope and Church of Rome shall alwaies continue in the faith of Peter his conclusion is but a fond and vaine presumption that out of the communion of the Church of Rome there is no saluation and no otherwise chalenged to the Church of Rome then by the Donatists to their Church Now albeit I see that I much offend M. Bishop in making this comparison betwixt the Papists and the Donatists yet that it may more fully appeare that there was some cause why I did so I will to those resemblances that I haue already set downe adde some few more whereby it may be discerned how directly they walke in the same steps And first of Donatus the Pope of the Donatists Op tatus recordeth that k Optat. lib. 3. â—ùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Dâ— qui fecit Imperatorem dum se Dâ—natus super Imperatorem extollit iam quasi bâ—minum excesserat metas vt se vt Deum non vt hominem â—stimaret c. Quamuis non sit vsus hac voce Ego sum Deus tamen aut fecit aut pasâ— siâ— est quod defectum huitu vocis impleret c. tantum sibi ipsuâ— exegit vt eum noÌ„ minori metu omnes venerarentur quà m DeuÌ„ c. Primus Episcoporum quasi plus esset ipse quà m caeteri exaltauit cor suum c. vt nullum hominem sibi comparanduÌ„ arbitraretur he exalted himselfe about the Emperour and thereby made himselfe more then man and euen as it were a God because aboue the Emperour there is none but God that made the Emperour and although he vsed not those wordes I am God yet hee either did or suffered to bee done to him that which might supply the want of those wordes requiring so much to himselfe as that all stoode in no lesse awe of him then they did of God himselfe being the first Bishop that aduanced himselfe as if he were more then the rest and did thinke no man comparable to himselfe Now is there not in this Pope of Africa a very iust and liuely description of the Roman Pope Hee hath made himselfe more then all other Bishops and no man comparable to himselfe He hath lifted vp himselfe aboue the Emperour and thereby as Optatus concludeth made a God of himselfe Hee hath not only done and suffered to be said and done to him such things as whereby in effect he hath taken vpon him to be God as namely in dispensing against the law of God and disannulling the institution of Christ but in very wordes hath yeelded to be so called and in the Glosse of his Canon law where he professeth to haue corrected such things as were amisse yet hee hath suffered this title giuen to him to stand still l Extrauag Ioan 22. Cum interim in Glossa Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam non potuisse c. haereticum censeretur Paris anno 1601. cum priuileg Gregor 13. c. Our Lord God the Pope He bath made men to stand in no lesse awe of him yea more then of God himselfe whilest hee hath made shew to haue Gods anger at his command to inflict it where he will Secondly the Donatists tooke vpon them that m Collat. Carthag 3. c. 165. Cum pacis Ecclesia Dei possessores semper fuerimus ac simus they had alwaies beene possessors and owners of vnity and of the Church of God in so much that they reckoned n Aug. câ—t lit Petil. l. 2. c. 92. In vestriâ— exemplis aduer 〈…〉 Imperatâ—â—es quaÌ„ plures ac Iudices vestros persecutioneÌ„ nobis facieÌ„do perijsse vt relinquam N 〈…〉 Domitianâ— TraianuÌ„ Variâ— c. Nero Domitian Traian Varius Decius Dioclesian and the rest to haue beene persecutors of their Church whereas their beginning whereby they were Donatists was after the time of those persecutions and had they beene then o Ibid. August Isti omnes vniuersalitèr Christianum nomen pro suis idolis persecuti sunt c. Vnitatem ipsam vel vnde nos sicut vos putatis vel vnde vos sicut Christus docet exijstis totam persequebantur had not suffered any thing for being partakers with Donatus but for professing the name of Christ No otherwise doe the Papists take vpon them to haue beene alwaies the Church of God and that it was their Church that was persecuted that they were their Martyrs that were slaine by the same Tyrants whereas their beginning whereby they are Papists which properly they are for worshipping their Lord God the Pope yea and that whole forme of doctrine almost which
Catholike Church from the errour of perfidiousnesse the obseruance or obedience almost of the whole world ioyned to his name and honour in which manner â—armenian also though he held the Church d Optat. lib. 2. Eam tu apud â—os solos esse dixisti to be with them only yet pretended e Ibid. post Offerre vos dicitis pro vna Ecclesia quae sit in totâ— terrarum orbe dissusa to offer or pray for one Church which is dispersed ouer the whole world Euen so the Papists also albeit they know that it is but a small part of the world wherein the communion of the Bishop and Church of Rome is accepted or acknowledged yet take pleasure to babble and prate as if the Popes triple crowne were so wide as to compasse the whole earth and his scepter so long as to reach to the worlds end Thus much then M. Bishop hath gained by being angry at my comparing the Papists to the Donatists that whereas I mentioned but fiue resemblances before I haue now added twelue more and so like are they in all these that I doubt not but by obseruation they may be found like in many moe As for the retortion of this comparison which he hath vsed in his answere to my Epistle Dedicatory as it is wholly forced and violent in it selfe so it argueth only malice and folly in him I will set downe the branches of the Donatists heresie as he hath noted them and adde the application that he hath made of euery of them First he f Reproofe pag. 42. saith they held that the true Church of Christ was perished all the world ouer sauing in some coastes of Africa where their doctrine was currant Well and what is that to vs The Protestants saith he teach euen as they did that Christs visible Church was perished for nine hundred yeares at the least all the world ouer and is now wholly decayed in all other parts of the world sauing where their doctrine is embraced and this he saith was the maine point of the Donatists heresie To shew why he nameth the visible Church he putteth in a parenthesis thus for the inuisible Church the Donatists held could not perish as St. Austin witnesseth in Psal 101. Which is a very lie neither is there any thing to be found in St. Austin to that effect But as touching the visible Church where doe the Protestants hold or affirme that it was or is perished in that sort as he saith Why doth he not cite vs some authour of this assertion Well whether we say so or not it skilleth not g Bellarm. de notis Eccles c. 9. Ecclesiam visibilem a multis seculis perijsse nunc solum esse in septentrionalibus partibus vbi ipsi sunt doceâ—t omnes Bellarmine hath told him that we all say so and that is enough for him Yet that we doe not all say so M. Bishop may sufficiently vnderstand by that that hath beene before handled at large as touching this point in the answere h Sect. 17. to the Preface to his second part whither I referre the Reader for further satisfaction hereof Here I briefly answere him that we hold in all that time wherof he speaketh one only Catholike church whereof the Church of England was a part and the Church of Rome another part and the Greeke Church another part and so the rest throughout the whole world The Church in these parts was in that time blemished with many corruptions and errours whilest first the Teachers in steede of i 1. Cor. 3. 18. siluer and gold and pearle built hay and straw and stubble vpon the foundation and secondly the Pastors more and more k Ierem. 10. 21. became beasts as the Prophet saith and sought not the Lord nor had any vnderstanding to teach Gods law by meanes whereof ignorance encreased and of ignorance grew superstition and one idolatry begat another till the whole face of the Church was berayed with the filth thereof l Mat. 24. 15. the abhomination of desolation standing in the holy place and the man of sinne tyraÌ„nizing ouer the Church and giuing strength to all abuse and corruption for his owne gaine So grosse were the enormities and superstitions which in this time had growen into the Church as that the great Rabbines of the Church of Rome could not for shame but in some part acknowledge the same and tooke vpon them to correct sundry things m Trident. CoÌ„cil sess 22. de Missa celebr Quae siue temporum vitio siue hominum incuria improbitate irrepserunt in Missam ipsam which either by the corruption of times or by the carelesnesse and naughtinesse of men were crept into the very Masse And thus the Pope himselfe confessed concerning their Offices and Primers that n Offic. Beatae Mariae per Pium V. in Summar constitut indulgent c. Vanis superstitionum erroribus alia ferè omnia huiusmodi officia etiam Latino sermone referta esse deprehensum fuit c. Credant ijsdeâ— alijs â—fficijs multas sub falsis confictis sanctorum nominiê° confictâ—â— orationes fuisse insertas they were found to be stuffed with vaine errours of superstitions and that many counterfaite praiers were inserted into them vnder false and counterfaite names of Saints Of these errours and superstitions they reformed what they list and purged their bookes and Seruice of many things that were amisse and what will any man say hereupon that they became another Church We proceeded further and voided the Church of the rest of those abhominations which ignorance and errour had brought in which they were not willing to haue medled with because the same were gainfull to them and shall we be said hereupon to deny that there was any visible Church before and to beginne a new Church No we say that the Church hath continued still from the time that it was first planted we affirme it to haue been the house of God the garden and vineyard of the Lord but we say that the husbandmen had long dealt wickedly and vnfaithfully in the vsage of it they drest not the Lords vine but suffered it to grow wild they let this garden be ouergrowen with briars and weedes and Foxes and Swine had liberty to tread it downe and to destroy it All that we haue done hath beene but to loppe and prune the vine to dresse and water the garden that lay wast to plucke vp the weedes and thornes to driue out the noysome beasts and to repaire the fence that they may be kept out Therefore we doe not take vpon vs to be another Church but the same Church reformed neither haue we gone about to bring in a new religion but only to reforme that which they call the old retaining still the same Scriptures which they acknowledged the same articles of faith the same Sacraments of Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord the same forme of diuine Seruice saue
only that we haue cut off what their superstition had brought in contrary to the word of God and practise of the first Church Many goodly stones and pillars of Christian doctrine there were remayning amongst them which we continue and acknowledge according to the word of Christ and whereby we cannot doubt but that in those times of darkenesse many found meanes to see the light of God and were thereby directed vnto eternall life Farre therefore are we from Donatisme who neither affirme the perishing of the Church in any part of the world no not in Rome it selfe nor tie it to any one place as the Papists doe to Rome nor hang it vpon the necke of any one man as they doe vppon the Popes necke but acknowledge all nations and all men indifferently accepted with God accordingly as in spirit and truth they faithfully worship him The second point of the Donatists heresie he nameth this that they rebaptized Catholikes that fell into their sect His application is Though all the Protestants doe not rebaptize yet one part of them to wit the Anabaptists doe vse it But his foolery in that deserueth no answere it being knowen to himselfe that the Anabaptists are exploded and detested vniuersally of all Protestant Churches The Anabaptists shall be rather theirs then ours And whereas he diuideth the Protestants into Lutherans Sacramentaries and Anabaptists as answerable to the Donatists Rogatists and Maximianists he should rather haue made the like diuision of Papists into Anabaptists Secularists and Iesuitists the Anabaptists answering the Rogatists in challenging the Church from the rest of the body of their Schisme only to themselues the Secularists and Iesuitists fully resembling the Donatists and Maximianists each diuided for a time by mortall quarrell amongst themselues but content after a while as men of one Church and religion to bee reconciled againe The third point that he mentioneth is this They held not the faith of the blessed Trinity entire and whole but some of them taught like Arians the sonne to be lesse then the father though as St. Austin noteth this was not marked of their followers This he applyeth to vs in this sort Thirdly diuers of their principall teachers as Melanchton Caluin and many others doe corrupt the sound doctrine of the most sacred Trinity as I haue shewed saith he in the Preface of the Reformation of a deformed Catholike though the common sort of them doe not greatly obserue it In which third point he very wilfully belyeth both St. Austin and the Donatists and vs. For St. Austin doth not say of the Donatists but only of a second Donatus who was a follower of the former that o August ad Quodvult haeres 69. Apparet cum etiam non Catholicam de Trinitate babuisse sententiam c. Verùm in hunc quem de Trinitate habuit â—ius errorem Donatistarum multitudo intenta noÌ„ fuit nec facilè in eis quisquam qui hoc illâ— sensisse nouerit inuenitur he had an vncatholike opinion of the Trinity which the Donatists were so farre from approuing as that he saith there was scant any one found amongst them that knew that hee thought so so that to him only it is referred which St. Austin saith in his Epistle p Idem Epist 50. Si aliqui ipsorum â—â—â—orem filium dixerunt esse quà m pater est â—iusdem tamen substantiâ— non negarunt If any of them haue said that the sonne is lesse then the Father yet they haue not denyed him to be of the same substance And indeede St. Austin though liuing amongst them and hauing perfect knowledge of them yet neuer vpbraideth them with this heresie and therefore M. Bishop doth wrong both to them in laying this heresie to them and to St. Austin in making him the witnesse thereof Neither shall it helpe him that Theodoret chargeth them therewith who as it plainly appeareth by his relation neuer knew what their heresie was and being deceiued perhaps by the writings of that Donatus reporteth that as common to them all which St. Austin of his knowledge noteth to haue beene proper to him only As for that he chargeth Melancthon Caluin and other our principall teachers with corrupting the doctrine of the holy Trinity how lewdly and falsly he dealeth therein q Answere to the Preface of the second part of Doct. Bishops Reformation sect 6. 7. I haue fully declared in answere of the Preface where he saith he hath shewed the same The fourth matter of the Donatists by him noted is their being soone diuided into three sects whereof he saith nothing but what is before touched Only he addeth There were also amongst them many frantike furious fellowes called Circumcellions who rouing vp and downe committed many outrages c But what is this to the Protestants Forsooth for plucking downe of Churches abusing the most blessed Sacrament holy Oiles and all holy ornaments that belonged to Catholikes Churches the Protestants are not behinde but goe farre beyond the Donatists But this I let passe as another part of his idle babling only telling him that to fit the example of the Circumcellions he should rather haue looked to those memorable acts that haue beene done by the Leaguers and Iesuits and other madde-braines of their imployment in France Germanie Poland and in all places almost of Christendome where they haue gotten any strength whereof goodly stories might be here set downe if it were pertineÌ„t to the maine point that we haue now in hand In the last thing which he noteth of the Donatists he specially sheweth his great abundance of little wit the matter whereto he alludeth being such as whence I might most iustly haue taken yet a further resemblance betwixt the Donatists and them Finally saith he the Donatists deuised a new kinde of Psalmes to be sung before their diuine Seruice and Sermons And what the Protestants Forsooth they haue also compounded and framed a new kinde of Psalmes saith he called Geneua Psalmes to be sung before their Sermons A new kinde of Psalmes say you M. Bishop What doe not you know that those Geneua psalmes as you call them are only the Psalmes of Dauid and other Prophets and holy Men translated into English Meter and doe they seeme to you a new kinde of Psalmes They were turned into Meter and Verse and fitted with plaine and easie notes and tunes to serue for popular and common vse of Christian exercise and edification both in our Churches and priuate houses that we may answere the exhortation of the Apostle r Col. 3. 16. Let the word of Christ dwell plentifully in you in all wisedome teaching and admonishing your selues or one another in Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs singing with a grace in your hearts vnto the Lord. Now marke I pray thee gentle Reader what St. Austin faith hereof in the place whence M. Bishop would fetch a resemblance betwixt the Donatists and vs. Of Å¿ Aug. Epist 119. cap. 18. De
appertayneth be not according to the letter and in common speech called by that name Let him then vnderstand proportionably that the truth of the name of Catholikes belongeth not to the Romish faction who challenge to themselues as the Iewes did to haue gotten by succession the possession of the name and will be commonly so called but it belongeth to vs who though we vse not the word being growen to ill meaning by their abuse yet do maintayne one and the same truth with them who first were called by that name In a word as there is a double sense in the one so is there also in the other and I doe not so hoppe from one sense to another in the one but that I shew a iust â—orrespondence betwixt them both W. BISHOP §. 3. BVt and it please you the Protestants haue the kernell of the name Catholike and we but the shell Why doe they then so bitterly inueigh against it why are they not more willing to extoll and magnifie that renowmed title being of such ancient Nobility Twenty pound to a peny that what face soeuer he set on it yet in his heart he meruailously feareth the contrary himselfe If that faith and religion only be Catholike and Vniuersall as he acknowledgeth that hath euer beene and is also spread ouer all the world and shall continue to the worlds end then surely their religion cannot be Catholike euen by the vniforme confession of themselues who generally acknowledge that for nine hundred yeares togither the Papacy did so domineer all the world ouer that not a man of their religion was to be found in any corner of the world that durst peepe out his head to contradict it Could there be any Church of theirs then when there was not one Pastor and flocke of their religion though neuer so small in any one Countrey And euen now when their Gospell is at the hottest hath it spread it selfe all the world ouer is it receiued in Italie Spaine Greece Afrike or Asia or carried into the Indians nothing lesse They cannot then call themselues Catholikes after the sincere and ancient acceptation of that name which is as himselfe hath often repeated out of S. Augustine Quia communicant Ecclesiae to to or be diffusae Because they communicate in fellowship of faith with the Church spread ouer all the world They must therefore notwithstanding M. Abbots vaine bragges be content with the shell and leaue the kernell to vs who doe embrace the same faith that is dilated all Countries ouer yea they must be contented to walke in the foote-steps of their fore-fathers the Donatists euen according to M. Abbots explication and flie from the vniuersality of faith and communion of the Church spread all the world ouer vnto the perfection of their doctrine which is neuerthelesse more absurd and further from the true signification of the word Catholike then the Donatists shift was of fulnesse of Sacraments and obseruation of all Gods Commandements as hath beene already declared But let vs heare how clearely and substantially he will at length proue their Church to be Catholike R. ABBOT IT pleaseth vs very well M. Bishop that we haue the kernell of the name of Catholikes and in the meane time because your importunity so requireth we are content to leaue the shell to you The kernell serueth vs to feede vpon and it is very tastfull to vs but you haue berayed the shell and therefore we haue no care to meddle with it Our inueighing against it is no otherwise but in respect of your abuse let it be restored to his true vse and we shall be ready to extoll it and where it is so we doe so As for your wager M. Bishop of twenty pound to a peny you haue lost it and you know that you haue lost it because you see that I haue set no other face vpon the matter then by sufficient proofs I haue made good But here he taketh in hand to bereaue vs of the kernell because our faith and religion was neuer Catholike that is was neuer spred ouer the whole world Whereas I on the other side doe tell him that it is only our religion which appeareth to haue beene absolutely spred ouer all the word and none but ours For our religion is no more nor other then is contained in the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles and because we know that the religion there set downe was spred ouer all the world therefore we cannot doubt but that our religion is that that was spred ouer all the world and though Apostasie hath ouershadowed it yet hath euer since continued in the world As for that which he alleageth to the contrary it is no vniforme confession of ours but a deformed lye of his owne We doe not acknowledge that for nine hundred yeares togither there was not a man of our religion to be found in the world The Papacy indeede did mightily domineer accordingly as it was foretold but yet it could neuer so preuaile to the extirpation of our religion but that euen in the middest of the Papacy it hath continued still yea thousands and hundred thousands as by their owne stories appeareth haue beene murthered and slaine for the profession thereof Yea in the very religion of Popery our religion hath continued for what is Popery but a doctrine compounded of our religion and their owne deuice Our religion hath serued them for a foundation whereupon to build not only their wood and hay and stubble but also the wild-fire and poison of their idolatries and damnable heresies which without the pretence and colour of our religion Christian eares would haue detested and abhorred but therefore dreaded them not because they saw them cloaked with shew of still retaining that which we professe They durst not deny those Canonicall bookes of the old and new Testament which our religion receiueth but to serue their turne they added other bookes not inspired of God to be notwithstanding of like authority with those They acknowledged the Lords praier the articles of the Creede the ten Commandements which we receiue as principles of our religion but they frustrated them by a superstitious custome brought in of reciting them like a charme in an vnknowen tongue They haue neuer denyed the two Sacraments which we teach which were fast rooted in Christian profession but they haue added to them other fiue and made them vp seuen They vsed no other substantiall forme of Baptisme then we doe only they prophaned it with sundry polluted and corrupt ceremonies of humane deuice In their Masse and Sacrament of the Altar the ground of all is that that we doe according to the institution of Christ and example of the primitiue Church They bring bread and wine to the Lords table they sanctifie or consecrate the same with the words of Christ when and where they list they administer the same to the people and all this they take vpon them to doe in remembrance of the Passion Death and
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
will teach you when I come some new doctrine and points of faith which Christ hath not taught or commanded me to teach but I haue added of mine owne If he thinke so let him tell vs that we may wonder at him If he doe not thinke so to what end is it that he alleageth those wordes Surely he who a little before so religiously telleth them that o Vos 23. he receiued of the Lord that which he deliuered to them should not seeme likely presently after to say that he would hereafter teach them other matters of his owne which he had not receiued of the Lord. M. Bishop therefore should haue vsed his discretion to put a difference betwixt matter of order and matter of faith so to vnderstand that though the Apostles might as the Church alwaies may prescribe orders for decency and conueniency in the publike assemblies and gouernement of the Church yet that in doctrine and faith neither they then nor the Church now may adde any thing to that which Christ our Lord commanded and deliuered both to them and vs. Of the same kinde is his other proofe out of that which the Apostle faith for aduice to the vnmarried so still to abide concerning which he professeth to haue receiued p 1. Cor. 7. 12. 25. no commandement from the Lord for what is this to shew that the Apostle hereby added a new point of faith when as whether the married or the vnmarried whether they that follow his aduise or they that follow it not all are saued by the same faith Aduise is of things arbitrary to be done faith is of things necessary to be beleeued The Apostle therfore might giue wholsome aduise without coÌ„mandement of the Lord and yet cannot hereupon be said to teach a new article of faith I said further in my answere that the Apostles preached only q Rom. 1. 2. the Gospell promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures M. Bishop telleth me that I belye the Apostle and corrupt the text by adding the word only But I set downe the word only in a letter distinct from the wordes of the text as appeareth in my booke though he would not obserue it but hudleth all together and therefore there was no cause for him to charge me with corrupting the text And what will he say notwithstanding that it was not meant that they preached only the Gospell promised in the Scriptures Surely the Apostle noteth his calling and seruice to haue bin to preach the Gospell of God This Gospell of God he saith God had promised before by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures Now if M. Bishop will say that though the Gospell were there promised yet the whole Gospell was not promised he wrongeth the Apostle by making his wordes partly true and partly false true in one part of the Gospell because one part was promised false in another part because that other part was not promised Which to auoide he must confesse that the whole Gospell was promised in the Scriptures of the Prophets and because the Apostles preached only the Gospel of God therefore they preached only the Gospell promised in the Scriptures And thus in the end of the same Epistle the Apostle speaketh againe to the same effect that r Rom. 16. 26. the myslerie of the Gospell was published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets We doe not thinke he dallied in so saying as to meane the Gospell is published that is to say a part thereof but not the whole but the Gospell entirely and perfectly is preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets Therefore elsewhere he professeth that in preaching the Gospell f he said no other things but what the Prophets and Moses did Acts 26. 22. say should come But here M. Bishop saith I mangle the text and breake off in the midst of a sentence that it might seeme appliable to all points of the Apostles preachings which the Apostle applieth only to Christs death and resurrection and the preaching and carrying of light to the Gentiles But he himselfe rather doth wrong in so abridging the wordes of the Apostle contrary to the practise of the Apostle who though here he name only a briefe of some principall points as accuslomably is done yet vnder these as the chiefe comprehendeth the whole doctrine which he taught He vsed the wordes to take away the offence which was generally conceiued against his preaching and seeing he did not preach these only particulars which are here set downe neither were they offended only at these therefore he must be so vnderstood as that the wordes must be applyed to all the rest and that taken as put in steede of all whereat they were offended most of all And if we doe not so take them we make him subiect to calumniation because he could not affirme that he said no other things then the Prophets and Moses did say should come if in any other points he taught any thing that had not the testimony of Moses and the Prophets Yea when the same Apostle saith generally of t Rom. 3. 21. 22 the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ that it hath the witnesse of the law and the Prophets how can M. Bishop perswade vs that in the preaching of the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ he should teach any thing but whereof hee had witnesse and warrant of the law and Prophets especially when wee see him as in other of his Epistles so specially in the Epistle to the Romans instifying all points of faith accordingly And that this is a truth not to be contradicted we will take witnesse of Gregory Bishop of Rome who saith that u Gregor in Cant c. 5. Apo 〈…〉 a Pro 〈…〉 â—ruâ—n dâ—ctis vt 〈◊〉 persisterent fidem integram 〈…〉 the Aposiles receiued the whole faith from those things that were spoken by the Prophets And againe x Idem in Ezech hom 6. Qued praedicat lâ—x hoc â—iani Prophete quod dâ—nuilciant Prophatae â—o◠〈…〉 bâ—t 〈◊〉 quod exâ—â—ourt Euangelium hoc praediâ—aâ—erunt Apostoâ—â— per mundum Looke what the law preacheth the same also doe the Prophets and what the Prophets teach the same the Gospell hath exhibited and what the Gospell exhibited the Apostles preached through the world Thus the law and the Prophets and the Gospell and the preaching of the Apostles haue all deliuered only one and the same thing Therefore he saith that y Ibid. Vâ—raque Testamenta in nullo a se dâ—screpant c. Inâ—st testamento veteri testamentum noâ—um c. Prophetia testamenti noâ—i testamentum vetus est expositio testamenti veteris testamentum nouum the two Testaments differ not in any thing one from the other that the new Testament is contained in the old that the old Testament is a prophecio of the now and the new Testament the exposition of the old The same had St. Austin said before that
z Aug. cont Faust Manich. l. 15. c. 2. Vetus testamentum recte intellâ—gentibus propheâ—a est noui testamenti the old Testament to them that rightly vnderstand it is a prophecie of the new that a Idem de Catechiz rudib c. 4. In veteri testamento est occultatio noui in neuo testamento est manifestatio veteris in the old Testament is the hiding of the new and in the new the manifesting of the old To be short Leo faith b Leo in Natiuitat Dom. serm 3. Quod praedicauerunt Apostoli hoc annunciauerunt Prophâ—tae c. quod semper est creditâ—m What the Apostles preached the same the Prophets haue declared and the same hath alwaies beene beleeued Now if the Apostles receiued the whole faith of the Prophets and the same haue alwaies beene beleeued if the preaching of the Prophets and Apostles be the same if the two Testaments differ in nothing one from the other and the new be contained and hidden in the old then haue I rightly affirmed that the words of St. Paul are generally true that in preaching the Gospell he said no other things but those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come In the rest of this diuision we may thinke that M. Bishop was scant sober when he wrote it or else wrote in a dreame when he neither knew what was said to him nor what he was to say The Apostle saith not that he taught any one article which the common sort of the Iewes did beleeue And what then To what end M. Bishop doe you here tell vs a tale of the common sort of the Iewes Who spake of them or gaue you occasion to make any mention of them The matter is what the Prophets taught and the elect of God beleeued not what the common sort of the Iewes beleeued who commonly beleeued not the Prophets but killed and stoned them when they were sent vnto them How many saith he beleeued that their Messias should die so shamefull a death or that Moses law should be abrogated by the same Messias or that the Gospell of Christ should be preached vnto all nations All say I that vnderstood and beleeued the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets in which they were forewarned of these things The vnbeliefe or ignorance of the rest I trow hindereth not but that these things were then contained in the faith of the Church and in the doctrine of that time vnlesse M. Bishop will say that in Popery those are no articles of faith which the common sort of their Christians doe not conceiue who haue only the Colliars faith to beleeue iust as the Church beleeueth when they neither know what the Church beleeueth nor what they themselues ought to beleeue In a word the Prophets then foretold nothing for matter of faith which was not matter of faith then as well as now W. BISHOP §. 6. MAster Abbot runneth like a wandering Planet to a third that all which the Apostles taught they committed to writing which is notwithstanding as false as any of the former for many of them who neuer ceassed to preach left not one sentence in writing behinde them and he that wrote most did not write the hundreth part of that which he taughtly word of mouth We know well that they left the Gospell in writing and many other most diuine and rare instructions in their Epistles wherfore he needed not cite Ireneus to witnesse that which no man is ignorant of but that they wrote all which they preached or all things necessary to saluation Ireneus saith not a word but plainly signifieth the contrary where he most sagely counsaileth all men when any controuersie in religion ariseth to make their recourse to Euseb 〈◊〉 Eccles lib. 5. c. 19. the most ancient Churches where the Apostles had conuersed amongst which he commendeth the Roman for principall of all the rest and from them to take their resolution he then was of opinion that the decision of all controuersies were not to be searched out of the written word but rather to be taken from the resolution of the Church Oh but Tertullian saith That beleeuing De Praescriptionibus this we desire to beleeue no more because we first beleeue that there is nothing else for vs to beleeue Beleeuing this beleeuing what the written word only nothing lesse for in that very Treatise his principall drift is to proue that Heretikes cannot be confuted out of the written word but by ancient customes and traditions which he calleth Praescriptions but saith he when we beleeue the whole doctrine of Christ both written and deliuered by Apostolicall tradition then we desire to beleeue no more of any vpstart Heretikes new deuices To S. Augustine I answere first that those be not his formall wordes which he citeth Secondly admitting the sense if it be rightly taken I say that these wordes If Galat. 1. any man or Angell shall preach any thing besides that which is written where he alludeth to the Apostles like wordes are to be vnderstood as S. Augustine himselfe expoundeth those of the Apostle that is If any man shall preach contrary to that which is written For this is his owne interpretation The Apostle saith not Aug. lib. 17. cont Faust cap. 3. more then you haue receiued but otherwise then you haue receiued for if he had so said he had preiudiced himselfe who desired to come to the Thessalonians to supply what was wanting to their faith He that supplies addeth that wanted but doth not take away any thing that was before so that you see when he saith that nothing is to be preached besides that which is written his meaning is nothing which is contrary to it allowing withall that much more conformable to it may be added for a supply to make it full and perfect R. ABBOT THe Planets though in respect of other Starres they seeme to wander because in their orbe they change their place yet in their wandering and change doe alwaies obserue a certaine and constant course I seeme to M. Bishop to wander by going from a Prosyllogisme to a Syllogisme and from a maior to a minor but yet he seeth to his griefe that I inferre a direct and certaine conclusion as I haue before briefly declared in the first Chapter I came by processe of speech to shew that our faith and not Popery is the Apostolike faith To proue this I alleaged that what faith and Gospell the Apostles taught they committed the same to writing and because ours accordeth fully with that which they wrote therefore ours is the Apostolike faith It offendeth M. Bishop that it should be said that all which the Apostles taught they committed to writing Well what is his instance to proue the contrary Forsooth many of them who neuer ceased to preach left not one sentence in writing behinde them and he that wrote most wrote not the hundreth part of that which he taught Where we see the
him bring in Iacob 5. v. 14. the Priests of the Church and let them pray ouer them anoiling them with Oile in the name of our Lord c. Confesse therefore your sinnes one to Ibidem 16. another These and an hundred more plaine texts recorded in that fountaine of life wherein our Catholike Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse tearmes to wit Thereall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament That Priests haue power to pardon sinnes That Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter That good workes doe in iustice deserue eternall life That we are iustified not by faith alone but also by good workes That in extremity of sicknesse wee must call for the Priest to anoile vs with holy Oile That we must confesse our sinnes not to God alone but also vnto men these and diuers such like heads of our Catholike faith formally set downe in holy Scripture the Protestants will not beleeue though they bee written in Gods word neuer so expresly but doe ransacke all the corners of their wits to deuise some â—dde shift or other how to flie from the euidence of them Whereupon I conclude that they doe not receiue all the written word though they professe neuer so much to allow of all the bookes of Canâ—nicall Scripture For the written word of God consisteth Lib. 2. de Trinitate ad Const not in the reading but in the vnderstanding as S. Hierome testifieth that is it doth not consist in the bare letter of it but in the letter and true sense and meaning ioyned togither the letter being as the body of Scripture and the right vnderstanding of it the soule spirit and life thereof he therefore that taketh not the written word in the true sense but swarueth from the sincere interpretation of it cannot be truly said to receiue the written word as a good Christian ought to doe Seeing then that the Protestants and all other sectaries doe not receiue the holy Scriptures according vnto the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition they may most iustly be denyed to receiue the sacred written word of God at all though they seeme neuer so much to approue all the Bookes Verses and Letters of it which is plainly proued by S. Hierome vpon the first Chapter to the Galathians R. ABBOT I Haue noted a §. â— before in this Chapter that St. Austin faith of the Prophets and faithfull of the people of the Iewes that though not in name yet in deede they were Christians as we are As they were Christians then with vs so are we now Iewes with them not according to M. Bishops vnderstanding of the name of Iewes to whom I may well say as Austin said to Iulian the Pelagian b August coÌ„â— Iulian. l. 4. c. 3. Cùm insana dicis rides phrenetico es similis When thou speakest madly and laughest thou art like to a frantike Bedlem but according to the Apostles construction thereof c Rom. 2. 29. He is a Iew which is one within and d Phil. 3. 3. we are the circumcision which worship God in the spirit and reioyce in Christ Iesus and haue no confidence in the flesh We must be Iewes by vnity of faith with them as they were Christians with vs because they with vs and wee with them make but one body and one Church whereof though there be diuers Sacraments yet there is but one faith from the beginning to the end receiued first by the Patriarches written afterwards by the Prophets written againe more clearly by the Apostles so that e Ephes 2. 20. vpon the foundation not foundations but one foundation because one euen one written doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets the houshold of God are built and our faith resteth wholly thereupon I haue walked no rounds I haue broken through no brakes of thornes but haue kept a direct and euen way and haue so strongly builded all this as that I scorne M. Bishops poore paper-shot as much too weake to throw it downe To him I know these things are rounds and mazes he knoweth not which way to get out of them they are brakes of thornes he lyeth fast tyed in them God giue him grace to yeeld to that which he seeth himselfe vnable to reproue He is very angry it seemeth as touching the last point that I should say that the Protestants receiue and beleeue all the written word He saith that therein I begge that which is principally in question and thinketh that I haue little wit or iudgement to thinke that they would freely grant me that But our vsage and debating of questions with them is sufficient to put that out of question We vse the Scriptures our selues we translate them for common vse we reade and expound them publikely in our Churches we exhort men to reade them priuately in their houses wee instruct them to receiue no doctrine but what they see there wee make the same written word the soueraigne Iudge of all our controuersies wee defend the authority and sufficiency thereof against the impeachments and disgraces which Papists haue cast vpon it What may we doe more to make M. Bishop beleeue that we receiue and beleeue the written word Surely if I tell him that the Sunne shineth at noone day he will not beleeue it if it seeme to him to sound any thing against the Pope But he will giue instance to proue that we doe not so first for that we reiect diuers bookes of the old Testament Wherein he saith vntruly for the bookes of the old Testament are the bookes of Moses and the Prophets the Psalmes f August coÌ„t Gaudent lib 2. cap. 23. Non habent Judaei sicut legem Prophetas Psalmos quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis To which saith Austin our Lord Iesus gaue testimony as his witnesses of which we reiect none the other bookes that are adioyned to these we doe not reiect but we reade them and commend them yea we say as much of them as M. Bishop vouchsafeth to say of Pauls Epistles and the rest that they contayne many most diuine and rare instructions but yet we giue them no authority for confirmation of matters of faith because Christ and his Apostles haue giuen no testimony or witnesse of them and the primitiue Church in that respect hath expresly disclaimed them as I haue shewed at large g Of Traditions sect 17. before and resteth hereafter in this booke to bee shewed againe Secondly he bringeth sundry texts of the new Testament to proue that we doe not rightly vnderstand and beleeue all that is written in Gods word wherein he saith their Catholike Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse termes First to proue the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament he citeth the wordes This is my body which shall be giuen for you c. But if the Romish doctrine be here deliuered in expresse termes how is it that their owne Scotus saith that
of the Valentinian Heretikes and Heracleonites as I haue z Answere to the Preface of the second part sect 20. before shewed St. Iames doth not say Is any man in extremity of sicknesse past hope of life and now departing out of the world as M. Bishop in part speaketh and as they wholly vse that new deuised Sacrament but he saith absolutely Is any man sicke Againe St. Iames maketh the effect of that annointing to be bodily health saying that the Lord shall raise him vp or giue him ease which is the sauing or preseruing of which he speaketh namely from the perill and danger of sicknesse as a Bellarm. de Extr. vnct c. 8. Incipit à sanitate corporali cum ait Oratio fidei saluabit infir 〈…〉 Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth it whereas the effect of Sacraments is no corporall benefit but only inward and spirituall grace For albeit the water of Baptisme haue an effect to cleanse the body and bread and wine in the Lords Supper to nourish and feede the same yet these are no Sacramentall but only naturall effects belonging to these creatures without any Sacrament whereas the proper effect of that whereof St. Iames speaketh is bodily recouery and therefore by b OEcumen in Iac. 5. Hoc etiam Domino adhuc inter homines conuersante Apostoli sacrebant vngentes aegrotos olâ—o sanantes OEcumenius is made all one with that which the Apostles did as I haue alleaged whereof health is noted to haue ensued His last text is to proue that we must confesse our sinnes not to God only but also to men because the same St. Iames saith Confesse your sinnes one to another And who denyeth this who gainsayeth it when as our Sauiour Christ so plainly instructeth him that hath c Luke 17. 4. sinned against his brother to returne to him and say It repenteth me that so there may be reconciliation and peace betwixt them We make no question of confessing repentantly and charitably one to another but we question the necessity of confessing auricularly to the Priest by particular enumeration of all our sinnes and so farre is the text which M. Bishop citeth from deliuering expresly this as that his Masters of Rhemes doe plainly tell him that d Rhem. Testam Annotat. Iam. 1. 16. it is not certaine that St. Iames speaketh here of sacrament all confession who notwithstanding would haue bin glad if they could haue had any ground wherupon to affirme that he did so Now what did he then meane thus to heape together such a number of places as wherein their Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse termes when as there is not one of them that doth iustifie their Roman doctrine and his owne fellowes doe confesse so much of sundry of them What neede we to ransacke all the corners of our wits to deuise odde shifts to auoide the â—uidence as he calleth it of such places which without any shifts at all are so easily and plainly cleared as these are Yet according to his wonted and wise manner he concludeth that the Protestants doe not receiue all the written word who notwithstanding receiue all these places reade them cite them expound them acquaint the people vsually with them which they by no meanes dare to doe Yea but the Scriptures are not in reading but in vnderstanding and we doe not take them in the right sense Silly fellow what hindereth but that we should be thought able to vnderstand the Scriptures as well as he Forsooth we receiue not the Scriptures he saith according to the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition But be thou Iudge gentle Reader whether in this whole worke to goe no further I haue not brought the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition more frequently and firmely then he hath done He talketh of the Doctors for shew to blinde simple men but the true cause of their griefe is that wee receiue not the Romish exposition nor bee content to submit the whole Scriptures to the Popes will But because we finde no such rule amongst the most ancient and best learned Doctors that the Popes mouth should be any oracle of Scripture-sense we leaue his babling of the exposition of Scripture as partiall and idle and doe wish him to learne more wit then to take Scriptures in such sort as they that are at Rome are faine to doe W. BISHOP §. 8. NOw to draw towards the end of this clause not only neuer a one of M. Abbots assertions whereby hee went about to proue themselues and their Church to bee Catholike is true as hath beene shewed before but ouer and besides his very conclusion conuinceth himselfe euen by the verdict of himselfe to fall into the foule fault and errour of the Donatists Our faith saith he because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolike faith and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is proued to bee an Apostolicall Church c. and is the only true Catholike Church c. see you not how he is come at length to proue their Church to be Catholike Ex perfectione Page 16. lin 5. doctrinae By perfectnesse of their doctrine which was as he himselfe in this very assertion noted a plaine Donatâ—sticall tricke reproued by S. Augustine whom in that point he then approued What doating folly is this in the same short discourse so to forget himselfe as to take that for a sound proofe which he himselfe had before confuted as hereticall We like well of Tertullians obseruation That our faith ought to haue consanguinity and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine but that is not the question at this time but whether our doctrine or the Protestant be truly called Catholike that is whether of them hath beene receiued and beleeued in all nations ouer the world that is to be proued in this place M. Abbot if he had meant to deale plainly and soundly should not haue gone so about the bush and haue fetched such wide and wilde windlesses from old father Abrahams dayes but should haue demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesiasticall Histories or of ancient Fathers who were in the pure times of the Church the most Godly and approued Pastors thereof that the Protestants religion had flourished since the Apostles dayes ouer all Europe Afrike and Asia or at least had beene visibly extant in some one Country or other naming some certaine Churches in particular which had held in all points their faith and religion which he seeing impossible for any man to doe fell into that extrauagant and rouing discourse which you haue heard concluding without any premises sauing his owne bare word that in the written word There is no mention made of the Pope or his Supremacy nor of his Pardons c. Belike there is no mention made of S Peter nor ought said of his singular prerogatiues It hath not peraduenture That whatsoeuer hee should loose on earth should bee loosed in
heauen The other points were touched before and shall be shortly againe But I would in the meane season be glad to heare where the written word teacheth vs that Kings and temporall Magistrates are ordained by Christ to be vnder him supreme Gouernours of Ecclesiasticall affaires because M. Abbot made choise of this head-article of theirs for an instance that the written word was plaine on their side he should therefore at least haue pointed at some one text or other in the new Testament where it is registred that Princes are supreme Gouernours of the Church Nay are temporall Magistrates any Ecclesiasticall persons at all or can one that is no member of the Ecclesiasticall body be head of all the rest of the Ecclesiasticall members or is the state Secular higher and more worthy then the Ecclesiasticall and therefore meete to rule ouer it though they be not of it to say so is to preferre the body before the soule nature before grace earth before heauen or is it meete and decent that the lesse worthy-member should haue the supreme command ouer the more honourable where the Christian world is turned topsie-turuy that may be thought meete and expedient but in other places that will not be admitted for currant which in it selfe is so disorderly and inconuenient without it had better warrant in the word of God then that new position of theirs hath R. ABBOT THe truth of mine assertions hath hitherto appeared by my defence of them but let them no further be taken for true then he is here found to be false that is the oppugner of them He saith that my conclusion conuinceth me euen by the verdict of my selfe to fall into the foule fault and errour of the Donatists To proue this he maketh me to speake in my answere in this sort Our faith because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolike faith and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is proued to be an Apostolicall Church c. and is the only true Catholike Church c. Hauing set downe all these as my words he inferreth thus see you not how he is come at length to proue their Church to be Catholike by perfection of their doctrine which was as he himselfe in this very assertion noted a plaine Donatisticall tricks reproued by St. Austin c. But I pray thee gentle Reader to looke where thou canst finde those wordes by me set downe And is the only true Catholike Church Aske M. Bishop if thou meete with him where he found them and if he cannot tell thee aske him in sadnesse what spirit he thinketh it was wherewith he was led when he set them downe for my wordes Fie M. Bishop fie for shame doe you talke so against lying and will you in the meane time lye so wittingly and willingly so as that there is no meanes to salue it no colour to excuse it I did not say that ours is the only true Catholike Church I made no shew of prouing it by perfection of doctrine to be the Catholike Church I neuer wrote it I neuer thought it and therefore once againe I wish you to bethinke your selfe of your words whereof I remembred you before a Reproofe pag. 283. The diuels cause it is that needeth to be bolstered out and vnderpropped with lyes Surely it is beyond doating folly it is desperate fury that draweth men on to such courses To let that goe foule and shamefull as it is he telleth vs next that he liketh well of Tertullians obseruation that our faith ought to haue consanguinity and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine But he curtolleth Tertullians obseruation by this recitall of his because Tertullian doth not only say what our faith ought to haue but telleth vs that b Tertul. de Praescript Quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authoreÌ„ suum proferaÌ„t vt mâ—â—tò posteriores quae denique quotidiè instituiâ—tur tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non mâ—â—us Apostolicae depâ—tantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae those Churches which cannot bring any of the Apostles or Apostolike men for their authour as being much later euen the Churches which daylie are begunne yet according in the same faith are for this consanguinity or agreement of doctrine reputed Apostolike Churches no lesse then the rest Hence I concluded that our Church because it agreeth in faith and doctrine with the Apostles is therefore to be reckoned an Apostolike Church But that saith M. Bishop is not the question at this time And what then is the question Marry saith he whether our doctrine or the Protestants be truly called Catholike that is whether of them hath beene receiued and beleeued in all nations ouer the world But did not he see that the one of these directly followeth of the other for the faith of the Apostles is it that was spred ouer the whole world Our faith is the same with the faith of the Apostles because it is that which is recorded in the Scriptures of the Apostles Therefore our faith it is that was spred and beleeued through the world Abrahams faith was it that was spred ouer the whole world for Abraham is c Rom. 4. 12. 16 the father and patterne of all that beleeue both circumcised and vncircumcised Our faith is the same with Abrahams faith Therefore againe it is our faith that was generally receiued throughout the world At this M. Bishop biteth the lip it troubleth him that he knoweth not what to say to it He seeth this proofe to be most certaine and impregnable aboue all other and therefore he seeketh by all meanes to diuert and turne away his Reader from listening to it He telleth him that I doe not deale plainly and soundly that I goe about the bush that I fetch wide and wild windlesses from old father Abrahams daies But I answere him that I haue so gone about the bush as that I haue scratched him with it and my wide and wild windlesses haue so inclosed him as that he cannot finde which way to get out againe Well if my course like him not what would he haue me doe I should he saith haue demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesiasticall histories or ancient Fathers that the Protestants religion had flourished since the Apostles daies ouer all Europe Afrike and Asia I haue done already sufficient to demonstrate that I haue astonished him and choaked him with the euidence of Scriptures Stories Councels Fathers so as that hitherto he hath left all that he hath written to the question of religion without defence I shall make further demonstration thereof in this booke euen in the Roman Church What am I the nearer with him by that that I haue done What shall I be the nearer when I haue all done for he hath resolued himselfe to a wicked course and therefore though the light shine into his eyes yet he will sweare that he seeth it not He blameth me for concluding without
doth not furnish me with some bookes which they haue followed in which case I may as well vse their names as Papists may vse the names of Baronius Surius Genebrard and other their owne authours as I haue d Aduertisement concerning D. Bishops Reproofe sect 6. before shewed more at large As touching the disagreement betwixt Austin the Monke and the British Bishops I referred the Reader to Beda as well as to any other and by him it appeareth that there was variance betwixt them not only in some few but in very many things c Beda hist l. 2. c. 2. Sed alia plurima vnitati Ecclesiae coÌ„traria faciebaÌ„â— Qui cum longa disputatione habita neque precibus neque hortamentis neque increpationibus Augustini ac sâ—ciorum eius ossensum praebere voluissent c. Dicibat eis quòd in multis quidem nostrae consuetudini coÌ„traria gâ—ritis tamen si in tribus his mihi obseperare vultis c. caetera aequanimitèr â—uncta tolerabimus wherein he sought by disputing by intreating by exhorting by reprouing to draw their assent vnto him Which when hee could not obtaine he made offer to beare with all other differences so that in three things they would yeeld to him to obserue Easter and to celebrate Baptisme after the manner of the Church of Rome and to ioyne with them in Preaching to the infidell Saxons M. Bishop here will giue reason why the Britans should haue yeelded to the Roman manner of Baptising because forsooth it was likely to be administred more decently and deuoutly in the most renowmed city of Rome then amongst the Britans in a corner of the world But if it must be presumed that at Rome because of the renowme of the place all things were done more decently and deuoutly then otherwhere why did Gregory aduise Austin that f Ibid. l. r. c. 27. Mâ—bi placâ—t vt siue in Romana siue in Gallâ—aru siue in qualibet Ecclesia aliquid inuemsti quod plus omnipotenti Deo posâ—it placere so 〈…〉 e â—lâ—gaâ— custodiamus consuctudines commendat whether in the Church of Rome or in the Church of France or in any other Church he should finde what might better please God he should make choise of it Surely it was an absurdity in Austin that when things might be better as g Ambros de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Quod alibi rectiùs seruatâ—r nos rectè Ambrose also saith in other Churches then in the Church of Rome he should notwithstanding seeke to force other Churches to the example of that Church Yea and it was a token of his ignorance that he needed to write to Gregory to be resolued as touching h Beda vt supra Cùm vna sit sides cur sunt Ecclesiarum diuersae c. the diuers customes and obseruations of diuers Churches not knowing that i Euseb hist lib. 5. cap. 23. Dissonantia ieiuny fidei concordiam difference of ceremonies commendeth the vnity of faith as Ireneus spake particularly of fasting and therefore that there was no cause for him so to labour other men to conformity to their rites Albeit it may be likely that the Sacrament of Baptisme was administred amongst the Britans with greater simplicity and lesse ceremony then at Rome and that for that cause they made choise rather to continue their old forme knowing that abundance of ceremonies breedeth commonly abundance of superstitions and k Aug. Epist 119. Quamuis neque hoc inueniri possit quomodâ— contra fidem sint ipsam tamen religioneÌ„ c. seruilibus oneribus premâ—nt c. though it be not seene how they make against the faith yet they are as St. Austin saith the clogge and burden of religion oppressing it first and then eating out the very heart of it And this we take to be the chiefe cause why they so stifly refused Austin for that albeit they acknowledged that he taught the true Christian faith yet they saw him ioyne therwith not in baptisme only but otherwise also so many humane traditions and inuentions which they held to be so many prophanations of the true Christian faith If some of them acknowledged so much as M. Bishop vrgeth out of Beda we will not sticke to acknowledge the same in such sort as they did neither will we stand to question whether Dulcitius he would say Dubricius as I take it or Dauid principall preachers of the Britans in their times were brought vp at Rome though Bale whom he citeth in his lesser worke which only I haue doe not say so much or that either of them was Legate to the Bishop of Rome but be it so yet it followeth not that all his Maiesties Auncestours both English and Britaines embraced that Roman faith that now is because it shall appeare as I haue said that the Roman faith is not the same now that it was then As touching the obseruation of Easter what reasons might moue the Britans to continue their former custome we cannot tell It may be that they were ignorant of the Nicene decree and what of that Surely Hilary a learned and godly Bishop of France protesteth that he l Hilar. de Synod adu Arian Fidem Nicenam nunquam â—â—si exulaturus audâ—â—i neuer heard of the Nicene Councell till the time that he went into banishment which as appeareth by Hieromes Chronicle was about the twentieth yeare of Constantius the Arian Emperour which was thirty yeares after the time of that Councell Now if it were so long vnknowen or so little knowen in France no maruell if in Britanny it were lesse knowen and where it had not caused a change within that time it was not likely afterwards to preuaile much specially with a nation so much afflicted and troubled with warres and inuasions as the Britans thenceforth were in which case no alteration might be likely to take place amongst them Moreouer they could remember that in the time of Lucius their King Eleutherius sent ouer some preachers hither for the conuerting and instructing of the King and his people who yet required not to haue Easter obserued after the manner of the Roman Church but left them to keepe it according to the custome that they had vsed from the time of the Apostles whereupon they might resolue that there was no cause why Austin comming from Rome should now goe about to alter that custome more then they had done In a word the Britans were not too contentious in refusing to yeeld to a sodaine alteration of things so long continued but Austin rather shewed himselfe contentious and vndiscreet in that he did so vnseasonably and without cause so strongly vrge the same W. BISHOP §. 4. THe same might as easily be proued of the Churches of Scotland who acknowledge Palladius and Patritius for two of the chiefe founders of the Christian faith in that country who both were brought vp at Rome and sent into Scotland by Celestinus Bishop of Rome to instruct
and firme assurance to which purpose the Apostles vsed these wordes to the Lord Encrease our faith And to this agreeth that which Oecumenius saith l Oecumen in Rom. 3. Hoc Dâ—◠〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 nâ—m 〈…〉 tate excedentis ex sola videlicet fide nos peccatis ianc mortuos viuisicarâ—aâ— sâ—scitare c. Verùm ad quid viuisicatur inquit qui credidit Ad perfectâ—ssimam fide immutabiâ—e habitus fortitudinem Nam ex side in fidem est viuificatio This is the property of the iustice of God exceeding the kindnesse of man euen by faith only to quicken and raise vs vp that are dead in sinnes And whereto is he quickened that hath beleeued To most perfict faith and vnchangeable strength of the habit thereof For our quickening is from faith to faith Here is then the iustice of God that is the iustification of man before God described by the Apostle that it beginneth with faith and goeth forward by faith and is more and more to be apprehended by increase and growth of faith It is begunne by faith only and because the proceeding and perfecting thereof is according to the beginning from faith to faith therefore it is consummate and perfect in faith only And this phrase of speech the holy Ghost seemeth to haue directed purposely against the errour of the Papists who though they acknowledge the beginning of iustification to be by faith yet determine the processe and perfection thereof to consist in workes so that our iustification with them is not according to the wordes of the Apostle from faith to faith but contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle from faith to workes m Bellarm. Recognit lib. de Iustificat Charitas verè absolutè formalis iustitia est c. fides propriè simplicitèr iustificat per modum dispositionis forâ— malitèr autem simplicitèr absolutè non iustiâ— ficat Charity saith Bellarmine is truly and absolutely formall righteousnesse faith properly and simply iustifieth in manner of a disposition but simply and absolutely it doth not iustifie formally And againe n IdeÌ„ Recog lib. de Grat. lib. Arbit QuaÌ„uis fides spes necessariò requirantur ad iustificationem tameÌ„ id quod verissimè proprijssimèque iustificat tanquam vnica formalis causa charitas est Although faith and hope be necessarily required to iustification yet charity is it which most truly and properly iustifieth as the only formall cause So then where the Apostle saith that o Rom. 3. 22. the righteousnesse of God is by the faith of Iesus Christ and that p Vers 30. God iustifieth by faith we must thinke that he speaketh vnproperly he speaketh not formally neither doth he name that wherein the iustification of man most truly consisteth Thus doe they take vpon them as the old Heretikes did to be q Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Audent dicere gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum correctours of the Apostles to reforme their ouersights and to better their termes and phrases euen where they speake most vniformely and constantly to deliuer the doctrine of true faith But we will not hearken to them nor be led by them but rather take that which the Apostle teacheth vs that the iustification before God which is taught vs by the Gospell is from faith to faith that it beginneth in faith and continueth in faith and from the beginning to the end consisteth in faith only And hereto agreeth that which the Apostle saith elsewhere r Gal 2. 16. We who are Iewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might or may be iustified by the faith of Christ and not by the workes of the law because by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified Where wee see the processe of iustification plainly described as we haue said from faith to faith the Apostle professing to haue beleeued in Christ not thenceforth to be iustified by workes as Popery teacheth but to be iustified by faith because being now beleeuers they knew that by the workes of the law no flesh should be iustified And this meaning is further confirmed by the proofe which the Apostle bringeth of the wordes whereof we speake Å¿ Habac. 2 4. as it is written saith he The iust shall liue by faith For although those wordes of the Prophet doe seeme to attribute iustification and life to faith yet no otherwise doe they inferre it to be from faith to faith but in that sort as I haue said Certaine it is that but by faith no man can attaine to be called a iust man and therefore in the very name of the iust is an implication of faith The Prophet then teacheth that a man being by faith become a iust man is not thenceforth to expect life by his iustice but to goe on from faith to faith the iust saith he shall liue not by his iustice but by his faith For this cause doth he expresse it not by the present The iust doth liue as the vulgar corruptly readeth but by the future tense The iust shall liue by faith as to note that the iustice of God that is the iustice for which God accepteth and iustifieth vs as it beganne so proceedeth euen to the attainement of euerlasting life not by workes but by faith only And of all this we haue a notable example in our father Abraham who is set before vs as the patterne and example of all the faithfull of whom after that t Gen. 12. 1. 2 c. Heb. 11. 8. by faith he had obeyed God to goe out of his owne Countrey and had wrought many workes of iustice and righteousnesse yet to shew this continuation of the righteousnesse of God from faith to faith it is said u Gen. 15. 6. Abraham beleeued the Lord and hee counted that to him for righteousnesse He was not first iustified by faith to be afterwards iustified by workes but still his faith was it for which he was reputed righteous in the sight of God By all this then we see a direct opposition betwixt the doctrine of the ancient Roman Church and the doctrine of the Papists The Papists say that the righteousnesse of God beginneth with faith but the perfection thereof is in workes and that it consisteth most properly and truly in the righteousnesse of works and that the iust man though he become iust by faith yet must afterwards with God be iustified and attaine to life by workes But the old Church of Rome was farre otherwise minded that iustification before God beginneth in faith and is determined in faith and that the iust man be he neuer so iust must liue not by his iustice but by his faith it being true of iust men as Hierome telleth vs which is said x Hieron adu Pelag. l 2. Pro
if thou wouldest be a iudge only and wouldest not be mercifull but wouldest marke all our iniquities and seeke after them who could endure it who could stand before thee and say I am innocent who should stand in thy iudgement Our only hope therefore is for that with thee there is mercy If then with the iust iudge there be no hope without mercy then surely it is not for merit that the iust Iudge rendereth vnto vs the crowne of iustice but according to the law of faith he crowneth his owne gifts in vs and vs in them euen for his owne mercies sake M. Bishops arguments therefore are all vanished into winde and the indifferent Reader may well perceiue that the Protestants cause is better strengthened by St. Paul then that it neede to stand in feare of such Popish deluding sophismes A blinde shift he hath vnder pretence of g 2. Pet. 3. 16. some things in St. Pauls Epistles hard to be vnderstood to colour his cauilling at those things which are professedly disputed and most plainly and clearely spoken In all his Epistles saith he being vnderstood as he meant them there is not one word or syllable that maketh for the Protestants But how I maruell should wee attaine to vnderstand them as he meant them May we learne it of M. Bishop or are we to goe to the Pope to know it of him Surely a mad meaning shall we haue of St. Pauls Epistles if we will yeeld to take them after their meaning What way hath M. Bishop or the Pope to vnderstand St. Pauls meaning that we should not vnderstand it as well as they or what reason can they giue vs why we should not by St. Pauls wordes vnderstand his meaning as well as by their words we vnderstand theirs Was St. Paul so hard of speech as that he wanted wordes to declare his meaning or was he so desirous to conceale his meaning as that he would speake one thing and meane another yea the contrary to that hee spake Would hee bee a Protestant in wordes when in meaning he intended to be a Papist They bewray hereby what they are be thou out of doubt gentle Reader that they are no welwillers to the Apostles meaning that teach so many things contrary to the Apostles wordes We see how perspicuously frequently constantly hee teacheth the same that wee teach where to giue a meaning different from that which he saith is no other but maliciously to peruert his meaning Neither doe we affirme any thing by his wordes wherein we haue not the certaine testimony of the ancient Church concurring with vs as M. Bishop in all these points seeth to his owne confusion when as in the meane time it is enough with him to cite texts but whether they make any thing for proofe of that for which he citeth them it skilleth not And this we shall see in that plenty of plaine texts which he saith he hath to produce for their vncatholike faith which when I shall haue examined it will easily appeare to the Reader whether his discourse or mine bee the more idle If the tast that hee will giue vs bee no better then that which vvee haue already tasted it will vtterly distast the Reader vnlesse hee bee such a one as hath lost his tast CHAP. XIIII That the Scriptures are loosely and impertinently alleaged by the Papists for proofe of their false doctrines as namely of Iustification before God of Free-will of the Merit of single life of Relikes and Images of the Masse and Transubstantiation and sundry other such like ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE PAul saith nothing for those points for the deniall whereof M. Bishop condemneth vs c. to Well M. Bishop let vs leaue Peter and Paul c. W. BISHOP §. 1. WE haue here a dainty dish of M. Abbots cookery a large rhetoricall conclusion deducted out of leane thinne and weake premises He assayed to make a shew out of the Apostle that there was not a little which would serue the Protestants turne and cited to that purpose certaine sentences out of him but so properly that some of them indeede seemed to sound for him though they had in truth a farre different sense others had neither sense nor sound nor sillable for him Neuerthelesse as though he had gotten a great conquest he singeth a triumph and striketh vp a braue victory that all in Peter and Paul is for the Protestant nothing for the Papist Afterward as it were correcting himselfe he addeth nothing but in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne which is one of the truest words he there deliuereth The Protestants indeede be iolly nimble witted fellowes that can make any thing serue at least for a shew of their cause and when all other things faile them Ad fabulas conuertuntur they turne their eares away 2. Tim. â— vers 4. from truth as the Apostle speaketh and fall to fables and one Robin good-fellow I woene for lacke of a better is brought vpon the stage to spit and cry out Fie vpon Peter fie vpon Paul that had not remembred to say one word for Popery but all for the Protestant Fie I say vpon such a cause that must be vnderpropt with such rotten baggage stuffe What shadow of likely-hood is there that one should tell the Pope such a tale to his face or that Erasmus who was in most points a Catholike should report it or could there be any poore Robin excepting M. Abbots himselfe so simple and poore-blinde that in all the writings of those blessed Apostles he could not finde one word that gaue any sound or shew for the Catholike cause You haue heard already that I haue to euery place picked by M. Abbot out of S. Paul in fauour of their religion opposed another out of the same Epistle that speaketh more plainly against them for vs I will here out of the abundance of testimonies which the same S. Paul whom the simple Protestants take to be wholly for them beareth to our doctrine set downe some store euen in defence of those very points which Master Abbot hath made speciall choise off to obiect against vs. R. ABBOT WE note well M. Bishop that no Cooke can fâ—t your diseased appetite but such a one as is brought vp in the Popes kitchin whilest you like better a Numb 11. 5. the fish and leekes and oinions and garlicke of Aegypt then Manna that came from heauen We see it commonly so as hath been before said that corrupt stomackes are best pleased with the most grosse and vnwholsome meates and as the horse-leach sucketh out of the body the most noisome and putrified bloud and the Spider in the garden or otherwhere gathereth that only which may be turned to venime and poison so you out of the body of the Church draw that only which is noisome and poisonfull and nothing pleaseth your humour but what serueth for the corrupting both of your selfe and other men This is the cause why my premises
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
them or will you haue men before due time to say O St. William helpe vs and saue vs l Iam. 5. 20. He that conuerteth a sinner from going astray saueth a soule from death and doth it follow that thenceforth wee must pray vnto him to helpe and saue vs Yea many a time it commeth to passe that hee which thus saueth another is found a reprobate himselfe and doth it yet follow that we must pray to him Paul and Timothy saued men as all Preachers doe by preaching the way of saluation by m Acts 11. 14. speaking the wordes vnto them by which they were saued They saued them to whom they preached them to whom they preached not they saued not nor can be said to saue vs otherwise then as Gods instruments they haue left vnto vs in writing the word of the Gospell by the faith whereof wee obtaine saluation And doth it follow that because they thus saued men when they were aliue therefore we must pray to them when they are dead or because they saued men by their preaching when they were aliue must we pray to them to helpe vs and saue vs by their merits and intercessions now they are dead or because Paul and Timothy saued men by their preaching must we pray to our Lady to holy Virgins and other Women that they will helpe vs and saue vs that preached not What sharpe eye-sight doe men get by being at Rome that can looke as farre into a text as they doe into a mil-stone and can see more in it then euer they thought of that were the writers of it Can wee doubt but that the Roman religion may bee proued by Scripture when as we see so pregnant places for the proofe of it or may we not rather thinke them besotted and bewitched that rest their faith and saluation vpon such proofes The like faculty and dexterity we see in the next proofe St. Paul did accomplish those things that want to the passions of Christ in his flesh for Christs body which is the Church therefore Christs passion doth not take away our owne satisfaction Of which place and his construction thereof I haue n Of Satisfaction sect â— formerly said so much and so plainly laied open his abuse of it as that for very shame hee should haue for borne to apply it any more to that effect There is no Father of the Church no ancient writer that hath either so expounded the place or affirmed the doctrine that they gather from it It is a meere Antichristian deuise full of blasphemy and indignity to the Sonne of God forged only for aduantage of filthy lucre and gaine so that we may iustly wonder that they dare thus wrest holy Scripture to the defence of it But doth St. Paul say any thing there that soundeth for satisfaction Hee telleth vs that for the Churches sake he fulfilleth for his part that which is wanting or yet behinde of the afflictions of Christ but doth he any way import that this is to satisfie for sinne or to redeeme the Church either from temporall or eternall punishment The Father o Heb. 2. 10. hath consecrated Iesus the Prince of our saluation through afflictions p Luke 24. 26. It behoued him first to suffer and so to enter into his glory God then hauing q Rom 8. 29. predestinated vs to be made like vnto the image of his sonne it followeth that r Vers 17. wee must also suffer with him that wee also may be glorified with him And because we are members of Christ who hath made the Church Å¿ Ephes 1. 23. his body and the fulnesse of himselfe and hath called the whole himselfe the head and vs the body by the one name of t 1. Cor. 12. 12. Gal. 3. 16. Christ professing expresly u Mâ—â— 25. 4â— 45. What yee haue done to one of the least of these my brethren yee haue done it vnto me therefore our afflictions and sufferings are called x 2. Cor. 1. 5. the sufferings and afflictions of Christ wheroâ— therefore there shall be some what behinde and to which there shall be still somewhat wanting vntill the passions and sufferings of the whole body euen of all the elect shall bee accomplished and fulfilled To St. Paul then it belonged being a member of the body of Christ to drinke of this cup and to be baptized with this baptisme but no otherwise did it belong to him then it belongeth to all the faithfull neither doth hee professe any thing here to bee fulfilled by him but what must successiuely and in order be fulfilled by them all Thus and no otherwise did Gregory Bishop of Rome vnderstand the Apostles fulfilling of the remainder of the afflictions of Christ y Gregor Expoâ—t in 1 Reg. lib 4. cap 4. pâ—ope finem No omnia nostra Christus expleuit Per crucem qui. dem suam omnes redemit sed remansit vt qui redimi cum eo regnore nititur crucifigatur Hoâ— profectòre fiduum viderat qui dicebat si compatimur conregnabimus quasi dicot Quod explâ—uit Christus noÌ„ valet nisi ei qui id quod remansit adimplet Hinc beatus Petrus Apostolis dicit Christus passas est pro nobis c. Hâ—nc Paulus aitâ— Aâ—â—mpleo â—a quae desunt pâ—ssoâ— Christâ—m coâ—pore meo Christ saith he did not fulfill all that appertaineth to vs. By his Crosse indeede he redeemed all but it remaineth that hee that seeketh to bee redeemed and to raigne with him must also be crucified This saith he he saw to be remaining which said If we suffer with him we shall raigne with him as if he said That which Christ fulfilled auaileth not but to him who fulfilleth that which yet remaineth Hereof St. Peter saith Christ suffered for vs leauing you an example that yee should follow his steps Hereof St. Paul saith I fulfill in my body those things which are yet wanting to the passion of Christ Hee attributeth redemption which is the satisfaction for our sinnes wholly to the Crosse of Christ but signifieth withall that God hath appointed that they shall be ioyned with Christ in z Phil. 3 10. the fellowship of his afflâ—ctions that shall bee partakers of his redemption and that this is the fulfilling of that that is wanting of the passions of Christ Now whereas he saith that he doth this for the Churches sake hee meaneth no other thereby then when hee saith to the Corinthians a 2. Cor. 12 15. I will most gladly be bestowed for your soules and to the Ephesians b Ephes 3. â— I am a prisoner in the Lord for you Gentils and to the Philippians c Phil 2. 17. I will gladly be offered vpon the sacrifice and seruice of your faith and to Timothy d 2. Tim. 2. 10. I suffer all things for the elects sake that they may also obtaine the saluation which is in Christ Iesus with eternall glory What did he intend