the Prophet complaineth c Esa 29.13 Their feare towards me is taught by the precepts of men His excuse of these carnall rites and ceremonies is false for contrary to that that he saith they are infinite in number and a great number of them apish and rediculous in vse not fit to stirre vp and cherish deuotion but rather to busie and intangle the senses of the body and thereby to sequester and extinguish the deuotion of the mind S. Austine complained in his time that d Aug. ep 119. Tam multis praesumptionib sic plena sunt omnia c. Quamuis nequâ— hoc inueniri possit quomodo contra fidem veniant ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis miserecordia dei liberam esse voluit seruilibus oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint tamen legalibus sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur all was so full of humane presumptions and that albeit it could not be found how they were against the faith yet the religion which the mercy of God would haue free with a very few and those most manifest mysteries and Sacraments was thereby clogged with seruile burdens so that the condition of the Iewes was more tolerable who though they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect not to the presumptions of men but to the burdens of Gods law What would he say if he were now aliue to see Durands Rationale diuinorum and those infinite presumptions wherewith Popish superstition hath clogged and oppressed the Church Of which some are preposterous imitations of the Leuiticall and Iewish ceremonies other taken from the abhominations of heathenish Idoll-seruice a thing so plaine as that M. Bishop denieth not but that they vsed some such like indeed the same onely he setteth vpon them a false colour of being deuised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost not knowing Chrysostomes rule that e Chrysost de sanct orando spiritu Ex quo non legit haec scripta sed ex se ipso loquitur manifestum est quòd non habet sp sanct because they read not these things written but speake of themselues it is manifest that they haue not the holy Ghost We be no spirits he saith but yet he should know that the true worshippers leauing f Gal. 4.9 beggerly rudiments g Heb 9.10 carnall rites should h Ioh. 4.24 worship the Father inspirit and truth Whereas he alleageth that the life and vertue of bodily ceremonies proceedeth from the spirit he saith nothing but what was true and necessarily required in the Iewish seruice and therefore may as well be pleaded for the continuance of their ceremonies as for the excusing of others deuised in steed of them To that that M. Perkins saith that they giue the same worship to Saints that they doe to God he answereth that that is a stale iest which long since hath lost all his grace but he should haue told vs that they themselues haue long since lost all grace by mainteining such filtherie and abhomination in the Church Bodin telleth vs that i Bodin method h. c. 5. A plerisque in Italia Gallia Narbonensi ardentiore voto certe maiore metu colitur D. Antonius quà m deus immortâ—lis in Italy and a part of France that which is called Narbonensis S. Antony is commonly worshipped with greater deuotion and feare then almighty God Lud. Viâ—es saith that k Lud. Viues in Aug. de ciu dei l. 8. ca. 27. Multi Christiani diuos diuasque non alitèr venerantur quà m deum nec video in multis quod sit disâ—iâ—men inter eorâ—â—opinionem de sanctis id qâ—od gentiles putabant de suis dijs many Christians he was loth to say how many doe no otherwise worship the Saints then as God himselfe and in many saith he I see not what difference there is betweene their opinion of the Saints and that which the heathens deemed of their Gods Yea Bellarmine confesseth that l Bellarm. de sanct beatitud lib. 1. cap. 12. Omnes ferè actus exteriores communes sunt omni adorationi in a maner all their outward worshippes he might haue said their inward also are common both to the one and to the other And so we see they pray to the one they pray to the other they kneele to the one they kneele to the other they offer they vow they fast they build Churches and Altars they keepe holy daies they professe trust and confidence both to the one and to the other only forsooth we must thinke that they retaine m Ibid. Latria inclinatio voluntatis cum apprehensione dei c. Dulia inclinatio voluntatis cum apprehensione excellentiae plus quam humanae minùs quà m diuinae an apprehensiue and intellectuall difference betwixt the one and the other As if aman giuing the crowne and roiall honour of the king to a subiect should thinke to discharge himselfe by saying that in his mind for al that he retained a farre higher opinion of the king then of the subiect Which if it acquit not with men surely we should know that the infinite excellency of God aboue all his creatures should be a reason to withhold vs from daring to ioine any creature in any part of communion or felowship with him Your idolatry M. Bishop in this behalfe is so stale as that it is growen extreamely sower and the time will come when you shall see it will be taken for no iest As for your confutations and your answers you should haue made them good before you had boasted of them A wise man would not haue written a latter booke before he had made it appeare that he could defend the former 6. W. BISHOP And for that this crime of Atheisme is the most heynous that can be as contrariwise the true opinion of the God-head and the sincere worship thereof is the most sweete and beautifull flower of religion let vs therefore heere to hold due correspondence with Master PERKINS examine the Protestants dostrine concerning the nature of God and their worship of him that the indifferent Reader comparing iudiciously our two opinions thereof together may embrace that for most pure and true that carrieth the most reuerent and holy conceit thereof For out of all doubt there can be no greater motiue to any deuout soule to like of a religion then to see that it doth deliuer a most sacred doctrine of the Soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth and doth withall most religiously adore and serue him Whereas on the other side there is not a more forcible perswasion to forsake a religion before professed then to be giueÌ„ to vnderstand that the Masters of that religion teach many absurde things concerning the Godhead it selfe and do as coldly and as slightly worship God almightie as may be Marke therfore I beseech thee gentle Reader for thy owne soules
Sunne and in the Moone and vpon the crosse that is in many places and that c Idem in Ioan. er 31. Cùm ad alium locum venerit in eo loco vnde venit non est When he is come to another place he is not in the place from whence he came and therefore that d Vigil cont Eutich lib. 4. Quando in terra fuit caro Christi non erat vtiâ— in coelo nunc quia in coelo est non est vtique in terra The body of Christ when it was vpon earth was not in heauen and now because it is in heauen it is not vpon the earth that e Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 24. Ergo non supra terram nec interra nec secundum carnem ti quaerere debemus si volumus inuenire c. Stephanus tetigit quia quaesiuit in coele If we will find Christ we must not seeke him in the earth nor vpon the earth nor according to the flesh but in heauen They would neuer haue spoken thus without any limitation or exception if they had beleeued that which M. Bishop heere would make vs beleeue out of the doctrine of the church of Rome that the body of Christ may be in infinite places at once that it may be together both in heauen and earth with forme and without forme both visible and inuisible both circumscribed and vncircumscribed that is to say by a plaine contradiction both that that it is and that that it is not Surely they would haue saied as we doe If it be visible it cannot be inuisible or if it be inuisible it cannot be visible if it haue forme then it is not without forme or if it be without forme how should it be said to haue any forme both these cannot stand together True saith M. Bishop in one and the same maner of existence and being And say I if it be but one and the same body it can at once haue but one maner of existing and being for according to the same or totally to be thus not thus cannot agree to one and the same thing As for his instances whereby hee would take away the improbabilitie of this fancie they are altogether ridiculous Christ saith hee when hee was transfigured had another maner of outward forme and appearance then he had before and after his resurrection when it pleased him hee was visible to his Apostles and at other times inuisible And what then Ergo Christs body may be in many places at once it may together be both visible and inuisible and whatsoeuer pleaseth them But a man may euen as well say M. Bishop is sometimes hot and sometimes cold somtimes asleepe sometimes awake sometimes sober sometimes merrie sometimes like a schollar sometimes like a swaggerer sometimes at Rome sometimes in England ergò hee may at one time be together both asleepe and awake both visible and inuisible both at Rome and in England and in many places at once so that though by Parsons procurement he were fast laied vp in prison yet he might at the same time be personally before the Pope to acquaint him with the appeale of the secular Priests and the exorbitant dealing of the Iesuites against them What will he not call him a dreaming Sophister that should conclude thus Well then let him for his paines take his fellow to him and learne to argue more wisely another time But marke heere gentle Reader that M. Bishop maketh Philosophie a witnesse of this matter We haue thought heeretofore that they rested the same wholly and meerely vpon the omnipotent power of God and haue obserued how their schoole-philosophers when they speake of relation of bodies to their places do except this matter of the reall presence as a matter of irregularity not comming within compasse of the rules of Philosophy but farre transcendent aboue all their learning Now M. Bishop will make vs beleeue that it standeth with good Philosophy and that all their Philosophers haue all this while beene deceiued marrie it is woorth the while to note in what termes and how warily he hath set it downe The externall relations of bodies vnto their places do no whit at all destroy their inward and naturall substances as all Philosophy testifieth You say well M. Bishop and very wisely Indeed it is not relation to a place but the want of relation to a place that taketh away the nature of a body For f Aug. epist 50. spatia locorum tolle corporibus nusquam erunt quia nusquam erunt nec erunt take from bodies space of place saieth Austin and they shall be no where and because they shall be no where they shall not be at all g Cyril de Trinit lib. 2. si corpus in loco omninò in magnitudine in quantitaete si quanta facta esset non effugeret cireumscriptionem If it be a body saith Cyrill then verily it is in a place and hath greatnesse and quantitie and if it haue quantitie it cannot be but that it must be circumscribed h Didym de spâ—sancto l. 2. si spiritus veritatis iuxta naturas corporum circumscriptus est certo spacio alium deserens locum ad alium commigrauit It is the nature of a body saieth Didymus to be circumscribed in a certaine space and therefore by comming into one place it must forsake another You therefore affirming the body of Christ vncircumscribed and hauing no commensuration or space of place and comming into one place without the leauing of another doe thereby vtterly destroy the nature of a body i Ibid. Impossibile est impium ista quae diximus in corporalibus credere It is impossible and a thing impious saith Didymus to beleeue these things concerning bodily substances This was the Philosophy that these Fathers had learned They knew by Philosophy and by trueth that a body must haue extension of parts and one part different and distant from another and place correspondent to euerie part so that where one part is there another cannot be and the whole so limited to one place as that without leauing that place it cannot be in another but neither did Philosophy nor Diuinitie teach them that vncircumscribed body which M. Bishop speaketh of 3. W. BISHOP Secondly Master PERKINS chargeth vs with disgrading Christ of his offices saying that for one Iesus Christ the only King law-giuer and head of the Church they ioine vnto him the Pope not only as a Vicar but as a fellow in that they giue vnto him power to make lawes binding in conscience to resolue and determine infallibly the sense of holy Scripture properly to pardon sinne to haue authority ouer the whole earth and a part of hell to depose Kings to whom vnder Christ euery soule is subject to absolue subjects from the oath of allegeance c. Answer Here is a bed-role of many superfluous speeches for not one of all these things if
we admit them all to be true doth conuince vs to haue disgraded Christ of his offices which are these to appease Gods wrath towards vs to pay the ransome for our sinnes to conquer the Diuell to open the Kingdome of heauen to bee supreme head of both men and Angels and such like He may without any derogation vnto these his soueraigne prerogatiues giue vnto his seruants first power to make lawes to binde in conscience as he hath done to all Princes which the Protestants themselues dare not denie then to determine vnfallibly of the true sense of holy Scripture which the Apostles could doe as all men confesse and yet do not make them Christs fellowes but his humble seruants to whom also hee gaue power properly to pardon sinnes Luc. 24. Ioan. 20. Mar. 16. Matt. 28. Whose sinnes you pardon on earth shall be pardoned in heauen and finally to them he also gaue authoritie ouer the whole earth goe into the vniuersall world Ouer part of hell no Pope hath authoritie and when he doeth good to any soule in Purgatory it is per modum suffragij as a suppliant and entreater not as a commander Whether hee hath any authoritie ouer Princes and their subiects in temporall affaires it is questioned by some yet no man not wilfully blinde can doubt but that Christ might haue giuen him that authority without disgrading himselfe of it as he hath imparted to him and to others also faculties of greater authoritie and vertue reseruing neuerthelesse the same vnto himselfe in a much more excellent maner As a King by substituting a Viceroy or some such like deputie to whom he giues most large commission doth not thereby disgrade himselfe of his Kingly authority as all the world knowes no more did our Sauiour Christ Iesus bereaue himselfe of his power or dignitie when hee bestowed some part thereof vpon his substitutes He goes on multiplying a number of idle words to small purpose as that we for one Christ the onely reall Priest of the new Testament ioyne many secondary Priests vnto him which offer Christ daily in the Masse Wee indeed hold the Apostles to haue beene made by Christ not imputatiue or phantasticall but reall and true Priests And by Christ his owne order and commandement to haue offered his body and bloud daily in the sacrifice of the Masse what of that see that question Furthermore he saith for one Iesus the all-sufficient mediatour of intercession they haue added many fellowes to him to make request for vs namely as many Saints as be in the Popes Kalendar yea and many more too For we hold that any of the faithfull yet liuing may bee also requested to pray for vs neither shall hee in haste bee able to prooue that Christ onely maketh intercession for vs though he be the onely mediatour that hath redeemed vs. R. ABBOT Christ by his office is our Prophet our Priest and our King Christ degraded by the Pope As a Prophet he hath declared fully and finally the whole counsell and way of God for the attainment of eternall life As a Priest he hath offered a sacrifice for our redemption and by vertue of that sacrifice is our Mediatour to intreat mercy for vs. As a King he prescribeth lawes whereby to gouerne vs and hauing a Matt. 28.18 All power giuen to him both in heauen and earth exerciseth the same to safegard and defend vs. In all these offices of which M. Bishop speaketh as if he vnderstood not what they meane the Church of Rome offereth most high indignity to the Son of God To take the points spoken of in order as they are first they are iniurious to the kingdome of Christ in that they giue the Pope authority to make lawes to bind in conscience which Christ only hath authority to doe b See hereof part 2. pag. 17.18 To bind in conscience is to tie the conscience and inward man to an opinion of holinesse and spirituall deuotion in the thing which is done so as to account the same a worship of religion whereby God is truly serued and honoured yea and further according to Romish fancies the means of remission of sinnes and the merit of eternall life This whosoeuer doth sheweth himselfe a deceiuer and an Antichrist and the Pope in so doing is found to be he of whom the Apostle prophecied c 2. Thess 2.4 that he should sit as God in the temple of God domineering in the hearts and consciences of them of whom it is said d 2. Cor. 6.16 Ye are the temple of the liuing God If Princes attempt to make lawes in this sort they are therein vniust and presumptuous against God Otherwise to speake of Princes lawes God himselfe bindeth the conscience to yeeld the outward man in subiection to the Prince when notwithstanding the conscience it selfe remaineth free as touching the thing which the Prince commandeth I know that in outward things it is true which the Apostle saith e 1. Cor. 6.12 10.23 All things are lawfull for mee I may doe all things God hath giuen mee no restraint To eat or not to eat to weare such a garment or not to weare it to doe thus or thus it is all one with God I am no whit the better the one way nor the worse the other way Neuerthelesse if my Prince command mee either way God requireth mee to abbridge my selfe of the outward vse of that liberty which he otherwise hath giuen mee and to performe obedience to my Prince yet still retaining inwardly the same opinion and persuasion of the thing in it selfe that I had before and therefore content to tie my selfe outwardly to do thus because I know inwardly that it is indifferent to God either to doe thus or thus The second presumption of the Pope against Christ is in taking vpon him infallibly to determine the sense of holy Scripture By which pretense he most impudently carieth himselfe bringing all abhominations into the Church and corrupting all religion and seruice of God and yet affirming that he doth nothing contrary to the Scripture because whatsoeuer the words of Scripture are yet the sense must be no other but what he list But well might we be thought to be without sense if so senseles a tale should preuaile with vs a thing which in the ancient Church for so many hundreds of yeeres amidst so many questions and controuersies was neuer dreamed of What needed the fathers so much to busie themselues and out of their owne exercise and experience prescribe rules to others for finding out the true sense of Scripture when as a Pope with a wet finger could haue helped them to the certaine and infallible truth thereof Yea why haue we so many Commentatours of the Church of Rome so various and diuers in their expositions and interpretations of Scripture and why doth not the Pope rather by one commentary of his illuminated vnderstanding reconcile all differences dispatch all doubts and resolue at once
Priest is q Mal. 2.7 the messenger of the Lord of hosts The Priest though he be by calling the messenger of the Lord yet sometimes neglecteth his calling and forbeareth to doe the message wherewith hee is sent and so the church though by duty it be the pillar and ground of truth appointed to vphold and maintaine the same yet sometimes forgetteth this duery and followeth lies in stead of truth For as the church is now so hath it euer beene from the beginning the pillar and ground of truth and yet we finde that very often the church of the Iewes in the time of the Iudges and vnder the wicked Kings of Iudah and Israel did forsake t Mal. 2.6 the law of truth which God had giuen vnto them went a whooring after strange and false gods and many waies prouoked him by their abominations For no longer doth the church continue to be as it ought to be the pillar and ground of truth than it continueth built vpon the foundations of truth ſ Eph. 2.20 vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets as Saint Paul speaketh t Ambros in Eph. 2. Hoc est supra nouum vetus teslamentum collocati that is vpon the new and old Testament as Ambrose expoundeth it If it once go awry from those foundations truth falleth to the ground and it becommeth a pillar and fortresse of errour and vntruth Thus hath it come to passe in M. Bishops church of Rome which in her pride hath cast off the yoke which she at first tooke vpon her and hath magnified herselfe to be a Queene to giue lawes of her owne in stead of the lawes of Iesus Christ Shee is indeede by duety as all other churches are a pillar and ground of truth but being become the minion of Antichrist and prostituted to his adulterous desires shee hath learned for his sake and for her owne sake by him u 1. Tim. 4.2 to speake lies in hypocrisie and x 2. Pet. 2.3 through couetousnesse with feined words to make merchandise of y Reu. 18.13 the soules of men All which hypocrisie and feined words shee fairly gloseth and cōmendeth to men with this perswasion that she can not erre because she hath a promise of Christ to be alwaies directed and guided by his spirit into all trueth But where hath Christ made any such promise to the Church of Rome Whom and how the spirit of Christ leadeth into all truth Wee read that Christ said to his Apostles z Ioh. 16.13 When he is come which is the spirit of truth he will lead you into all trueth and wee beleeue that what hee spake to his Apostles he intended to the whole Church and to all the faithfull but neither doe we reade nor haue any cause to beleeue that Christ therein intended any thing in speciall to the church of Rome neither did euer any ancient Father or Councell gather any such thing out of those words And surely no otherwise doe they alleage this Scripture for themselues than the Manichees did for themselues and the Montanists for themselues For as the Manichees alleaging these words to colour their heresies against the Scripture appropriated the spirit of truth here spoken of to their Patriarch a August cont Faust Manich. lib. 32. cap. 17. Dicere soletis Ipse vos inducet in omnem veritatem c. de vestro Manichao esse praedictum Manicheus and the Montanistes in like sort to b Tertull. de Veland virginib sub initio Montanus as if in them and by them the spirit should direct the Church into all truth Euen so the Papists howsoeuer they talke of the Church directed by the spirit yet doe indeed put ouer the Church to the Pope placing the residence of the spirit in him that he may bee to the Church the infallible oracle of all truth In which fancie if they will expect to haue more credit than those heretikes had they must bring better warrant for themselues than those heretikes did But because they can bring vs none therefore we reiect them all alike as coseners and deceiuers of the Church pretending the spirit of truth for the maintenance of lies and claiming that credit to be giuen to an vsurping wretch which our Sauiour reserueth as proper to the holy Ghost The promise of the spirit as I said before belongeth to all the faithfull and of them all S. Iohn saith c 1 Ioh. 2.27 The anointing which yee haue receiued of him that is saith Austin d August in 1. Ioan. tract 4. Eadem vnctio id est ipse spiritus domini the spirit of the Lord teacheth you of all things Albeit when it is said all things and all truth we are not to vnderstand absolutely all for the spirit doth not teach vs to know e Idem in actis cum Felice Manich. lib. 1. cap. 10. Si hanc doctrinam putas ad illam veritatem pertinere c. interrogo te qunt sint stellae Ibid. Ego tibi possum dicere ea quae pertinent ad doctrinam Christianam how many starres there be as Austin opposeth to Felix the Manichee but he teacheth all things belonging to the doctrine of Christ as the same Austin there expoundeth Yea and yet further he excepteth by the words of the Apostle f Idem cap. 11. Dicebat Apostolus Ex parte scimus c. quia in i st a vita homo cum est non potest assequi omnia sed ex parte assequitur in hac vita ipse autem spiritus qui ex parte docet in hac vita post hanc vitam introducet in omnem veritatem Vide eund in Ioan. tract 96. We know in part and we prophecie in part that whilest a man is in this life he cannot attaine to all things but attaineth onely in part but the holy Ghost saith he which in this life teacheth in part shall after this life bring vs into all truth Hee therefore giueth vs to vnderstand that notwithstanding this promise of the spirit of truth it is incident to them to whom the same appertaineth to be ignorant in this life of many truthes to be subiect to mistaking and errour albeit the same spirit faileth not to enlighten them to that necessary truth which serueth for introduction finally to all truth And heerein the Apostle comforteth vs that g Phil. 3.15 that if any man be otherwise minded than is right God will reueale the same to him so long as in that whereunto we are come we proceed by one rule that we may minde one thing But wee are specially to note the reason which our Sauiour addeth to the words alleaged When he is come which is the spirit of truth he will leade you into all truth for he shall not speake of himselfe but whatsoeuer he shall beare shall he speake meaning thereby the same that he hath before said h Ioh. 14.26 He shall teach you all things
and the same person onely termed diuersly But if for auoiding thereof he will say as all learned diuines say that the persons of the Trinity are really distinguished then let him vnderstand that hee saith no more than we say nor knoweth more than wee know who know how to speake as well as he Our Diuines doe sometimes indeed say that the one essence of God is distinguished really into three persons but meaning it no otherwise than according to the definition of Thomas Aquinas that c Tho. Aquin. sum p. 1. q. 28. art 3. in corp Oportet quòd sit in deo distinctio realts non secundum rem absolutam quae est essentia in qua est summa vnitas simplicitas sed secunduÌ„ râ—m relatiuam there is in God a reall distinction not according to that that is absolute which is the essence but according to that that is relatiue which is the diuers subsistence of the persons Or rather they meane it according to that which Saint Austin saith d August de fide aâ— Pet. diacon c. 1. Vna est patris filij sp sancti essentia in qua non est aliud pater aliud filus aâ—ad sp sanctus quan â—is personâ—tlitèr sit alius pâ—ter alius filius alius spsanctus There is one essence of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost wherein the Father is not one thing the Sonne another thing and the holy Ghost another thing and yet personally the Father is one the Sonne another and the holy Ghost another What is it but the same to say either that in one essence there are really three persons or that one essence is really distinguished into three persons He saith that if the diuine nature bee really distinguished into three there must needs be three diuine esserces or natures If saith he it be distinguished into three but three what for if he had added as he should into three persons then his folly had appeared to argue in that sort The sonne how vnderstood to haue a distinct substance from the Father that if one essence be really distinguished into three persons there must needs be three essences That which he addeth out of Caluin that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from the Father Caluin speaketh not of himselfe but of Tertullian nor by his owne phrase but by Tertullians phrase who though he differ from latter times in manner of speech yet defendeth the truth of the Godhead in three persons as other godly Fathers haue alwaies done Praxeas the heretike denied the Trinity affirming that the Father the Son and the holy Ghost were but onely names giuen in diuers respects to one and the same person Tertullian writeth against him and comming to the word the second person in Trinity he disputeth that the same is e Tertul. adu Praxed Ergo inquis das aliquam substantiam esse sermonem Planè Nouimus enim eum substantiuum habere in re per substantiae proprietatem vt res persona quae dam videri possit c. Nihil dico de deo maene vacuum prodire potuisse c. nec carere substantia quod de tanta substantia processit c. Quod ex ipsius substantia missum est sine substantia non erit Quaecunque ergò substantia sermonis fuit illam dico personam illi filij nomen vindico dum filium agnosco secundum a patre defendo not an empty or idle name but importeth some substantiall thing by propriety of substance that it cannot bee without substance that proceeded from such a substance and was sent of the substance of the Father But yet he presently expoundeth himselfe Whatsoeuer the substance of the word is that I call the person and challenge to it the name of the Sonne and whilest I acknowledge him the Sonne I defend him to be a second to the Father By substance therefore with Tertullian is not meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the essence but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the personall and indiuiduall existence wherein each person distinctly hath the one true and perfect substance that is essence of one Godhead the word being purposely intended to crosse the hereticall conceit of Praxeas of voide and empty tearmes Euen as Hilary reporteth that a Councell of Antioch against the same heresie challengeth to euery person f Hilar. de Synod adu Arianos His nominibus significantibus diligenter propriam vniuscuiusque nominatorum sul stantiam ordinem gloriam vt sint quidem per substantiam tria per consonantiam verò vnum Exâ—â—cil Antiocheno his proper substance and saith that they are three in substance but in accord one g Ibid. paulo post Tres subst iutias esse dixerunt subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes non substantiam patris fâ—â—ij spiritus sancti diuersitate dissimulu essentiae separantes meaning saith he by substances the persons subsistent not separating the substance of the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost by diuersity of vnlike essence The blasphemy of Praxeas and of the Sabellians was in these latter times reuiued by Seruetus Against him Caluin disputeth and bringeth in Tertullian in his owne language oppugning that damnable fancy and in that whole discourse with all integrity hee maintaineth our beleefe of one substance in three persons and is not M. Bishop ashamed thus by aduantage of anothers words onely by him alleaged and in the authours meaning vsed so ill to requite him and to charge him with that whereto he purposely defendeth the contrary in the same place But why doe I speake of shame for what are those men ashamed of And therfore he sticketh not heere againe very grosly to belie Melancthon also charging him to say that there be as well three diuine natures as there be three persons whereas neither in the place by him quoted nor any otherwhere euer any such matter proceeded from Melancthon Vpon his second point I will not stand because it is before handled in the sixt section of the Preface So is the third point handled there also in the eight section and the fourth in the tenth and that which he saith as touching the second article in the sixt and seuen His obiection as touching the third article is a very leaud and vnhonest slander None of vs affirmeth that Christ was borne with the breach of his Mothers virginity Christ borne without breach of his mothers virginity because her virginity stood in being free from the company of man not in that shee had not her wombe opened when she bare Christ For if the opening of her wombe in her childbirth were the breach of her virginity then the Euangelist shall be said to impeach her virginity in applying to the birth of Christ that saying of the law h Luk. 2.23 Exod. 13.2 Euery man-child that first openeth the wombe shall be called holy to the Lord. Which
to the Father and the Son that we make the holy Ghost much inferiour to the other persons And how may that appeare Marry in their French Catechismes they teach saith he that the Father alone is to bee adored in the name of his sonne But what because they say the Father alone must they needes be taken to exclude the holy Ghost Hath he not so much diuinity as to know that the name of the Father is sometimes vsed for distinction of persons sometimes indefinitely of God without any such distinction When our Sauiour saith a Matt. 23.9 One is your Father who is in heauen doth not the name of Father there extend to God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Doth it not so also where the Apostel saith b Eph. 4 6. There is one God and Father of all who is aboue all and through all and in you all Doth M. Bishop otherwise vnderstand it when he saith Our Father which art in heauen Surely the French Catechisme may say as he rereporteth who yet seldome reporteth truth yet import nothing therby but what Origen saith ChristiaÌ„s of old did namely c Origen cont Cels â— 8 Christiani soli Deo per Iesum preces offerentes to offer praiers to God only by Iesus or in the name of Iesus The next cauil against Calum is of the same kind that the title of Creatour belongeth only to the Father Which M. Bishop might well haue vnderstood in the distinctioÌ„ of the persoÌ„s by their seueral attributes as d Calu. Opus in Explicat perfidiae Valent. Gâ—ntil Certè vnâ— consensu fatemur Christum impropriè vocari creatorem coeli terrae quoad personae distinctionem Neque enim dubium est quin seriptura patri nomen Creatoris vendicans personas distinguat Caluin setteth it down to be very true and the rather for that in the very articles of the Creed he findeth it so applied I beleeue in God the Father almighty maker of heauen and earth For although it be true which S. Austin oftentimes deliuereth that e August de praedest sanctor cap. 8. Inseparabilia dicimus â—sse opera Trinitatis the workes of the Trinity are inseparable and in the act of any of the persons is the concurrence of all yet they so concurre as that they retaine therein their seuerall proprieties so as that of seuerall actions arise seuerall denominations which in common phrase of speech are vsed as in some specialty belonging to one person rather than another As therefore we attribute it to the sonne alone to haue redeemed vs and to the holy Ghost alone to sanctifie vs albeit both the Father and the holy Ghost had their worke in our redemption and the Father and the Sonne haue their worke also in sanctifying vs euen so to the Father alone the title of Creatour is applied not but that the Sonne and the holy Ghost haue their worke in the creation but because f Origen cont Cels lib. 8. Dicimus immediatum opificeâ— esse fiâ—um dei verbum c. Verâ— autâ—m patrem curus mandato munduâ— sit per ipsum filium conditus esse primarium opincem the Father is the primary or principall worker as Origen saith at whose commandement the world was created by the Sonne and g Hilar. de Synod adu Aria Si suis vnum dicens deum Christum autem deum ante secula filium dei obsecutum patri in creatione omnium non confitetur anathema sit wherein as the Syrmian Councel saith and Hilary approoueth the Sonne did obedience to the Father As for the rest that he heere quarelleth at that the Father is called the first degree and cause of life and the Sonne the second and againe that the father holdeth the first ranke of honour and gouernment and the sonne the second not to question the truth of his allegations I would in a word aske his wisdome doth he that saith that the Father is the first person in Trinity and the Sonne the second deny thereby the holy Ghost to be the third or doth hee hereby exclude the holy Ghost from hauing part with the Father and the Sonne Doth the Apostle when in his epistles he saith h Rom. 1 7. 1. Cor. 1.3 et in reliq Grace and peace from God our Father and from our Lord Iesus Christ doth he I say exclude heereby the holy Ghost from being the authour of grace and peace or from hauing part with the Father and the Sonne Or when he saith i 2. Cor. 1.3 Ephe 1.3 Blessed be God euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ doth he deny the Sonne and the holy Ghost to be blessed and praised together with the Father If he doe not why then doth this idle headed Sophister thus take exception where there is nothing for him iustly to except against Forsooth at most saith he the holy Ghost must be content with the third degree of honour But what M. Bishop doe not you also place the holy Ghost in the third degree when you name him the third person Doth not your head serue you to vnderstand degree of order only without imparity or minority as all Diuines in this case are woont to do But why doe I thus contend with a blinde buzzard a wilfull and ignorant wrangler and not rather reiect him as a man worthy to be altogether contemned and derided He hath k Preface to the Reader sect 7. before cited the latter of these words to shew that Caluin made the Sonne of God inferiour to the Father but how leaudly he dealeth in the alleaging of it and to how small purpose it is there declared there is no cause here to speake thereof 12. W. BISHOP 9. one I beleeue the holy Catholike Church the communion of Saints First where as there is but on Catholike church as the Councel of Nice expresly defineth following sundry texts of the word of God they commonly teach that there be two churches one inuisible of the elect another visible of both good and bad holy Secondly they imagine it to be holy by the imputation of Christs holinesse to the elected Bretheren and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faithfull Catholike Thirdly they cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sense of it that is they will not beleeue the true Church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the Apostles time and to haue beene generally spread into all countries otherwise they must needes forsake their owne church which began with Friar Luther and is not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world Finally they beleeue no Church no not their owne in all points of faith but hold that the true Church may erre in some principall points of faith How then can any man safely relie his saluation vpon the credite of such an vncertaine ground and erring guide may they not then as well say that they
of the new testament c. The words of c Mark 24.23.24 S. Marke doe beare also the same sense which as it is the very Grammaticall construction of the words so it is also fully confirmed in that S. Luke and S. Paul doe expresly deliuer it in that sort So then by all three Euangelists and S. Paul there is a figure in one part of the Sacrament let vs then aske M. Bishop againe why may there not be so in the other also But hee doth not loue to be troubled with too many questions He cannot tell as yet what answer to giue vs and therefore we must be content to giue him further time till he may better bethinke himselfe 51. W. BISHOP Fiftly Christ did eat that supper but not himselfe Per. 5. Answ A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eat of that Sacrament as M. PERK doth because hee hath no warrant for it in the written word yet we doe grant that he did so and hold him most worthy to taste of that heauenly food R. ABBOT If the written word doe not warrant that Christ did eat of the Sacrament I maruell why M. Bishop citeth to that purpose out of S. Luke those words which a Sect 62. ex Luc 22.15 anon he doth that he maruellously desired to eat this last banquet with his disciples Whether hee cite it truely or falsly let himselfe looke to that but either hee must confesse that hee hath cited amisse there or else that he hath spoken rashly here But if Christ did eat of the Sacrament will M. Bishop haue vs to beleeue that he did eat himselfe or dranke the bloud of his owne bodie May we be perswaded that one and the same Christ at one and the same time was both wholly within himselfe and wholly also without himselfe that hee sate visible by his Apostles and yet was then wholly conteined within the compasse of his owne bowels or that in his owne bowels hee at that time caried his owne bloud or that moreouer hee was then by the Sacrament in the bellies of all the Apostles euen of the traitour Iudas Surely what Christ did eat the same Iudas did eat also But of Iudas S. Austin teacheth that b Aug. in Ioan. tract 59. Non est ex eis iste c. Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominuÌ„ hee did eat of the Lords bread but not of the bread which is the Lord. Therefore although Christ did eat the Sacrament yet may wee not imagine that hee did eat himselfe These are horrible and vnchristian fancies but out of the schoole of Transubstantiation they come and they that maintaine the one must necessarily maintaine the other also 52. W. BISHOP Sixtly We are bid to doe it till he come Christ then is not bodily present Answ Wee are bid by S. Paul to shew the death of our Lord till he come to iudgement which we may very well doe 1. Cor. 11. v. 26. his body being present as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly vnto their children the slaughter of their fathers R. ABBOT It is true that his comming shall bee to iudgement but what shall he need to come if he be here already It was not questioned whereto he should come nor whether we may shew the death of the Lord his body being present if it were present but why the Apostle should say till he come if he be intended to be here already present His body being present saith he as though he meant that Christ were not wholly present whereas they tell vs that whole Christ is in the Sacrament both God and man soule and body flesh blood and bone as hee was borne of the virgin and nailed afterwards to the Crosse And if Christ be wholly present what reason had the Apostle to say till he come He telleth vs a ridiculous and impertinent tale of certaine noble Matrones who preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly to their children the slaughter of their fathers But what is this to the matter here in hand If those noble matrones had had their husbands with them and in the presence of their children then let him tell vs whether it had not been a witlesse thing to bid them expect their fathers till they come But hee stealeth away from the point and though he doe but gull his Reader with an idle iest yet he would haue it thought that hee hath giuen a worthy answer As touching the truth of this matter our Sauiour informeth vs when he telleth his disciples a Iohn 12.8 The poore ye shall haue alwaies with you but me ye shall not haue alwaies S. Austin giueth a reason of those word b August in Ioan tract 50. Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diel us cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo a scondit in caeiuâ— non est hic because according to the presence of his body he was conuersant forty daies with his disciples and then they bringing him on the way by seeing but not by following he ascended into heauen and is not here Christ then according to the presence of his body is not here yea c Acts 3.21 the heauen must containe him saith S. Peter vntill the time that all things be restored and therefore d Phil. 3.20 from heauen wee looke for him saith S. Paul euen as in our Creed we professe to beleeue that from thence hee shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead Now because we beleeue according to the scripture that Christ as touching his body is in heauen and not here and that from heauen we are to looke for him at the last day we are able to giue a iust reason why the Apostle should say vntill he come which M. Bishop out of his learning cannot doe 53. W. BISHOP Seuenthly Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of things absent Answ We see one thing and remember another By Christs body really present we remember the same to haue been nailed on the Crosse for our redemption as Goliaths sword was kept in the tabernacle in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliaths head with the same sword and the women before rehearsed kept their husbands blood might much easier haue prescrued their bodies embalmed to keepe the better their deaths in fresh memory R. ABBOT We see one thing saith M. Bishop and remember another But a Aug. serm ad infantes apud Bedam in 1. Cor. 10 Quod videtis panis est calix quod vobis esiam oculi renuntiâ—nt that which you see saith S. Austin is bread as your very eies tell you If then our remembrance be by our sight it is by bread that we remember the body of Christ M. Bishop I hope will not say that we see the body of Christ really present and
condition of fraile and sinfull flesh Now because no part of this could be imported in that memoriall if it were a thankesgiuing for the Saints therefore whether M. Higgons will or not it must necessarily be taken to haue been a praier for them And heereof there is one argument more in the last part of the comparison when he saith of Christ that he is in heauen and of the Saints that they are in the earth by their bodies yet resting in the earth Where it hath some reason that they should say We pray for them as respecting that their bodies lie yet in the dust of the earth expecting a blessed and happy resurrection which we craue to bee reuealed vpon them but to say that they meant to giue thanks to God for that the bodies of the Saints lie buried in the earth it were senslesse and absurd And because it is confirmed vnto vs by the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy that the Church did pray for the dead in respect of the resurrection therefore wee cannot doubt but that the memoriall heere spoken of by Epiphanius vsed for the Saints in respect of their bodies in the earth was a praier for them to wish their full and perfect consummation by the resurrection from the dead My former conclusion therefore hence deduced standeth good that sith the ancient Church thus praied for the Saints and Martyrs therefore that certaine it is they did not pray vnto them And because they thus praied for the Saints whose soules they were assured were in heauen therefore they praied for the dead without respect of Purgatory which now is made the onely ground and reason of praier for the dead 38. The next matter for which he questioneth me is concerning the opinion of the Greeke churches as touching Purgatory and prayer for the dead My words are such as might haue serued to weaken his motiue had hee not beene resolued without any motiue to remooue and run away What could he haue better to resolue him then that which I say that the Papists themselues confesse that Purgatory was not receiued or beleeued in the Greeke Churches and therefore that it is certaine that they had no respect of Purgatory in their praier for the dead I did not onely say that the Papists confesse it but I cited the places of their confession Alfonsus De Castro saith k Alfons De Castro adu haeres lib. 8. tit de Indulgent In antiquis scriptoribus de Purgatorio feré nulla mentio potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores quae de causa vsque in hodiernum diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum Of Purgatory there is in a maner no mention at all with the ancients but specially with the Greeke writers for which cause Purgatory is not beleeued of the Greekes vntill this day Yea not of the Greekes only but of the Armenians also he acknowledgeth that l Ibid lib. 12. de purgatorio vnus ex notissimis erroribus Graecorum Armeniorum est quo docent nullum esse Purgatorium c. they teach there is no Purgatory calling it an errour well knowen concerning them both The words of Roffensis their great and holy Martyr I cited out of Polydore Virgil m Polyd. Virg. de inuent rer lib. 8. cap. 1. ex Roffensi De Purgatorio apud priscos nulla vel quà m rarissima fiebat mentio sed Graecis ad hunc vsque diem non est creditum esse Of Purgatory there was none or very rare mention made amongst the ancient Fathers yea and with the Greekes it is not beleeued till this day Thus did they ingenuously acknowledge as the truth is and did it nothing stagger M. Higgons to finde this so plainly acknowledged Did it make him nothing doubt of his imagined mutuall dependance of Purgatory and praier for the dead Surely he was a very voluntary conuert or else he might easily haue seene that it is no good connexion to say They praied for the dead therefore they beleeued Purgatory but rather they beleeued not Purgatory therefore they praied not for the dead in any such meaning as the Papists now doe He might haue remembred that which I told Doct. Bishop that many amongst vs of custome and of humane affection of loue doe vse many times words of praier for the dead who notwithstanding from the bottome of their hearts doe vtterly defie both Purgatory and the Pope 39. In another place hee saith that it is n Book 1. part 2. cap. 3. ¶ 4. num 2. to our great disreputation that I name the Albigenses as professours of the same faith and religion which we now prefesse But why Forsooth he knoweth no cause himselfe but referreth his Reader to Parsons the Iesuit in his treatise of the three conuersions of England Yea M. Higgons would you make Parsons his narration a motiue of your recantation Would you giue heed to him whom you knew by the testimony of his owne fellows to be a man of Belial an infamous wretch a meere politizing Atheist and therefore likely if it were to serue his turne to deale with the stories of the ancient Christian Martyrs as he hath done with M. Foxes story carying himselfe in all that worke like a very Porphyrie or Iulian applauding himselfe and seeking to bee applauded in a iollity of forcing all things euen against the haire to scorne and mockery You say the Albigenses in their opinions followed the Waldenses as indeed they were the same some part of them onely being so called of the towne wherein they dwelt and would you beleeue Parsons concerning the opinions of the Waldenses who o Exam. of Fox his calen cap. 3. num 13. Of these Waldēses see at large Simon Goulart Catalog test veritatis lib. 15. Where thou shalt see how leaudly Parsons hath dealt with them disclaimeth Aeneas Syluius who was afterwards Bishop of Rome testifying their faith and doctrine vprightly and faithfully as of his owne knowledge that so he may giue way to other either carelesse or malicious reporters who impiously fathered vpon them strange paradoxes in no other sort than Friar p Edm. Campi decem rat cap. 8. passim Campian lately dealt with vs Yea and is not ashamed to cite q Three Conuers pag. 2. c. 10. num 29. Prateolus and Sanders for witnesses thereof whose ioy it hath been to finde out any thing were it neuer so vntrue which they might report opprobrious and disgracefull to them I doubt not but that the Waldenses and Albigenses might happily in some things be otherwise minded than we be and what are they in the church of Rome all in all things of one and the same minde but if wee respect the substance of their faith and doctrine as we may discerne the same not only by r Aeneas Sylu. de Origen Bohem cap. 35. Aeneas Syluius but also by ſ Alfons adu haeres passim Alfonsus De Castro and specially by t Sleidan Comment lib. 16.
good by the touchstone because no exposition or sense of Scripture is to be admitted the doctrine whereof is not to be iustified by other Scripture and they that bring other senses and meanings do but deceiue men and leade them into errour as other heretikes formerly haue done and as the Papists now doe abusing the Scriptures to draw others after them into destruction Heereof also enough hath beene said g Of Traditions sect 21. before whereof I wish the Reader duely to consider for his satisfaction in this point That which he saith of other ancient Creeds and Confessions of faith that they containe not all points of Christian doctrine I eaily admit but yet let him vnderstand that it is a maine preiudice against them that neither any ancient Creed nor any exposition of the Creed or confession of faith conteineth sundry pointes which they now make to be matters of the meaning of the Creede Let him shew that euer any ancient Creed or expositour of the Creed did vnderstand or deliuer that the name of the Catholike church in the Creed hath any speciall reference to the Church of Rome that the Catholike church is to be defined as they now define it by being subiect to the bishop of Rome that the certaine declaration of the Canonicall bookes and of the true sense of Scripture is alwaies infallibly to be expected from the sentence of that Church that all Christians are fully to beleeue and wholly to relie vpon that Church for resolution of all points of faith necessarie to saluation Which and such other points made by them matters of the Creed because neuer any ancient writer hath found to be conteined or intended in the Creed therefore we iustly affirme them to be new Creed-makers coiners of new articles of faith and thereby peruerters and corrupters of the true Christian faith As concerning the Articles mentioned by M. Perkins now holden by the Romish Church that the Pope is Christs Vicar and head of the Catholike Church that there is a purgatorie fire after this life that images of God and of Saints are to be worshipped that praier is to be made to Saints departed and their intercession to bee required that there is a propitiatorie sacrifice daily offered in the Masse for the sinnes of quicke and dead M. Bishop answereth that the Fathers haue most plainly taught them in their writings and expresly condemned of heresie most of the contrary positions But what Fathers are they and in what writings haue they so done Surely if the Bishop of Rome in the ancient Church had beene taken to bee the Vicar of Christ and head of the Catholike church it cannot be but that we should haue very currant and frequent and memorable testimonie thereof as a matter vniuersally receiued and euery where practised But now let M. Bishop shew vs one let him shew so much as one that for diuers hundreds of yeeres after Christ did euer dreame of any such thing Which though indeed he cannot doe yet hee telleth vs of that and the rest that in those seuerall questions he hath before prooued what he saith whereas hee hath not spoken of any more of these points saue onely one and in that one point cannot be said to haue prooued any thing because whatsoeuer hee hath said standeth hitherto reprooued And surely if he haue no better proofes than hitherto he hath brought in all the questions that hee hath handled the Protestants will but scorne him as a very vnproouing disputer and aduise him to bestow his time a while longer in the Schooles to know what it is to prooue 3. W. BISHOP Touching beleeuing in the Church which he thrusteth in by the way we vse not that phrase as the very Creed sheweth following therein S. Augustine with others who hold that to beleeue in a thing is to make it our Creatour by giuing our whole heart vnto it in which sense we beleeue not in Saints nor in the Church albeit some other ancient Doctors take the words to beleeue in not so precisely but say that we may beleeue in the Church and in Saints that is beleeue certainly that the Catholike church is the onely true company of Christians and that to the lawfull gouernours thereof it appeâ—taineth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them so we beleeue the Saints in heauen to heare our prayers to be carefull to pray for vs and to bee able to obtaine by intreaty much at Gods hands in whose high fauour they liue Thus much in answer vnto that which M. PERKINS obiecteth in generall Now to that he saith in particular R. ABBOT a Greg. Nazia de sp sancto orat 6. Sâ—â—reatuÌ„ est quo pacto in ipsum eredimu c. Non enim idem est in aliquem credere de eo credere nam illud diuimt atis est hoc cuiusuis rei It is one thing saith Gregory Nazianzene to beleeue in any one another to beleeue of or concerning him the one belongeth to the Godhead the other is vsed of euery thing And heereby hee prooueth that the holy Ghost is God because wee beleeue in the holy Ghost By which argument our Sauiour Christ also teacheth vs to acknowledge him to be God when he saith b Ioh. 14.1 Yee beleeue in God beleeue also in me where c Hilar. de Trin. lib. 9. Vniens se fidei dei naturae eius vniuit c. deumse per id docens cum in eum credendum sit ab his qui in deum credant vniting himselfe to the beleefe of God saith Hilarie he vniteth himselfe also to his nature thereby teaching that he himselfe is God for that they who beleeue in God must beleeue in him I might further enlarge this point by the testimonies and expositions of d Aug. in Ioan. tract 29. de ciu dei l. 18. ca. 54. Euseb Emissen Ruffin Venant in symbol Apost Austin Eusebius Emissenus Ruffinus Venantius and others who all acknowledge that that phrase belongeth to God and is not to bee applied to any creature But it shall not neede because the Elucidatour of the Romane Catechisme according to the doctrine of the Catechisme it self as he pretendeth though quite contrary both to their doctrine and practise otherwise doth tell vs that e Elucidat Catech Roman c. 9. q. 5. Cùm dicimus nos credere in deum patrem in filium in sp sanctum phrasis haec loquendi significat nos ita credere deum patrem filium spiritu sanctuÌ„ vt etiam in eis omnem fiduciam nostram collocemus quam in deo solo non autem in creaturis ponere possumus ex quibus tamen ecclesia composita est when wee say wee beleeue in God the Father in the Sonne in the holy Ghost this phrase of speaking doth signifie that wee so beleeue God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost as that also we place all
our confidence in them which we are to put in God onely and not increatures of which notwithstanding the Church consisteth Which exposition wee acknowledge conteineth the very trueth agreeable to Gods word and doe wish that they would alwaies continue constant therein But they doe heerein as their vsuall maner is what by euidence of truth they are forced to say in one place for the maintenance of their owne traditions and superstitions they vnsay it or qualifie it in another And in this sort M. Bishop heere dealeth who first inclining somewhat to that construction alreadie mentioned and telling vs that to beleeue in a thing is to make it our Creatour by giuing our whole heart vnto it alleageth notwithstanding that some ancient Doctours take the words to beleeue in not so precisely but say that wee may beleeue in the church and in Saints heereby to make way to his absurd conceits which none of the ancient Doctours dreamed of it is true indeed that Epiphanius and Cyril haue vsed that maner of speech by adding the preposition in to the rest of the articles I beleeue in one holy Catholike church in one Baptisme in the remission of sinnes in the resurrection of the body in the life eternal but yet making thereof no other construction than we do as if the article were away To beleeue in the church was with them as M. Bishop saith to beleeue certainly in the Catholike church to be the onely true company of Christians and thereof we contend not wee beleeue the same as well as they though not in M. Bishops meaning which neuer was any part of their meaning that the Catholike church should be meant in any speciall maner of the church of Rome But whereas he addeth it is another part of their construction that to the lawfull gouernours thereof that is as he intendeth to the Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops it appertaineth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them he verie shamefully abuseth the ancient Doctours of whom there is not one that hath noted any such matter to be conteined in the Creed If hee know any let him acquaint vs therewith if hee know none let him confesse to his Reader as he must that he hath sought to deceiue him with a lie The same I say of beleeuing in Saints for which of the ancient Doctours hath taught vs out of our Creed that we are to beleeue in them He telleth vs what they meant by it that wee beleeue the Saints in heauen to heare our praiers to be carefull to pray for vs and to be able to obteine by intreatie much at Gods hands But what a strange man is he that will tell vs what men meant by words which they neuer spake Surely to beleeue in Saints is no antiquitie but nouelty and the deuice of him who by beleeuing in Saints seeketh to draw men away from beleefe in God The Apostle telleth vs that f Rom. 10 17. Faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God Thereupon Basil gathereth thus g Basil Ethit reg 80. Si quicquid ex fide non est peccatum est fides verò ex auditu auditus autem pâ—r verbum Dei est ergo quicquid extra diuinam Scripturam est cùm ex fide non sit peccatum est If whatsoeuer is not of faith bee sinne and faith commeth by hearing and hearing by the word of God surely whatsoeuer is beside the Scripture of God because it is not of faith is sinne Let M. Bishop then shew vs some word of God some warrant of Scripture that it is one point of faith to beleeue in Saints or if hee cannot so doe we must rest perswaded as we are that to beleeue in Saints is to sinne against God And if we may not beleeue in Saints then neither may we pray vnto them for h Rom. 10.14 how shall they call vpon him saith the Apostle in whom they haue not beleeued And seeing praier is i Grego Moral lib. 22. cap. 13. Vera postulatio non in oris est vocibus sed in cogitationibus cordis not a matter of the lippes but of the heart how can wee beleeue that the Saints in heauen heare our praiers when as the word of God telleth vs that k 1. King 8.39 it is God only which knoweth the hearts of all the children of men Againe seeing God hath himselfe named vnto vs the Mediator by whose intrety l Mat. 3.17 Ephe. 3.12 for whose sake he wil accept vs and in whom he will be m Iohn 14.13 glorified for the granting of our requests who n Rom. 8.34 sitteth at the right hand of God and o Heb. 7.25 euer liueth to make intercession for vs how can we call it faith and not rather impudent presumption that we of our owne heads should set vp euery Saint in heauen to be a Master of requests and disturbe that order which God himselfe hath appointed for our accesse to him Admit that in generality they pray for the consummation of their brethren they pray in fellowship of loue not by authority of mediation as ioined in affection with vs not as by specialtie of fauour appointed to be patrons for vs for in that respect it is true which Saint Austin telleth vs that p August in Psam 64. Solus ibi ex his qui carnem gustaverunt interpellat pro nobis of all that haue beene partakers of flesh it is Christ onely in heauen that maketh intercession for vs. To conclude we haue heard before out of the Catechisme that our beleeuing in God requireth all our confidence and trust to be placed in God onely Accordingly Cyprian saith that q Cyprian de dupl martyr Non credit in deum qui non in eo solo collocat totius felicitatis suae fidutiam he beleeueth not in God that placeth not the confidence of all his happinesse in God onely But beleeuing in Saints cannot be vnderstood but to import putting of trust and confidence in them Therefore we cannot beleeue in Saints but with the ouerthrow of our beleefe and trust in God And that the Popish beleeuing in Saints importeth the putting of their trust and confidence in them it plainly appeareth as by other their offices of deuotion so specially by their Ladies Psalter wherein they blasphemously vse to the Virgin Marie those words whereby Dauid professed his trust in God r Psalter Mariae Psal 7. Domina in te speraui de inimicis meis libera animam meam Psal 10. In domina confido propter dulcedinem misericordiae nominis sui psal 21. Quia ego speraui in gratia tua sempiternum a me opprobrium abstulisti Psal 45. Domina refugium nostrum tu es in omni necessitate nostra Psal 53 Domina in nomine tuo saluum me fac O Lady in thee haue I hoped deliuer my soule from mine enemies I