and bring all things to your remembrance that I haue told you and which he saith presently after i cap. 16.14 He shall glorifie me for he shall receiue of mine and shall shew it vnto you For hereby it is manifest that the holy Ghost which shall leade vs into all truth because he shall speake nothing of himselfe shall therefore k Thophylact in Ioan. 16. Nihil docturus est extra ea quae Christus docuit speake nothing but what Christ hath before spoken As therefore when Christ saith of himselfe l Ioh. 14.10 I speake not of my selfe hee would import that he spake nothing but what the father had before spoken in the Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets as m Chrysost de sanct orando spiritu Quia seductor est habitus dicit Ego à meipso non loquor sed de lege de Prophet is Chrysostome expoundeth it euen so when he saith of the holy Ghost that he shall speake nothing of himselfe we are likewise to conceiue that the holy Ghost shall teach nothing but what Christ himselfe hath first taught in the Scriptures of the Euangelists and Apostles Whereupon we conclude as Chrysostome doth n Ibid. Siquem videritis dicentem spiritum sanctum habee non loquentem Euangelica sed propria is à seipso loquitur non est spiritus sanctus in ipso Et paulò post Siquis eorum qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctum dicat aliquid à seipso non ex Euangelijs ne credite c. Ex quo non legit haec scripta sed ex seipso loquitur manifestum est quod non habet spiritum sanctum If yee see a man saying I haue the holy Ghost and not speaking the things of the Gospell but matters of his owne he speaketh of himselfe and the holy Ghost is not in him If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost do speake any thing of himselfe and not out of the Gospell beleeue him not For that he readeth not those things which he saith in the Scriptures it is manifest that he hath not the holy Ghost Now therefore seeing M. Bishops church contrary to the ordinance of God seuereth o Esay 59.21 the spirit of truth from p Eph. 1 13. Col. 1.5 the word of truth and speaketh many things of her-felfe whereof Christ hath said nothing whereof wee reade nothing in the Scriptures it is manifest that they play the Sycophants as other heretikes haue done pretending to speake by the spirit of Christ when they speake wholly either by their owne or by a woorse spirit But M. Bishop not content with one corruption in substituting his church of Rome in the place of the Catholike Church of Christ addeth another in saying that that article of our Creede doth teach vs to beleeue the Catholike church Which words although being truely meant they expresse the same in English which wee say in Greeke and Latin yet being by the drift of his speech caried to a verie partiall and false construction doe shew him to be a leaud peruerter of our Christian faith For whereas we saie Credo sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam in the accusatiue case the meaning is I beleeue that there is a holy Catholike church namely that God the Father in all ages and at all times and amidst all the defections and corruptions of the world hath still had and shall haue his number of elect and chosen people to whom the benefite of Christs death and resurrection on standeth effectuall and good by the sanctification of the holy Ghost and the same now not of one nation or people onely but of all nations and peoples thorowout the whole world But M. Bishop by the currant of his speech turneth the accusatiue case into the datiue as if it were said in our Creed Credo ecclesiae sanctae Catholicae I giue credit to the holy Catholike church I beleeue it to be true whatsoeuer is taught me by the holy Catholike church that so his Reader thinkeing himselfe bound to beleeue the Catholike church and taking this Catholike church to be meant of the church of Rome may hold himselfe bound by the articles of his Creed in all things to beleeue the church of Rome Thus he and his fellowes most treacherously and leaudly against their owne knowledge and conscience delude simple and ignorant soules and make them slaues to their impious and wicked deuices by bearing them in hand that they are bound thus to obey the Catholike church Now heereof Master PERKINS iustly inferreth that the eternall truth of God the Creatour is heereby made to depend vpon the determination of the creature For let God say what he will wee shall not stand bound to take it for truth if the church shall say the contrary or vnlesse that which he saith be approoned by the Church Verily as Tertullian vpbraided of old the Senate of Rome that q Tertul. Apologet cap. 5. Apud vos de humano arbitratu diuinitas pensitatur nisi homini deus placuerit deus non erit with them Godhead stood at the discretion of men and vnlesse God did please man he should be no God so may it well be said now of the church of Rome that with them the religion of God standeth at their discretion and that onely shall be religion that pleaseth them For the Bishop of Rome whilest hee taketh vpon him to make declaration of Christian faith maketh what he list of Christian faith and hath verified of himselfe that which Hierome said of Antichrist that r Hieron in Daniel 7. Eleuatur supra omne quod dicitur deu◠cunctam religionem suae subijciens potestati he should subiect all religion to his owne power For the colouring of which iniquity M. Bishop according to their maner vseth guilefull words of notable hypocrisie and with a faire tale gloseth a grosse indignity and damnable presumption against God He telleth vs that Gods truth is sincere and certaine in it selfe before any declaration of the Church Well and what hath the church then to doe with this sincere and certaine truth Forsooth we poore creatures are subiect to mistaking and errour and doe not so certainly vnderstand that truth of God But who are those poore creatures of whom he speaketh Marry M. Bishop and such other petites who are but dij minorum gentium they are poore creatures but the Pope and his Cardinals and the Bishops that comply to him they are rich creatures they are the Church they are exempted from mistaking and errour we must thinke all perfection of wit to be lodged in their braines and that they certainely vnderstand and know the truth of God But what assurance can they giue vs in this behalfe Surely the Scribes and Pharisees the high Priests and Elders of the lewes had as much to say for themselues and a great deale more than they They could plead for themselues ſ Ioh. 8.33 We are the
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
that which goeth into the body is not the reall body of Christ which is the bread of eternall life What hap had M. Bishop heere to speake of the reall presence hauing no better witnesse to plead for it 45. W. BISHOP And touching forgiuenesse of their debts to God and sins they are so assured of that before hand by the certaintie of their new faith that they can no more request of God forgiuenesse of their sinnes then they can aske that God will make them reasonable creatures which they see that hee hath done already And they holding the first motions to euill in temptation to be mortall sinnes which no mortall man ordinarily can now auoid how can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation when they teach it to bee impossible to escape the venime of it And if they vnderstand it so as M. PERKINS teacheth to wit that they there pray not to be left to the malice of Satan they cannot without losse of the certainty of their faith pray so because they hold themselues assured of that before hand Neithey can they pray God generally to deliuer them from all euill affirming as they doe that wee must needs fall into mortall sinne at euery step almost which is the greatest of all other euill And finally if it belong to God to deliuer vs from sinne and all other euill then Caluin and his followers doe wickedly blaspheme who teach God to be the author and worker in vs of all errour sinne and wickednesse Thus much of the Pater noster R. ABBOT Our beleefe and assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes is that when we begge the same of God by faithfull praier he granteth vs our desire and therefore doe wee praie for it because he hath promised and wee beleeue his promise that in praying we shall obteine it Of this idle Sophisme of his there hath beene enough said a Of the certainty of saluation sect 5.18 How we pray not to be led into temptation but deliuered from euill before We pray that we be not led into temptation in such meaning as before hath beene said vnderstanding simply temptation so as to be left of God therein without the assistance of his grace This hindereth not but that the first motions of lust wherewith wee are tempted are in their owne nature mortall sinnes though by the mercy of God they become not so to vs. For we doe not say as hee vntruely alleageth that it is impossible to escape the venime of temptation nay we say that the faithfull do escape the venime and poison of it because b Rom. 8.28 See before sect 41. all things euen temptation and sinne worke together for good vnto them that loue God And thus do we praie also to bee deliuered from euill that though we be not as yet set free from temptation yet the same by his ouerruling prouidence may be so ordered as that by his mercy we may be free from the euill and danger therof And what should let but that we may pray God generally to deliuer vs from all euill euen from that c Rom. 7.21 euill which is alwaies present with vs when we would do good from d vers 23. the law of sinne that is in our members from e Gal. 5.17 the flesh that lusteth against the spirit because wee beleeue that God heareth vs when we so pray and will deliuer vs from that bondage wherein we are forced for the time to serue Yea this he hath begun to doe alreadie destroying by the power of his spirit more and more the bodie of sinne and yeelding f 2. Cor. 4.16 the outward man to bee corrupted that the inner man may be renued from day to day vntill perfect newnesse shall come and all euils shall bee fully abolished because g 1. Cor. 15.28 God who is all good shall be all in all And if wee cannot pray generally to bee deliuered from all euill because wee affirme the first motions of sinne which are euill to continue still in vs let M. Bishop tell vs how they pray to be deliuered generally from all euill who though they acknowledge not the first motions to bee sinne yet acknowledge them to be euil as wel as we and that from this euil no man is set free so long as hee continueth in the warfare of this life As for the certainty of saluation wee loose it not by these praiers but are rather thereby confirmed in it because we beleeue as hath beene said that God heareth vs when we so pray and therefore rest assured according to the measure of our faith that God will guide vs in safety through the middest of all temptations and will finally deliuer vs from all euill and bring vs to bee partakers of his kingdome for euer That which hee saith of Caluin is an odious repetition of an impudent slander which is cleered before in the answer to his Preface the tenth sect 46. W. BISHOP Now before I come to the Sacraments I may not omit to speake a word of the Aue-Maria which in old Catechismes followeth immediately after the Pater noster The Protestants haue cassierd it and may not abide to heare it once said but therein as much as in any other such matter they disgrace their doctrine and discredite themselues For all the words vsed of old therin are the very words of the holy Ghost registred in S. Lukes Gospell and therefore they bewray either great ignorance or a wicked spirit to dwell in them that cannot indure to heare the words of Gods spirit Besides in holy Scripture it is prophesied Luk. 1. that from henceforth all generations should call the Virgin MARY blessed In what termes then can wee more conueniently so call her then in the verie same that were composed by an Archangell are penned by the Euangelists and by them commended vnto all good Christians besides the sence of them is comfortable vnto vs as containing a remembrance of the incarnation of the Sonne of God for our redemption and we on our parts doe thereby giue thanks to God for that inestimable benefit and congratulate our Sauiour with humble thanks therefore saying Blessed be the fruit of thy wombe IESVS I need not in such cleere euidence of Gods word alleage the testimonie of any ancient father hee that list to see how it hath beene vsed in the purest antiquity let him reade S. Athanasius in Euang. de deipara S. Ephem de laudibus B. Mariae S. Basils and S. Chrysostomes lyturgies which can with no more reason be denied to be theirs then the rest of their works One short sentence I will set downe in commendations of it out of that most reuerend and deuout Bernard The Angels triumph and the heauens doe congratulate with them the earth leapeth for ioy and hell trembleth when the Aue-Maria is deuoutly said Apud Dionisi Corinth 1. part in Euan. c. 5.17 Good Christians then must needs take great delight
the dignity and worthinesse of our workes And if he say that this is all of God doth he any more than the Pharisie did who said y Luk. 18.11 I thanke thee O God that I am not as other men are c. z Hieron adu Pelag. lib. 3. Ille agit gratias deo quia illius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines Hee thanketh God saith Hierome that by his mercy hee is not like other men hee acknowledgeth his righteousnesse to bee the gift of God but yet hee is reiected whilest with M. Bishop hee flattereth himselfe in opinion of the value and estimation the dignitie and worthinesse of his workes Now the Protestants indeed are not of that Pharisaicall humor thus to plead the reputation of their owne workes and doe take M. Bishop therein to be a foolish vaine man and yet they doe not therfore debase and vilifie the vertue of the grace of God as hee obiecteth as not allowing it to be sufficient to help the best minded man in the world to doe any worke that doth not mortally offend God but doe confesse and teach that the faithfull by the grace of God do many good workes very highly pleasing vnto God whilest a Psal 103.13 as a father pitieth his children so the Lord is mercifull to them that feare him remembring whereof we be made and considering that we are but dust and being ready when he seeth our willing indeuours to pardon the obliquities the defects and deformities of our doings the same being perfumed by faith with the sweet incense of the obedience of Iesus Christ So then according to rigour of iudgement the Protestants say b Esay 64.6 All our righteousnesse is as a defiled cloth c Dan. 9.7 To thee O Lord belongeth righteousnesse but to vs shame and confusion of face They subscribe that which Gregory saith d Greg. Moral l. 8. c. 9. Iustise peritaeros absque ambiguitate praesciunt firemota pietate iudicentur quia hoc ipsum quò iustè videmur viuere culpa est fi vitam nostram cù iudicat hanc apud se diuina misericordia non excusat The iust know that without all doubt they shall perish if they bee iudged without mercy because euen our iust life as it seemeth is but sinne if Gods mercy doe not excuse it when he shall giue iudgement of it But yet the Protestants know also that by the mediation of Iesus Christ e Rom. 12.1 the giuing vp of our bodies to be a liuing and 〈◊〉 sacrifice is accepble vnto God and that f 1. Pet. 2.5 we are made aspirituall house and holy Priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices which are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ In a word the Protestants know that the Saints of God g Apoc. 4.10 cast their crownes down before the throne of God as arrogating no part thereof to themselues but ascribing all to God and therefore cannot but condemne M. Bishop and the Papists though not of Atheisme yet of Pelagianisme and heresie for that they teach men to keepe their crownes in part vpon their owne heads and to take some part of glory to themselues to the derogation of the glory of God 2. W. BISHOP First he argueth thus He that hath not the Sonne hath not the Father and he that hath neither Father nor Sonne denies God now the present Roman religion hath not the Sonne that is Iesus Christ God and man For they in effect abolish his man-hood by teaching of him to haue two kindes of existing one naturall in heauen whereby he is visible touchable and circumscribed the other against nature whereby he is substantially according to his flesh in the hands of euery Priest inuisible and vncircumscribed Answer M. PER. and all Protestants know right well that we beleeue Iesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man and therefore wee haue both the Sonne and the Father and his reason against it is not woorth arush for we do not destroy the nature of man by teaching it to haue two diuers maners of existing or being in a place When Christ was transfigured before his Apostles hee had another maner of outward forme and appearance than hee had before yet was not the nature of man in him thereby destroyed and after his resurrection hee was when it pleased him visible to his Apostles and at other times inuisible and yet was not his manhood thereby abolished as M. PER. would make vs beleeue no more is it when his body is in many places at once or in one place circumscribed and in the other vncir cumscribed For these externall relations of bodies vnto their places doe no whit at all destroy their inward and naturall substances as all Philosophie testifieth wherefore hence to gather that we denie both the Father and the Sonne to be God doth sauour I will not say of a silly wit but of a froward will peeuishly bent to cauill and calumniate R. ABBOT As touching the existing of the body of Christ we beleeue what the holy Scripture hath taught vs The body of Christ locally circumscribed and therein we rest as the ancient godly fathers did neither will we listen to the franticke dreames of new deuising heads who for the maintenance of one absurdity not sparing to vndergoe another haue broached a maner of the being of the body of Christ according to the fancies of Marcion Manicheus Apollinaris Eutyches and such other like Heretikes who howsoeuer they admitted the name of a body yet denied the truth thereof What other is it but a fantasticall body which they affirme to be in their consecrated host where there is the sauour and tast of bread the colour and appearance of bread to sense and feeling no other but bread and yet there is no bread but a body of flesh and blood as they tell vs or rather a body which hath neither flesh nor blood M. Bishop coloureth the matter by telling vs of a diuers maner of existing or being in a place but why doe neither Scriptures nor Fathers tell vs of this diuers maner of existing or being I know that to make some shew of antiquity they alleage a few sentences of the Fathers farre enough from the purpose but this matter could not haue so passed with a by-sentence or two when there were so many and so great occasions fully to declare it and to insist vpon it if it had beene beleeued then as it is taught now They cleerely and plainely taught that a Aug. in Ioan. tract 50. secundum carnem quam verbum assumpsit ascendit in coe um non est hic Christ according to his body is ascended into heauen and is not heere and against the Manichees that b Idem cont faust Mauich l. 20. c. 11. sacundum praesentiam corporalem simul in sole in luna in cruce esse non posset Christ according to bodily presence could not at once be in the
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
sake what euidence I shall deliuer in against the Protestants touching this point of Atheisme and following the same method that M. PER. obserueth I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinitie and Deitie secondly such as are against our Lord Iesus God and man lastly I will speake one word or two about their seruice and worshipping of God All which shall be performed in a much more temperate maner then the grauity of such a matter requireth that it may be lesse offensiue Concerning the sacred Trinitie it is by the doctrine of certaine principall pillars of their new Gospell brought into great question Lib. 1. In stit ca. 13. ss 23.25 Con. rationes Camp p. 152. For Iohn Caluin in diuers places teacheth that the second and third persons of the Trinitie doe not receiue the God-head from the first but haue it of themselues euen as the first person hath And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first Counsell of Nice Out of which position it followeth that there is neither Father nor Sonne in the Godhead for according vnto common sense and the vniforme consent of all the learned he onely is a true naturall Sonne that by generation doth receiue his nature and substance from his Father We are called the Sonnes of God but that is by adoption and grace but he onely is the true naturall Sonne of God that by eternall generation receiued his substance that is the Godhead from him If therfore the second person did not receiue the Godhead from the first but had it of himselfe as they do affirm then certainly he is no true Son of the first consequently the first person is no true Father For as al men coÌ„fesse Father Son be correlatiues so that the one caÌ„not be without the other Thus their doctrine is found to be faultie in the highest degree of Atheisme For it ouerthroweth both Father and Sonne in the Trinitie And further if it were true then doth the holy Ghost proceed neither from the Father nor from the Son for it receiueth not the Godhead from them at all as they hold but hath it of himselfe and so proceedeth no more from them then they doe from him and consequently is not the third person Wherefore finally they doe euerthrow the whole Trinitie the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost R. ABBOT We are now come to the beginning of M. Bishops libell for introduction whereof he telleth his Reader a goodly smooth tale of the important weight of the true opinion of the Godhead and the true worship thereof Caluin truely teacheth the Godhead of Christ and what a motiue it is to like of that religion that deliuereth sacred and sound doctrine concerning the same faring as if he had bloody enditements in this behalfe against vs calling the Iurie putting in his euidence and in the end all commeth to nothing Parturit Oceanus prodit de gurgite squilla In the very first accusation he sheweth abundance of malice but great want of wit for that he is found a liar euen in the very place which he himselfe citeth He chargeth Caluin to haue taught that the second and third persons of the Trinity doe not receiue the Godhead from the first but haue it of themselues as the first person hath He citeth Caluin Instit l. 1. c. 13. ss 23.25 which no man would thinke that he would so precisely set downe but that hee read the place Now in the latter of those two sections Caluin saith thus a Caluin Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect 25. Deitatem ergò absolute ex seipsa esse dicimus Vndc filium quatenus deus est fatemur ex seipso esse sublato personae respectu quatenus verò filius est dicimus esse ex patre ita essentia eius principio caret personae verò principium est ipse deus we say then that the Godhead absolutely is of it selfe and therefore that the Sonne as he is God setting a side the respect of the person is of himselfe but as he is the Sonne we say that he is of the Father So then the essence of the Sonne is without beginning but the beginning of his person is God the Father which he sheweth in the other section alleaged to be b Ibid. sect 23. Cum filio essentiam communicauit Râ—sâ—at vt tota in soâ—idum patris filij sit coÌ„munis by the Fathers communicating his whole essence to the Sonne What can be more plainely or more truly spoken He affirmeth that the Godhead whereby Christ is God is of it selfe that is to say not of any other but yet that Christ as he is the second person in Trinity is not God of himselfe but of the Father In the former meaning he termeth Christ to be God of himselfe vnderstanding the name of God absolutely that is that he is that one God who is God of himselfe and not of any other but that the second person in Trinity receiueth not the Godhead from the first Caluin neuer wrot it neuer thought it and most lewdly doth M. Bishop deale so falsely to charge him with it Yea Bellarmine himselfe though he will seeme to condemne Caluin for the maner of his speech in stiling Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe yet indeed fully and wholly doth acquit him for he telleth vs that c Bell de Christo l. 2. c. 19. Causa fuit quia Valentinus Gentilis perpetuo iaes abat soium patrem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per hoc nomen intelligebat solum patrem habere essentiam verè diuinam increatam silium autem sp sanctum habere aliam essentiam productam à patre ideo quoad essentiam eos non esse autotheos Calu. igitur occurrere volens Valentino contrarium asseruit nempe filium esse autotheon quoad essentiam id est in eo sensu quo id à Valentino negabatur the cause which mooued Caluin so to write was because Valentinus Gentilis a new Arian heretike was still prating that the Father only was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and meant thereby that the Father only had the essence truly diuine and vncreated and that the Sonne and the holy Ghost had another essence produced of the Father and therefore that as touching essence neither of them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caluin therefore willing saith he to meete with Valentine auoucheth the contrary namely that the Sonne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God of himselfe as touching the essence that is in that sense wherein Valentine denied the same Accordingly of his arguments he saith d Idem Respondeo hoc argumeÌ„tum benè concludere contrà Gentilem c. This argument concludeth well against Gentilis this argument also concludeth well against Gentilis How grossly then are these men blinded with malice who acknowledging Caluins words to be spoken only in a certain
indure of any thing or else voide of due respest vnto the Sonne who are such aduersaries to the Mother whom if they would not reuerence for her owne vertues which were most rare and singular yet for her Sonnes sake who loued her so tenderly they should shew themselues better affected towards her The virgin-mother hoâ— worshipped in Popery and more forward in her praises if they did indeede loue and honour her Sonne as they pretend to doe R. ABBOT Our affection towards our Sauiour Christ consisteth not in the approouing of old wiues dreames but in the keeping of his word We finde not that any of the Apostles or Euangelists either vsed themselues or instructed others to salute the Virgin-mother with the Haile Mary It is recorded in the Gospell indeed that an Angell sent from heauen did so salute her vpon the earth but it is not recorded in the Gospell that we on earth should so salute her being now in heauen As for that which M. Bishop saith of our dispraising her it is vntrue we dispraise her not we a Luk. 1.48 call her blessed as we are taught to doe we acknowledge her a fingular instrument of Gods mercy towards vs in the incarnation of Iesus Christ we mention her as becommeth vs with due remembrance of the vertues and graces that God hath bestowed vpon her but yet wee will make no b Leo 10. apud Pet. Bembum ep l. 8. epist 17. Ne Deam ipsam inani lignorum inutilium donatione lusisse videamini Goddesse of her as the Pope hath done nor commit Idolatry to doe her vndue honor as the Collyridian heretickes did of old and as the Papists now doe Christ loued her tenderly but yet hee meant not to put her in place of himselfe nor appointed vs to seeke at her hands that blessing and grace which God hath giuen vs in him alone And therefore we will not be partakers with the Church of Rome in those sacriledges and blasphemies wherein they call her c Ioan. Michae Enchir. quotidian exercit pag. 120. O nostra singularis mater Aduocata suscipe nos in maternam tuamcustodiam eâ— directionem adopta in filios tibi deuotissimos purga et praeserua ab omnibus vitijs ex orna tua humilitate castitate charitate obedientia caeterisque virtutibus their mother and aduocate praying to her that shee will receiue them into her motherly custody and direction to adopt them to be her deuout children to purge them and preserue them from all vices to adorne them with her humility chastity charity obedience and other vertues d Cap 7. p. 346. suscipe etiaÌ„ per idem cor filij tuâ— vniuersum nâ—strae seruitutis obsequium tuis meritis illud adiungenâ— supple emenda perfice et offer that for her sonnes sake or as they speake by the heart of her sonne she will receiue all the duty of their seruice and adioining it to her merits will supply it amend it perfect and offer it e Cap. 4. pa. 158. per te accessum habeamus ad filium vt per te nos suscipiat purget sane liberet c. Excuset apud ipsum tua puritas integritas culpam nostrae impuritatis corruptionis humilitas tua nostrae veniam impetret vanitate sobrietas gulositati c. copiosa tua charitas nostrorum cooperiat multitudinem peccatorum Domina nostra Mediatrix nostra Aduocata nostra tuo filio nos commenda tuo filio nos repraesenta tuo filio nos reconcilia incorpora that by her they may haue accesse to her sonne that by her he may receiue them purge heale and deliuer them that her purity and integrity may with him excuse the fault of their impurity and eorruption her humility may obtaine pardon for their vanity her sobriety for their gluttony that her abundant loue may couer the multitude of their sinnes O our Lady say they our Mediatresse our Aduocate commend vs to thy sonne represent vs to thy sonne reconcile vs and incorporate vs to him Thus what Christ came to doe for vs towards God because none could doe it but he that haue they set vp the Virgin Mary to doe for vs towards Christ who notwithstanding needed Christ as well as we But because we tender the honour of Iesus Christ and for the loue wherwith he hath loued vs. do hold our selues bound in loue to yeeld him entirely the glory of that that he hath done for vs therefore we renounce all such deuotions which indeed are no deuotions but impieties and prophanations of the faith and religion of Christ whereby the mediation of Christ is either excluded as needlesse or impeached as vnsufficient to doe that for which he was appointed and sent of God But as touching this point of M. Bishops blinde and doting superstition I refer thee gentle reader to the examination of his answer to M. Perkins epistle dedicatory the last part thereof 13. W. BISHOP But let vs come to Christs owne person Whereas the first Adam was at the first instance of his creation replenished with perfect knowledge Ioh. 1. In cap. 2. Luc. v. 52. Col. 2. v. 4. and it is also in holy writ said of the second that the word was made flesh full of grace and truth Yet they commonly teach that our Sauiours soule was subiect to ignorance euen as other mens soules are and that he was in his youth ignorant of many things But what and they spare him not in whom all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge were hidden when he came to ripe yeares and began now to preach let vs for a taste heare some of Caluins sweete obseruations vpon the text of the Gospell Ex Caluin Turcismo lib. 7. cap. 13. Luc. 16. Matth. 7. Iohn 1. In cap. 7. Luc. v. 29. because the purer brethren complaine much that M. Caluins workes are in no greater request Christ saith he * speaketh improperly Matth. 6. vers 18. he vseth harsh and far-fetched similitudes hee wresteth the Prophets words into a strange sense he vseth triuiall and vulgar prouerbs as probable coniectures not as sound arguments which he willeth vs to beare in minde as a thing often practised by our Sauiour in Matth. cap. 12. vers 25. Luc 11. vers 17. he speaketh after the manner of men not out of his heauenly cabinet Mat. 11. vers 21. which is no lesse in plaine English then that he spake vntruly as men doe Matth. 26.39 And very sutable to this he noteth else where that Christ could not get any other to be his Distiples then some certaine poore fellowes of the refuse and dregges of the people Seeme not these execrable notes to issue from the pen of some malicious Iew or ranke Atheist yet are they but fleabitings in comparison of those which follow In his commentary vpon these words of our Sauiour Father if it be possible let this chalice or cup passe from me He obserneth first that
regnum obtinere caelorum caeterúm dupliet iure illud obtinens dominus meus haereditate scilicet patris merito passionis aeltero ipse contentus alterum mihi donat ex cuius dono iure illud mihi vendicans non confundor I confesse I am not woorthy neither can I by mine owne merits obteine the kingdome of heauen but my Lord Iesus hauing obteined it by double right both by inheritance from the father by the merit of his passion being himselfe contented with the one he giueth me the other by whose gift I am not ashamed to chalenge it for my right In the same maner did the godly martyr speake of right not to distinguish a right in himselfe from the right of Christ but to signify that Christ hath made ouer his right to vs and thereby wee hold as fast as Christ himselfe can hold From hence the other words are deriued by imitatioÌ„ of that which the Apostle saith f 1. Cor. 15.16 If the dead rise not againe then is Christ not risen againe by which he signifieth that there is that strait and inseparable bond betwixt Christ and his members as that to deny to them any thing which Christ hath wrought and purchased for them is to deny the same to Christ himselfe to affirme the failing of any thing to them is to affirme the failing of it to him also And as by allusion to that place of the Apostle Tertullian saith g Tertull. de Resurrect carnis securae estote caro sanguis vsurpastis caelum dei regnum in Christo aut si negent vos in Christo negent in caelo Christum qui vobis caelum negauerunt Care not flesh and blood yee haue in Christ taken possession of heauen and of the kingdome of God or if they deny you to be in heauen in Christ let them also deny Christ himselfe to be in heauen who haue denied heauen to you What will M. Bishop here tearme Tertullian and Bernard together with the Apostle himselfe audacious and sawcie Gospellers Because the Apostle denieth Christ himselfe to be risen vnlesse the faithfull also rise againe will hee returne him a scornfull iest as heere hee doth Christ belike could not liue in blisse without their holy company But their reason saith he seemeth good in the way of their owne religion Well if it be so it is sufficient for the way of their religion hath beene so farre approoued as that neither M. Bishop nor any other aduersaries haue beene able to disprooue it And because he cannot disprooue it therefore let him confesse as the truth is that the firme and stedfast apprehension of the merits of Christ and of being by faith made one with him doth minister vnto the faithfull this sacred resolution that so long as Christ perisheth not they cannot perish and therefore shall bee preserued for euer That that followeth is but an idle repetition of the same matters onely set out with a bold face and bigge looks and some inkehorne termes and therefore I passe it ouer not maruelling that any thing on our part seeme phantasticall to so vaine a man whose intellectuall parts serue him not to prooue any thing substantially for his owne 17. W. BISHOP But to returne to Christs mediatorship and merits Is it not moreouer a great disparagement vnto them to maintaine as the Protestants doe that his best beloued spouse the Church should continue but a small time at least in any sight and should bee penned vp in corners yea and during that time too it should not bee free from many foule grosse errours in the very foundation of faith Furthermore that hee left his holy word the onely rule and square as they hold of Christian religion to bee vnderstood of euery man as his owne knowledge and spirit should direct him and if any doubtfull question did arise thereabout as he fore-sawe thousands should doe yet he tooke no other order for the deciding and ending of them but that euery one should repaire vnto the same his word and doing his diligence to vnderstand it might afterward be his owne iudge As this later opinion would argue our blessed Sauiour who was the wisedome of God to bee the weakest and most improuident law-maker that euer was so the former doth mightily blemish the inestimable price of his most pretious bloud making it not of sufficient value to purchase vnto him an euerlasting inheritance free from all errours in matter of faith and abounding in all good works R. ABBOT The Protestants doe not maintaine that the Church the beloued spouse of Christ should continue but a small time but doe all absolutely affirme the continuance thereof from the beginning to the end The Church how it is visible or inuisible As for the visibilitie and sight of the Church we speake diuersly thereof as we speake diuersly of the Church it selfe Where the Church is a matter of faith there it is not subiect to sight for a Greg. Dialog l. 4. c. 4. Hoc reracitèr dicitur credi quod non potest viders nam quod iam videri potest credi non potest that is truely said to be beleeued saith Gregorie which cannot be seene and that which may now be seene cannot be said to be belecued The Church then which wee professe to beleeue in the articles of our faith is inuisible because as b Aug in Psal 56. Caput separatum est à visione the head is inuisible c 1. Pet 1.8 we beleeue in him but we see him not so is the body also d Greg. in Psal poenitential 5. Tota Ecclesia siue quae adhuc versatur in terris siue quae cum eo iam regnat in coelis c. one part thereof raigning in heauen with the head another part yet vnborne e Aug. vt supra pertinentibus ad eam etiam his qui fuerunt ante nos his qui futnri sunt â—ost nos vsque ad finem seculi because to it belong they also that shall be after vs to the worlds end the third part though visible as they are men yet inuisible according to that they are members of this Church because f Luk. 17.21 the kingdome of God is within and g Aug de Bapt. cont Donat. l. 5. c. 28. Mamfe stuÌ„ est id quod in ecclesia dicitur intus foris in corde non in corpore cogi tandum to be in the Church is not to be conceiued in the bodie but in the heart h 1. King 8.39 2 Tim. 2.19 which God only knoweth and therefore only knoweth who are within according to that seale as the Apostle calleth it of the foundation of God i The Lord knoweth who are his To speake of the Church accordingly as men take notice and knowledge of it it is said to be visible two maner of waies either as touching the persons professing the seruice and worship of God or as touching the congregating
as he is a priuate man may erre but as Pope and in his consistory and iudiciall sentence hee cannot erre But what is the church now become an asse to carry a priuiledge for the Pope onely To returne vpon himselfe the skiruie terme that he hath vsed in the former section Is not heere a huge great mill-post fairely thwited into a poore pudding pricke that whereas we are told that it was the effect of the inestimable price of Christs bloud to purchase a church free from all errours in matter of faith The word of God the rule and square of Christian religion we haue this great prerogatiue of the Church resolued finally into a drunken dreame concerning the Pope that it is he onely that cannot erre This is the vpshot of all and to this issue the matter commeth that the church may erre the general councell may erre be the persons neuer so learned neuer so faithfull neuer so holy onely the Pope though hee bee an ignorant beast a very he hound and incarnate diuell yet sitting downe in his chaire of Pestilence to decree a sentence receiueth presently like the Prophets of Apollo some Enthusiasticall impression whereby he pronounceth infallibly a truth howsoeuer he himselfe in his owne priuate opinion bee perswaded otherwise Which being a ridiculous presumption a meere nouelty most impudently deuised by sycophants and parasites a matter which hath no shadow of defense from the beliefe or practise of the ancient church deserueth rather to be reiected with scorne than to haue any question made of it As for that other matter which he adioineth concerning the word of God and interpretation thereof he saith rightlie that we hold for so we doe the holy word of God to be the onely rule and square of Christian religion u Iren adu haeres lib 3. cap. 1. Euangelium per dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum For it was the will of God that the Apostles should commit the Gospell to writing To be the pillar and foundation of our faith and x Aug. in epist. Ioan. tract 3. contra insidiosos errores ponere voluit deus firmamentum in Scripturis sanctis in the scriptures to appoint vs a fortresse against deceitfull errours so as that y Chrysost op imperfect hom 49. Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes accipere firmitatem fidei ad nullam rem aliam fugiant nisi tantummodo ad scripturas Christians being desirous to receiue assurance of their faith are no whither else to flie but onely to the Scriptures But wheras he affirmeth that we say that Christ hath left his holy word to be vnderstood of euery man as his own knowledge and spirit shall direct him and that in doubtfull questions arising he hath taken no order for the deciding of them but that euery one may be his own Iudge they are but silly deuices of obiection against vs to colour the nouelties absurdities which we in the same behalfe iustly condemne in them Wee euery man vnderstand the Scriptures as his owne knowledge and spirit doth direct him and why Because we reiect that course of vnderstanding the Scripture which they factiously and partiallie haue of late deuised for the seruing of their owne turne z Hosius de expresso dei verbe Siquis habeat interpretatisnem ecclesiae Romanae de loco aliquo scripturae etiamsi nec sciat nec intelligat an quomodo cum scripturae verbis conueniat tamen habet ipsissimum verbum dei If a man forsooth haue the interpretation of the church of Rome concerning any place of Scripture albeit he seeth not how it accordeth with the words yet he hath the very word of God We leaue euery man in doubtfull questions to be his owne Iudge but why Because we refuse the triall of a Iudge presumptuously aduanced and authorised by them Forsooth the Pope being accused of hainous abominations and sacriledge against God must sit as Iudge whether he be guiltie or not and whether they doe iustly that haue accused him But what Scripture what Councell what Father or storie or practise of the Church hath tied the interpretation of the Scriptures to the church of Rome or the deciding of controuersies to the Bishop of Rome And whereas their course in this behalfe hath no maner of iustification from the ancient Church I challenge him on the other side to alleage any course entertained by the same Church for the interpretation of Scriptures and iudgement of controuersies which is not approued and practised by vs. Which because he cannot do he doth but waste his wit by trifling in this sort and renuing idle cauils which a Of Traditions sect 21.22 before haue beene troden vnder foote being not able to relieue them with any further defense or strength 18. W. BISHOP To fold vp this part let me entreate thee courteous reader to be an vpright Iudge betweene the Protestants doctrine and ours in this most weighty matter of Christs dignity vertues and mediation and if thou see most euidently that ours doth more aduance them why shouldest thou not giue sentence on our side They make Christ ignorant many yeares of his life we hold him from the first instant of his conception to haue beene replenished with most perfect knowledge They that he spake and taught now and then as other men did and was subiect to disordinate passions We that he was most free from all such and that he taught alwaies most diuinely They make his very death not sufficient to redeeme vs we hold that the least thing that euer he suffered in his life deserued the redemption of many worlds They that he died onely for the elect we that he died for all though many through their owne fault doe not receiue any benefit by his death They that thereby we are not purged from our sinnes but by imputation we that all are by the vertue thereof inwardly cleansed They that Christ purchased a Church consisting of few not to continue long and subiect to many errours we that he established a Church that should be spread ouer all the world and that should continue to the end of the world visibly and alwaies free from any errour in any matter of faith Finally they hold that Christ left his holy word to the disputation of men not taking any certaine order for the ending of controuersies that should arise about it we teach that he hath established a most assured meanes to decide all doubts in religion and to hold all obedient Christians inperfect vniformity of both faith and manners And because I am entred into these comparisons giue mee leaue to persist yet a little longer in them Consider also I pray you who goe neerer to Atheisme either we that thinke and speake of the most sacred Trinity as the blessed Fathers in the first Councell of Nice taught or they who directly crosse them and by the nouelty
made If these Ministers had once deceiued you in a money matter you would beware how you trusted them againe and will you beleeue them still they hauing by their owne confession hitherto deceiued you both in your Church seruice Bible coÌ„mending the one to you as diuine seruice and the other as Gods pure word and now condemning them both Which words of his doe carry some colour to blinde the ignorant but he himselfe well knew that he did but play the Sicophant and made only a shew of great matter against vs wherein in truth there is no waight at all For wold the sorry fellow haue argued thus against the faith of the whole church that had been for the space almost of foure hundred yeeres when Hierome tooke in hand to translate the Bible anew and to reforme the defects and imperfections both of the Septuagint of other translations which the Church had vsed till that time It appeareth by Hierome that c Hier. ad Paulam Eustoch Praefat. in Esaiae translat Qui scit me ob hoc in peregrinae linguae eruditione sudasse ne Iudaei de falsitate scripturarum ecclesiis eâ—us diutiùs insultarent the Iewes insulted ouer the Christian Church for their false translations of the Scriptures for the auoiding whereof he protesteth it was that he tooke that paines to learne the Hebrew tongue that he might himselfe more perfectly translate them and so d Idem Praefat. in Iosue Dolere Iudaeosquòd calumniandi eis irridendi Christianos sit ablata occasio take from them all occasion to calumniate and mocke the Christians Will our Iudaizing Iesuite heereupon say of all the time before that there could be no goodnesse in their faith that it was built vpon an euill foundation that their Bibles were naught because there were so great defaults in their translations What had so many Churches beleeued in vaine so many Martyrs and Confessours suffered persecution and death for a faith of which they had no certaine or assured ground But to come somewhat neerer to him when Hierom had more perfectly translated the Scriptures his translation grew in the Latin Church to bee much respected and hath beene since in speciall name aboue any other The Councell of Trent hath decreed that that translation if at least it be that which now carieth his name wherof there is iust cause to doubt e Concil Trident sess 4. c. 2. shall stand for authenticall and good in all publike lectures disputations preachings expoundings and that no man vpon any pretence shall presume to reiect it Yet of that translation it is confessed by f See D. Rainolds Thes 5. § 30. where he citeth Budaeus Valla sir T. Moore acknowledging so much in the new Testament Pagnine Galatinus and Masius in the old Isidorus Clarius Andradius and Arias Montanus in both sundry the most learned of his side that there are many defaults and slippes wherein the interpreter hath swarued both from the words and from the right and true meaning of the holy Ghost Yea into that translation there were also crept by neglect manie grosse corruptions acknowledged by themselues and therfore g Biblia excusa Romae anno domini 1590.92.93 reformed first by Sixtus Quintus and afterward by Clement the eighth such as whereby the meaning of the text in many places was wholly altered And will this cauilling Sophister giue vs leaue to conclude heereof that there hath beene all the while that those errors and corruptions haue continued no goodnesse in the faith of their church of Rome that their Bibles by themselues haue been condemned for naught that their religion hath beene built vpon an euill foundation because there haue beene errors and imperfections in their translations of the Scriptures If hee thinke that this is no argument against them we must needs thinke him to be that that he is that would go about to blinde simple men by such a cauillation against vs. For thy better satisfaction gentle Reader thou maiest consider that translations of the Scriptures are the same to the Church as are glasse-windowes to a house The glasse neuer yeeldeth the light altogether so cleere as it commeth immediately from the Sun and the interleadding of it hindereth that there is not fully and thorowout a perfect transparence of the light and yet it giueth light so as serueth abundantly for the discerning of euery thing and for the directing and doing all the businesse of the house Euen so translations can neuer so cleerely and fully expresse the things that are translated as they are to be seene immediately in the originall from whence they are deriued By the vnperfect apprehension of the translatours it commeth to passe that they haue their ouersights as it were traces and barres of lead thorow which the light of the originall text perfectly shineth not which notwithstanding doe compact and hold together the body of the text as it were the glasse thorow which the Sunne of righteousnesse most comfortably shineth vnto vs and by which we haue vndoubted and certaine direction for the whole worke and seruice of the house of God There is in euerie language some special proprietie the grace and significancy whereof no other language by any industrie of the translator can atteine vnto There are in the originals but specially in the Hebrew tongue many words of doubtfull and diuers significations of which it is very hard manie times to say which best fitteth to expresse the meaning of the place Sometimes though the signification of the words be knowen yet the phrase and composition breedeth ambiguitie of translation By this meanes the wordes being subiect to diuers constructions one interpreteth them one way another another way and neither can controll other because it is hard to say which is the truest way Yea S. Aust doubteh not to say that h Aug. de dect Christ li. 3. cap. 27. Certè dei spiritus etiam ipsam alteram sententiam occursuraÌ„ lectori vel auditorisine dubitatione praeuidit imò vt occurreret quia ipsa est veritate subnixa prouidit Nam quid in diuinis eloquijs potuit largius wherius prouideri quam vt eadem verba pluribus intelligantur modis c. the holy Ghost for more large and plentifull instruction did not onely foresee but prouide that of the same words diuers meanings might be made which notwithstanding both or all should bee agreeable to the truth But there are furthermore many allusions many allegories many prouerbiall and figuratiue speeches the reasons whereof are not alwaies easily discerned and therfore they are coniectured diuers waies Sometimes it falleth out that the words of themselues seeme to the translatour to leane one way and the expositour seeth that by the drift and intendement of the text they are to goe another By these and other occasions translatours according to the gifts that God hath giuen them vse their iudgements diuersly one seeing that which another seeth not
not Apostolical traditions which appeare certainely so to be and yet woorthily we reiect those vnwritten doctrines and counterfet traditions of the Papists which are falsely fathered vpon the Apostles It is by these vnwritten doctrines and counterfet traditions that the grounds of our faith are impeached and shaken We therefore cannot be said to shake the grounds of faith who retaine the meere simplicity of those grounds and refuse all other strange and bastard stuffe but they shake the grounds of faith who become patrons of such tradition coloured with the names of the Apostles when notwithstanding they plainely crosse the written doctrine of the Apostles 2. W. BISHOP But let vs descend to the particulars wherein the truth will appeare more plainely Thus beginneth Master PERKINS with the Creede First of all it must be considered that some of the principall doctrines beleeued in the Church of Rome are that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and head of the Catholike Church that there is a fire of Purgatory that Images of God and Saints are to be placed in the Church and worshipped that Praier is to be made to Saints departed that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the Masse for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead These points are of that moment that without them the Roman religion cannot stand c. And yet marke the Apostles Creed which hath beene thought to containe all necessary points of religion to be beleeued and hath therefore beene called the key and rule of faith This Creede I say hath not any of these points nor the expositions made thereof by the ancient Fathers nor any other Creed or confession of faith made by any Councell or Church for the space of many hundred yeeres This is a plaine proofe to any indifferent man that these bee new articles of faith neuer knowen in the Apostolike Church and that the Fathers and Councels could not finde any such articles of faith in the bookes of the old and new Testament Answer is made that all these points of doctrine are beleeued vnder the article I beleeue the Catholike Church the meaning whereof they will haue to be this I beleeue all things which the Catholike Church holdeth and teacheth to be beleeued If this bee as they say wee must beleeue in the Church that is put our confidence in the Church for the manifestation and the certainety of all doctrine necessary to saluation And thus the eternall truth of God the Creatour shall depend vpon the determination of the creature And the written word of God in this respect is made insufficient as though it had not plainely reuealed all points of doctrine pertaining to saluation And the ancient Churches haue beene farre ouer-secene that did not propound the former points to be beleeued as articles of faith but left them to these latter times Thus farre Master PERKINS Wherein are hudled vp many things confusedly I will answere briefly and distinctly to euery point The first is that in the Apostles Creede are contained all points of religion necessary to be beleeued which is most apparantly false as the Protestants themselues must needes confesse or else grant that it is not necessary to beleeue the King to be Supreame-head of the Church or that the Church is to be gouerned by Bishops or that we are iustified by Christs iustice imputed to vs or that there be but two Sacraments or that the Church seruice must be said in the vulgar tongue or that all things necessary to be beleeued to saluation are contained in the Scriptures To be short not one article of their religion which is contrary to ours is conteined in this Creede of the Apostles therefore to affirme as he doth all necessary points of religion to be contained in this Creede is to cast their owne religion flat to the ground and to teach that not one point of it is to be beleeued this Creede may neuerthelesse be called the key and rule of faith because it containeth the principall points of the Christian religion and doth open as it were the doore vnto all the rest and guide a man certainely vnto the knowledge of them by teaching vs to beleeue the Catholike Church which being the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 Ioh. 16.13 directed and guided by the spirit of truth will alwaies instruct her obedient children in all truth necessary to saluation Then saith M. PERKINS The eternall truth of God the Creatour shall depend on the determination of the creature Nothing lesse for Gods truth is most sincere and certaine in it selfe before any declaration of the church but we poore creatures that are subiect to mistaking and error should not so certainely vnderstand and know that truth of God vnlesse hee had ordained and appointed such a skilfull and faithfull Mistris and interpreter to assure vs both what is his word and what is the true meaning of it Like as pure gold is not made perfect in it self by the Gold-smithes touch-stone but other men are thereby assured that it is true and pure gold euen so the word of God doth not borrow his truth from the Church but the true children of God are by the holy Church assured which is the same his word If we did hold as we do not that the written word containeth all points of doctrine necessary to saluation yet were it most necessary to relie vpoÌ„ the Catholike churches declaration both to be assured which books of scriptures be Canonicall which not whereupon Saint Augustine a man of far better iudgement than any of these daies said Con. Epist. Iud. cap. 5. that he would not beleeue the Gospel vnlesse the authority of the church mooued him therunto as also to vnderstand them truly because the words of holy Scripture without the true meaning and sense of them do but deceiue men and lead them into error and to that end haue alwaies beene and yet are by Heretikes abused to draw others after them into destruction The like may be said of other ancient Creeds and confessions of faith which holding the Apostles Creed did adde some few points vnto it namely such as were in those daies called into question by Heretikes of greater fame and who were followed of many not touching in particular diuers other articles generally beleeued of all true Christians or else by soâ—e fewe and obscure men onely questioned Wherefore to argue that no other points of faith are to be beleeued but such as are expressed in ancient Creeds is to cut off a great part of our faith Lastly it is most vntrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Councels knew not of these articles of faith by him mentioned for they haue most plainely taught them in their writings yea and expresly condemned of heresie most of the contrary positions now againe reuiued and holden by the Protestants as in those seuerall questions I haue before prooued R. ABBOT How M. Pirkins vnderstood that all necessary
do not beleeue the one Catholike Church because they doe as well not beleeue it as beleeue it And as for the communion of Saints their learned Masters doe commonly cassier it out of the Creed and that not without cause For by the Saints vnderstanding as the Apostles did all good Christans whether aliue or departed this world they that deny praier to Saints and for the soules in Purgatory haue reason to reiect the common society and enter course that is betweene the Saints and the mutuall honour and help which such good Christian soules doe yeeld and afford one to another R. ABBOT The holy Catholike church which wee beleeue in the Creed being the communion of Saints is onely one The Catholike Church only one which is the body of Christ whereof all the faithfull are members being ioyned into this society by one spirit Visible and Inuisible being but circumstances cannot argue any multiplication of the church because the inuisible church importeth all them and them only who are the true members in their time of the visible church For in the visible church the name of the church properly belongeth to them onely who liue by faith and by the spirit of Christ the rest are not members but a August in 1 Ioan. epist tract 3. Sic sunt in corpore Christi quomodo humores mali as euill humours in the body which wait their time to be purged out In the meane time because all professe to seeke Christ and to serue him and our eies cannot distinguish betwixt them that truely doe so and them that doe not therefore visibly and to vs all goe together vnder the name of the church though many there be hypocrites and time seruers who with God and to his sight are no part thereof So then the church visible and inuisible in substance are the same they differ only in respect and M. Bishop knoweth that respects change not the natures of things and therefore those different respects doe nothing hinder but that the church in nature is alwaies one As touching the holinesse of the church M. Bishop in the deliuering of our opinion keepeth his woont He saith The holines of the church imputatiue and reall that we imagine it to be holy by the imputation of Christs holinesse to the elected brethren and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faithful Whereas we doe not imagine only but by the word of God beleeue and know that the church and all the members thereof are holy not onely iudicially by the imputation of Christs holines but also really by the infusion of the holy Ghost begun in this life by b Rom. 8.23 the first fruits of the spirit and fully to be perefected when the promise of Christ shall be fullfilled c Mat. 5.6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse for they shal be satisfied Againe he excepteth against vs that we cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sense of it Of the true sense of the name Catholike But what is that true sense That is saith hee they will not beleeue the true church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the time of the Apostles But what ancient father did euer set this downe for the true sense of the name Catholike If any let him be brought foorth If none why doth he contrary to his owne prescription introduce a new exposition of an article of our beleefe Cyril in his Catechisme bringeth in all the meanings of the name Catholike that he could learne that the church is so called for that d Cyril Hierosci Catechis 18. Illuminat Catholica vocatur quia per vntuersum sit orâ—em terrarum diffusa c. Et quia doret Catholicè hoc est vniuersalitèr sine vllo defectu vel differentia omnia dogmata quae deberent venire in cognitionem c Et quòd omne genus hominum ipè subiugat et quia in vniuersum curat omne genus peccatorum c. hab turque in illa omne genus virtutis c. it is vniuersally spread thorow the whole world for that it teacheth vniuersally all doctrines that are to be known for that it subiecteth to it alkinde of men for that it healeth all kinde of sinnes for that it hath in it all kind of vertues but of M. Bishops meaning that it should be alwaies visibly extant he had learned nothing Surely S. Ambrose saith e Ambros Hexaem lib. 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia habet tempora sua persecutionis pacis videtur sicut luna deficere sed non deficit obumbrari potest deficere non potest The church hath her times of persecution and peace it seemeth as the Moone to faile but it faileth not it may be ouershadowed but vtterly faile it cannot If the church may be as the Moone so ouershadowed by persecution as not to be seene then it is not necessary to be alwaies visibly extant and if that be not necessary then M. Bishop hath plaied heere the false merchant to tell vs that the church is therefore called Catholike because it is alwaies visibly extant Albeit there is somewhat also to be obserued concerning the name of the true church that we may speake to that time of the visibility of the church which M. Bishop specially intendeth For if wee call that the true Church which truely hath the outward vocation and calling of the church then we deny not but that the church in the time of Antichrist must bee and hath beene alwaies visibly extant because Antichrist was to possesse and hath possessed the visible state of the church But if by the true church we meane those members of the church which are truely correspondent to the vocation and calling of the church in faith and obedience vnto God then the true church is not alwaies visible because the greater part being the woorse doth many times oppresse the better and weaker part and proudly carrying it selfe in the opinion and confidence of it selfe persecuteth and driueth into corners all them that gainesay their traditions and wilworships which by their owne authority they establish to delude thereby and frustrate the word of God And thus we say that the true church in the time of the exaltation of Antichrist was in a sort inuisible the publike state of the church yeelding it selfe in thraldome to his tyranny and persecuting the true members of the church who disclaiming his obedience sought to keepe themselues entire and faithfull vnto God Whereas hee further addeth for the notation of the name Catholike that the church was so called as being generally spred into all countries we willingly acknowledge the same as being before acknowledged by the ancient church and defended against the Donatists who by other expositions sought to draw the name vnto themselues as the Papists now doe Onely wee adde that caution which Bellarmine himselfe hath deliuered as necessary for himselfe that f Beliarm
therefore we may not doubt but that the fellowship of the grace of God as God himselfe hath ordeined is to be imparted vnto them We know that many things by the law were called holy which yet were not capable of inward and spirituall holinesse and therefore albeit wee say by the Apostles phrase that the children of the faithful are holy vnto God euen from their mothers wombe yet is there no necessitie to vnderstand this holinesse of any grace of inward regeneration as they wilfully vnderstand it it being sufficient both to the Apostles words and to our meaning that they be reckoned as belonging to Gods houshold partakers of his vocation and calling designed to his vse and in case to be made partakers of his holinesse That the remainder of originall sin is properly sinne in the regenerate and that it infecteth and staineth all our good works so as that it should preuaile against vs to condemnation saue onely that God imputeth not the same vnto vs it hath beene at large before declared and M. Bishop for shame should no more gainesay it till he haue made good that that there he hath said against it As for his Sacrament of penance we know it not Repentance Christ hath taught vs but Sacrament of penance he hath taught none and therefore iustly may wee leaue it to them that haue beene the deuisers of it For remission of sinnes which wee commit after baptisme wee looke backe alwaies in our repentance to baptisme it selfe where it was sealed vnto vs not for the present onely but for euer that h 1. Ioh. 2.2 if any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes 14. W. BISHOP 11 The resurrection of the bodies Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Geneuian Gospel doubted thereof or no let his successor Caluin tell you who answereth Farels letter thus Epist ad Farellum That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seeme to thee incredible no maruell c. Againe many of them teach that Christ tooke not his bloud againe which he shed vpon the crosse yea some of them are so gracelesse as to say that his pretious bloud wherewith wee were redeemed Vide Conradum lib. 1. art 20. rotted away on the earth 1600. yeeres agoe If then it bee not necessarie to a true resurrection to rise againe with the same bloud why is it necessarie to rise againe with the same bones and flesh the one being as perfect a part of a mans body as the other R. ABBOT The epistle wherein are the words mentioned by M. Bishop importing a doubt of the resurrection of the bodie was not written to Farel as he falsely quoteth but to one a Caluin epist. 103. Quòd res tibi incredibilis videtur huius carnis resurrectio nihil mirū Lelius Zozimus an Italian who seemeth to haue beene but meanely perswaded of some other points of Christian doctrine After two epistles to this Zozinus in the former whereof these words are there follow two epistles to Farell But what drowsie fit was M. Bishop in to take Farels name from an epistle that followed after and by forgery to adde it to the epistle that went before But this is one of the Romish holy fraudes whether true or false it skilleth not so that it be fit to serue the turne What wee thinke of Christs resuming his bloud againe I haue b Sect. 10. before shewed As for Conrades reports of the opinions of some of our men concerning the same they little mooue vs without better testimonie because wee know what the guise of Romish Sycophants in that case is wont to be 15. W. BISHOP 12 Life euerlasting First Captaine Caluin holdeth it for very certaine that no soule doth enter into the ioyes of heauen wherin consisteth life euerlasting vntill the day of doome These be his words 3. Institu 25. sess 6. The soules of the godly hauing ended the labour of this war-fare doe goe into a blessed rest where they expect the enioying of the promised glorie And that all things are holden in suspence vntill Christ the redeemer appeare Whose opinion is yet better than was his predecessor Luthers For he teacheth in many places Enarra in Gen. cap. 26. In Ecclesi c. 9. v. 10. that the soules of the godly departing from their bodies haue no sense at all but doe lie fast asleepe vntill the latter day Take this one for a taste Another place to prooue that the dead feele or vnderstand nothing wherefore Salomon thought the dead to be wholy asleepe and to perceiue nothing at all And again The sleepe of the soule in the life to come is more profound than in this life And Luther with this one position of his as that famous historiographer Iohn Sleidan recordeth ouerthrew two points of Popery to wit Lib. 9. hist. praying to Saints for they are so fast asleepe that they cannot heare vs and praying for the dead For they in Purgatorie slept also so soundly that they felt no paines A meet foundation surely to build such false doctrine vpon In 20. Luc. hom 35. But Brentius is most plaine in this matter who ingeniously confesseth that albeit there were not many among them that did professe publikely the soules to die with the bodie yet the most vncleane life which the greatest part of their followers did lead doth clearely shew that in their hearts they thinke no life to be after this yea that many such speeches doe sometimes proceed from them Finally it is a grosse errour of theirs to thinke that euery meane godly man shall be then made equall in glory with the Apostles which Luther teacheth whereas cleane contrary S. Paul declareth In 1. c. Petri 1. 1. Cor. 15.42 that as one starre differeth from another in glory so also shall be the resurrection of the dead I omit heere many other particularities that I be not ouer tedious For these their bickerings against the very principles of our Christian faith not leauing any one article of our Creed vnskirmished with all will serue any indifferent man for a warning to beware of their prophane doctrine that leadeth the high way to Infidelitie They vse to crie out much against the Antichrist of Rome for corrupting the puritie of the Gospell as the wicked Elders did against the adulterie of Susanna but the iudicious Christian may easily espie them themselues to be the true fore-runners of Antichrist indeed by their so generall hacking and hewing at euery point of the ancient Christian faith Thus much concerning the Creede now let vs passe to the Commandements R. ABBOT Note well The soules of the faithfull affirmed by Caluin and Luther to be in heauen gentle Reader the wilfull impudencie and malice of this man He saith that Caluin denieth to soules departed the ioyes of heauen vntill the day of doome and yet in the words by him cited hee seeth that hee
in it euen as the badde may not abide it R. ABBOT The Protestants doe so well indure to heare the words of Gods spirit as that they haue made speciall choise therof as the principall weapon wherewith to fight against the superstitions and abominations of the Papists Whose absurd dotage as many other waies so in their Aue-Marie most notably appeareth in that of a salutation to the virgin Marie being present they haue made an inuocation of her being absent and thinke it a matter of great merit and deuotion to vse it like a charme by saying it ouer thus or thus many times at once which the Angell spake but once M. Bishop allegeth for it the old Catechismes but he neither telleth vs what Catechismes he meaneth nor how old they are which if he had we should easily haue descried the vanity of his speech For if by old Catechismes he meane as he should the Catechismes of the ancient fathers and primitiue Church he is therein found a liar because in those Catechismes there is nothing of it But if by old Catechisms he meane any that haue beene of latter times vnder the darknesse of Popery he abuseth his Reader who in case of Religion looketh for satisfaction euen from the first age because what was not then a part of religion can be no part of religion now the truth of Christ being one and the same from the beginning and for euer The words he saith are the words of the holy ghost and so say we but we say that the words of the holy ghost may be abused as here they are against the purpose and meaning of the holy Ghost They are the words of the holy Ghost which Christ vsed to the Apostles a Luk. 24.25 Fooles and slow of heart to beleeue all that the Prophets haue spoken and will M. Bishop therfore say that we may vse those words for inuocation of the Apostles He allegeth againe that it is prophecied that all generations should call the virgin Mary blessed and we deny it not but we may call her blessed in the meditations of our own hearts and in speaking of her to them that heare vs though we speake not idlely as to her that heareth vs not Be it that the words were composed by the Archangell penned by the Euangelists commended to the reading of all good Christians as other words of scriptures are be it that the sense of them is most comfortable vnto vs yet what is all this to prooue that these words are to bee vsed for a deuotion and seruice to the virgin Mary specially in such sort as Popery hath vsed them in a strange and vnknowen tongue which could yeeld no comfort of the sense nor remembrance thereby of the incarnation of Christ nor perfourmance of thanksgiuing or congratulation towards God That purest antiquity which he allegeth is but corrupt nouelty and leud forgery The Liturgies of Basill and Chrysostome are very falsly so termed and yet in Basils Liturgie there is no mention of the Aue-Mary Of Chrysostomes Liturgie there are so many different copies published one by Leo Tuscus another by Erasmus another by Pelargus who also testifieth that hee hath seen a fourth as that if Chrysostome did leaue any yet no man is able to say of any of them that this is it The sermon of Athanasius in Euangel de Deipara is by b Nann epist nuncupatoria praefixa oper Athanasij In tertiam classem relegaui omnes supposititios libros quos Athanasij non puto Nannius their own translatour put amongst the ranke of bastards and counterfets The name of Deipara was not so famous in the time of Athanasius as to be prefixed in the title of a sermon neither could it haue wanted memorable testimony in the councell of Ephesus if it had been then knowen for his Ephrems works as c Hieron in Catalog script ecclesiast Multa syro sermone composuit Hierome saith were written in the Syrian tongue If M. Bishop can shew them in the same tongue yea or ancientlie translated into the Greeketongue we can giue the better credit that they are his indeed Otherwise we know that they haue been in hucksters handling neither can we but be suspicious of that iugling and foisting which we finde to haue been so vsuall and common with them And if M. Bishop will haue vs to take it for Ephrems worke let him tell vs who is the translatour of it Gerardus Vossius who translated and published the works of Ephrem by the warrant of Pope Sixtus the fift whereas he putteth his name to so many as hee translated putteth no name to the Sermon which M. Bishop citeth shewing thereby that it is not in Greeke and therefore importing it to be a counterfeit He saith that these can with no more reason be denied to be theirs then the rest of their works But I answer him that though there were no other reason yet it is sufficient reason for vs to bee suspicious of these because in them some things are set downe whereof in the rest of their vndoubted workes and in the infinite volumnes of antiquitie which are approoued and acknowledged there is no token to be found As for Bernand he liued in latter times of great apostasie and corruption In that truth which he reteined he is a good witnesse for vs against them but hee can be no witnesse for them to make good those corruptions which hee drew from the time wherein he liued And yet neither is his testimonie cited out of any of his owne works but from another I know not whom and therefore is the lesse to be regarded to say nothing that the speech is ridiculous and fond for why should wee imagine that the Angels triumph and the heauens congratulate that the earth leapeth for ioy and hell trembleth at the deuout saying of the Aue-Mary more then when wee say deuoutly Our Father which art in heauen c Surely good Christians will reiect such absurd dotages and idle dreames though with bad Christians al is fish that commeth to net and what custome offereth they are readie to entertaine neuer regarding to consult with the word of Christ for warrant of that they doe 47. W. BISHOP Now let vs come to the last part of the Catechisme which is of the Sacraments where M. PER. doth briefly repeat his arguments vsed before against the reall presence I might therefore send the Reader vnto the first Chapter of this booke for the answer but because the matter is of great importance I will heere againe giue them a short answer First saith hee the reall presence is ouerthrowne out of these words hee tooke bread and brake it ergo that which Christ tooke was not his bodie c. A simple ouerthrow Christ indeed tooke and brake bread but presently after blessing it made it his body by these words this is my bodie R. ABBOT I might send the Reader saith M. Bishop vnto the first chapter of this booke for the
if we see it not how should we remember any thing by it seeing signes of remembrance must be things seen Such was Goliaths sword such was the husbands blood kept by the wines as much pertinent to this purpose as a goose quill to a woodcocks taile The reall presence therfore in this behalfe is altogether idle neither is there any fruit or effect of it because there is nothing thereby to be seen Albeit Christ did not say see this in remembrance of me but do this in remembrance ofme And what he bid vs doe S. Paul telleth vs namely b 1. Cor. 11.26 to eat of this bread and drinke of this cup. And how shall wee eat of this bread in remembrance of him if it be true which they say that in the sacrament there is no bread If he will say that by the forme of bread we may be remembred though the body be not seen we can also say that by the bread we may be remembred though there bee no reall presence of the body and therfore the reall presence because it is needlesse is iustly affirmed to be none at all 54. W. BISHOP Eightly If the reall presence be granted Per. 8. then the body and blood of Christ are either seuered or ioined together if seuered then Christ is still crucified if ioyned together then the bread is both the body and blood of Christ wheras the institution saith the bread is the body and the wine is the blood Answ The body and blood of Christ are by force of Christs words consecrated apart so that if they could be naturally separated they should bee also seuered in that Sacrament as they might haue been at Christs death when all the blood was poured foorth of his body but euer sithence Christs resurrection they are so ioined together that they can bee no more seuered so that we grant vnder one kind of the Sacrament to be both Christs body and blood which is not wrought by the words of the institution but by the necessary and inseparable coniunction of Christs body with his blood euer since his glorious resurrection R. ABBOT To this it shall be needlesse to say any thing here because it commeth more fitly to be spoken of in the next section 55. W. BISHOP Finally M. Perkins condemneth the administration of the Sacrament vnder one onely kind for the commandement of Christ is drinke ye all of this Mat. 26. vers 27. and this commandement is rehersed to the Church of Corinth in these words doe this as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me vers 25. and no power can reuerse this commandement because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church Answ He began to set downe the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. heere he leapeth backe to S. Mathew because he fitteth him better in this point to whom I answer that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles who were afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others and so something ther-about is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priests onely who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery All men do confesse these words hoc facite doe yee this that is administer yee this Sacrament to be spoken onely to the Apostles and in them to all of the Clergie alone euen so drinke yee all of this was in like maner spoken vnto them onely as Clergie men and therfore it is a commandement onely to Priests so to do and as for others they may either drinke of it or not drinke of it as it shall bee thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors and this may be gathered out of those very words drinke ye all of this For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe then to eat of that food vnlesse it were to signifie that whereas all men should be bound to receiue Christs body they should bee further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also from which bond other men should stand free But to come to the purpose when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kind of the Sacrament we answer that we doe them no hinderance thereby because we giue them both the blessed body and sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde yea whole Christ both God and man because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated But what can they answer when we complaine vpon them for that they haue defrauded the poore people of both body and bloud of Christ and in lieu of that most pretious banquet doe giue them a cold breake-fast of a morsell of bread and a suppe of wine this is a most miserable and lamentable exchange indeed our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it and deliuer them speedily from it Heere is the place to shew how the Protestants doe not onely bereaue their vnfortunate followers of this most heauenly food of Christs body but that they also depriue them of the manifold and great graces of God deriued vnto vs in siue other Sacraments but because I haue touched it in the Preface I will omit it heere and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence as hee hath done against it R. ABBOT Whether it bee S. Mathew or S. Paul they serue both for the confirming of one truth and doe both condemne the Antichristian and damnable sacriledge of the Church of Rome in maiming the Sacrament of Christ contrary to the institution of Christ himselfe to the very intention and purpose of the Sacrament to the example and practise of all ancient churches Our Sauiour Christ saith a Matt. 26.27 Drinke yee all of this But the Church of Rome saith Not so for there are iust and reasonable causes why it is not fit that all drinke therof but it is sufficient that the Priest alone drinke for all M. Bishop to make this good telleth vs that Christ there spake to his Apostles onely and that some thing thereabout is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men but vnto Priests onely But how will hee make it appeare that Christ in the one part of the Sacrament spake to the Apostles onely and not in the other also There were none there present but the Apostles and what direction haue we in the words of Christ to restraine the vse of the cup as peculiar to the Priests and to make the other common to the people And if Christ did so intend how falleth it out that the Apostle S. Paul in the recitall of Christs institution professing b 1. Cor. 11.23 to deliuer precisely what he had receiued of the Lord maketh no mention of this restraint and what presumption was it in the whole primitiue Church contrary to that intendment to make that common to the laitie which Christ had made the prerogatiue of the Priests onely He saith
meaning to instruct Secundinus to worship the image or to kneele to it which we see before is the thing he wholly condemneth but willeth him to vnderstand that these deuotions belong to God onely and therefore that he must beware not to put the image in the place of God to doe to it those duties of religious humiliation which are proper to God alone For as when I say of another man I will not kneele to him as to the king I doe not meane that I will kneele to him though not in that maner as to the king but whereas of dutie I kneele to the king I will not kneele to him so when Gregory saith to Secundinus that he is not to worship the image as God or to kneele before it as before God he meaneth not that hee is to worship the image or kneele before it though not in that maner as before God but that this duty belongeth onely to God and is not to be performed to the image And that this may appeare to be Gregory his true meaning and not any glosse of mine it is vndeniably confirmed by Gregory himselfe where for conclusion of his instructions giuen to Serenus for the quieting of his people he saith thus y IdeÌ„ l. 9. ep 9. Si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare verò imaginâ—â— omnibus modis deuita sed hoc solicitè fraternitas tua admoneat vt ex visione rei gestae ardorem compunctiunis percipiant in adoratione solius omnipotentis sanctae Trinitatis humilitèr prosternantur If any man will make images forbid him not but by all meanes auoid the worshipping of images but this let your brotherhood carefully aduertise them by the sight of the story to gather feruency of compunction but humbly to fall downe or kneele in the worship of the holy Trinity onely Now if he so forbid the worshipping of images as that he reserueth kneeling or casting downe our selues onely to the worship of the holy Trinity let it be esteemed with what conscience it is that M. Bishop saith that he approoueth the worshipping of images euen so farre foorth as to kneele before them Albeit out of the very words themselues the thing is manifest for if Gregory had intended that images though they were not to be worshipped as Gods yet were in other sort to be worshipped hee would by the aduersatiue haue opposed worship to worship to expresse what that sort of worship should be whereas now he setteth worship on the one side and onely remembrance on the other side not to worship but for remembrance not to fall downe before it but to worship Christ whom we remember by it still appropriating worship to God but attributing nothing to the image saue to be put in minde thereby of him whom it doth represent Surely a senslesse thing it is to imagine that hee who would not haue images to be worshipped as gods and yet would haue them to be worshipped should neuer direct in what sort they should be worshipped but teach absolutely as we haue seene by all means to auoid the worshipping of them M. Bishop saith that he hath diuers other places to make good that meaning of Gregory but he abuseth his Reader therein hee hath not one place more whereby to make any shew of it and therfore I hope it plainly appeareth that I haue not wrongfully alleaged Gregories words but haue iustly affirmed that he in this point directly crosseth the doctrine and practise of the now-church of Rome 10. In the next place he chargeth me with the falsifying of Epiphanius which yet he could not hansomely do but that he must first play a false tricke with me The originall of this matter is from Hierome who inueighing against certaine bishops of Spaine as I take it for that they would admit none to be priests or deacons except they were first married detesting as it seemeth the horrible fruits of forced single life alleageth in preiudice of them the examples of other Churches namely the Churches of the East none else saue onely the Churches of Egypt and Rome Against this allegation of Hierome concerning the Easterne Churches I say z Answer to the Epistle sect 8. pag. 62. that Socrates who wrote his storie within lesse than twentie yeeres after the death of Hierom a Socrat. hist lib. 5. cap. 21. Id adeò cùm omnes illustres presbyteri in Oriente episcopi etiaÌ„ modò ipsi voluerint nulla lege coacti ab vxoribus abstineant nam non pauci illorum dum episcopatum gerunt etam liberos ex vxore legitima procreant affirmeth of those Easterne Churches which Epiphanius also an Easterne Bishop euen in the time of Hierome of some parts thereof acknowledgeth that the Priests and Bishops thereof were not forced by any law to forbeare their wiues and that many of them whilest they were Bishops had children borne vnto them of their lawfull married wiues Now marke I pray thee gentle Reader the bad dealing of this vntowardly wrangler for whereas I rest the maine report heereof vpon Socrates to Socrates he saith nothing standing conuicted heereby that all the * Omnes illustres presbyteri famous Priests of the East and the Bishops also at their discretion had their wiues and being bishops did beget children of them Againe whereas I alleage Epiphanius onely as a party-witnesse he peruerteth my words as if I made him a witnesse of the whole Hee setteth downe my words thus Epiphanius an Easterne bishop saith M. Abbot euen in the time of Hierome acknowledgeth for true those words of Socrates that the Priests and Bishops thereof were not forced by any law to forbeare their wiues c. whereas I say by a parenthesis only thus which Epiphanius also an Easterne Bishop euen in the time of Hierome of some parts thereof acknowledgeth The difference is this that whereas Socrates affirmeth the matter generally of the East I alleage Epiphanius testifying it onely of some places thereof though not concerning bishops as M. Bishop excepteth yet concerning Priests and Deacons which was sufficient for my purpose because Hierome against whom I obiected it spake onely of Priests and Deacons Albeit he doth not wholly except Bishops because saying that b Epiphan haer 59. sed adhuc viuentem liberos gignentem vntus vxoris virum non suscipit c. diaconum presbyerum episcopum hypodiaconum maxime vbi synceri sunt canones ecclesiastici the Church receiueth not amongst the rest a bishop that liueth still the husband of one wife and begetteth children he addeth this limitation specially where the ecclesiasticall Canons be syncere or exact Hee denieth not then but that bishops also were married and begat children but he excepteth that it was not so where the ecclesiasticall Canons were syncere and exact Vpon this he addeth c Ibid. At dices mihi omninò in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gignere presbyteros
in state of incorruption crowned with glory and honour and thereby likened to the angels In a word he saith that it is a most absurd thing to say that because Christ saith we shall in the resurrection be seene as Angels therfore these bodies marke what he saith these bodies doe not rise againe And that it must be vnderstood of these bodies he prooueth euen by the terme of resurrection r Ibid. Resurrectio nâ—n de non lapso sed de lapso dicitur resurgente c. Moritur autem caro Anima enim immortalis est Promde si anima est immortalis corpus autem ipse mortuus qui râ—surrectionem quidem esse dicunt verùm carnis non esse hi resurrectionem negant For resurrection is not named of that that is not fallen but of that that is fallen and doth rise againe Now it is the flesh that dieth for the soule is immortall and if the soule be immortall and it be the body that is dead then they that say there is a resurrection but not of the flesh doe deny the resurrection For conclusion he setteth foorth death and resurrection by comparison of sleeping and waking affirming that Å¿ Ibid. c Quemadmâ— dum ex dormiendo excitari ac vigilari contingit sic etiam viuere ex morte continget non omninò qui mortuus est postquam mortuus suerit in eodem maneâ— as it befalleth a man to rise and wake from sleepe being the same rising that hee was when hee lay downe to sleepe so doth it befall also to liue again from death so as that the dead doth not still continue in that state Hitherto then it is plaine that all this discourse tendeth directly to the confuting of Proclus and Origen and therefore that M. Bishop was scarsely in good temper in the reading heereof that tooke all these words to be the words of Proclus One onely exception he yet further hath that what is Proclus his opinion and proposition in the beginning where I designed it the very same is his conclusion fiue leaues after where he endeth his discourse with a comparison of our mortall bodies to a beasts hide filled with water He setteth downe the words and then saith Doe you not see how the same that Proclus propounded in the beginning with Origen the same he concludeth in the end Wherefore all that whole discourse betweene those two places was his owne and no word in it of Methodius But by M. Bishop I see that a wise man would as well haue looked to the middle as to the beginning and the end It is true indeed that in the end as it is distinguished there are certaine words of Proclus but M. Bishops vnderstanding should haue serued him to looke in what maner they come in For the authour of that discourse hauing proceeded so far as I haue declared concludeth that matter thus t Pag. 183. c. c. Caeterum de his plura dicere in praesens eptime Theophile voique reliqui sermonis iudices omittamus Arriptamus autem ea quae deinceps ad haec consequuntur quomodo longè ab eo â—p oportet discessit quando in prophetia sexagesimi quinti Psalmi quam coactè impropriè exponit resurrectionem in sola specie seruari sperare oportet dicit But let vs giue ouer O noble Theophilus and you other Iudges of our speech to speake any more of these things at this time Whereupon follow these words But let vs take also those words which heereupon further follow how far he departed from the right when in the prophecy of the threescore and fift Psalme which he expoundeth forcedly and vnproperly he saith We must expect that the resurrection shall be performed in shape only Marke well gentle Reader how he that hath spoken all this while professeth to cite other words of Proclus taxing him for departing from the right for forced and vnproper exposition and setting downe the opinion wherein he departed from the right to be this that the resurrection shall be onely in the same shape What doe wee heare him that speaketh condemning Proclus and yet must we beleeue M. Bishop to take the words whereby he is condemned to be the words of Proclus Nay heereupon are the words of Proclus rehearsed to the same effect as M. Bishop hath set downe that as a beasts hide being filled with water if by little and little it be emptied and by little and little be filled againe it carrieth still the same shew though it be not still the same water euen so our bodies being by food and euacuation altered and changed from day to day though they still haue the same shape and shew yet in substance of flesh continue not the same and therefore being not now the same for a few daies together shall not be the same at the resurrection This he setteth downe as the summe of Origens opinion and then against the obiection of the body of Christ he answereth that Christs body was not as ours are his being not conceiued in sinne but by the power of the holy Ghost whereas ours are sleepe and pleasure and filth fit to be lest to beasts and wormes The words of Proclus being thus deliuered the Latine interpreter maketh a diuision thus Sequuntur nunc ipsius Methodij verba there follow now the words of Methodius himselfe where in the Greeke there is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rest or the remnant of Methodius wherein he setteth downe a narration of that which befell as it seemeth vpon Proclus his declamation already mentioned vpon the threescore and fift Psalme namely that therupon they grew to a disputation Methodius and Auxentius on the one side Aglaophon and Proclus on the other side as was before said In which disputation Methodius hauing conuinced Aglaophon that u Pag. 186. Qui ligatus est non potest peccare Coarctatur enimâ— nec permittitur a vinculo At corpus ad peccandum est auxiliarium c. Non ergo corpus est vinculum c. the body cannot be said to be the prison of the soule as Origen held it to be because a prison is for restraint of a man from doing that for which he is imprisoned but the body is so far from being a restraint from sinne as that it is a helper thereto goeth on forward againe in another large speech to the same effect and purpose as hath beene already declared Thus I haue at large handled the matter of that large discourse that thou maiest see gentle Reader how absurdly and vnhonestly M. Bishop dealeth with thee who being admonished of his ouersight will yet wilfully goe on to perswade thee that that is a bad discourse as he calleth it of an hereticke which so plainely appeareth to bee a memorable speech of a reuerend and godly Bishop Proclus held that the same body shall not rise againe The authour of that discourse prooueth that the same body shall rise againe Therefore the
is not to be beleeued because he was a Montanist Againe hee saith Å¿ Idem de verb. Dei interpret ca. 10. Constat quosdaÌ„ ex praecipuis corum non leuitèr in quibusdam lapsos It is certaine that some of the chiefe of the fathers haue greatly erred in some things This being so what other doth M. Bishop but play the Sycophants part in calumniating vs for disclaiming sometimes the opinions of some fathers when wee deale therein no otherwise than they themselues doe nor doe indeed dissent from them in so many things as they doe It hath hitherto God be thanked very well appeared that though sometimes we dislike the opinion of a father yet in all the questions that we haue handled the fathers haue yeelded more strength to vs than they haue done to them 21. But heere he maketh haste to acquaint the Reader with the most shamelesse pranke of all other in which hee hath shewed himselfe as shamelesse as he hath done in all the other In his epistle to the King he hath charged vs with the heresies of Vigilantius Aerius Iouinian It hath beene answered him in what sort and how farre we agree with these and what reason we haue for that we doe Heere like the cuckow he barely singeth ouer the same song againe and not heere onely but * Pag. 252.253 c. againe also towards the end of his booke he disprooueth not our answer he confuteth not our reasons but onely bableth that we prefer the most infamous condemned heretikes euen in the very points of their errours before the most iudicious learned and syncere Doctours of the Church For as the hackney that is accustomed to one way if he be put beyond or beside that way hath no pace at all euen so he hauing learned a forme to cry out against Iouinian Aerius and Vigilantius is very expert and ready in that but put him beyond that and he is dumbe and hath nothing more to say But I answer briefely that it skilleth not what or how meane they were We rest not our beleefe vpon any of them but only ioine with them where they hold that which God hath taught both vs and them We know it to be true which the Poet hath said that t Iuuenal Sape etiam stultus fuit opportunae locutus a foole many times speaketh a wise word which S. Austin saith and doubteth not thereof that u August de Anima cap. 1. Feri posse non ambigo vt aliquid imperito indocto cuipiam scire contingat quod aliquis doctus peritus ignorat it may befall to an ignorant and vnlearned man to know something which the skilfull and learned man is ignorant of And in a word as Hierom though Epiphanius had noted Aerius for an heretike for that he affirmed that by the law of God x Epiph. haeres 79. Quid est episcopus ad presbyteruns Nihil differt hic ab illo vnus enim est â—rdo vnus honor c. Bishops had no superiority ouer Priests but they were both equall and the same held that no reason for him to renounce therein the opinion of Aerius whereof y Hieron ad Euagr. Apostolus docet eosdem esse presbyteros quosepiscopoâ— in Tit. 1. Idem presbyter qui episcopus Nouerint episcopi se consuetudine magis quà m dispositionis dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maiores he thought himselfe by good reason rightly perswaded euen so though Hierome and Austin haue for some points taxed Iouinian and Vigilantius as heretikes and Epiphanius in another point Aerius yet is that no sufficient motiue to vs to forsake those opinions of Iouinian Aerius and Vigilantius so long as we haue warrant by the word of God and by good inducements of antiquity to be perswaded as they were And as Hierome held it no preiudice to him that Aerius otherwise was an Arian heretike because in this he condemned him though he agreed with him in the other euen so it is no preiudice to vs that either Aerius was an Arian or Iouinian and Vigilantius taught otherwise amisse because we professe to agree with them only in the truth but in what they taught against the truth are ready to condemne them Further I say nothing heere but refer the Reader to that that in my answer to his epistle I haue already said onely noting how vntruly he saith that I confesse in the same place that the conceit of the holinesse of virginity before the holinesse in marriage was by the whole court of Rome maintained at those daies whereas I shew that setting aside the Bishop of Rome both Clergy and Laity Nobles and others Monks and such as professed continency were in that behalfe aduerse to Hierome and did most scandalously take it that he should say that virginity was a holier estate than marriage was yea and gaue honour and countenance to Iouinian which I verily resolue they would neuer haue done so well am I perswaded of the church and City of Rome that then was if he had beene a man of so base and bad condition as Hierome in his choler reporteth him to haue beene As for his declamation heereupon following it is but idle stuffe and an empty flourish of his Romish Rhetoricke his tongue mightily outrunning his wit in talking of the poore miserable Protestants blindly bent to defend their owne errors of their consorting themselues with heretikes of likelihood that Austin Hierom and Epiphanius should see more than Iouinian Vigilantius and Aerius as if the Protestants built any thing vpon the sight and authority of any of these of my misapplying misconstruing corrupting and falsifying the Doctours sentences as Caluin saith the Libertines did the Scriptures of their being deceiued that thought I had beaten the Papists with their owne weapons of our catching hold onely of some broken sentences of the Fathers to astonish and deceiue the simple Reader All these are but words and we know his winde serueth him to giue words enow but how simply he maketh good his words appeareth by that that hath beene and shall be said 22. Hee commeth now to shew how reuerently I behaue my selfe towards the holy Scripture One example he will giue heere whereby the Reader may take scantling of the rest It is conteined in some words of mine in answer of the first section of his Epistle t Answer to the Epistle sect 1. pag. 6. This is the thing say I that M. Bishop laboureth for seeking with Elymas the sorcerer u Act. 13.10 To PERVERT THE STREIGHT VVAIES OF THE LORD and whereas his Maiestie as he confesseth hath made open and often profession of his vigilancie and care to aduance the diuine honour of our Sauiour Christ and his most sacred religion hee would in stead therof draw him to aduance the idoll x Dan. 11.38 MAVZZIM the god of Antichrist and to establish y 2. Pet. 2.1 DAMNABLE HERESIES by him PRIVILY BROVGHT IN
Tertullian confesseth there that Catholikes held themselues bound to fast the Lent and on Wednesdaies and Fridaies whereas in Tertullian there is no such matter and hee contrariwise plainely saith of them b Tertul. de ieiun Certè in Euangelio illos dies ieiunijs determinatos putant in quibus ablatus est sponsus hos esse iam solos legitimos ieiuniorum Christianorum that in the Gospell they thought those daies determined for fasting wherein the Bridegroome was taken away which were good Friday and Easter euen and that these onely were the daies by law appointed for Christian fasts Such iugling tricks are not daintie with him and thou shalt see store enough of them when heereafter we shall come to examine him more at large 32. Now heere to obserue the same course that he hath done it shall not be amisse before I end with him to shew by one or two places with what conscience he carieth himselfe in the vsage of holy Scripture And first I note his prodigious impudencie in the defense of that damnable praier which heeretofore they haue vsed as touching Thomas Becket who though by vndue course yet died no other but a rebell and traitour to his Prince e Breuiar in translat S. Thom. Cantuariens Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit Fac nos Christe scandere quò Thomas ascendit By the bloud of Thomas which for thee he did spend Make vs O Christ to climbe whither Thomas did ascend This praier the masters of the Church of Rome were ashamed of and in the reforming of their Portesses they haue put it out it being one of the great infamies of their church that euer it came in But this iolly gamester resoluing to play at all will haue vs thinke that they were fooles and did more than they need to doe because this praier may be warranted d Reproofe pag. 109. 110. by example of the like recorded in the old Testament Lord remember Dauid and all his mildnesse for why may we not saith he as well beseech God to remember the constant fortitude of S. Thomas as they did the mildnesse of Dauid he should say the affliction or trouble of Dauid But did he not know that sundry great authours both old and new and namely e Leo in Natiuit dom ser 4. Hinc Dauid promissionem Dei prophetico spiritu canit dicens Iurauit dominus Dauid non frustrabitur c. Leo Bishop of Rome haue taken that Psalme to haue beene written by Dauid himselfe and doe thereby exclude that blasphemous construction of his And if it were not so will he make it all one for the people to beseech God to remember Dauids trouble and for vs to pray by the bloud of Thomas to be brought to heauen The people intreat God to remember the affliction of minde and care that Dauid had for the building of the Temple vpon which God tooke occasion to make promise to him of his sonne to sit vpon his throne by whom that should be done To this care of Dauid and to the promise thereupon made they desire God in the beginning of Solomons reigne to giue effect Chrysostome maketh it the praier of Solomon himselfe and giueth the effect therof thus f Chrysost in Psal 131. Quoniam genus ab co duxi quâ—mam cum tibi acceptum fuisset cius studium diligentia dixisti te eius genu regnuÌ„ erecâ—urum propterea haec pacta conuenta nunc a te exigimus Because I am borne of him and for that when his studie and diligence was acceptable to thee thou saiedst that thou wouldest raise vp his stocke and kingdome therefore we now desire of thee the things that thou hast couenanted and promised Now this being so plaine and cleere a meaning of that place what may we thinke of him that would thus impiously wrest it to the maintenance of a horrible blasphemie which farre hath it beene from any ancient Christian writer to imagine to be meant either there or any otherwhere 33. Againe g Answer to the epistle sect 25. the Apostle say I in expresse termes affirmeth the imputation of righteousnesse without works The words are plaine h Rom. 4.6 Dauid declareth the blessednesse of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works Now what doth he say heereto Forsooth i Reproofe pag. 135. touching imputation of righteousnesse the Apostle speaketh not like a Protestant of the outward imputation of Christs iustice vnto vs but of inherent iustice to wit of faith which worketh by charitie which are qualities powred into our hearts by the holy Ghost so that saith he there is onely a bare sound of words for the Protestants the true substance of the text making wholly for the Catholikes Thus he confesseth that the words sound for vs and may we be sure that the Apostle hath any other meaning than hee soundeth by the words Forsooth M. Bishop telleth vs so and we must so beleeue it though his exposition be a meere contradiction to the words of the Apostle Inherent righteousnesse is the righteousnesse of works The Apostle speaketh of imputation of righteousnesse without works And yet we must thinke that hee speaketh of imputing inherent righteousnesse Surely the very phrase of imputing inherent iustice is in the Apostles drift a thing very absurd for k Origen in Rom. cap. 4. Quid videbitur gratiae iusto reputari iustitiam ad iustitiam what grace or fauour should it seeme to be saith Origen that to a iust man his iustice should be reputed for iustice but to say that by the imputing of righteousnesse without works is meant the imputing of inherent iustice that is the imputing of the righteousnesse of works it is a construction so frantike so senslesse so shamelesse as that we haue good cause to feare that the authour of it hath desperately resolued himselfe rather to say any thing than to confesse the truth The thing is plaine by the words in which the Apostle saith that Dauid declareth the blessednesse of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works namely l Psal 32.1 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne Whereby it is manifest that not the imputing of inherent iustice but the forgiuenesse of sinnes by faith in Christ is the imputing of righteousnesse without works Man hauing no works whereby to appeare iust in the sight of God yet by forgiuenesse of sinnes is reputed iust because m August Retract li. 1. c. 19. Omnia mandata facta reputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur all the commandements of God are reputed as done when that is pardoned which is not done Now what impudency is this man grown to that dareth thus apparently delude abuse the world Surely these shifts of his are such so wilfull so wretched as that they giue all
Patriarchs Prophets Apostles c. we separate Christ from the order of men by the honour and adoration which we performe vnto him that is to say saith hee againe We doe not offer thanks for him as wee doe for some other men but vnto him as being God of equall Maiesty with his Father But it is he himselfe indeed that by this exposition doth manifestly wrest the words of Epiphanius the circumstance whereof by him guilefully omitted doth cleerly conuince that they can by no means be taken as he expoundeth them His words are these f Epip haer 75. VeruÌ„ enimuerò eò quòd nos saepe dum in muÌ„do sumus fallimur erramus tuÌ„ inuiti tum voluntariè quòid quod perfectius est significetur pro iustis pro peccatoribus memoriam facimus pro peccatoribus quidem misericordiam dei implorantes pro iustis verò patribus Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis Euangelistis c. Vt do minuÌ„ Iesum Christum ab hominum ordine separemus per honorem quem ipsi exhibemus vt adorationem ipsi praestemus illud mente voieÌ„tes quòd dominus non est alicui homini adaequatus â—tiamsi millies vltra in iustitia degat vnusquisque homo quomodo enim possibile fuerit Ille enim est Deus hic homo ille in coelo hic in terra per reliquias in terra Verily for that whilest we are in the world we are often deceiued and go awry both vnwillingly and with our will to the end that that which is more perfect may be signified we make a memoriall both for the iust for sinners for sinners intreating the mercy of God but for the iust the Fathers the Patriarchs the Prophets the Apostles the Martyrs and Confessours the Bishops and Anchorites and the whole order that wee may separate our Lord Iesus Christ from the order of men by the honour which wee yeeld vnto him and may performe worship vnto him waighing this in our minde that the Lord is not compared to any man though a man liue in righteousnesse a thousand times and more for how should it be possible for the one is God the other man the one in heauen the other in earth by remainder of his body in the earth Where thou art to note gentle Reader that Epiphanius saith not as M. Higgons reporteth Wee make a memoriall of the iust of the Patriarchs c. but for them neither doth hee say onely we make a memoriall for the iust but we make a memoriall for the iust and for sinners meaning by sinners such as had beene publikely noted some way or other for euill life Now the phrase being one the act one both for the one and for the other how shall M. Higgons perswade vs that it was a praier for the one only a thanksgiuing for the other Epiphanius saith not so nor giueth any ground whereupon to conceiue it to be so and that this memoriall or commemoration was a praier for them that were thus remembred appeareth by S. Austin saying that g Aug. de cura pro mortuis gerenda cap. 4. Supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum quas faciend as pro omnibus in Christiana Catholica societate defunclis sub generali commemoratione suscepit ecclesia the church hath receiued vnder a generall commemoration to make supplications for the spirits of the dead euen for all that are dead in the Christian and Catholike society Now if it were a praier which was vsed for all that haue died in Christian society then it was a praier which was vsed for the Saints Martyrs Confessours c. Therefore Chrysostome faith that h Chrysost de sacerdot lib. 6. Deprecator est apud Deum vt hominum omnium non viuentium modò sed etiam mortuorum peccat is propitius fiat the Priest praied to God to be mercifull to the sinnes of all both quicke and dead I question not heere what construction latter times made heereof I know that this custome as it grew to be vsed grew to be questioned and because it seemed absurd to pray for them that already are in heauen which notwithstanding the church formerly had done as out of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy I most cleerely prooued therefore though the forme of words were one and the same for all yet by interpretation they made them a praier for some onely and a thanksgiuing for the rest S. Austin I take it being the first that euer brought in that rule that i August de Verb. Apost ser 17. Iâ—uria est orare pro martyre he doth wrong to a martyr that praieth for him But let M. Higgons wrangle heereof all hee can by the very place of Epiphanius that which I say is plainly euicted For when he saith that wee often are deceiued and goe awry so long as we are in this world hee thereby expresseth the cause why they did make that memorial both for the sinners and for the iust there being none so iust but that that is verified in them that they are often deceiued and go awry Now will M. Higgons make Epiphanius to say of the Saints and iust men that because so long as they were in this world they were often deceiued and went amisse therefore now wee giue thanks for them It were very absurd to say so but the other way the words are cleer that because we are all subiect to sinne therefore we pray for all And if by this it be not plaine enough the rest shall make it more plaine For out of this reason issueth another of as great effect when he saith that this memoriall is made for iust and holy men that we may separate our Lord Iesus Christ from the order of men by the honour that we do vnto him Which honour wherein it standeth is vnderstood by those former words that that which is more perfect may be signified noting it to be the acknowledging of his most high and glorious perfection he onely being free from all spot and staine of sinne and vncleannesse but all other carying the marks of frailty and corruption betokened not in giuing thanks as I hope M. Higgons will confesse but rather in praying for them To which purpose he yet further more plainly addeth those other words And that we may yeeld worship to him But how Waighing in our mindes that there is no man compared to him though a man liue in righteousnesse a thousand times and more By which words it is cleere as the light that that separation whereof hee speaketh hath no intendment of the difference which M. Higgons mentioneth of giuing thanks to the one and for the other but that it concerneth righteousnesse and sinne it being to be knowen by this memoriall that all the Saints euen they that atteined to the greatest measure of righteousnes yet being men were subiect to infirmities and imperfections that so Christ alone may haue the glory to be transcendent and beyond the
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
words diuers of the ancient fathers i Tertull. de carne Christi propè finem Origen in Luc. hom 14. Ambros in Luc. 2. lib. 2. Hierom. cont Pelag. l. 2. Tertullian Origen Ambrose Hierome hold to be most properly verified in the birth of Christ who opened the wombe that was not opened before whereas for all other the wombe is first opened by carnall copulation Heereupon Tertullian saith that k Tertul. vt supra Virgo non virgo virgo quantum à viro non virgo quantum à partu the virgin Mary was both a virgin and not a virgin a virgin as touching man not a virgin as touching child-bearing that is a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by man not a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by birth of childe So Saint Austin saith that l August de fide cont Manich. cap. 22. Maria non incongruè propter partum dicitur mulier virgo verò quòd virilem nescierit conuentionem neque pariendo virginitas eius corruptasit Christ as God our Mâ—diator yet the God head it selfe suffereth not shee may not vnfitly be called a woman in respect of her child-birth and a virgin for that she know not the company of man neither was her virginity corrupted by bearing child What will M. Bishop now say that all these were heretikes and did deny that the mother of Christ continued a virgin Let him say what he will but we will hold him for a sorry fellow that concludeth breach of virginity of that opening of the wombe As touching the fourth article that Luther affirmed the Godhead it selfe to suffer it is a lie These are but deuices of Gifford and Knogler and such other base hungry staruelings who to gaine fauour make collections and conclusions of their owne and then affirme them of our men That Christ according to his diuine nature also is our Mediatour euen whole Christ both God and man hath beene before iustified in answer to the seuenth section of his preface to the Reader But to inferre that therefore the Godhead it selfe suffereth is as good a reason as to say that because the man dieth therefore the soule is mortall But saith M. Bishop the chiefest act of Christs mediation consisteth in his death True and what then If then saith hee the Godhead of Christ doe not suffer that death it hath no part in the principall act of Christs mediation As if he should say the chiefest act of a faithfull and good subiect is to die for his Prince and country if then the soule it selfe doe not suffer that death it hath no part in the chiefest act of a faithfull and good subiect Would he take it patiently to heare another man to reason in this sort If he would not why doth he himselfe thus play the wiseman and mocke simple men that are not able to perceiue his fraude It is the man that dieth though he die not in the soule but in the body and it is Christ God and man that suffereth though he suffer not in the God head but in the manhood m Vigil cont Eutych lib. 2. Passus est deus in vnione personae non est passus in proprietate naturae siquidem possionis iniurias etiam diuinitas pertulit sed passionem sola etus caro persensit God suffered by vnion of person saith Vigilius but in propriety of nature he suffered not the Godhead did beare the iniuries of the passion but the flesh onely did feele the same Though the soule it selfe die not yet it is the soule that exposeth the body vnto death and though the Godhead suffered not yet it was the Godhead that yeelded the manhood to suffering and death n Heb. 9.14 offering himselfe without spot vnto God by his eternall spirit as the Apostle speaketh The rest of his quarrels being most impudent and shamelesse fictions are already handled in the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the answer to the preface 9. W. BISHOP 5. Descended into hell the third day hee arose againe from the dead It is worth a mans labour to behold their goodly variety of expositions about Christs descending into hell Beza followed of Corliel our Country-man 2. Apolog. ad Sanct. thinkes this to haue crept into the Creed by negligence and so the French Hugonots and Flemish Gues haue cast it cleane out of their Creed but they are misliked of many others who had rather admit the words because they be found in Athanasius Creed and also in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus but they doe most peruersly expound them Caluin saith that Christs suffering of the paines of hell on the Crosse is signified by these words but he pleaseth not some others of them because Christs suffering and death also goeth before his descending into hell and the words must be taken orderly as they lie Thirdly diuers of them will haue it to signifie the laying of Christs body in the graue but that is signified plainely by the word buried Wherefore some others of them expound it to signifie the lying of his body in the graue three daies which M. PER. approueth as the best but it is as wide from the proper and literall signification of the words as can be For what likenesse is there betweene lying in the graue and descending into hell Besides Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition as much as any of the rest Lib. 2. Instit cap. 16. sess 8. and calleth it an Idle fancy Fourthly Luther Smideline and others cited by Beza art 2. doe say that Christs soule after his death went to hell where the Diuels are there to be punished for our sinnes thereby to purchase vs a fuller redemption which is so blasphemous that it needes not any refutation As ridiculous is another receiued of most Protestants that Christs soule went into Paradise which well vnderstood is true For his soule in hell had the ioyes of Paradise but to make that an exposition of Christs descending into hell is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it All these and some other expositions also the Protestants haue deuised to leads their followers from the ancient and only true interpretation of it to wit that Christ in soule descended vnto those lower parts of the earth where all the soules departed from the beginning of the world were detained by the iust iudgement of God till Christ had paied their ransome and were not admitted into the kingdome of heauen before Christ had opened them the way thither R. ABBOT We hold Of Christs descending into hell that all the articles of our Creed are so to be vnderstood as that our faith may make vse thereof concerning our selues and not onely concerning others It is a very barren and cold construction which M. Bishop maketh of the descending of Christ into hell that his soule descended into the lowest parts of the earth to bring from thence the soules that were detained there by the
ouerthroweth with a distinction taken as he saith from the best authours but hee saith it very falsly and vnhonestly not being able to bring one good authour for the approouing of it The word religious saith he is ambiguous and principally signifieth the worship onely due to God but it is taken some other time to signifie a worship due to creatures And as well he may say that the word mariage is ambiguous and principally signifieth the bond that is betwixt the husband and the wife but yet is with the best authours taken some other time for that affiance that is betwixt the fornicatour and the harlot so that lawfully may the one enioy the other because there is betwixt them a bond of mariage We are told that religion in Ecclesiasticall vse belongeth onely to God and that no seruice of religion is to be done to creatures and he telleth vs that religion belongeth principally to God but that there is religion also belonging to creatures yea euen to vile and abominable idols And what maruell is this whenas wee see the Valentian Iesuit distinguish in like sort of idolatry that because S. Peter nameth l 1. Pet. 4.3 abominable idolatries therefore we should vnderstand that there are idolatries which are not abominable and that m Greg. de Valent de idolat lib. 2. c. 7. Quid attinebat ita determinatè cultus simulachrorum illicitos notare si omninò nullos simulachrorum cultus licitos esse censuisset some idolatrie is lawfull Surely religious worship giuen to creatures is no other but idolatrie but yet forsooth wee must not condemne it because all kinde of idolatrie is not to bee thought vnlawfull These are men of sharpe wits and can if yee will put them to it distinguish God out of heauen and Christ out of the Creed or by a distinction can bring a great number of gods into heauen and a great many Christs into the Creed As for vs wee take the fathers before alleaged to be herein ingenuous and honest as we are and that they did not intend with one breath to appropriate religion vnto God and to blow it from him with another Albeit not onely vnder the name of religion but vnder the name of worship also they haue affirmed the same to belong to God onely as namely u Cypria de exhort martyr ca. 2. Quod Deus solus coiēdus sit that God onely is to bee worshipped o Origen cont Cels lib. 1. Cultus adoratio nulli creaturae concedi potest absque diuinitatis iniuria that worship and adoration can bee giuen to no creature without iniurie and wrong to God p Hieron◠aed Ripar adu Vigilant Ne solem quidem Lunam non angelos non archangelos non Cherubim non Seraphim omne nomen quod nominatur in praesenti seculo in futuro colimus adoramus that we worship neither Sunne nor Moone neither Angels nor Archangels neither Cherubim nor Seraphim nor any other name of any creature that is named either in this world or in the world to come Therefore of the Virgin Marie Epiphanius saith q Epiphan haer 79. Collyrid Sit in honore Maria Pater Filius Sp. Sact adoretur Mariā nemo adoret Let Mary be in in honour elt the Father Sonne and holy Ghost bee worshipped but her let no man worship and Ambrose r Ambros de Sp. Sancto l. 3. cap. 12. Maria erat templum Dei non Deus templi ideo ille solus adorādus qui operabatur in tēplo Marie was the temple of God but not God of the temple and therefore he onely is to be worshipped who wrought in the temple Thus the fathers knew no religion they knew in religion no worship but what belongeth to God alone and M. Bishops distinction both in the one and in the other was wholly vnknowen vnto them But it is woorth the while to note how the said distinction such as it is is applied by him to pictures and images Religious worship saith he doth sometimes signifie a worship due to creatures for some supernaturall vertue or qualitie in them But good Sir tell vs what supernaturall vertue or qualitie is there in your images and pictures If any religious worship be due vnto them you tell vs that it must befor some supernaturall vertue or qualitie in them If there bee no such then how shall religious worship bee due vnto them May we not thinke that you haue sent vs a very naturall distinction that giueth supernaturall vertue and qualitie to stocks and stones But if supernaturall vertue qualitie doe yeeld a title of religious worship how is it that ſ Reu. 19.10 the Angell refused to be worshipped of S. Iohn and t Act. 10.25 the Apostle Peter of Cornelius seeing it cannot bee doubted but that there was a supernaturall vertue and qualitie in them Well hee will tell vs that the next time in the meane while he giueth vs leaue to thinke their Romish fauorites to be very naturally affected that conceiue so supernaturally of the deuisers of such blinde and witlesse tales As for that he saith that they doe not binde God and his hearing of vs to certaine things and places because they hold that God may be worshipped in all places hee saith no more than Ieroboam hath in effect said before for the setting vp of his idols no more than the Pagans and Heathens conceiued that their gods were in heauen and therefore that in all places they might pray and sacrifice vnto them Notwithstanding as they thought that to pray before their Images was a more speciall and solemne deuotion and they had there the heauenly powers more neerely present vnto them so haue they beene affected in Poperie and haue thought those praiers to bee most effectuall which they haue made in the presence of filthy idols and to that end haue taken great paines to goe long iourneies and pilgrimages vnto them But saith M. Bishop the sight of such holy things doth breed more reuerence and deuotion in vs and better keepe our mindes from wandering vpon vaine matters He should haue said if hee would haue spoken as the truth is that they breed superstition and errour rather than reuerence and deuotion that they cause God and his Saints to bee contemned in that stoliditie and blockishnesse of dumbe idols or at leastwise doe hold the minde so intangled heere vpon the earth as that it hath not power and libertie of affection to ascend to heauen as hath beene u Of Images sect 5.8 before sufficiently declared and needeth not heere to bee repeated His coupling of Churches and Images is like x Deut. 22.10 the yoaking of an oxe and an asse because Churches haue their vse for yeelding conueniencie of place and assemblie for praier for hearing of Gods word and ministration of his Sacraments for which vses onely it is that they are holie but Images haue no vse at all to
these purposes or any other yea they serue to set the minde a wandring and to withdraw it from that stedfastnesse and deuotion which these spirituall offices and exercises doe require of vs. In a word Lactantius maketh it y Lactant. Inst l. 2. c. 19. Non est dubium quin religio nulla sit vbicunque simulachrum est a thing vndoubted that where Images are there is no religion and therefore very iustly do we affirme that the Popish vse and defence of Images is no furtherance as M. Bishop would perswade but the very bane and ouerthrow of all true religion 18. W. BISHOP But let vs heare the end of his discourse thus he argueth They that worship they know not what worship an Idol This exposition is false vnlesse they worship it with diuine honor But goe on the Papists worship they know not what I prooue it thus To the consecration of the Host there is required the intention of the Priest but they cannot haue any certainty of the Priests intention wherfore they are not certaine whether it be bread or the body of Christ ergo worshipping of it they worship they know not what Answ First heere is leaping from the Commandements to the Sacraments which is out of order secondly I returne his argument vpon himselfe To their seruice and in the administration of the Lords Supper the Ministers intention is required for if he intend to serue the Diuell and by giuing them the cōmunion to binde them the faster to him then do they in saying Amen to his praiers and receiuing the communion at his hands ioine with him in the Diuels seruice Now they haue no more certaintie of their Ministers meaning than wee haue of our Priests intention yea much lesse of many of them who are mad-merry fellowes and care not greatly whereabout they go nor what they intend must they therefore flie from their diuince seruice and holy communion because they be not certaine of their Ministers intention therein Surely they should if his reason were ought woorth But in such cases we must perswade our selues that Gods Ministers doe their dutie vnlesse we see great cause to the contrarie and thereupon are we bold to doe our dutie to the blessed Sacrament If he should faile in his yet our intention being pure to adore Christs holy bodie onely and nothing else there we should formally be the true worshippers of Christ though materially we were mistaken in that host which to tearme Idolatrie is to stile our Sauiour Iesus Christ an Idoll and therefore blasphemy in the highest degree R. ABBOT They that worship they know not what The Papists worship they know not not what saith M. Perkins do worship an idoll M. Bishop saith that this is false vnlesse they worship it with diuine honor But that worship wherof M. Perkins speaketh is no other but diuine honour and in the subiect whereto he maketh application of this rule which is the Sacrament M. Bishop himselfe doth no otherwise vnderstand it and therefore his exception is verie idle Neither is there heere any vnorderly leaping as he speaketh from the Commandements to the Sacraments but verie orderly and direct proceeding when as hauing in hand to set foorth their breaches of the Commandement he exemplifieth the same by their idolatrie committed in the Sacrament For proofe whereof M. Perkins vseth this argument They that worship they know not what doe worship an idoll This M. Bishop acknowledgeth if they worship it with diuine honor But the Papists in worshipping the Sacrament doe worship with diuine honour they know not what Therefore they worship an idoll That they know not what they worship it is euident and plaine because they cannot know whether it be bread or the bodie of Christ For they confesse that it is not the body of Christ a Bellarm. de Sacra in Gen. ca 27. sententia Catholicorum est requirs intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia without the Priests intention in consecration to doe that which the Church doth But how can any man tell whether the Priest haue this intention or not who can looke into his heart to be assured of his meaning when as it is God onely that knoweth the heart If no man can search into the Priests heart to know his intention then can no man know whether the Sacrament be the body of Christ or not and therefore in the worshipping of it they worship they know not what which is no other but idolatrie With this argument M. Bishop is cruelly pinched and knoweth not which way to auoid the absurditie that is thereby cast vpon them and yet somewhat hee must say howsoeuer little helpe hee receiue by it First hee would returne the argument against vs as touching the intention of our Ministers but dealeth therein childishly and vainly because hee knoweth well that we hang not the Sacrament or any power thereof vpon the intention of the Minister but wholly vpon the word of Christ It may be that some Ministers be as the greatest number of their Priests haue beene woont to bee madde merry-fellowes that care not greatly whereabout they goe but this hindreth vs nothing who by the words of Christ himselfe by them deliuered do firmely apprehend that which Christ hath promised But to salue the matter the best he can he telleth vs that we must perswade our selues that Gods Ministers doe their dutie vnlesse wee see great cause to the contrarie Where hee should remember that the matter heere vrged is not determined by our perswasion but by the Priests intention We may be in charitie well perswaded but in our being well perswaded wee may be deceiued and therefore doe not yet know but that we commit idolatrie in that which M. Bishop calleth duty to the blessed Sacrament and the rather for that he himselfe b Sect. 63. afterwards confesseth that it is idolatrie in the Sacrament to worship for Christ that which is not Christ But now welfare a distinction to helpe at a pinch for if the Priest in his intention faile yet our intention being pure saith he to adore Christs holy body onely and nothing else we shall be formally the true worshippers of Christ though materially we be mistaken in that host Let him speake plaine English and tell vs that formally we shall be true worshippers of Christ but materially we shall be idolaters and then let him resolue vs how in one and the same act it may be iustified that wee are both true worshippers and idolaters what shal become of the formally true worshipper when for being materially an idolater he shal be adiudged to hel I haue wondered at a saying which I haue read cited out of the great Schooleman Robert Holcot thinking it to be more absurd than that any Christian man would vtter it namely c Humphred de vita obitu Iuelit pa. 120. ex Holcot Asserit fidem laici adorantis hostiam non consecratam sufficere illi ad