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
meaning against his aduersary that in that meaning they are true and that his arguments doe conclude rightly and strongly to that purpose doe notwithstanding cauill against him by wresting his words to another meaning then by their owne confession he intended in speaking of them He tooke occasion of so speaking by his aduersarie And is there any man who hauing to deal against an aduersarie will not vse his aduersaries owne words to dispute against him And is there any fault herein when in the very place he expoundeth himselfe and taketh away al occasion of miscoÌ„struction saying e Caluin opusc Explicat perfidiae Valent. Gent. ex Actis Quead essentiam sermo est deus absque principio in persona autem filij habet principium à patre As touching the essence the word is God without beginning but in the person of the Sonne he hath his beginning from the Father for what will they say is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name wholly vnlawfull to be attributed vnto Christ the Sonne of God Why more then by Elias Cretensis he is called f Elias Cret in Gregor Nazian Orat. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Origen g Origen in Ioan. tom 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being of the same coÌ„position must then be subiect to the same blame Nay Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that Christ may in some sense be called h Bellarm. vt supra ex Epiphan haer 69. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Epiphanius is so called as to signifie that he is God himselfe most verily and truly God And could not his wisedome see that Caluin in effect meant no other but only so for because Christ could not be verily and truely God vnlesse he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that meaning wherein Valentinus spake therefore Caluin to auouch the true Godhead of Christ affirmed him to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very true God God of himselfe that is by that one only essence which is of it selfe and whereby God speaking absolutely is of himselfe and is truely God and not as Valentinus wickedly taught by another inferiour essence made and produced of the Father as a superiour God whereby it should come to passe that he were not God at all And when he saw that by Caluins owne words he that is called God of himselfe is also affirmed to be God of God the Sonne of God why could he not excuse that maner of speaking in him as well as in S. Austin who in the like sort saith that Christ is i August Orat. contra Iud. Pagan Arian cap. 6. Fiâ—â—us de se 〈◊〉 patre splendens the Sonne of God shining both of himselfe and of the Father To shine of himselfe what is it but to be God of himselfe As he shineth of himselfe so he is God of himselfe that is according to his essence as he is absolutely God according to his person he shineth of the father and so he is God of God the Sonne of God In this therefore iustly doth M. Whitakers defend Caluin not praeferring him before all the learned Fathers of the first Councell of Nice as M. Bishop fondly cauilleth but ioining with him to maintaine the same true Godhead of Christ against new Arians which the Fathers of that Councell professed and taught against Arius of old This matter then being cleered and it being apparant that neither Caluin nor any of vs saieth any thing to the contrary nay we stedfastly beleeue and teach that the second person of the Trinity receiueth his Godhead from the first and that the holy Ghost proceedeth both from the Father and the sonne there is nothing heere more to be spoken of and therefore as touching Atheisme we will leaue M. Bishop in his chaire to consider more wisely of his taleagainst the next time 7. W. BISHOP Secondly they may be truely stiled Atheists who thinke any one to be God that hath not in him all singular perfections in the most perfect sort that can be but either wanteth some of them or else hath them in a meaner degree then any other they therefore that teach our Sauiour Christ in his Godhead to be inferiour vnto his Father stand iustly charged with Atheisme Such a one is * Epist ad Polo p. 940. seq In cap. 26. Matt. 24. con Stancar in locis cap. de Con. Harding art 17. in confuta of the Papists slanders Caluin who informall tearmes doth auouch and say that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse then his Father And else where he affirmeth the Father to hold the first ranke of honour and power and the Sonne to obteine the second which hee might haue learned of his great master Melancthon who taught that the Sonne according to his diuinitie is his Fathers subiect and minister Further that in Christ there was something of the nature of God some other thing then belike was wanting Againe that the Godhead of Christ was obedient vnto his Father with whom our countrey-men Iewel and Fulke doe iumpe who affirme that the diuine nature of Christ offered sacrifice vnto his Father Briefly all Protestants who hold Christ according to his diuine nature to haue beene a mediatour make his Godhead inferiour to God his Father For to be as a mediatour must needs be a suppliant vnto another to pray and offer sacrifice to him is to acknowledge him to be his better and that something lieth in his power to doe which the other of himselfe cannot doe but by sute must obtaine of him Ioyne heereunto that they doe expound most of the textes of holy Scripture vsed by the ancient Fathers to prooue the blessed and sacred Trinity euen as the old Arrians did reprouing the ancient Fathers exposition which cannot but argue that they in their hearts though they be yet ashamed to confesse it decline apace from those holy Fathers steps to fauour Arrianisme This little therefore may suffice to demonstrate how the chiefe pillers of the Protestants religion doe shake the verie foundations of the Christian faith by their strange glosses and speeches about the sacred Trinity and by their diuers derogations to Christs diuinitie R. ABBOT How vaine this second imputation is it plainly appeareth by that that hath been said of the former For seeing both Caluin and all our writers acknowledge the eternall generation of the Sonne of God to be as before was said the Fathers communicating of the whole essence of the godhead to the Sonne they must consequently of necessity be vnderstood to acknowledge the whole perfection and maiesty of the Godhead in the Sonne of God because in the whole essence of God there can be nothing vnequall or inferior vnto God This is argument enough neither needeth there any more to approoue in this behalfe the integrity of our faith because to attribute to the Sonne the whole essence of the Godhead and yet to make him
a time because the end of his sitting is for the subduing of his enemies which thencefoorth shall be none and for the bringing of vs to God who then shal perfectly and immediately be ioyned vnto God f 1. Cor. 13.12 to see face to face and to know euen as we are knowen g August de Trin. lib. 1. ca. 10. Vt iam non interpellet pro nobis Mediator Sacerdos noster filius Dei filius hominis sed ipse in quantum Sacerin est assumpta propter nos serui forma subiectus sit ei qui illi subiecit omnia vt in quant is Deus â—â—t cum illo nos subiectos habeat in quantum Sacerdos nobiscum illi subiectus sit so as that our Mediatour and Priest the sonne of God and the sonne of man shall no further make intercession for vs saith S. Austin but he also as our Priest hauing taken for vs the forme of a seruant shall be subiect to him who hath subdued to him all things that as he is God he may haue vs subiect together with himselfe as man and as our Priest may with vs be subiect to himselfe as God the kingdome thencefoorth to abide not in the manhood of Christ as now it doth but in the Godhead that God as the Apostle saith may be all in all For conclusion of this section M. Bishop addeth That God shall then render vnto euery man according to his workes all the packe of them doth vtterly deny But M. Bishop you should for example haue named one you should haue quoted some place where either in common or priuate iudgement this deniall is set downe Gods rendring according to works prooueth no merit If you can bring none what a shame is it for a man of your degree and profession thus wilfully to lie and to wrong them that haue done no wrong to you The Scripture indeed hath taught it as he alleageth and we beleeue and so preach to all men that h Rom. 2.6 God shall render vnto euery man according to his workes We giue warning with the Apostle i Gal. 6.7 that no man deceiue himselfe for whatsoeuer a man soweth the same shall he reape He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reape corruption but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reâ—pe euerlasting life We teach by the word of Christ that k Iohn 5.28 the houre shall come when all that are in their graues shall heare his voice and shall come foorth they that haue done good to the resurrection of life and they that haue done euill to the resurrection of condemnation And yet we teach withall that we are l Rom. 3.24.25 iustified freely by the grace of God throuh faith in the blood of Christ and that God doth saue vs not for any merits of ours but onely for his mercies sake Can he not tel how these two may stand to gether Let him learne then of Gregory Bishop of Rome who propoundeth the question and answereth it m Gregor in Psal paenitent 7. Si illa sanctorum foelicitas misericordia est non meritis acquiritur vbi erit quod scriptum est Et tu reddes vnicuique secundum opera sua si secundum opera redditur quomodo misericordia aestimabitur sed aliud est secundum opera reddere aliud propter ipsa opera reddere In eo enim quod secundum opera dicitur ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur vt cuius apparuerint hona opâ—râ— eius sit retributio gloriâ—saiâ—â— namque heatae vitae in qua cum deo de deo vâ—â—i ur nullus potest aequari labor nulla opera comparaâ—i praesertim cum Apostolus dicat Non sunt condignae passiones c. If the blisse of the Saints be mercy and be not purchased or gotten by merits how shall that stand which is written Thou shalt render vnto euery one according to his workes If it be rendred according to workes how shall it be esteemed mercy But it is one thing saith he to render according to workes another thing to render for the workes sake For when it is said according to workes the quality it selfe of the works is considered that whose workes appeare good his reward may be glorious For to that blessed life where we are to liue with God and of God himselfe no labour or paines can be equalled no workes may be compared for that the Apostle saith that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory that shall be reuealed vpon vs. Notwithstanding then that God doe render to euery many cccording to his workes yet the doctrine of merits which M. Bishop would build thereupon is excluded because our good workes though they be sufficient as markes to distinguish vs from others yet they are not sufficient to obtaine saluation for vs yea as n Of Iustification sect 49. elsewhere hath beene declared out of Gregory if God should in strict iudgement examine the defects and blemishes of them they should therein be sufficient to condemne vs. Whatsoeuer they are they are not our owne but Gods workes in vs and o August de grat lib arbit cap 7. Si dei dona sunt bona merita tua non deus cororat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquaÌ„ dona sua when he shall crowne them he shall crowne them not as our merits but as his owne gifts as S. Austin saith 11. W. BISHOP 8. I beleeue in the holy Ghost First Caluin and his followers who hold the holy Ghost to haue the God-head of himselfe and not to haue receiued it from the Father and the Sonne must consequently deny the holy Ghost to proceede from the Father and the Sonne In the Preface In cap. 6. 17. Isa in 16. Marc. as hath beene elsewhere prooued Secondly they make him much inferiour vnto the other persons for they teach in their French Catechismes that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Sonne And Caluin against Gentil saith that the title of creatour belongeth onely to the Father and elsewhere that the Father is the first degree and cause of life and the Sonne the second And that the * In 26. Math. v. 64. Father holdeth the first rancke of honour and gouernement and the Sonne the second where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Sonne or at most must be content with the third degree of honour R. ABBOT As touching the Frst point he referreth his Reader to the Preface and there it is already answered That which Caluin saith is namely concerning the second person in Trinity the Sonne of God M. Bishop by consequence draweth it to the third person the holy Ghost The obiection then or rather the slander being cleered as touching the Sonne is consequently cleered concerning the holy Ghost His second cauill is The holy Ghost not made inferior
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
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
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
infallibly what is the certaine meaning of euery place Are those holy fathers loth of their labour or are they so busied in other or greater affaires as that they haue no leasure to attend to such trifles Satisfie vs M. Bishop as touching these matters otherwise we must take this deuise to be as indeed it is the couer of your shame the cloake of your apostasie which can no otherwise be shadowed but by this pretense That the Popes sense is the very trueth of Scripture being notwithstanding wholly repugnant contrary to the words In a word the Pope thrusteth out the lawes of Christ which are expressed in the words of Christ and by his sense setteth vp his owne lawes vnder the name of Christ To giue power to the Pope properly to forgiue sinnes as M. Bishop doth is a wicked blasphemie and an Antichristian exalting of him into the place of Christ When the Scribes said within themselues f Mar. 2.7 Who can forgiue sinnes but God only our Sauiour Christ did not contrary them therein but partly by discouering the thoughts of their hearts and partly by the miracle that he wrought taught them to vnderstand him to be God the Sonne of God and therefore that he had power to forgiue sinnes He hath left it therefore so to be conceiued of vs that power to for giue sinnes belongeth to God only g Cyprian de Lapsis Nec remittere aut donare indulgentia sua seruus potest quod in dominum delicto grauiore commissum est The seruant sai he Cyprian cannot for giue that which by hainous traspasse is committed against the Lord. h Cyril in Ioan. lib. 2. cap. 56. Certè solius reri dei est vt possit à ptceatis homines soluere cui enim alij praeuaricatores legis liberare â peccato licet nisi legis ipsius authori Surely it belongeth only to the true God saith Cyrill to be able to release men from their sinnes for who but the maker of the law can free them from offense that are trespassers of the law As for that which M. Bishop obiecteth that Christ said to his Apostles i Iohn 20.23 Whose sinnes ye remitte they are remitted vnto them and whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained it no more importeth a power of forgiuing sinnes then the ministers k 1. Tim. 4.16 Sauing them that heare him importeth a power of sauing For as the minister saueth not properly by any power of sauing but only by teaching the way of saluation so he also forgiueth sinnes not properly by any power thereof but by preaching the Gospell of remission of sinnes and designing them to whom belongeth this remission God hath made vs not Lords but l 2. Cor. 3.9 Ministers of the new Testament and of the spirit neither hath he giuen vs the power but m cap. 5.18 The ministry of reconciliation for God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe not imputing vnto them their sinnes to vs he hath committed only the word of this reconciliation namely whereby we preach and testifie in the name of Iesus Christ remission of sinnes and reconciliation to God to all that repent and beleeue the Gospell But this whole cōmission of forgiuing sins shall be the better vnderstood by those instances by which Cyrill exemplifieth the same n Cyril vt supra Erit autem id duobus vt arbitror modis primò baptismo acinde penitentia Nam aut credentes vitae sanctimonia probates homines ad baptismum inducunt indignos diligenter expellunt c. First in baptisme and afterward in repentance Them that beleeue and approoue themselues by holinesse of life the minister addmitteth to baptisme this is to forgiue their sinnes but carefully he repelleth and putteth backe them that are vnworthy this is to retaine them But of this forgiuenesse of sinnes in baptisme we must remember that which S. Austine saith if at least that booke be his o August scal Paradis cap. 3. Officium baptizandi dominus concessit multis potestatem verò authoritatem in baptismo remittendi peccata sibi soli retinuit The Lord Iesus gaue the office of baptizing to many but the power and authority to forgiue sinnes in baptisme he reserued to himselfe only For the noting of which difference he rightly alleageth the words of Iohn Baptist p Ioh. 1.26.33 I baptize with water but he it is which baptizeth with the holy Ghost Now if to baptize with water to the remission of sinnes be to remitte sinnes in that sense which our Sauiour intendeth in that speech and to baptize with water to remission of sinnes importeth no power for forgiuing sinnes but only a ministery for publication and for the applying of Gods seale for exhibiting and confirming thereof it followeth so far foorth that those words of Christ doe not giue to the minister any power properly to forgiue sinnes Therefore Chrysostome though he terme this ministery in some sort a power yet to shew in what sort it is to be conceiued most notably saith q Chrysost in Ioan. hom 85. Quid sacerdotes dico Neque Angelus neque Archangelus quicquam in his quae a deo data sunt efficere potest sed pater filius sp sanctus omma facit sacerdos linguam manus praebet Not the Priest only but neither Angell nor Archangell worketh any thing in those things that are giuen of God but the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost doth all the Priest putteth too but his tongue and his hand The other instance which Cyrill giueth is r Cyril vt suprà Aut ecclesia filijs peccantibus quidem increpant paenitentibus autem indulgent 1. Cor. 5.5 When the minister giueth checke to offendours and to the penitent release Whereof he giueth example in the incestuous Corinthian whom for fornication the Apostle deliuered to Satan for destroying the flesh that the spirit might be saued and afterwards receiued againe that he might not be ouerwhelmed with ouermuch sorow here the Corinthians did forgiue and the Apostle himselfe did ſ 2. Cor. 2.7.10 forgiue and thus the terme of forgiuing hath alwaies his place and vse but this forgiuenesse is disciplinary for reconcilement to the Church it is not forgiuenesse of sinnes spiritually and properly so called though by the ordinance of Christ it must be to the peritent a necessary introduction to the assurance and comfort thereof as t See the Answer to the epistle dedicatory sect 28 before hath beene declared I conclude this point with that which Hierome writeth vpon the words of Christ to Peter u Matt. 16.19 whatsoeuer thou bindest in earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heauen for declaration whereof he saith that z Hieron in Matt. 16. Quemodo ibs sacerdos leprosum facit mundum velimmundum non quò sacerdotes leprosos faciant immundos sed quò
habeant notitiam leprosi vel non leprosi possint discernere qui mundus quiuè immundus fit sic hic alligat vel soluit episcopus Et Presbyter non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxij sed pro officio suo cum peccatorum audierit varietates scit qui ligandus sit qui soluendus as the Priest in Moses law did make the Leper cleane or vncleane not for that he did so properly and indeed but only tooke notice who was a leper and who was not and did discerne betwixt the cleane and the vncleane so heere the Bishop or Priest doth bind or loose not bind them which be innocent or loose the guilty but when according to his office he heareth the variety of sinnes he knoweth who is to be bound and who to be loosed Not so then as that in propriety of speech he either remitteth or retaineth sinnes but only discerneth and notifieth who is to be taken for bound with God and who for loosed whose sinnes must be holden either to be remitted or retained y Idem in Mat. 18. vt sciant qui à talibus condemnantur sententiam humanam diuina sententia roborari Which sentence of man they who are thus condemned as Hierome againe saith must know to be strengthened and made good by the sentence of God himself namely when it proceedeth according to those rules and directions which God hath prescribed in this behalfe for otherwise z Idem in Mat. 16. Cùm apud deum non sententia sacerdotis sed reorum vita quaeratur it is not the sentence of the Priest but the life of the parties that is inquired of with God Here then the Pope is a manifest vsurper first against God in that he taketh vpon him a power properly to forgiue sinnes and thereby seateth himselfe in the throne of Iesus Christ secondly against the Church of God in challenging to himselfe a propriety of that which was spoken a Gregor in 1. Reg. l 6. cap. 3. vniuersali ecclesiae dicitur Quodcunque ligaueris c. to the vniuersall Church and wherein euery one that is a successour of the Apostles hath as great power and authority as he Christ saith he gaue his Apostles authority ouer the whole earth Goe into the vniuersall world But by this Christ gaue no more authority to one of them then he did to another and whatsoeuer he gaue them what is it to the Pope that he should thereby challenge b Deecret Greg. de foro competenti cap. Licet de Appellat ca. vt debitus in glossa Papa vnusomnium hominum ordinarius the whole world to be his diocesse and should define that c Extrau de maior obed c. vnam santam subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate salutis it concerneth euery humane creature vpon perill of damnation to be subiect vnto him And what authority did Christ giue them hereby other then S. Mathew expresseth d Mat. 28.19 Goe teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to obserue al things whatsoeuer I haue commanded you This was their authority they had no power to command but what Christ had commanded them Let the Pope conforme himselfe to the tenour of this commission and he will then renounce his Popedome and we shall acknowledge him the disciple and seruant of Iesus Christ Ouer a part of hell he saith no Pope hath authority signifying thereby according to their partition the hell of the damned But how then did Clement the sixt not doubt to say in one of his Buls e Bale in Clem. 6. Nolumus quòd paena inferni sibi aliquatenus infligatur we will that the punishment of hell in no sort be laied or inflicted vpon him and how was it that Gregorie deliuered the soule of Traian out hell as f See Bellarm. de purgatorio lib. 2. cap. 8. Damascen hath reported and sundry authours of the Church of Rome as Bellarmine acknowledgeth haue stedfastly beleeued If M. Bishop tell vs that Gregorie did that only by way of intreaty and request he himselfe granteth the Pope to haue no other ouer Purgatory and therefore ouer hell and Purgatory he hath authority both alike When he doth good to any soule in Purgatory it is per modum suffragij as a suppliant and intreater not as a commander saith he But how then did the same Clement the sixt say concerning them who should die by the way as they were comming to his Iubilee at Rome g Bale vt supra Nihilominus prorsus mandamus angelis Paradisi quatenus animam à Purgatorie pentius absolu tam in Paradisi gloriam introducant We command the Angels of Paradise that they bring the soule of such a one into Paradise being fully freed from Purgatorie paines And what is all this power no more now but to supplicate and intreat Haue they mocked the world all this while made men beleeue that the Pope not only hath power to deliuer soules out of Purgatory himselfe but can also impart the same to others and is all come now to supplication and intreaty Why M. Bishop can supplicate and intreat as well as the Pope and what reason haue we but to thinke that God is as readie to heare his praier as the Popes and so by that meanes he shall haue as great power ouer Purgatory as the Pope Such are the mockeries of Poperie such are their doctrines of religion they themselues can not well tell what to make of them Further he saieth Whether the Pope hath any authoritie ouer Princes and their subiects in temporall affaires it is questioned by some The more shame is it M. Bishop for them by whom it is questioned Tertullian reporteth the minde of the ancient Church in this behalfe h Tertul. ad scapul Colimus imâ—eratorem vt hominem à deo secundum quicquid est à deo consecutum solo deo minorem We honour the Emperour as the man next to God and as hauing receiued of God whatsoeuer he is being inferiour to God onely And is it now come to be questioned whether the Pope euen in temporall affaires haue authority ouer Princes who in their kingdomes respectiuely are the same that the Emperour then was But is it questioned onely M. Bishop and not determined Wee may indeed admire their impudency therein that they who so much pretend antiquitie should resolue a matter so contrarie to the doctrine and example of all antiquitie but yet they haue so resolued that either directly or indirectly the Pope hath superioritie ouer Princes euen intemporall affaires i Treatise tending to Mitigation c. in the Preface to the Reader sect 22. The Canonists do commonly defend the first part saith the Mitigatour that is directly but Catholike Diuines for the most part the second that is indirectly and by
the Prophet complaineth c Esa 29.13 Their feare towards me is taught by the precepts of men His excuse of these carnall rites and ceremonies is false for contrary to that that he saith they are infinite in number and a great number of them apish and rediculous in vse not fit to stirre vp and cherish deuotion but rather to busie and intangle the senses of the body and thereby to sequester and extinguish the deuotion of the mind S. Austine complained in his time that d Aug. ep 119. Tam multis praesumptionib sic plena sunt omnia c. Quamuis nequâ— hoc inueniri possit quomodo contra fidem veniant ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis miserecordia dei liberam esse voluit seruilibus oneribus premunt vt tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnouerint tamen legalibus sarcinis non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur all was so full of humane presumptions and that albeit it could not be found how they were against the faith yet the religion which the mercy of God would haue free with a very few and those most manifest mysteries and Sacraments was thereby clogged with seruile burdens so that the condition of the Iewes was more tolerable who though they knew not the time of liberty yet were subiect not to the presumptions of men but to the burdens of Gods law What would he say if he were now aliue to see Durands Rationale diuinorum and those infinite presumptions wherewith Popish superstition hath clogged and oppressed the Church Of which some are preposterous imitations of the Leuiticall and Iewish ceremonies other taken from the abhominations of heathenish Idoll-seruice a thing so plaine as that M. Bishop denieth not but that they vsed some such like indeed the same onely he setteth vpon them a false colour of being deuised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost not knowing Chrysostomes rule that e Chrysost de sanct orando spiritu Ex quo non legit haec scripta sed ex se ipso loquitur manifestum est quòd non habet sp sanct because they read not these things written but speake of themselues it is manifest that they haue not the holy Ghost We be no spirits he saith but yet he should know that the true worshippers leauing f Gal. 4.9 beggerly rudiments g Heb 9.10 carnall rites should h Ioh. 4.24 worship the Father inspirit and truth Whereas he alleageth that the life and vertue of bodily ceremonies proceedeth from the spirit he saith nothing but what was true and necessarily required in the Iewish seruice and therefore may as well be pleaded for the continuance of their ceremonies as for the excusing of others deuised in steed of them To that that M. Perkins saith that they giue the same worship to Saints that they doe to God he answereth that that is a stale iest which long since hath lost all his grace but he should haue told vs that they themselues haue long since lost all grace by mainteining such filtherie and abhomination in the Church Bodin telleth vs that i Bodin method h. c. 5. A plerisque in Italia Gallia Narbonensi ardentiore voto certe maiore metu colitur D. Antonius quà m deus immortâ—lis in Italy and a part of France that which is called Narbonensis S. Antony is commonly worshipped with greater deuotion and feare then almighty God Lud. Viâ—es saith that k Lud. Viues in Aug. de ciu dei l. 8. ca. 27. Multi Christiani diuos diuasque non alitèr venerantur quà m deum nec video in multis quod sit disâ—iâ—men inter eorâ—â—opinionem de sanctis id qâ—od gentiles putabant de suis dijs many Christians he was loth to say how many doe no otherwise worship the Saints then as God himselfe and in many saith he I see not what difference there is betweene their opinion of the Saints and that which the heathens deemed of their Gods Yea Bellarmine confesseth that l Bellarm. de sanct beatitud lib. 1. cap. 12. Omnes ferè actus exteriores communes sunt omni adorationi in a maner all their outward worshippes he might haue said their inward also are common both to the one and to the other And so we see they pray to the one they pray to the other they kneele to the one they kneele to the other they offer they vow they fast they build Churches and Altars they keepe holy daies they professe trust and confidence both to the one and to the other only forsooth we must thinke that they retaine m Ibid. Latria inclinatio voluntatis cum apprehensione dei c. Dulia inclinatio voluntatis cum apprehensione excellentiae plus quam humanae minùs quà m diuinae an apprehensiue and intellectuall difference betwixt the one and the other As if aman giuing the crowne and roiall honour of the king to a subiect should thinke to discharge himselfe by saying that in his mind for al that he retained a farre higher opinion of the king then of the subiect Which if it acquit not with men surely we should know that the infinite excellency of God aboue all his creatures should be a reason to withhold vs from daring to ioine any creature in any part of communion or felowship with him Your idolatry M. Bishop in this behalfe is so stale as that it is growen extreamely sower and the time will come when you shall see it will be taken for no iest As for your confutations and your answers you should haue made them good before you had boasted of them A wise man would not haue written a latter booke before he had made it appeare that he could defend the former 6. W. BISHOP And for that this crime of Atheisme is the most heynous that can be as contrariwise the true opinion of the God-head and the sincere worship thereof is the most sweete and beautifull flower of religion let vs therefore heere to hold due correspondence with Master PERKINS examine the Protestants dostrine concerning the nature of God and their worship of him that the indifferent Reader comparing iudiciously our two opinions thereof together may embrace that for most pure and true that carrieth the most reuerent and holy conceit thereof For out of all doubt there can be no greater motiue to any deuout soule to like of a religion then to see that it doth deliuer a most sacred doctrine of the Soueraigne Lord of heauen and earth and doth withall most religiously adore and serue him Whereas on the other side there is not a more forcible perswasion to forsake a religion before professed then to be giueÌ„ to vnderstand that the Masters of that religion teach many absurde things concerning the Godhead it selfe and do as coldly and as slightly worship God almightie as may be Marke therfore I beseech thee gentle Reader for thy owne soules
vnequall to the Father are things incompatible Christ as God how equall and how inforior to the Father and can by no meanes stand together Well yet M. Bishop telleth vs that Caluin in an Epistle to the Polonians in formall termes auoucheth that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse than his father But how vntrue this is may easily be esteemed for that the Polonians to signifie their agreement in faith with Caluin and with other Protestant Churches thereby to cleere themselues of some iealousie that was had of them did in their Synod by Faelix Cruciger write thus to him and others a Foelix Crucig inter epist Caluin 311. Credimus patrem omnipotentem filium ei per omnia aequalem quoad naturam essentiam vel deitatem minorem eo tantum quòd cum in forma Dei esset seipsum exinaniuit seu vt vno verbo complectamur ratione officij mediationis We beleeue the Father to be almighty the Sonne also as touching his nature essence or godhead to be in all respects equall to the Father but inferior only in that when he was in the forme of God he humbled himselfe or in a word to speake it in respect of his office of mediation Now if this were Caluins beleefe and in his Epistle to the Polonians he professe no other but this as indeed b Caluin epist ad Polonos interopuscula Inscitè ex Mediatoru titulo infertur Christum patre esse minorem quando haec optime inter se cohaerent vnigenitum dei filium eundem vnius cum patre essentiae fuisse deum tamen fuisse quasi inter deum creaturas c. he doth not shall we not thinke M. Bishop a man very formall in telling an vntruth who maketh Caluin simply thus to say that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse than his Father But yet by his Master Bellarmine we guesse what the bone is whereupon he gnaweth who mentioneth one c Bellar. in prefat ad controv 2. general de Christo c. Stanislaus Sanricius for a patrone of Arianisme for that he said that in respect of the office of mediation Christ euen in his diuine nature is inferior to the Father From which assertion how the Iesuit should gather Arianisme it is very hard to say inasmuch as Arianisme importeth the Sonne to be intrinsecally and essentially inferior to the Father whereas his wisedom and learning if he would haue vsed it might discerne that there is no meaning here of any intrinsecall and reall minority but only of an extrinsecall a dispensatiue and voluntary demeaning of himselfe whereby he is in some sort inferior to himselfe also reconciling vs in the person of a Mediator to himselfe as he is absolutely God And could he not conceiue this to be as tollerable and true a speech in vs as in Maldonatus his fellow Iesuit who in the same termes affirmeth d Maldonat in Ioan. c. 14. Minor non quoad diuinitatis inequalitatem sed quoad munus voluntatem redemptionis the Sonne to be inferior to the Father not as touching any inequality of Godhead but as touching the office and will of our redemption The same Maldonatus telleth vs also another respect wherin Christ is said as touching his Godhead to be inferior to the Father e Ibid. Non quoad naturam substantiae sed quoad relationem originis not as touching nature of substance but relation of originall and beginning Wherein he is not alone but the Greek Fathers who most vehemently impugned Arius the Heretike yet take part with him as f Sixt. Senens biblioth sanct lib. 6. annot 1705. Obseruandum est Graecos patres non reformidare hanc locutionem qua filius patre minor asseritur non substantia quidem sed origine iuxta quam rationem frequentissimè apud Grecos Theologos pater dicitur principij dignitate authoritate maiestate antecellere filium Sixtus Senensis testifieth and citeth to that purpose Origen Cyrill Chrysostom and Basil and of the Latine Fathers Hilary some of these and beside them g Athanas con Arian orat 2. pater maior non magnitudine aut aetate sed quia filius ex illo ortum habebat Athanasius and h Tertul. adu prax pater filio maior dumalius quigenerat alius qui generatur c. Tertullian in that sense expounding of the diuine nature the words of Christ i Iohn 14.28 The Father is greater than I. Now if in this meaning Caluin should haue said as is secondly alleged that the Father holdeth the first ranke of honour and power and the Sonne the second in which sort Tertullian also saith that k Tertul. vt suprae vt tertium gradum ostenderet in Paracleto sicut nos secundum in filio propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obseruationem the Sonne hath the second degree and the holy Ghost the third not meaning it of any disparity of essence but of the order of the persons would M. Bishop be no wiser but through Caluins side to wound so learned a Iesuit as Maldonatus yea and so many Fathers both Greek and Latine and at once to bring them all within the compasse of Atheisme But thou must vnderstand gentle Reader that M. Bishop very perfidiously abuseth thee in this citation the words of Caluin being spoken of the manhood of Christ being aduanced to sit at the right hand of God l Caluin in Mat. cap. 26. ver 64. Dicitur Christus ad dexteram patris sedere quia rex summus constitutus qui eius nomine mundum gubernet quasi secundam ab eo honoris imperijs sedem obtinet Christ saith he is said to sit at the right hand of the Father because being constituted the highest king in his name to gouerne the world he obtaineth a seat of honour and power as it were second or next to God M. Bishop I trow vnderstandeth the Articles of the Creed and thereby knoweth who it is that is said to sit at the right hand of God There followeth next Melancton who disputing against Stancarus for that he held Christ according to his manhood only to bee our Mediator though hee vse not expressy the words which M. Christ our â—â—diator as he is both God man Bishop hath set down yet acknowledgeth and defendeth that Christ according to his diuine nature was sent of the Father and submitted himselfe in obedience to the Father to performe the office of Mediation betwixt God and man but yet so as that he excepteth out of Cyril that m Melanct. Responâ— aâ—l contro stanc M ssio obedientia non tollunt equalitatem potentiae â—â—ut expresse Cyrilius inquit this sending and obeying doe not take away from the Son equality of power with the Father because they are not matters concerning state of nature but only arbitrary designement of will Surely amongst men in society and equality a man may be sent and may
this praier of Christ was vnaduisedly made secondly that he ouercome with griefe had forgotten the heauenly decree not remembring for the time that he was sent to be the redeemer of mankinde thirdly that he withstood as much as in him lay refused to execute the office of a mediator See Caluin also vpon these words of Christ Ioh. 12.27 Father saue me from this houre where he saith that Christ was so strucken with feare and so pinched on euery side with perplexed pensiuenesse that he was forced through these boisterous waues of temptation to wauer and fleet too and fro in his praiers and petitions Is not this pitifull impiety Whereas our most louing redeemer of set purpose tooke that feare vpon him and most willingly both suffered and caused that bloudy agony and conflict by representing vnto himselfe both the shame and paine of his dolorous passion and the causes thereof which were the innumerable most grieuous sins of the world that he might in euery part both of minde and body endure what hee possibly could for the time and spake nothing rashly but repeated that his praier ouer three seuer all times as is set downe in the text it selfe to shew vs how naturally he as all other men did abhorre such a cruell and ignominious death and yet withall to instruct vs that we should be content with it and pray to God for strength to beare it if it were his blessed will to put vs to the like This holesome doctrine and Godly instructions are by the ancient holy Fathers gathered out of that praier of Christ what a venemous spider then was Caluin to sucke such poison out of it If Christ so wauered where was his constancy If he were so frighted as Caluin falsly imagineth where was his fortitude If he strugled so against his Fathers decree where was his obedience If he refused to redeeme vs what was become of his charity towards mankinde If the first motions to euill be deadly sinnes in vs as the Protestants hold what will they make of such tumultuous and vnbridled passions in him that had a greater command ouer them then we haue R. ABBOT We doubt not but that Adam so far as the condition and state of humane nature required Christ as man ignorant of some things was replenished with perfect knowledge and yet little did he know what the serpent went about in tempting the woman or what the end would be of the womans tempting him It is true also that the second Adam was full of grace and truth so as that nothing came from him but grace and truth so as that he fully effected to vs the grace of God and exhibited the truth of all that God had promised and yet it followeth not that therefore nothing from his infancy was vnknowen to him The Romans also are said a Rom. 15.14 to be filled with all knowledge and yet it was not knowen to them I warrant you how wise and honest a man M. Bishop should shew himselfe in the writing of this booke The holy Ghost teacheth vs that b Heb. 4.15 Heb. 2.17 sinne excepted Christ was in all things like vnto vs. The Papists out of their fancy say except sinne and ignorance but why doe they adde an exception of their owne heades which the holy Ghost hath not added The holy Ghost saith in all things except sinne by what authority doe they adde ignorance where ignorance may be without sinne Surely the ancient father Cyrill gathereth thereof that Christ as man was ignorant of some things as namely that c Cyril Thesau l. 9. cap. 4. Quod diem horam illam ignoraret verè ab illo dicitur vt ab homine fratribus enim in omnibus similis fuit secâ—i dum Paulum he knew not the day and houre of his second comming wherefore he saith in the Gospell d Mark 13.32 Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Angels which are in heauen neither the sonne himselfe but the father onely e Ibid. Infirmitates nostras omnes accepits hac de causa ignerasse sedixit He tooke vpon him all our infirmities saith he for this cause he said he knew it not Yea he teacheth vs heerein f Ibid. Misericordiam eius admirari oportet quòd non recusauerit propter nos ad tantam humilitatem descendere vt omnia nostra ipsam etiam ignorantiam humanam susciperet to admire the mercy of Christ for that he would so much abase himselfe for our sakes as to take vpon him as al the rest so namely the ignorance of humane nature He alleageth against the heretickes that it is no more preiudice to Christ to say according to his manhood that he knew not that day g Ibid. Interrogandi sunt haehetici quid facient quando saluator dicitur esurijsse sitiâ—sse c. situt ergò voluit tanquam hâ—mo fame ac siticaeterisque huiusmodi laborare sic eâ—â—am vt honodiem illum ignorat then to say that he hungred thirsted slept was weary and such like He saith againe that when Iesus being come to Bethany and finding Lazarus dead asked of Mary h Ioh. 11.34 Where haue yee laied him i Ibid. Locum ignorabat vbi corpus Lazarierat vt homo ignâ—rauit he knew not as man in what place the body of Lazarus was His conclusion is that k Ibid iâ— fine perspicuum est vniuersa sciri à filio dei non minus quâm à patre quamuis dispensatiue vt homo multa se ignorare dicat Christ though as the sonne of God he knew all things no lesse then the father yet as man by way of dipensation said himselfe to be ignorant of many things And what shall Cyrill now be an hereticke with M. Bishop who so long agoe in behalfe of the Catholicke faith disputed these things against heretickes The like Origen gathereth out of the words of the Gospell l Luk. 2.52 And Iesus inâ—reased in wisedome and stature and in fauour with God and men m Origen in Ierem. hom 1. Iesus necdum vir sed adhuc infans quia se exinaniuit formam serui excipiens proficiebat Nemo autem proficit qui est perfectus sed illo proficit qui indiget profectu c. Quid indignum est rera de eo esse quae dicta sunt priusquam cognoscat puer bonum aut malum Iesus not being a man but as yet an infant because he humbled himselfe to take the forme of a seruant did grow But none doth grow saith he or increase who is already perfect but he groweth that wanteth grouth Why then is it vnlikely to be truely saied of him Before the child knew good or euill He applieth to Christ those words of the Prophet Esay as diuers other writers doe though perhaps amisses but hence as from the other words he gathereth that Christ for the time was subiect to that ignorance and infirmity
towards mankinde for he neuer refused to redeeme vs and therefore neuer failed in his loue towards mankinde But in the last question he most of all plaieth the wretch and vnder colour of an imputation to vs vttereth a wicked blasphemie of his owne If the first motions to euill be deadly sinnes in vs as the Protestants hold what will they make of such tumultuous and vnbrideled passions in him who had a greater command ouer them then wee haue The Protestants doe hold indeed that the first motions to euil are deadly sinnes if God weigh them in iudgement as they are but the Protestants doe not hold in Christ any first motions to euill and much lesse any such passions as are woorse then those motions that this absurd man should thus argue as from the lesse to the greater from euill motions in vs to tumultuous and vnbrideled passions in him We acknowledge a difference of will in Christ testified by most passionate and effectuall words and wee acknowledge it as the Fathers did out of the same words against the heretikes the Monothelites but in this difference we deny any thing to haue been tumultuous or vnbridled but all dulie composed and ordered so that the discord was a concord and the difference made no other but harmony and conformitie as before was said 14. W. BISHOP But we are not yet come vnto the height of his blasphemies which he powreth foorth more abundantly vpon those our Sauiours words Matt. 27.46 My GOD my GOD why hast thou forsaken me saying when this kinde of temptation was proposed to Christ as though God being auerted from him he had beene appointed to vtter destruction hee was seised with horror * Li. 2. Instit c. 16. sess 11. And in his Institutes treating of the same subiect saith Christ feared to haue beene swallowed vp of death as a sinner And there can be no more dreadfull bottomelesse gulfe then for a man to feele himselfe forsaken and estranged from God and not to be heard when he calleth vpon him euen as if God had conspired his destruction euen thither we see that Christ was throwne downe so that by enforcement of distresse he was compelled to crie out my GOD my GOD why hast thou forsaken me In the Paragraffe before he speaketh more plainly that Christ did hand in hand wrestle with the armies of hell and the horror of eternall death finally that in his soule he suffered the torments of the damned and all those punishments that are due to wicked men in hell He then belike was the traytour Iudas companion for the while he was in the Diuels hands to be tormented he dispaired and fared as men doe in these hellish torments What greater blasphemy can bee inuented then to condemne the King of heauen that came to redeeme vs all from hell euen to the very pit of hell it selfe Beza not willing to come behinde his master Caluin in this kinde of impiety whereas Caluin craftily admitted onely that Christ then despaired In cap. 5. ad Heb. vers 7. he affirmeth plainely that from Christ stroocken with the horror of Gods curse escaped the word of desperation And else-where that Christ was with the huge heauy burden of Gods wrath ouerwhelmed and adiudged to the flames of hell yea In c. 27. Mata 22. Luc. buried and drowned in the bottome of the infernall gulfe This man you see desires to lodge Christ low enough that would haue him drowned in the very bottome of hell This their pestilent venime they might haue sucked out of theire good grandsire Luthers writinges who vpon the very same wordes doth make this goodly commentary What shall we therefore say In Psal 22. v. 1. Christ to haue been together both the most iust and greatest sinner both the most notorious lier and truest teacher at the same instant both the most highly glorying and deepely despairing both happy in the highest degree and most miserably damned Vnlesse we say this I see not saith this Oracle of the new Gospel how Christ was forsaken of God See him also vpon the third chapter to the Galatians where he vttereth yet more detestable speeches of Christ to wit that all the Prophets did in the spirit foresee him to be the greatest theefe robber murtherer adulterer sacrilegious person and blasphemer that euer liued I could cite you diuers others of the same opinion but I had rather note their extreame blindnesse who neglecting the ancient Fathers learned expositions of the holy Scriptures were led away with such horrible extrauagant conceites of our Sauiour vpon so small occasion For he at that very time hanging on the Crosse declared himselfe to be most farre off from all such hellish torments yea he shewed all possible signes of a most quiet and peaceable minde praying for the saluation euen of his persecutors he was not then belike in doubt of his owne promising also to the good theefe that the same day he should be with him in Paradise wherefore hee doubted nothing of being there himselfe recommending his Mother vnto his beloued Disciple and him likewise to her and to fulfill the Scriptures both saying I thurst and citing euen those very words that they are scandalized at out of one of the Psalmes of Dauid And finally aduisedly considering all things belonging to his passion to be accomplished commended his spirit vnto his Fathers hands so that there could not possibly be more calme setled iudgement more valiant constancy and resolution then there was But what meant he then to say My GOD my GOD why hast thou forsaken me Forsooth nothing else but to signifie that in all these torments which he suffered he had not any comfort or consolation at that time from God who is wont to giue extraordinary aide and comfort to all those that suffer for his names sake but that Christ might as he himselfe desired be put to suffer all kinde of extremity all manner of inward consolation was wholly with-holden from him which it pleased him then to expresse by manner of complaint in those most pittifull words Christ suffered for vs both in bodie and soule My GOD my GOD c. the more to mooue vs to compassion Thus much of their impieties against Christs person now to those that they teach against the office of his mediatorship R. ABBOT Theodoret citeth it as a memorable sentence out of Irenaeus that a Theodoret. dialog 3. ex Iren. adu haer lib. 5. Câ—â—â—ergò proprio sanguine nos Christus redemerit animaÌ„ suam pro animis nostris dederit carnem suam pro nostru carnibus c. Christ gaue his soule for our soules and his body for our bodies So doe we hold that by Christian faith we are bound to beleeue that b Hieron in Esai 53. li. 14. Ex quo perspicuum est sicut corpus flagellatum laceratum signa inâ—uriae in vibicibus liuore portabat â—ta animam verè doluisse pro noâ—is
before shewed how the Fathers sticke not sometimes to tearme Christ q See heereof the question of Iustification sect 5.11 a sinner yea as Oecumenius speaketh r Oetumen in Heb. 9. vehementèr peccator erat c. vt supra a very great sinner for that as he expoundeth it he tooke vpon him the sinnes of the whole world and made them proper to himselfe Thus doth Luther say that ſ Luther in Gal c. 3. Et quidem omnes prophetae vide runt hoc in spiritu quod Christus futurus esset omntum maximus latro homicida adulter fur sacrilegus c. quo nullus maior vnquam in mūdo fuerit quia existens hostia pro peccatis totius mundi iam non est persona innocens sine peccatis non est natus de virgine dei filius sed peccator qui habet portat peccatum Pauli c. Petri c. omnia emnium peccata in corpore suo non quod ipse cōmiserit ea sed quòd ea à nobis commissa susceperit in corpus soū Chrst was the greatest sinner because he bare all our sinnes the greatest liar because he bare the person of all men of whom it is said All men are liars that the Prophets did in the spirit foresee him to be the greatest thiefe robber murtherer c. that euer liued because he did take vpon him the thefts robberies murthers adulteries and all other sinnes of all men liuing He speaketh thus to set foorth the more effectually the imputation of our sinnes to Christ and that which the scripture saith that t 2. Cor. 5.21 he was made sinne for vs u Esa 53.6 that the Lord laid vpon him the iniquities of vs all and though we forbeare thus to speake for auoiding offense as I haue formerly said yet in this sense what can Momus himselfe picke out to speake against it As for that which he saith of Christ deepely despairing and most miserably damned M. Bishops wit might haue serued him to conceiue that it was not absolutely meant because he maketh Christ withall most highly gloriing and happy in the highest degree His meaning then was as hath been before expressed that to sense of flesh and present feeling he was in state of despaire and damnation albeit by faith and hope he still gloried in God as his God and remained the heire and Lord of blissefull peace It appeareth then that in all those allegations of his there are no horrible extrauagant conceits nor any other but what the ancient fathers of whom he speaketh haue gathered out of the holy scriptures as well as we As for that which hee gathereth out of sundry particulars by him set downe that Christ in the middest of his passions retained a calme setled iudgement and most valiant constancy and resolution Christs affections in his passion kept within compasse and measure I answer him that he saith nothing therein but what he hath learned of vs who acknowledge as hath been before declared that notwithstanding all these extremities yet all his affections were kept within compasse and measure and are not to be esteemed by those exorbitancies and outrages which we in our passions are woont disorderly to runne into Yea by setled iudgement did he rightly weigh the heauy burden that lav vpon him accordingly complained therof and with valiant constancy and resolution hee waded through the middest of that horrible tempest vntill he was retired into safe harbour Of vs also hath M. Bishop learned that a great aggrauation of the griefes and sorrows of Christ was by the fathers withholding from him all inward comfort and consolation but yet together with vs he should learne out of the word of God that it was not only a priuation of spiritual comfort without which we see what tortures men euen of obstinacy vain-glory do oftentimes with inuincible courage vndergo but it was a position of spiritual anguish and distresse that drew from Christ those effects which hitherto we haue spoken of as by the discourse therof sufficiently doth appeare 15. W. BISHOP They hold first that whatsoeuer our Sauiour did Molineus in harmonia part 51. or suffered before his passion was of smal value for our redemption For as a noble Protestant said the Monkes Priests and Papisticall Doctors did erre when they vrged Christs incarnation and natiuity for all these things profited vs nothing could do nothing but onely the death of Christ which alone was accepted of God for our sinnes Secondly Caluin goeth further and doubteth not to say Lib. 2. Instit ca. 16. c. 16 ses 10. that Christes passion and corporall death would not serue the turne and had profited vs nothing at all had hee not in his soule suffered the very paines of the damned in hell This doctrine of theirs is not only contrary to an hundred places of expresse Scripture that doe assigne our redemption vnto the blood-shedding and passion of Christ but it also derogateth very much from the dignity of our Mediator For not that which he suffered made the merite of our redemption but it was his exceeding charity with which he suffered it and principally the very dignity of his diuine person which gaue that value price and estimation to his sufferinges that the very least thing that euer he suffered in his life was of infinite value and therfore sufficient to pay the ransome of all mankinde yea to haue redeemed a thousand worlds But let vs proceede on with the Protestants opinion did Christs sufferings of the torments of hell deserue of God in iustice theredemption of man not so if we may beleeue one of Foxes Martirs Acts and Monuments pa 487. who held as he recordeth that Christ with all his workes could not merit heauen for vs. But for that little credit is to be giuen to such a Martyr and such a Martyr-monger let vs heare what some of the learnedst amongst them say I truely confesse saith Caluin that if a man will set Christ singly and by himselfe against the iudgements of God there will be no roome for merit And after Christ could not deserue any thing Lib. 2. Insti cap. 17. ss 1. In abster calumni Heshu but by the good pleasure of God which is defended by his disciple Beza against Heshusius so that briefly all Christs sufferinges in hell and out of hell in true Protestant reckoning amount to no higher a value then that by the good pleasure and acceptance of God they deserued our redemption therefore in rigour of iustice they were not of sufficient worth to redeeme vs but were only of grace by God accepted for such Is not heere a faire reckning so might any other man indued with grace haue redeemed all mankinde as well as Christ if it had pleased God to haue so accepted it seeing no equall recompence was to be expected But to helpe him heere by the way that could not vnderstand how we were saued by the
Crucifix be but Christs armes why doe they worship the Crucifix b See of Images sect 14. as Christ himselfe Were it not a thing absurd for a man to giue the Kings honour to the Kings armes We haue therefore pulled downe the Crucifix as being made an Idoll and worshipped in stead of Christ and in place therof for the ornament of our Churches we haue set vp the Kings armes as being the defender of the faith of Christ But we haue taught that it is against Gods commandement to set vp in Churches any such Images as are in the Kings armes But therein he saith vntruly for we haue alwaies taught that the commandements of the first table concerne matter of religion and deuotion and require the same to be performed to God only The second commandement therefore condemneth all Images that are made or set vp for exercise of religion but historicall and ciuill vse of Images it condemneth not neither doth he finde any one of vs so to expound it as generally to forbid the making of any Image as he hath before vnderstood by our consent set down by M. Perkins in the beginning of that question Further he questioneth out of his sweet womanly deuotion is it not a pitifull blindnesse to thinke that the pictures of Lions and Libberts doe better become the house of God than the Image of his owne Sonne and of his faithfull seruants But doth his wisdome thinke that Salomon was blinde when he made in the Temple of God the pictures and Images of Lions and Buls of Flowers and Palme-trees and made no Images of Abraham Isaac Iacob and other holy men that were before him It was neuer seene but in times notoriously condemned c See of Images sect 17. for Idolatry that euer the Image of any man was set vp in the Temple of God and is not this poore man in a pitifull case that holdeth all those iust and righteous Fathers that liued in those times to haue beene but blinde men because they would not be partakers of his folly They are therefore such wise men as hee himselfe is that make the collection that he doth but as for vs we yeeld such honour and seruice to our Prince as God requireth vs to do not setting vp our Prince in the place of God as they do the Pope but obeying him vnder God and for Gods sake whom God hath placed ouer vs and who seeketh no otherwise to gouerne vs but by the word of God 22. W. BISHOP I come now to the men that are elected to serue the Lord there Be not many of them for the whole corps I will not touch such as Ieroboam was glad to choose when he made a Schisme in Israel to wit de extremis populi qui non erant de filijs Leui not lawfull successors of the true Priests but others of the baser sort of the people and them commonly that are notable either for ignorance or some other odde qualitie and must they not also fill their good patrons hands with some feeling commoditie before they can get a benefice And so beginning with simonie linked with periurie for the poore fellowes must neuerthelesse sweare that they come freely to their benefice are they not like to proceed on holily As for the vow of chastitie the daily seruice and often fasting which Catholike Priests are bound vnto they by the sweet libertie of the new Gospell doe exchange into solacing themselues with their yoke-fellowes this of the common sort of their Ministers With their preachers I will not meddle for feare of offence yet if any desire to know how they behaue themselues in other countries they may read the censure of a zealous learned preacher one of their owne companions who amongst many other things writeth thus of them Menno l. de Christ fide titul de fide mulieris Cananeae When you come to preachers who bragge that they haue the word of God you shall finde certaine of them manifest liars others drunkards some vsurers and foule-mouthed slanderers some persecutours and betraiers of harmelesse persons How some of them behaue themselues and by what meanes they get their wiues and what kinde of wiues they haue that I leaue to the Lord and them They liue an idle slothfull and voluptuous life by fraud and flattery they feed themselues of the spoiles of Antichrist he meaneth the benefices taken from the Papists and doe Preach iust as the earthly and carnall Magistrate desireth to heare and will permit c. So much and not a little more speaketh one great Master of the late refermation concerning his Euangelicall brethren Are not these goodly lampes of the new Gospell and likely persons to be chosen by Christ to giue light to others and to reforme the worldâ— But peraduenture they haue in some secret corners certaine deuout religious soules who in an austere retired life doe with continuall teares bewaile the sinnes of the rest and make incessant sute vnto the Almighty for a generall pardon of the whole Would to God they had but I feare me that they be of their inuisible congregatiâ—o or rather none such to be found amongst them For those neligious houses which our Ancesters had built for such godlyrand vertuous people who forsaking both father mother all their kinne and acquaintance and flying from all the pleasures and preferments which this transitorie world could yeeld them gaue themselues wholly to the holy exercises of humilitie chastitie pouertie and all sorts of mortification these Monasteries I say and all that professed in them a retired religious life the Protestants haue beaten downe and banished and haue not in their places erected any other for the singular godly men or women of their religion Which doth most euidently argue that there is in them small zeale and rare practise of any such extraordinary piety and deuotion Surely it must needes be a strange Christian congregation that holdeth them for no tollerable members of their common-weale whom Christ specially chuseth to serue him day and night and by whose holy example and most feruent praiers all other Christians do finde themselues much edified and mightily protected So that briefly whether you consider the persons that serue God or the place where hee is serued or the manner of his diuine sernice the Catholike religion doth in euery point surpasse the Protestant by many degrees Thus much in answer vnto Master PERKINS obiection of Atheisme against vs the which I esteemed fittest for this Preface being a matter of so great moment and therefore most worthy to be examined and considered of apart with mature iudgement Now to the rest of his questions according to his owne order R. ABBOT There hath beene an old fable of a Plutarth de curiositate Lamia a Witch who alwaies when she was at home put vp her eies in a box remained blind but when she was to go abroad she would alwaies put her eies in her head that shee might see
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
other children are with breach of his Mothers virginity as Bucer and Molineus in Vnione Euangelij part 3. and Caluin signifieth no lesse in harmo sup 2. Math. vers 13. 4. Suffered vnder Pontius Pilate crucified dead and buried Friar Luther with a great band of his followers doth toughly defend that the God-head it selfe suffered which to be blasphemy Musculus doth prooue in his booke of the errours of Luthers Schollers yet Beza with all them that hold Christ to haue beene our Mediatour according to his diuine nature can hardly saue themselues from the same blasphemy For the chiefest ast of Christs mediation consisteth in his death if then the God-head did not suffer that death it had no part in the principal point of Christs mediation Hither also appertaine all these their blasphemies to wit that Christ was so frighted with the apprehension of death that he forgot himselfe to be our Mediatour yea refused as much as in him lay to be our redeemer Item that he thought himselfe forsaken of God and finally despaired Se the Preface Caluin denieth not the Creed to be Apostolike R. ABBOT Whether M. Bishop deale honestly with Caluin as touching his opinion of the Creed let it appeare by the very words of Caluin in the very place alleaged Where hauing named it the Apostles Creed he taketh occasion therupon thus to say a Caluin Institut lib. 2. cap. 16. sect 18. Apostolicum autem nuncupo de authore interim minime solicitus Apostolis certè magno veterum Scriptorum consensu ascribitur siue quod ab illis in commune conscriptum editum existimabant siue quòd compendium istud ex doctrina per corum manus tradita bona fide collectum tali elogiâ— confirmandum censuerunt Neque verò mihi dubium est quina prima flatim ecclesiae origine ad ecque ab ipso Apostolorum seculo instar publicae omnium calculis receptae confessionis obtinuerit vndecunque undem initio fuerit profectum Nec ab vno aliquo priuatim fuisse conscriptum verisimile est â—â—m ab vltima vsque memoria sacrosanctae inter pios omnes authoritatu fuâ—sse constet Quod vnicè curandum est id extra omnem controuersiâ—m positum habemus totam in eo fidei nostrae historier saccinctè distinctâ—quâ— ordine recenseri nihil autent contineri quod solidis Scripturae testimocijs mâ— sit consignatum Quo intelâ—ecto de anthâ—re vel anxiè laborare vel cum alique digladiari nihil attinet I call it Apostolike not making any great scruple who was the authour of it Surely by the generall consent of the ancient writers it is ascribed to the Apostles either for that they thought it in common written and set foorth by them or for that they thought good by such a title to confirme this Briefe which is faithfully gathered out of the doctrine deliuered by their hands Neither doe I doubt whencesoeuer it first began but that from the first originall of the Christian Church and from the very time of the Apostles it tooke place as a publicke and generally approoued confession Neither is it likely to haue beene written in priuate by any one because it is certaine that from the very beginning it hath beene of sacred authority amongst all godly men That which we are entirely to regard is without all controuersie or doubt that the whole story of our faith is therein briefely and distinctly set downe and nothing contained in it but what is confirmed by sound testimonies of the Scripture Which vnderstood and knowen it is bootlesse for a man either much to trouble himselfe or to contend with any other concerning the authour of it Which words of Caluin conteining both his owne iudgement and ours concerning the authority of the Creed doe sufficiently refell the malicious cauils of this vaine and absurd wrangler By our doctrine he saith it is not necessary to beleeue the Creed yea it is wholly to be reiected because it is no part of the written word Indeed formally it is no part of the written word because it is not a part of the very text of Scripture there set downe in that frame of words wherein we vse it but doe we any where say that whatsoeuer is not so a part of the written word is wholly to be reiected or not necessary to be beleeued Nay we are so farre from saying or thinking so as that we hold many things in M. Bishops bookes necessary to be beleeued which notwithstanding are so farre from being a part of the written word as that for the manifold vaine cauillations and impudent falsehoods therein contained they deserue rather to goe for wall paper than to be read for learned bookes As touching the matter and doctrine of the Creed Caluin affirmeth that it is taken out of the doctrine of the Apostles set downe in the written word and therefore it is no more to be reiected than the word it selfe from whence it is taken He denieth not but that the Apostles might be and were the authours of it though he cannot certainly affirme that they were so Hee acknowledgeth the consent of ancient writers that it was composed by the Apostles He confesseth the antiquity thereof euen from their very time He holdeth it vnlikely to haue beene published by any priuate man and therefore leaueth it most likely to be done by them By whomsoeuer it was done because it is consonant to the Apostolike spirit and doctrine he acknowledgeth all sacreed authoritie and opinion as heeretofore so now to be attributed vnto it What is there heere that malice it selfe could blame but that Popish malice aboue other is blinde and cannot see it owne shame Let vs now goe along with him to the particulars and see what wise worke he maketh to prooue that which he saith the Protestant Doctours doe foully mangle and in manner ouerturne the greatest part of the Creed Concerning the first article he saith we erre many waies But how I pray you first saith he they doe destroy the most simple vnity of the Godhead by teaching the diuine essence to be really distinguished into three persons But how doth that follow One essence of God distinguished really into three persons for if vnity of essence in this distinction bee terminus a quo and triality of persons be terminus ad quem and the reality of distinction be vnderstood not in the essence for it selfe but onely in the persons how shall it destroy the simple vnity of the God head to say that one diuine essence is really distinguished into three persons What will M. Bishop say that the distinction of the persons is intellectuall only and not reall Let him then set vp a schoole for Sabellius and Praxeas the heretickes and teach as they did that b August de haeres ad Quod vultd c. 41. Dicunt eundem ipsum esse patrem filium sp sanctum the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost are but one
It is not easie to finde what is their setled opinion touching theforgiuenesse of originall sinne in Infants Some attribute it to Baptisme but that cannot stand with their common doctrine that Sacraments haue no vertue in them to remit sinnes or to giue grace Others say that God without any meanes doth then when they be baptised of himselfe immediately iustifie them But that cannot stand in their owne doctrine because Infants want the instrument of faith to lay hold on that 〈◊〉 then offered by God and therefore cannot being so young take it vnto them Others will haue Infants sanctified in their mothers wombe by vertue of a couenant which they suppose God to haue made with old father Abraham and all his faithfull seruants that forsooth their seed shall bee holy But this is most phantasticall and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience for Isaac was the sonne of promise and yet Esau his sonne was areprobate Dauids father was a godly Israelite and yet Dauid affirmeth Psal 51. that he himselfe was conceiued in iniquities and we may see whole Countries now turned Turkes whose ancestors were good Christians therefore not all the soules of the faithfull are sanctified in their mothers wombes Secondly how euill soeuer they agree about the remission of sinne yet there is a perfect consent among them that such relikes of originall sin remaine in euery man baptised and sanctified that it infecteth all and euery worke he doth with deadly sin yea that which remaineth is properly sinne in it selfe though it be not imputed to the partie so that sinne is alwaies in them though their sinnes be neuer so well forgiuen And as for the Sacrament of Penance by which we hold all sinnes committed after Baptisme to be forgiuen they doe renounce the benefit of it and are at vtter defiance with it R. ABBOT If wee were as full of differences in our doctrine as M. Bishops head is full of idle fancies it should be hard indeed to finde any setled opinion amongst vs whereas now our opinion being setled he out of sundry termes and words that are vsed in the expressing thereof dreameth of great difference and vncertainty amongst vs. Originall sin how it is forgiuen to Infants The matter is concerning the forgiuenesse of originall sinne in Infants Some saith he attribute it to baptisme And whom I maruell doth he know that doth otherwise Who of vs doth not acknowledge baptisme to be Gods instrument for the actuall application of that grace which hee hath intended towards vs in Iesus Christ before the foundation of the world which notwithstanding hath his effect not by the very worke wrought or by any vertue infused into the water or by any power giuen to the very words and syllables that are pronounced but by the assisting power of the holy Ghost accompanying the outward Sacrament to giue grace and forgiuenesse of sinnes not indifferently or generally but a Rom. 4.5 vulgat Eph. 1.5.9 according to the purpose of the grace of God Now of this that wee say that it is the holy Ghost which in baptisme worketh the effect of grace hee out of the abundance of his wit frameth another opinion which with vs is no other but onely the explication of the former As for his exception that children haue not the instrument of faith to lay hold on the grace of God which is offered in baptisme it auaileth nothing because children are brought to baptisme though not in their owne faith whereof they are vncapable yet in the faith of their parents who apprehending the promise of God according to the tenour thereof both for b Gen. 17.7 themselues and for their children doe thereby deriue and transport vnto them an interest in the grace of God whereby they are sacred and holy vnto God and are therefore by baptisme to be receiued to be made partakers of that grace Heere againe M. Bishop imagineth a third opinion whereas still there is nothing said but what is dependant vpon the first And this third opinion he deliuereth according to his owne absurd conceit thereof and not according to that that by vs is intended We say nothing but what the Scripture hath taught vs that c 1. Cor. 7.14 Children of faithfull parents how vnderstood holy the children of faithfull parents are holie Hee betwixt his pride and ignorance will take no knowledge that the Scripture so speaketh thereby to giue a true sense and meaning of that it saith but scornefully derideth it and out of his owne distempered braines bringeth a foolish reason to dispute against it This is most phantasticall saith he and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience And how so Forsooth Isaac was the sonne of promise and yet Esau his sonne was a reprobate and many children of Christians afterwards become Turkes Therefore the children of the faithfull are not sanctified in their mothers wombe But did not his eies see that out of his owne doctrine a man might by the same argument ouerthrow the sanctification of baptisme also for in like sort a man may say The children of many faithfull become reprobates and castwaies therefore the children of the faithfull are not sanctified in baptisme which I suppose he will not admit Surely he knoweth that by the doctrine of their schooles sanctification once had may afterwards be lost and that many reprobates are for the time partakers thereof It is then no argument to say that because many children of the faithfull are reprobates therefore they were not sanctified in their mothers wombe because as hee will say of them who are sanctified in baptisme so it may be answered him of them who are sanctified in their mothers wombe that by apostasie they forgoe that which by grace they had receiued I speake not this to affirme that sanctification which he imagineth but onely to shew him the sillinesse of his argument whereby he impugneth it His other instance as he setteth it downe is as weake as that Dauids father was a godly Israelite and yet Dauid affirmeth that hee himselfe was conceiued in iniquities For though Dauid were conceiued in iniquities yet that letteth not but that after his conception hee might be sanctified in his mothers wombe But we doe not onely make him say that he was conceiued in iniquitie but also that hee was d Psal 51.5 borne in sinne euen as we confesse generally of all that e Aug. Enchir. ca. 33. Cum hac quippe ira dei omnis homo nascitur wee are borne guilty of the wrath of God f Eph. 2.3 the children of wrath and that vnlesse the grace of Christ doe thencefoorth releeue vs g Iohn 3.36 the wrath of God abideth vpon vs. When therefore the Apostle saith that the children of beleeuing parents are holy we doe not thereby vnderstand any inward indowment or gift of holinesse but onely that they are with vs to bee holden and accounted as belonging vnto God and comprehended within his couenant that
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
Ben Beirdh the chiefest of the wisemen which seeme in all likely hood to tax Austin as a procurer of that slaughter For although he mention the said Taliessin as hauing beene a writer in the yeare 540. yet because there can be imagined no occasion of those words before Austins comming in I conceiue that either there is some errour in the notation of the time or that liuing perhaps to great yeeres as in those daies was no rare thing he wrot the Ode whence those verses are taken in his last time I will define nothing heereof but leaue it to the iudgement of the Reader to conceiue as he seeth cause The verses then he first setteth downe in the Welch tongue as they were written by him that made them a History of Wales by Doct. Powel Gwae'r offeriad byd Nys angreifftia gwyd Ac ny phregetha Gwae ny cheidw ye gail Ac efyn vigail Ac nys areilia Gwaeny theidw ei dheuaid Rhae bleidhi Rhufeniaid A'iffon gnwppa These he repeateth in English thus Wo be to that Priest yborne That will not cleanly weede his corne And preach his charge among Wo be to that shepheard I say That will not watch his fold alway As to his office doth belong Wo be to him that doth not keepe From Romish woolues his sheepe With staffe and weapon strong Where when he nameth Romishwolues we cannot doubt but that he alludeth to some cruelty caused or practised by some that came from Rome which because it can haue no application in those times but only to the slaughter of the Monkes aforesaid therefore I doubt not but that it hath reference to Austin the Monke who came then from Rome as the cause of that slaughter Now because we are in hand with falsifications and misconstructions I hold it not amisse to reduce hither two other taxations of his of the same nature as most properly belonging to this place The first by order of my booke is a place of Mathew Paris by whom I say it appeareth that a Answer to the epistle sect 3. pag. 20. for the space of twelue hundred yeeres after Christ the Popes authoritie could gaine no acknowledgement in Scotland for that in the time of King Henry the third the one and twentith of his raigne when the Popes Legate would haue entred into Scotland to visit the Churches there the King of Scots Alexander the second forbad him so to do alleaging that none of his predecessours had admitted any such neither would hee suffer it and therefore willed him at his owne perill to forbeare Concerning this allegation M. Bishop setteth downe a postscript in the end of his booke when all the rest was finished in this curteous maner Curteous Reader I must needs acquaint thee with a notable legerdemaine which by perusing the authour I found out after the rest was printed Now gentle Reader I know thou lookest for some speciall great matter which he was thus carefull to adde after all the rest was printed but what is it I pray M. Abbot saith he to prooue that the Pope had no authoritie in Scotland twelue hundred yeeres after Christ auerreth that Alexander the second vtterly forbad the Popes Legate to enter within his kingdome which is not true No is Surely then M. Abbot dealt very vndutifully with his Prince to delude him with a false tale But I pray you M. Bishop tell vs what the truth is For his authour Mathew Paris declareth saith hee that the King indeed did at the first oppose himselfe against that visitation of his kingdome to be made by the said Legate not for that he did not acknowledge the Popes supreme authoritie in those ecclesiasticall causes but because it was needlesse the matters of the Church being as he said in good order and for feare of ouer-great charges And is this all M. Bishop that you could finde perusing the authour so diligently as you haue done But I pray you put on your spectacles once more and turne ouer your booke againe Thou shalt vnderstand gentle Reader that the impression of Mathew Paris which I follow is that b Tiguri in officina Froschoviana 1589. at Tigure in officina Froschouiana anno 1589. There in the one and twentieth yeere of Henrie the third being the yeere of our Lord 1237. pag. 431. which in the edition cited by M. Bishop I take by some notes of mine to be pag. 597. thou shalt finde Mathew Paris set downe this matter in these words c Math. Paris in Henrico 3. anno 1237. pa. 431. Volenti autem domino Legato intrare reguum Scotiae vt ibi de negotijs ecclesiasticis tractaret sicut in Anglia respondit rex Scotiae Non me memini Legatum in terra mea vidisse nec opus esse aliquē esse vocandum deo gratias nec adhuc opus est omnia benè se habent Nec etiā tempore patris mei vel alicuius antecessorū meorum visus est aliquis Legatus introitū habuisse nec ego dum mei compos fuero tolerabo Veruntamen quia fama te sanctum virum praedicat moneo te vt si fortè terram meam ingrediaris cau tè progrediaris nequid sinistri tibi contingat c. The Lord Legate being desirous to enter into the kingdome of Scotland there to deale in Ecclesiasticall matters as he had done in England the King of Scotland answered him I remember not that I haue seene any Legate in my countrey nor that there hath beene any need thanks be to God that any should be called neither is there yet any need all things are well No nor in the time of my Father or of any of my predecessours hath any Legate beene seene to haue had any entrance there neither wil I suffer any so long as I am in my right wits Notwithstāding because by report you are a holy man I warne you that if yee doe goe into my countrey yee goe warily lest any thing befall amisse to you For vnruly and sauage men are there dwelling which thirst after mens bloud whom I my selfe cannot tame nor hold them backe from me if they fall vpon you These are the words of Mathew Paris now aske M. Bishop I pray thee wherein standeth that notable legerdemaine which he would acquaint thee with Aske him what it is wherein I haue varied from my authour I said that the king forbad the Legate to enter so saieth the storie I said that the King alleaged that neuer any Legate in the time of any of his predecessours had beene admitted there the storie saith the same I said that this was twelue hundred yeeres after the time of Christ the story noteth it to haue beene in the yeere 1237. Wish him now to tell thee where the legerdemaine is or whether it be rather some policie of his thus to talke of legerdemaine But this place he would not see yet the latter place he saw he quoteth the page 667. iustly agreeing with the
This deniall of a third place M. Higgons z Book 1. part 1. ch 2. § 4. num 10. acknowledgeth and noteth me in his margent for citing the places where it is denied but seeketh to auoid it by saying that Austin thereby onely denied against the Pelagians any third place of eternall rest heere vpon earth after the day of iudgement for children dying without baptisme for this is the briefe of the differences that hee hath there set downe But this will not serue his turne because Austin doth not meerely deny their third place but from the absolute denial of a third place inferreth that their third place cannot be a August de peccat mer. remiss l. 1. cap. 28. Non est vllus vlli medius loâ—us vt possit esse nisi cum diabolo qui non est cum Christo Hinc ipse dominus volens auferre de cordibus malè credentium istam nescio quam medietatem quam conantur quidam parunlis non baptizatis tribuere c. definitiuam protulit ad haec ora obstruenda sententiam vbi ait Qui mecum non est contra me est There is not any middle place for any man saith he that he may be but with the diuell that is not with Christ He addeth Heereupon the Lord himselfe also willing to take away from the hearts of misbeleeuers this I know not what middle place which some seeke to assigne to children vnbaptised hath to stop their mouthes pronounced a definitiue sentence where he saith He that is not with me is against mee There is then no middle place for infants vnbaptised because there is not after death any middle place for any man and therfore doth the Lord pronounce that definitiue sentence from which how M. Higgons will shift Purgatory I cannot well tell The other sentence is as plaine b August Hypognostic lib. 5. Da mihi praeter hunc alterum locum vbi vitae possit requies esse perennis PrimuÌ„ enim locum fides Catholicorum diuina authoritate credidit regnum essâ— coelorum c. Secundum Gehennam vbi omnis Apostata vel à fide Christi alienus aeterna supplicia experietur Tertium penitùs ignoramus imò nec esse in Scripturis Sanctis inuenimus Giue me beside this that is the kingdome of heauen any other place where there may be perpetuall rest of life For the first place the faith of catholick men by diuine authority haue beleeued to be the kingdome of heauen The second hell fire where euery Apostata and alien from the faith of Christ shall feele euerlasting punishments A third we are vtterly ignorant of yea wee finde by the holy Scriptures that there is none such Where we see that S. Austin taking in hand to refute the third place affirmed by the Pelagians distinguisheth generally how many places there be and resolueth that that third place of theirs cannot be because there is no third place Heauen and hell he saith he findeth in the Scriptures but third place he findeth none and therefore maketh vs confident against beleeuing any Purgatory because in the Scriptures we find none The Papists say they find it there but they say vntruely they finde it in their owne constructions forced vpon the Scripture but in the Scripture it selfe they finde it not All the places which they alleage haue their iust and perfect vse euen by the exposition of the fathers themselues without any Purgatorie to be inferred thereby 37. In the same chapter num 12. he toucheth me again for that wheras Austin reuerenceth Epiphanius as a holy man and famous in the Catholike faith it seemeth good to me to iustifie Aerius a damnable heretike against him But I reuerence Epiphanius as farre as Austin did or teacheth me to doe I acknowledge hee was a holy man and famous in the Catholike faith but yet I say of him as S. Austin saide of Ambrose another holy man and famous in the Catholike faith c August con Pelag. Cele lib. 1. cap. 43. Quantis praedicat laudibus quamlibet sanctum doctuÌ„ virum nequaquam tamen authoritati Canonicae Scripturae comparandum Though he were a holy and learned man yet is he not to be compared to the authoritie of the Canonicall Scripture I dissent from Epiphanius as Austin himselfe did concerning fasting daies as I touched a little before who denieth that to be Apostolike tradition which Epiphanius affirmeth to be so I iustifie Aerius against Epiphanius in one point as in another point S. Hierome did as I haue shewed also d Sect. 21. before not reiecting a truth for that either an heretike hath affirmed it or a Catholike doctour hath denied it but therefore embracing it wheresoeuer I finde it because God hath taught it And although Aerius for Arianisme were iustly to be accounted a damnable heretike yet doe I not thinke that M. Higgons can make good his word which before hee hath giuen that for those matters wherein we approoue him there were beside Epiphanius and Austin many other that did condemne him Epiphanius indeed doth so and Austin professing to follow Epiphanius transcribeth the same from him but Philaster and Theodoret writing of heresies mention no such matter neither doe I thinke that M. Higgons can bring vs any father or story of those times that taxeth Aerius in that behalfe Yea I may not omit that which I pointed at before that when Dulcitius mooued the question to Austin e Aug. ad Dulcit quaest 2. Vtrum oblatio quae fit pro quiescentibus aliquid eorum conferat animabus c. Ad quod multi dicunt quòd si aliquis beneficij in hoc locus esse possit post mortem quantò magis sibi anima ferret ipsa refrigeria sua per se illic confitendo peccata quà m in eorum refrigerium ab alijs oblatio procuratur Whether the offering that is made for the dead doe auaile their soules any thing he setteth downe the opinion of many in that time concerning that point Many say to this matter that if heerein any good were to be done after death how much rather should the soule it selfe obtaine ease to it selfe by confession of sins there than that for the ease thereof an offering should be procured by other men which opinion hee would neuer haue set downe neither would Saint Austin haue let it goe without hard censure if it had beene then publikely taken for heresie so to thinke yea Dulcitius would neuer haue mooued the question thereof if Purgatory had been a knowen and vndoubted point of faith as M. Higgons would faine haue it thought to bee But this is not all that hee hath heere to blame me for for in the margent he chargeth me that I peruert the sense of Epiphanius as though the church had praied for the Saints c. If they did not so what is it then that Epiphanius reporteth Epiphanius reporteth saith he that when we make a memoriall of
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
of their phrases doe breed new or rather reuiue old heresies against it Againe who carry a more holy conceit of God either they who vpon light occasion doe rashly deny God to be able to doe that which they doe not conceaue possible or we that teach him to be able to do tenne thousand things that passe our vnderstanding Whether they that affirme God of his owne free choise to cast away the greater part of men or we that defend him to desire the saluation of all men and not to be wiling that any one perish vnlesse it be through his owne default Either they that hold him to be the authour of all euill done in the world and the Diuell to be but his Minister therein or we that maintaine him to be so purely good that he cannot possibly either concurre to any euill or so much as once to thinke to doe any euill Finally whose opinion of him is better either ours that hold him to haue beene so reasonable in framing of his lawes that he doth by his grace make themeasie to a willing minde or theirs that auouch him to haue giuen lawes impossible for the best men to keepe If some Protestants doe say we doe not maintaine diuers of these positions I answer that it is because they doe yet in part hold with vs and are not so farre gone as they doe wholly follow their new masters For if they did then should they embrace all the afore-said damnable positions being so plainely taught by their principall preachers and teachers These therefore are to warne my deere Country-men to looke to it in time and then no doubt but that all such as haue a sufficient care of their saluation considering maturely whether the current stream of the new Gospel carrieth them will speedily disbarke themselues thence lest at length they be driuen by it into the bottomelesse gulfe of flat Atheisme R. ABBOT Heere M. Bishop intreateth the curteous Reader to be Iudge in a most weighty matter Euerie man required to iudge for his owne assurance in matters of faith who in the former section hath giuen him a checke for taking vpon him to be his own Iudge His teeth sometimes bite his tongue and put him in minde to tell truth which commonly he is very loth to doe Indeed it concerneth euery man so farre as toucheth his own saluation to be a Iudge in these matters and by knowledge and vnderstanding to satisfie himselfe concerning his faith and hope towards God and not be led as in Popery they are accustomed like dumb beasts wholly at the will discretion of them by whom they are led not able to iudge of that which they doe whether it be right or wrong The holy Ghost commendeth it as a thing pertinent to all the faithfull a Phil. 19.10 to abound in knowledge and in alliudgement that they may discerne things different from the truth b 1. Thes 5.21 to try all things and to hold that that is good c 1 Ioh. 4.1 to try the spirits whether they be of God or not d Heb. 5.14 to haue their wits exercised to discerne both good and euill Which ability how it is atteined vnto Saint Ambrose declareth e Ambros in Heb. 5. Quomodo poterunt sensus nostri exercitati esse vtique ex vsu frequenti lectione scripturarū vnde beatum virum Psalmista dicit qui in lege domini meditabitur die ac nocte sic Primas ibid. How may our wits be thus exercised Marry by vse and often reading of the holy scriptures whence the Psalmist calleth the man blessed who day and night meditateth in the law of the Lord. Euen so it is howsoeuer there seeme difficulty at the first yet vse of reading and often meditation of the Scriptures with a religious and carefull heart maketh a man able to iudge of truth so farre as is needfull for himselfe vnto eternall life Now the matters whereof M. Bishop will haue his Reader to be Iudge are no other but what haue beene handled hitherto whereof for the enlarging of his preface and to make the Printer some more worke he maketh heere a long and needlesse repetition I list not to follow him in his idle veine but referre thee gentle Reader to the seuerall examinations of all his obiections in which thou shalt see him one where leudly belying and slandering vs another where wilfully misconstruing another where ignorantly condemning those things which he is not able to disprooue Onely to shew the great discretion of the man thou maiest note in his first cauil how he deliuereth their opinion that Christ from the first instant of his conception was replenished with most perfect knowledge whereas if hee had had his owne head at hand hee would haue remembred that that which was of Christ from the first instant of his conception was not as yet endued with the reasonable soule and therefore was not as yet capable of knowledge at all Thus in the very first point he giueth his Reader occasion to preiudicate him in all the rest to account him too silly a man to giue aduertisment as in the end of this section hee doth to others who in the beginning sheweth so little skill to looke to himselfe As for his countrimen to whom specially he directeth his warning they are much to be pitied in that so simply they commit themselues to such blinde guides by whom and with whom they must needes fall into the ditch Albeit if he were blinde in this case his sinne were the lesse but because wittingly and willingly hee lieth and chargeth vpon our principall Preachers and Teachers some of his damnable positions whereto they in the very places by him cited haue iustified the contrarry as in the processe of our answer hath appeared therefore as he is branded in conscience with God so he deserueth with men also to be branded in the face with the stigme of a perfidious calumniatour that all men may know that there is no trust to be giuen to him 19. W. BISHOP And is it any great maruell that the common sort of the Protestants fall into so many foule absurdities touching religion when as the very fountaines out of which they pretend to take their religion be so pittifully corrupted I meane the sacred word of God Master Gregory Martin a Catholike man very skilfull in the learned languages hath discouered about two hundreth of their corruptions of the very text of Gods word and after him one Master Broughton a man of their owne esteemed to be singularly seene in the Hebrew and Greeke tongue hath aduertised them of more then eight hundreth faults therein And the matter is so euident that the Kings Maiestie in that publike conference holden at Hampton-Court in the first of his raigne confesseth himselfe not to haue seene one true translation of the Bible in English and that of Geneua which they were woont to esteeme most to be the woorst of all
his owne words gentle Reader and iudge thereof g Agatho epist in synod 6. Constantinop Act. 4. Meliori resectus sum confidentia paulatim quae per mansuetissimae fortitudinis vestrae sacram dudum praecepta sunt efficaciter promptam obsequentiam exhibere vt personas quales seâ—unduÌ„ tempor is huius defectuÌ„ ac seruilis prouinciae qualitateÌ„ poterant inueniti pro obedientiae satisfactione inquirereÌ„ c. Olim hoc quod vix tandeÌ„ nunc fieri potuit studiosa obedientia noster famulatus impleret c. secundum pijssimam iussionem a Deo protegendae mansuetudinis vestrae pro obedientia quam debuimus non pro confidentia corum scientiae quos dirig imus praesentes confamulos nostros c. curauimus demandare c. Hoc imperialis vestra benignitas clementèr iul ens hortata est nostra pusillitas quod iussum est obsequentèr impleuit c. Et paulò ante Pro quibus flexâ— mentis poplite supplicitèr vestram clementiam deprecamur vt acceptione eos dignos efficiat c. I am incouraged effectually to shew ready obedience to the things commanded by your Maiesties writ to inquire out for giuing satisfaction of my obedience such persons as by the scarsenes of this time and state of this seruile Prouince may be found this our seruice would long agoe haue performed with carefull obedience according to the most godly commandement of your Maiesty I haue had care for the obedience that I owe not for the confidence of the learning of them that I send to direct vnto you such and such my fellow seruants this your Imperiall grace with gentlenesse commanding hath wished and my pusillity hath obediently performed your commandement for whom with bowing the knee of my heart I humbly beseech your clemency to vouchsafe to grant them acceptance We heere see what Agatho saith now let vs vnderstand M. Bishops answer obserue it well and thinke whether thou hast knowen any mans forehead so hard as his First he saith h Reprofe pag. 180. that he findeth no such words in the place by me quoted marry that he hath indeed but the abbridgement of the letter as it stands in the summe of the Councels But it is strange that hee should light vpon such an abbridgment whence he would take words going before and words following after as he hath done and could light vpon none of these This smelleth somewhat strong but thou shalt perceiue him by and by to stinke outright Forsooth he will not stand vpon deniall of the words but by this kinde of arguing he saith I might prooue euery Pope to professe due obedience to euery priuate seruant of God because his ordinary stile is The seruant of Gods seruants But M. Bishop I argued not do not seeke to blind your Reader in this sort I did not of other words conclude a duty of obedience but I brought the Bishop of Rome in his owne words acknowledging this duty The Pope calleth himselfe indeed the seruant of Gods seruants but wee doe not heare him say that hee oweth obedience to any which hee scorneth to professe or yeeld to the Emperour his Lord and Master and we know the seruice which he professeth towards the seruants of God standeth not in obeying but in ruling and commanding them But we heare Agatho professing in terminis that he oweth obedience to the Emperour that he was carefull to giue satisfaction of his obedience that he obediently performed the Emperours commandement that in his minde and affection being absent he did bow the knee to intreat the Emperours fauour towards those whom he sent How leaudly then doth M. Bishop presume of the blindnesse of his Reader that thus goeth about to perswade him that both these cases are alike Well yet all that we shall haue is but this that i Pag 170. they are common and vsuall words of courtesie k Pag. 181. words vttered of custome courtesie in all countries and it is but a miserable shift of mine to vse such words for sound proofes Whether it be a miserable shift of mine let the Reader iudge but sure I am that he hath put it off with a very miserable and shamelesse answer If all Italians and Frenchmen saith he that will say they are your seruants should be taken short at their word and thereby be pressed to your obedience and seruice you might soone become a great signiour ouer many stately seruants that will doe what they list Yea but M. Bishop we see that Agatho doth performe obedience and seruice and acknowledgeth to owe the same and therefore what is that to this And what are all your Italians and Frenchmen so courteous as that they will professe by way of courtesie to owe obedience and take vpon them for giuing satisfaction thereof to doe what they are commanded Surely Sir we see that you haue learned much courtesie in Italy and France but we say commonly Much courtesie much craft and therefore it is that heere together with your courtesie you haue shewed vs your craft also You should not thinke any man to be so ignorant as not to know that though men vse such complementall words of seruice each to other yet neuer doth the superiour take vpon him to owe obedience to his inferiour specially one that is so infinitely superiour as they say the Pope is to the Emperour and surely the Pope now as courteous as he is is farre from that courtesie I cited Leo to the same purpose but it would be too long heere to shew how he abuseth him and therefore I leaue it to a larger answer 29. I alleadged Gelasius Bishop of Rome affirming that in the Sacrament l Answer to the epist sect 4. pag. 27. ex Gelas contra Eutych Nestor Nec tamen esse desinit substantia vel natura panis vini there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine He answereth that m Reproofe pag. 162. the meaning is that the nature of bread doth not wholly cease to be in the blessed Sacrament because the form taste sauour of bread which be naturall qualities thereof doe still remaine though the whole inward substance be turned into the body of Christ Compare his answer I pray thee with the allegation and see how well and hansomly they agree Gelasius saith that there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread and his meaning is saith M. Bishop that the substance doth cease to be being wholly turned into the body of Christ Gelasius saith that the substance of bread remaineth M. Bishop saith that he meaneth that the forme taste and sauour of bread remaineth but the substance remaineth not Doest thou not thinke that this man hath a wonderfull dexterity in answering or canst thou wonder that with little adoe if need were hee should answer all the Fathers yea and the whole Bible also that can tell vs that where it is said it ceaseth not the meaning is that it
doth cease But yet hee saith that Gelasius in that place signifieth so much in that he affirmeth that by the operation of the holy Ghost the bread and wine doe passe into a diuine substance And it is true indeed that Gelasius so saith But M. Bishop did your eies serue you to looke no further n Gelas vt supra Indiuiuam transennt sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae They passe saith he into a diuine substance but yet they remaine in the propriety of their owne nature euen as to the same purpose Theodoret saith o Theodoret. dial 1. Symbola signa quae videntur appellatione corporis sanguinis honorauit non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens Christ honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and bloud not changing their nature but adding grace vnto nature Now if they still continue in their owne nature as before then they doe not so passe into a diuine substance but that there is still the substance of bread and wine The thing whereto Gelasius driueth that speech is to shew against Eutyches that as in the Sacrament the bread and wine become vnto vs the body and bloud of Christ and yet retaine the same nature and substance as before so the manhood of Christ being ioined into one person with the Godhead is not thereby drowned or swallowed vp but continueth in substance the same that it was from the beginning This he imagined to be very direct against the heresy of Eutyches but by M. Bishps transubstantiation it proueth wholly to the aduantage thereof for that it may bee said that as in the Sacrament the substance of bread and wine are extinguished though there remaine the shew and likenes and taste therof so in the vnion of the man-hood with the god-head there coÌ„tinued the semblance and likenes and outward appearance of a man but the substance thereof was swallowed vp and continued not And this M. Bishop helpeth to strengthen by expounding nature to be vnderstood of naturall qualities whereas Gelasius as he speaketh of the bread and wine there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine so saith of Christ p Gelas ibid. Dicimus proprietatem vniuscuiusque substantiae vel naturae in Christo manere perpetuam We say that the propriety of ech substance or nature abideth continually in Christ vnderstanding still by nature the same that he doth by substance as hee hath said before q Ibi. Substantia nulla est quae non natura dicatur There is no substance but it is called nature euen as Austin saith r August cont Iulian. li. 1. ca. 3. Natura est ipsa substantia cont serm Arianor c. 36. Vnius eiusdemque substantiae vel vt expressiùs dicamus essentiae quod plantùs dicitur vnius eiusdemque naturae The nature is the very substance and Of one and the same substance or essence is more plainly said of one and the same nature which made the Euty chians that they could not endure to name Å¿ Gelas ibid. Quis ferat eos dedignari vocabula promere naturarum two natures in Christ because thereby should be imported two entire and perfect substances And albeit it be true that sometimes the name of nature is vsed to signifie some intrinsecall properties issuing immediately from the essence of the thing yet he that shall say that the nature of bread and wine is the forme and taste and sauor thereof may be thought to speake like a naturall rather than like a learned man His exception that this Gelasius was not Bishop of Rome is vaine It hath beene still and is printed by themselues vnder his name The conclusion doth giue token that it was his t Ibid. in fine Hanc regulam Catholicae fidei c. cùm sedem Apostolicam vestram dilectio vnanimitèr teneat coÌ„staÌ„tèr praedicet sapieÌ„ tèrque defendat seeing you beloued doe with one minde hold fast the Apostolike sea therefore constantly preach and wisely defend this rule of the Catholike faith yea and that very fragment which wee now haue is cited by u Bibliot sanct Patr. edit 2. Iom 4. pa. 557. Iohn the first his successour soone after to the same very purpose whereto he wrot it which alone is sufficient for approbation thereof Againe I cited x Pag. 35.35 Theodoret making mention that the Councell of Laodicea did forbid to pray to Angels or to worship them and I alleaged Austin noting them for heretikes that did so To S. Austin M. Bishop answereth nothing at all with whom as I cited they are recorded for heretikes and termed y August ad Quod vultd haer 39 Angeliciin Angelorum cultu inclinati Angelici who were bowed downe in the worship of Angels How trimly he answereth to Theodoret and the Councell of Laodicea shall be the better discerned if I first set downe the words of Theodoret himselfe Who handling the words of the Apostle z Col 2.18 Let no man at his pleasure be are rule ouer you by humblenes of minde and worshipping of Angels saith thus r Theodoret. in Col. 2. Qui leâ— gâ—m defendebant eos etiam ad angelos â—olendos inducebant dicentes fuisse legem per eos datam MaÌ„sit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia Pisidia Quocircae Synodus quoque quae conuenit Laodiceae quae est Phrygiae metropolis lege prohibuit ne precaerentur Angelos Et in hodiernuÌ„ vsque diem licet videre apud illos eorum finitimos oratoria sancti Michaelis Illi ergò hos consulebant humilitate vtentes diceÌ„tes vniuersorum deum nec cerni nec comprehendâ— nec perueniri ad eum posse oportere per Angelos diuinam sibi heneuolentiam conciliare Hoc antem dixit Apostolus In humilitate cultu Angelorum They who defended the law did induce them the Colossians to worship Angels saying that the Law was giuen by them And this corruption continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia Wherefore the Councell of Laodicea the chiefe City of Phrygia did by decree forbid to pray to Angels And euen to this day we may see amongst them and others neere to them Chapels of S. Michael And this they perswaded pretending humility saying that the Lord of all might not be seene nor comprehended nor come vnto and that by the Angels we must procure or obtaine the good will or fauour of God And this saith he the Apostle meant by humility and worship of Angels And what doth M. Bishop now say to this The Councell forsooth meant it Å¿ Reproofe pag. 238. of leauing our Sauiour Iesus Christ to commit idolatry to the Angels preferring the Angels before him But Theoderet knew well the meaning of the Councell Theodoret knew the occasion of that decree namely a superstition brought in by the false Apostles to worship Angels and to pray to them