are old enough the Church is not tyed nor any man that I know to make good their priuate imaginations Nor can or ought the seuerall fancies of men to be imputed vnto the authorized and approued Doctrine of the Church A fault more then ordinary with you Papists to charge the Church of England with euery priuate opinion that any man holdeth in our Church though he be singular and alone For my selfe I professe ingenuously I am not of opinion that the Bishop of Rome personally is that Antichrist that Vrban the VIII or Gregory the XV or Paul the V. were Antichrist though Pauls name Borghesie before he was Pope written in Greek St Iohns Language doth make 666. the number of the Beast Nor yet that the Bishops of Rome Successiuely are that Antichrist so spoken of An Antichrist I hold him or them carrying themselues as they doe in the Church either as the word hath hitherto beene taken for one that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Christ or according to the new tricke and deuice of some for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead or place of Christ Rather in this point I should encline vnto that opinion of many Protestant Diuines that for the State Antichristian the Turke and Pope together may seeme to make it and for the Person some one notorious varlet aboue the rest Thus Zanchius and others so Melanthon Draconites vpon Daniel Oecolampadius vpon the same Hiperius vpon the second Epistle to the Thessalonians Zanchius in Miscellan Lambert in Apocal. Zegedynus in Locis Grynaeus in praefat Eiusdem Libri and a Disputation at Geneua 1589. vnder Faius I say rather this way then the other though for full resolution I cannot resolue for either but professe my ignorance in such mysteries and therefore as is fitting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and craue pardon But had I no greater cause to refraine from concluding then your wise worshipfull reasons Sir Gagger I should conclude as peremptorily as any Papa est ipsissimus Antichristus Your Texts are not expresse they are not euictiue nor conuincing 2 Thes 2. 3. He is called That man of sinne the sonne of perdition Your inference is hereupon thus The words Man of sinne and sonne of Perdition being singular doe plainly proue that a succession of men as the Popes are cannot be this man of sinne For so Saint Peter also should be Antichrist for he was Pope and the very first of all the Popes So your good Gossips long since reasoned in this point but idely all and you more Though the words be singular and personall Man of sinne and Sonne of Perdition yet followeth not that the subiect is one Person they may denote a body For any Corporation though collected out of Pluralities is a totum and so but one and so singular in it selfe The Prophecies of Iacob for Iudah and his other Sonnes runneth precisely in singular and personall termes yet your selfe I thinke are not so sencelesse as to fasten them all vnto the Persons of the Patriarchs The Man of sin is personall in termes I grant but the designation may be a collectiue vnity a Corporation a Succession A sinfull man a wicked generation an impious body and an Antichristian State You haue read in the Psalmes That the man of the Earth be no more exalted against them And againe For man goeth about to deuoure me Some priuate man the Prophet meant by your reason no Company combination or society of men For The words Man and Man of the Earth being singular doe plainely proue that he could not intend any priuate man this is your reason for the Pope As for Saint Peters being then a limbe of Antichrist because he was Pope and the first of Popes I answere that he was none of Antichrists members because he was first For the Spring is good and wholsome where the streame is muddy bitter or vnwholsome the foundation good where the building is ruinous the first most regular where Succession is not Those that hold the Pope Antichrist neuer imagined all Popes to be so but the defection of Popes since the falling away either from the Faith or from the Roman Empire or rather indeede from both So that Saint Peter though Bishop of Rome and a Pope and many other succeeding him in that See cannot be included within the pale of Antichrist although it be pleaded that the Pope is Antichrist and resolued so Reuel 13. 18. The holy Spirit giueth both you and others good aduise Qui operta sacri supparo silentij irrumpere audent Let him that hath vnderstanding count the number of the Beast for it is the number of a man I cannot tell certainely what is meant by that number of a man You can it should seeme but this I can tell as I haue told you already that a man doth not euer and necessarily imply a particular and singular man For the name of Christ is as particular rather more singular than the name of man and yet your owne directors acknowledge it is attributed vnto any and all that haue any similitude or resemblance vnto him as Prophets Kings Priests And your last Text to be seene is 1 Iohn 2. 22. where hee is a lyer that denieth Iesus that denieth the Father and the Sonne is Antichrist and yet I hope no singular man necessarily Therefore the great Antichrist may not be a particular man XI That none but God can forgiue or retaine Sinnes SInnes are forgiuen two wayes by power originall and authority by deriued power and delegation God alone and none but God doth or can forgiue sinnes the first way against whom onely sinnes are committed Psalm 51. Against thee onely haue I sinned and therefore Esay 43. 25. I am hee that blotteth out iniquities for my selfe In this sence the Pharises did not erre Luke 5. Who can forgiue sinnes but God alone In this sence it is true and truely maintayned None but GOD can forgiue or retaine sinnes Verum dicunt Scribae The Scribes say true faith venerable Bede No man can forgiue sinnes but God alone And hee doth forgiue them by the ministery of those men to whom hee hath giuen power to forgiue them by actiue delegation Hee hath giuen power vnto men to doe that wee professe and maintaine The Priest hath power and authoritie from God to forgiue sinnes in as ample manner as hee can receiue it So your Fathers and Scriptures may well be spared and haue beene kept by you in store against a dearer time Your owne director Controu 9. hath these words to our aduantage and acquittall and your confusion Hereunto is also pertinent the doctrine of those Protestants who hold That Priests haue power not onely to pronounce but to giue remission of sinnes That hold most of the forenamed authors and others very many Yes it seemeth to be the doctrine of the Communion Booke in the visitation of the sicke where the Priest saith And by his authoritie committed vnto mee I absolu◠thee
from all thy sinnes If this be acknowledged the Doctrine of our Communion Booke and practice of our Church accordingly as it is iniurious are those opposites vnto truth and lyers against their owne knowledge that impute it to vs which wee are confessed to deny That none but God can forgiue sinnes This must proceede out of faction or that which is worse But this fellow proceedeth vpon a further extreamity to strengthen a truth in it selfe with a lye made by himselfe that our Doctrine is contrary to our Bibles Matth. 9. 3. 8. To proue against vs that which we deny not viz. this power delegated vnto Priesthood thus you alledge But when the multitude saw it they maruailed and glorified God who had giuen such power vnto men as to forgiue sins Which words As to forgiue sinnes are not in our Bibles out of which you vndertake to proue your Assertion Nor in your owne Bibles follow which you will You haue added them out of your store to serue your owne turne contrary to Scripture and further contrary to sense Because that thing which amazed them then for which they glorified God was a thing sensible visible apprehended of all When they saw it Now see sinnes forgiuen they could not heare it pronounced belieue it they might Secondly the power there giuen is not ordinary as that of absolution is but extraordinary and miraculous to heale the sicke Peter and his Successour had that but very few or none had this You know it was answered a Pope once when he shewed a masse of Gold and Siluer to one and added The Church could not say now Siluer and Gold haue I none No quoth the other Nor can it say Arise and walke This is that power there mentioned could you see it not that of Absolution ordinary That of Ioh. 20. 21. Matth. 16. 19. Giue that power vnto the Apostles to forgiue sinnes But may it not be excepted it was a personall priuiledge I answere not so for I belieue it not The collation was originall to them as to those from whom it was to be conueyed vnto others But some are happely of that opinion and it may seeme probable vnto others you should haue cleared the Texts of that obiection and then your performance had beene to purpose Matth. 16. 19. May be vnderstood you meane of sinnes forgiuen but yet only secondarily for thesi secunda Because we reade in the Euangelist whatsoeuer and not whomsoeuer this place is to be vnderstood of any knot whatsoeuer indeede rather of the power of the sword than of the keyes And it seemeth that if this place be not personall to Peter and his successors as by this allegation for forgiuing it neither is nor can be then our most holy Father hath lost a maine pillar of his Papacy peculiar to Saint Peter and his successours So these Madianites sheath their swords one in anothers sides and crosse themselues in their owne positions In Matth. 18. 18. The Text is so expresse to the purpose that Origen Chrysostome Theophilact and Anastasius vnderstand it of all Christians whomsoeuer that sundry Roman Catholiques if Maldonate deceiue vs not vnderstand it of no more than ciuill policy Goe take it Whatsoeuer you binde on earth shall be bound in Heauen and whatsoeuer you loose in Earth it shall be loosed in Heauen as your selues will for the power and execution of the keyes Wee deny not in any sort that power is giuen vnto mortall men to forgiue sinnes on earth nor to binde by excommunication which is frequently practised and peraduenture too frequently amongst vs. Vnto that 1 Cor. 5. 5. Artic. 33. thus wee subscribe That person who by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the vnity of the Church and excommunicated ought to be auoyded and to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithfull as an Heathen and a Publican vntill hee be openly reconciled by penance and receiued into the Church by a Iudge that hath authoritie thereunto And in this sort Saint Paul deliuered Hymenaeus and Alexander 1 Timoth. 1. 20. and forgaue the incestuous Corinthian 2 Cor. 2. 10. Which places by your direction wee haue seene and finde the Article agreeing with them As for 2 Cor. 5. 19. It is not to purpose of forgiuing sinnes by delegated authority vnto a Priest but of Reconciling by the whole office and function of the ministry God was in Christ saith the Apostle and reconciled the world vnto himselfe not imputing their sinnes vnto them and hath committed to vs the word of reconciliation So wee haue seene eyther nothing at all to purpose or else that of which wee made no question nor yet doe any at all As little in Fathers that affirme the same Irenaeus Lib. 5. cap. 14. saith the raising of Lazarus from death to life was a Symbole or figure of our Resurrection from Sinne to God Hee saith no more that I can see or finde Ambrose Lib. 1. it should be de paenitent cap. 7. Nor August Tract 49. in Iohn Nor Gregor hom 26. in Euangel if wee may belieue Bellarmine Lib. 3. de paenitent cap. 3. from whom you transcribed these testimonies without considering of these Fathers in their owne workes but so carelessely that if you were a Schoole-Boy lures in corpore for you referre vs to Gregor hom 26. in Euangel Whereas Bellarmine hath it 6. and to Ambrose Lib. de paenitentia as if Saint Ambrose had written but one Booke of that Argument not diuided into Chapters whereas Bellarmine directed you aright to the seauenth Chapter of his 1. Booke Was this securitie stupiditie or insolency in you or what was it XII That wee must not confesse our Sinnes but onely vnto God THat wee must not implyeth a flat negatiue or iniunction rather vnto the contrary Shew mee any such inhibition and I will say which I belieue you neuer will deserue at any Protestants hands you are a true dealing and an honest man Otherwise you are that you are and so will be still The most that hath beene saide is that priuate confession is free not tyed and therefore suus positiui not diuini Therefore happely of conueniency not of absolute necessity That in a priuate Confession vnto a Priest a peculiar enumeration of all Sinnes both of commission and omission with all circumstances and accidents is neuer necessary necessarily most an end not expedient nor yet all things considered required It is confessed that all Priests and none but Priests haue power to forgiue sinnes It is confessed that priuate Confession vnto a Priestâ— is of very ancient practice in the Church of excellent vse and practise being discreetly handled Wee refuse it to none if men require it if neede be to haue it We vrge it and perswade it in extreames Wee require it in case of perplexitie for the quieting of men disturbed and their consciences It hath beene so acknowledged by your fellowes that in the visitation of the sicke it is
grounds First Ezech. 18. 24. 26. If the righteous turne away from his righteousnesse and commit iniquitie and doe according vnto all the abominations that the wicked man doth shall hee liue all his righteousnesse that hee hath done shall not be remembred but in his transgression that hee hath committed and in his sinne that hee hath sinned in them shall hee die And againe repeated with like asseueration and reduplication vers 26. againe Ezech. 33. 12. The righteousnesse of the righteous shall not deliuer him in the day of his transgression And againe The wickednesse of the wicked shall not cause him to fall in the day that hee returneth from his wickednesse neither shall the righteous liue for his righteousnesse in the day that hee sinneth And verse 13. If hee commit iniquitie all his righteousnesse shall be no more remembred but for his iniquitie that hee hath committed hee shall die for the same Which againe is repeated verse 18. Therefore the righteous may lose his righteousnesse abandon his faith dye in his sinnes and receiue the reward of his Transgressions in his auersion from God hell fire Againe Matth. 12. 44. The vncleane spirit eiected returneth vnto his former residence entreth possedeth his former state and the case of that man is worse than the beginning Sathan is not eiected but where the partie is in the state of Grace with God being regenerate by faith Reposseding is not but by relapse into sinne nor a worse state but where a man dyeth in sinne Luke 8. 13. They on the rocke are they who when they heare receiue the word with ioy who for a while belieue and in time of temptation fall away Iohn 15. 2. Euery branch that beareth not fruit in mee hee taketh away Matthew 24. 12. Because iniquitie shall be increased the charitie of many shall grow cold Surely it was hot that groweth cold and charitie inlarged is not but the fruit of a liuing faith which if it continued in statu quo the charitie of many could not waxe cold Therefore once had may be lost say they Againe Rom. 11. 20. 21. Thou standest by Faith be not high-minded but feare and feare is not but where change may be Here change may be or why doth it follow Take heede least hee also spare not thee The reason is Any man may haue that which another had Now 1 Timoth. 6. 20. Some haue erred concerning faith And 1 Timoth. 1. 18. 19. holding faith and a good conscience which some hauing put away concerning faith haue made shipwracke Nor was it onely for those times but fore-told of succeeding ages 1 Timoth 4. In the latter dayes some shall depart from the faith Gal. 5. 4. Saint Paul spake not vpon supposition of impossibility Yee are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the Law yee are fallen from Grace For many were so that hauing belieued and being baptized did euacuate Christ by their owne righteousnesse in the Law Of whom Saint Paul complayneth in all that Epistle to the Galathians and elsewhere Nor in point of onely Heresie was Faith by them lost but also of good liuing and conuersation 2 Pet. 2. 20. Where those that had escaped the filthinesse of the World therefore washed and made cleane through the knowledge of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ Therefore iustified truely by Faith are yet intangled againe therein and ouercome Therefore lapsed from Faith as is expressed vers 21. and 22. ensuing Infinite are the testimonies of Scriptures to this purpose insisted vpon by the auouchers I adde but one of them Heb. 6. 4. It is impossible that they which were once enlightned and haue tasted of the heauenly gift and were made partakers of the holy Ghost and haue tasted of the good word of God and of the power of the world to come if these were not iustified they know not who were if these had not faith where was it to be found if they fall away should be renued againe by repentance seeing they crucifie againe the Sonne of God vnto themselues and make a mocke of him Thus Scripture speaketh plaine Their Reasons from Scripture are euident Man is not likely in state of Grace to be of an higher alloy then Angels were in state of Glory than Adam was in state of Innocency For Grace is but a conformitie thereto and no conformitie exceedeth the Architype At most it is but an equalitie thereto and equals are of the same proportion Now if Adam in Paradise and Lucifer in Heauen did fall and loose their originall state the one totally the other eternally what greater assurance hath any man in state of Proficiency not of Consummation Againe Faith must needes be lost where it cannot consist It cannot consist where God will not abide God will not abide where hee is disobeyed hee is disobeyed where mortall sinne is committed the most righteous man liuing vpon the face of the earth continually doth or may in this sort transgresse Who can tell how oft hee offendeth Cleanse thy seruant from presumptuous sinnes Thou wilt haue no fellowship at all with the deceitfull Nor shall any euill dwell with thee Saul was at first the Childe of God called according to the election of Grace not onely temporall for the Kingdome of Israel but also eternall for the heauenly Kingdome In opinion of Antiquitie thus hee was and yet afterward hee fell it is confessed totally all say Eternally these say that maintaine iustifying Faith cannot be lost But if Saul were not of Gods Children in grace inducd with Faith and the holy Spirit yet Salomon was there is no question with them because hee was a Writer of holy writ and wrote as hee was enspired by God If they did not graunt it the Scripture would euict it For 2 Samuel 7. God speaketh of him literally though of Christ Iesus intentionally I will be his father and he shall be my sonne And in the 12. Chapter of the same Booke Hee called his name Salomon and the Lord loued him and sent by the hand of Nathan the Prophet and called his name beloued of the Lord because the Lord loued him indeede Yet Salâ—mon fell as Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostome are cleare for it at least temporally and totally too when hee went and serued other gods If Salomon were neuer the Childe of God yet Dauid was without contradiction and Saint Peter without nay Yet Dauid fell foule in that act of murther and adultery and lost his Faith and present state of Grace if Dauid had perished in that his Sinne what had become of his Soule for euer It was not possible hee should in regard of the purpose of Grace but had it beene so where had he bin Surely hee that desired a new heart to be created had not that heart which he had before his fall For Creation is production from not being vnto being Saint Peter was a chosen vessell of Christ Iesus and if euer was any the Childe of God Yet hee denyed
meaning our dreaming We beleeue confesse of Holy Angels They can will haue doe help vs ordinarily extraordinarily toties quoties they are employed as the mighty Executioners of the Almighties will for his seruants against his foes And yet see the pouerty of this fellowes vndertakings He is to prooue that Angels can help vs. His first proofe is Daniel 10. 13. Michael one of the chiefe Princes came to help mee I question not the meaning of that Text. I yeeld it But I maruaile this fellowe can set it downe Angels help vs and come in with this proofe which should bee expresse and therefore name Angels where Princes not Angels are remembred and so remembred as sensu primo they may bee taken for some temporall Potentate some of the Satrapaes of the King of Persia But the Prince of the Kingdome of Persia withstood mee twenty daies but lo Michael one of the chief Princes came to help mee and I remained there by the Kings of Persia are these words expresse for Angels helping They are I grant for their help but farre from expresse which are so mysticall That of Acts 12. in Saint Peter's case is indeed expresse and nothing can be more plaine for proofe then that place which representeth a performance of that delegation Hee hath giuen his Angels charge concerning thee a thing neuer questioned denied doubted dreamed of by any Protestant that I know To proue himselfe an honest man it were good this accuser would name the man But somewhat there is in it though he cannot tell what We deny to addresse our selues in time of need vnto Angels for mediation or intercession and we doe deny it because we hold it needlesse vnnecessary as no part of our duty as vnbehoouefull to no purpose because we are perswaded that ordinarily in euery exigent at all times no Angel not attendant without remoue can take notice of vs vnderstand our state instantly pitty vs in misery and so relieue vs. This is not for any inualidity of power nor for auersnes of will If they know it they are willing if willing they are sufficient The want proceedeth not from them it is from disability in ourselues to acquaint them ordinarily with our states which needs wee must doe if wee will looke that they should help vs. This is that which this fellow should pitch vpon but then he were gon and not able to say bough to a Goose now hee hath somwhat to say at least and make a shew amongst the Gaggle though it be with a loud lye that They cannot help vs as we say And yet we haue a shew of Fathers and are sent to see first Iustin Martyr Apol. 2. and no more C. W. B. This mans founder hath these words The host of the good Angels we worship and adore Which if it were so is not concerning any thing that hath beene said touching Angels by this Gaggler hitherto But C. W. B. had it from Bellarmine and he followed I know not what translation The Text of Iustin Martyr page 137 of Robert Steuens edit in Greeke is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We confesse saith that Father that we are Atheists in regard of any worship that wee giue vnto those esteemed Gods but not so in respect of the true God him and his Sonne that came from him and hath taught both vs these things and also the Host of good Angels that are different from the other bad that followed him and were likened vnto him as also the Spirit of propheticall predictions we worship and adore honouring them in verity and in truth This is the Text of Iustin meant by this man word for word related in his owne language as he did write and expressed thereout punctually And now Sir what aduantage from Iustin Martyr What haue your Proselytes seen in him Your Translator Perionius mistook his Author and Bellarmine was glad to make aduantage of it and your Instructer took it as he found it As for your selfe I think you are innocent of all Otherwise then so it cannot bee taken For though wee should yeeld it Angels are to bee worshipped yet not with diuine worship your selues confesse with such as is due vnto God alone But if any worship bee giuen them heer it is point par point that which is due to God See what it is to blunder so This was for worshipping of Angels S. Ambrose succedeth in his Book de Viduis for praying vnto Angels So the man flits to and fro Angels are to be beseeched who are deputed our Guardians therfore not all Angels but onely Guardians And is this to purpose Angels pray for vs or We may pray to them indefinitely But I let the rest alone I haue answered else-where these and other places and whatsoeuer other beside these haue hitherto come to my knowledge from our opposites in the point of inuocation XXVII That no Saint deceased hath afterward appeared to any vpon earth I Doo not belieue you that you can name any Protestant that wil defend this That no Saint deceased hath appeared after death Your word is no Gospell It is a Catholique Trick now-a-daies to cog and lie to cast any aspersion vpon Protestants If you haue met with some such it had been well you had named vs the men Your luck and experience hath been better than mine I neuer yet met with any such Deniers Perhaps in your ranging vp and downe you haue met with some ignorant simple people that hearing your talk of Apparitions thought you coniured and not knowing the meaning of the word would not beleeue you vpon any hand and as your custom is you publish it for the doctrine of the Protestants that No man euer appeared no not extraordinarily after death But to purpose We may conceiue your meaning two waies eyther as in common course of kinde or else vpon extraordinary course Apparitions haue been and may be but as works of wonder dispensations of the right hand of the most High Apparitions are not ordinary nor of common dispensation And infinite impostures iuggling tricks and collusions haue beene obtruded at all times vpon the world especially within the last 500 yeeres by coozening cheating knaues vnder vaile and couert of Apparitions principally to delude poore superstitious people with that opinion of Purgatory to make merchandize of the pardons But why not as probable that some Saints haue appeared from Heauen as some Popes haue come from Hell Both at Gods good pleasure extraordinarily who doth all things as hee will in Heauen and Earth What if The soules of the Righteous be in the hands of God are his hands so shortned that no where but in Heauen they can bee in his hands God may send them no doubt extraordinarily No cessation of pain is to the one no impairing of happinesse vnto the other they carry their heauen and hell about with them wheresoeuer they be So that in no diuersity of opinion we might well passe-by your Texts to
no purpose And indeed to no purpose for Mat. 17. 3. we read There appeared vnto them Moses and Elias talking with them which apply to your Thesis No Saint deceased hath appeared vnto any and aduise how handsomely it agreeth thereto For doo you not knowe or haue you heard of it that Moses by some Authors is reputed not dead as by Hillary Can. 20. vpon Mathew by Saint Ambrose in his second Book of Cain Abel but translated by God into Paradise as Helias was afterward asserted of late by no Babies of your owne Ioh. Arboreus lib. 11. Theosophias and Ambrose Catharine vpon Gen. 3 If that bee so you may go seek a new Text to prooue apparitions of dead men by It will be answered These were not dead For if Moses be liuing Elias is sure you hold him yet aliue and why not both aliue seeing both must come and oppose against Antichrist and bee slaine by him before Dooms-day Mend your conclusion and make it thus Therefore Saints haue appeared to some on earth and I will warrant no man will quarrell your assertion But your second Text of Mat. 27. 52. cometh home to your minde They were Saints indeed deceased but restored to life and peraduenture vnto eternall life in bodies as well as soules They appeared vnto many the Text is plain and I beleeue you neuer met with any such that when you shewed this Text would deny their appearing which is expresse And yet it is not well applied by you for your apparitions as I conceiue it inform me if I doo mis-take you are not in bodyes restored to life or raised vp out of the dust but in bodies assumed or some other way These men appeared in their owne bodies which were laid into and rose vp out of the graues and so not very fitting your purpose As for Onias the high Priest who beeing dead appeared vnto Iudas Macchabeus let him iustifie it that hath written it If he report the story as it was very good it may be done I see nothing to the contrary if not true no great hurt at all your puling-whining soules in Purgatory get nothing by the bargaine That some Saints deceased haue appeared For these were in Heauen of which there is constat for their appearing at least prooue you they were in Purgatory to which your apparitions tend But the truth is there are many Schoens Parasangs betwixt those wōdrous works of God and those iuggling tricks in the Romane Church deuised onely to make the Priests pot to seethe and fill the Popes purse by collusion XXVIII That the Saints deceased know not what passeth in the Earth SPeake out and speak plaine What mean you by what passeth All things that are done on earth in al places at al times by all persons ordinarily of themselues or som saints som things in som places at some times by some persons extraordinarily by reuelation or some such like meanes No Protestant will deny the one no Papist hath hitherto dared affirme the other Dare you abide by it if you doe take vp the bucklers and see what will follow Your generall position will beare eyther interpretation Wee affirme that all Saints departed knowe something on Earth as namely The beeing of a Church That some Saints departed knowe something heere done extraordinarily by reuelation intimation or otherwise As your position is captiously put downe so is your first proofe from the Text of Luke 16. 29. Sophistically affixed There Abraham knew that there were Moses and the Prophets bookes in earth which hee himselfe had neuer seene Indeed Abraham was dead long before Moses wrote And after Moses wrote till the time that Abraham answered thus if it were an History and not a Parable were many mo hundred yeeres In all which time no Protestant will deny but Abraham might know when he was in Paradise that God had left such bookes vnto Israel Now this is not ad idem nor prooueth the question For your position is what passeth not what hath passed your proofe is for what hath passed and not for what passeth A maine difference betwixt these two I cannot tell what you intend to write next but I can tell you haue plaid the Goose in your Gag and hereafter when your worthy work putteth forth head to view I shall bee able to say what Animal it is Abrahā knew som 2000 yeers after his death Put the case so that Moses the Prophets were in the hands of the Iewes and directors of them in their course vnto God therefore Abraham knew what Rabbi Gamaliel taught Saint Paul such a day in his Auditory Is this a good consequence now in your Logick A coozener a cobler might reason so Yet this is your reason cap apee I answer directly First Abraham's case is not euery mans Secondly Abraham's knowledge might bee extraordinary our Quaere is of ordinary knowledge Thirdly Abraham might know in long tract of time which he could not so at an instant and wee make question of present knowledge for that is required vnto your purpose onely That which S. Augustine witnesseth we deny not that which we deny hee witnesseth not Hee witnesseth there that Abraham knew of Moses He telleth not how he came to know of Moses nor what Abraham or Moses can know touching vs. In the next as much ridiculous Iohn 5. 45 our Sauiour there telleth the Iewes thus Do not think that I will accuse you to my Father There is one that accuseth you euen Moses in whom you trust Vpon citing this Text it may seem the man was som what conscious that it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it should bee expresse that the Thesis was of knowing what is done vpon earth the proofe of accusing vnto God in heauen Therefore to help it we haue an argument a consequence inferred vpon that Antecedent thus How could Moses dead 2000 yeeres before accuse those that were liuing if the Saints deceased knowe not what passeth in the earth If so then take heed that Moses accuse not you for a fool as very an one as euer went without the priuiledge of a bable who so childishly imagine that God set in iudgement the Iewes were arraigned euery mothers sonne And Moses did as the diuell with Iob came and accused them euery one in particular of euery crime committed for so it must be Doubtlesse Moses had worke enough to doe especially in those last worst tumultuous times You should haue let vs knowne who was of their Councell who their Aduocate against Moses and whether it came to a demurrer or not But good man Wiseacres learne of your Masters to take things aright By Moses is not vnderstood his person then in Paradise dead or aliue but Moses writings the Law of Moses that in which the Iewes did so much trust So it is not personall it is instrumentall his writings accuse you and will condemne you So Caietan Maldonate and who not or if personall Moses himselfe
should I that cannot tell how who can doo it my body is nourished by the ordinary meat and drink I take yet is that familiar and in vse euery day When Christ gaue it he said This is my body Saint Paul repeating the Institution saith This is my body It was neuer denied to bee his body it is affitmed still to be his body Mad Papist that imputest to poor Protestants an Idoll a Chimaera of thy owne brain that The bread is but a figure and no more of Christs body Protestants say it not they neuer said it As commonly it happeneth that all Reformations or Innouations are vpon and into extremes so some happely haue that departed long since from the Church of Rome But what is that to our Church that publiquely priuately all and som directly maintains the clean contrary Your great Aduiser C. W. B. hath said enough could he see what himself hath said or you vnderstand what hee alledgeth to stop the mouth of such Gabblers as you and he for euer in the coÌ„trary assertions of the Protestants But the diuell bred you in a Faction and brought you vp in a Faction and sent you abroad to do him seruice in maintaining a Faction otherwise acknowledge there is there need bee no difference in the point of reall presence See your Fathers if I doo I shall doo more than you haue done for I auow it you neuer read Ignatius for this Read that Epistle ouer vnto the Smyrneans and see if you finde any such thing there if you doo then trust not mee again if you doo not what descrueth that impudent imposture S. Ignat. in his Epist ad Smyr But I can shew you better euidence for Bread and Wine out of Ignatius pag. 125. edit Paus Maestrei The flesh of our Lord Iesus Christ is one His Bloud one which was shed for vs also one Bread was broken for all one Cup distributed vnto all Bread and Wine after consecration Both distributed to all against your halfe Communion And againe pag. 261. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Breaking one Bread which is the medicine procuring Immortality Thus I finde nothing in Ignatius for you this I haue and happly more could against you were I desirous with you to maintaine a faction Iustin Martyrs testimony I acknowledge in the end of his Apologie and willingly make his words our owne For wee doe not receiue these things as common Bread or common Drink but euen as our Lord Sauiour Iesus Christ by the Word of God becomming flesh had flesh bloud for our sakes so are we taught that the food which was blessed by him in the Word and Prayer through which food beeing altered and changed our flesh and bloud is sustained becommeth the flesh and bloud of him that Iesus who took our flesh in his Incarnation Thus that antient Father not fully represented by your director who saith not any thing that Protestants deny For they confesse They eat the flesh of the Sonne of God and drink his bloud they are one with him and hee with them but commeth not home to the Papists Resolution that wee eate it and drink it by Transubstantiation but the contrary for but foure lines before hee calleth it Bread and Wine after Consecration Those saith hee whom wee call Deacons doe giue to euery one that is there present part of the Bread Wine and Water consecrated Saint Cyprian Serm. 5. de lapsis Now good Sir Gagger can you tell how many Sermons de lapsis Saint Cyprian wrote ignorant Asse and yet bold Bayard Saint Cyprian wrote no Sermons de lapsis hee wrote a booke de lapsis diuided into sections by some or other But Reader see the audacious Dunsery of this Ignaro C. W. B. had in his Catalogue of the Fathers of the third Age for transubstantiation cited Cyprian thus Ser. 5 de lapsis for Sect. 5. de lapsis vnlesse he also took his Authors by tale vpon trust and Ser. de coena Domini This blunderer stumbled vpon the first false or true to purpose or not all was one to him and set it downe the second quotation hee left out yet that is it which hee should haue taken for in the first Sect. 5. de lapsis there is nothing in the second Ser. decoena Domini as he will haue it though it bee no Sermon Sect. 6. there is thus The Bread which our Lord reached vnto his Disciples beeing changed not in appearance but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made flesh Saint Cyprian said as much as this once or twice before No man denyeth a change an alteration a transmutation a transelementation as they speake no man otherwise beleeueth but that the naturall condition of the Bread consecrated is otherwise then it was beeing disposed and vsed to that holy vse of imparting Christ vnto the Communicants Stay heere be contented with That it is and doe not seeke nor define How it is so and we shall not contest or contend with you Hoc Sacramentum aliquando corpus suum aliquando carnem sanguinem aliquando panem Christus appellat portionem vitae aeternae cuius secundum haec visibiâ—ia corporali communicauit Naturâ— Panis iste communis in carnem et sanguinem mutatus procurat vitam et incrementum corporibus ideoque ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas sensibili argumento edocta est visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae aeternae effectum et non tam corporali quà m spirituali transitione Christo nos vniri Thus the same Saint Cyprian so we we confesse it we beleeue it we cannot comprehend it Saint Ambrose saith no more then wee will subscribe Lib. 4. de sacramentis Before consecration it was Bread common ordinary meere Bread but after consecration it becommeth the flesh of Christ because then the Sacrament is consummate But doth Saint Ambrose tell you how it is so made That I finde not that I expect that I must finde or I finde nothing to your purpose One Father yet you adde Saint Remigius saith but you cannot tell where your Director told you it was in his comments vpon the 10. Chap. 1. ad Corinth The flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins wombe and the Bread consecrated in the Church are the same body And yet beeing consecrated he calleth it Bread How can your Saint Remigius make that good Hee should haue said for doubtlesse hee meant so The Bread which was beeing consecrated in the Church is transubstantiated into that flesh which the Word of God took in the Virgins womb and becom the same body This Remigius saith not a great signe hee meant not And indeed hee did not meane it hee goeth no further then Reality he determineth not modum praesentiae at all And yet this Remigius is not peraduenture the man you would haue him namely Saint Remigius Archbishop of Rhemes who conuerted King Clouis of France to the Christian Faith who liued within 500