we admit them all to be true doth conuince vs to haue disgraded Christ of his offices which are these to appease Gods wrath towards vs to pay the ransome for our sinnes to conquer the Diuell to open the Kingdome of heauen to bee supreme head of both men and Angels and such like He may without any derogation vnto these his soueraigne prerogatiues giue vnto his seruants first power to make lawes to binde in conscience as he hath done to all Princes which the Protestants themselues dare not denie then to determine vnfallibly of the true sense of holy Scripture which the Apostles could doe as all men confesse and yet do not make them Christs fellowes but his humble seruants to whom also hee gaue power properly to pardon sinnes Luc. 24. Ioan. 20. Mar. 16. Matt. 28. Whose sinnes you pardon on earth shall be pardoned in heauen and finally to them he also gaue authoritie ouer the whole earth goe into the vniuersall world Ouer part of hell no Pope hath authoritie and when he doeth good to any soule in Purgatory it is per modum suffragij as a suppliant and entreater not as a commander Whether hee hath any authoritie ouer Princes and their subiects in temporall affaires it is questioned by some yet no man not wilfully blinde can doubt but that Christ might haue giuen him that authority without disgrading himselfe of it as he hath imparted to him and to others also faculties of greater authoritie and vertue reseruing neuerthelesse the same vnto himselfe in a much more excellent maner As a King by substituting a Viceroy or some such like deputie to whom he giues most large commission doth not thereby disgrade himselfe of his Kingly authority as all the world knowes no more did our Sauiour Christ Iesus bereaue himselfe of his power or dignitie when hee bestowed some part thereof vpon his substitutes He goes on multiplying a number of idle words to small purpose as that we for one Christ the onely reall Priest of the new Testament ioyne many secondary Priests vnto him which offer Christ daily in the Masse Wee indeed hold the Apostles to haue beene made by Christ not imputatiue or phantasticall but reall and true Priests And by Christ his owne order and commandement to haue offered his body and bloud daily in the sacrifice of the Masse what of that see that question Furthermore he saith for one Iesus the all-sufficient mediatour of intercession they haue added many fellowes to him to make request for vs namely as many Saints as be in the Popes Kalendar yea and many more too For we hold that any of the faithfull yet liuing may bee also requested to pray for vs neither shall hee in haste bee able to prooue that Christ onely maketh intercession for vs though he be the onely mediatour that hath redeemed vs. R. ABBOT Christ by his office is our Prophet our Priest and our King Christ degraded by the Pope As a Prophet he hath declared fully and finally the whole counsell and way of God for the attainment of eternall life As a Priest he hath offered a sacrifice for our redemption and by vertue of that sacrifice is our Mediatour to intreat mercy for vs. As a King he prescribeth lawes whereby to gouerne vs and hauing a Matt. 28.18 All power giuen to him both in heauen and earth exerciseth the same to safegard and defend vs. In all these offices of which M. Bishop speaketh as if he vnderstood not what they meane the Church of Rome offereth most high indignity to the Son of God To take the points spoken of in order as they are first they are iniurious to the kingdome of Christ in that they giue the Pope authority to make lawes to bind in conscience which Christ only hath authority to doe b See hereof part 2. pag. 17.18 To bind in conscience is to tie the conscience and inward man to an opinion of holinesse and spirituall deuotion in the thing which is done so as to account the same a worship of religion whereby God is truly serued and honoured yea and further according to Romish fancies the means of remission of sinnes and the merit of eternall life This whosoeuer doth sheweth himselfe a deceiuer and an Antichrist and the Pope in so doing is found to be he of whom the Apostle prophecied c 2. Thess 2.4 that he should sit as God in the temple of God domineering in the hearts and consciences of them of whom it is said d 2. Cor. 6.16 Ye are the temple of the liuing God If Princes attempt to make lawes in this sort they are therein vniust and presumptuous against God Otherwise to speake of Princes lawes God himselfe bindeth the conscience to yeeld the outward man in subiection to the Prince when notwithstanding the conscience it selfe remaineth free as touching the thing which the Prince commandeth I know that in outward things it is true which the Apostle saith e 1. Cor. 6.12 10.23 All things are lawfull for mee I may doe all things God hath giuen mee no restraint To eat or not to eat to weare such a garment or not to weare it to doe thus or thus it is all one with God I am no whit the better the one way nor the worse the other way Neuerthelesse if my Prince command mee either way God requireth mee to abbridge my selfe of the outward vse of that liberty which he otherwise hath giuen mee and to performe obedience to my Prince yet still retaining inwardly the same opinion and persuasion of the thing in it selfe that I had before and therefore content to tie my selfe outwardly to do thus because I know inwardly that it is indifferent to God either to doe thus or thus The second presumption of the Pope against Christ is in taking vpon him infallibly to determine the sense of holy Scripture By which pretense he most impudently carieth himselfe bringing all abhominations into the Church and corrupting all religion and seruice of God and yet affirming that he doth nothing contrary to the Scripture because whatsoeuer the words of Scripture are yet the sense must be no other but what he list But well might we be thought to be without sense if so senseles a tale should preuaile with vs a thing which in the ancient Church for so many hundreds of yeeres amidst so many questions and controuersies was neuer dreamed of What needed the fathers so much to busie themselues and out of their owne exercise and experience prescribe rules to others for finding out the true sense of Scripture when as a Pope with a wet finger could haue helped them to the certaine and infallible truth thereof Yea why haue we so many Commentatours of the Church of Rome so various and diuers in their expositions and interpretations of Scripture and why doth not the Pope rather by one commentary of his illuminated vnderstanding reconcile all differences dispatch all doubts and resolue at once
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
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
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
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
non solumâ—t causa vniuersalu sed etiaÌ„ vt particularu ex doctrina Caluini Bezae coÌ„currit ad actiones malas as a cause vniuersall we make him in respect of sinne a cause particular wheras the blinde Iesuit if he had not been blinde might easily haue seene that we make God in wicked sinfull actions only a cause vniuersall in respect of the sinne though in respect of the order and vse thereof we make him a cause particular as who doth particulate and determine the same to this or that as by the words of Hugo Victorinus hath been before said And doth not the Iesuit himselfe confesse as much in the words which I haue alleaged For if God do wrest and turne the wils of sinfull and wicked men to his vse if he hinder them from doing or thinking any thing but what he will permit them to doe or thinke if he so gouerne and rule them as that he maketh them euen against their wils to serue him then he leaueth not the particulating of sinfull actions as touching their order to men themselues but he directeth them in particular to serue the counsell of his will He then that will weigh these speeches of Bellarmine and compare them with that that hath beene before discoursed of our assertion in this point will plainly see that the very euidence of the truth made him subscribe that doctrine against which he professeth to dispute and that he did but maliciously wrest the speeches of our writers to make to himselfe matter of controuersie where by plaine dealing he could finde none This is the triumph and glory of truth that shee aduanceth her selfe and displaieth her banners euen amidest the tents of them that are in armes to fight against her M. Bishop is a true scholer of his and out of the very same malice saith further that Caluin goeth on proouing that God doth not only suffer but actually effect and worke all the euill that any man committeth where he putteth those words actually effect and worke all the euill in a distinct letter as if they were Caluins words whereas Caluin in that that followeth hath no such words The like treachery and falsehood he vseth in the recitall of the other words that God doth worke this euill in man by satans seruice as a meane yet so as God is the principall worker of it and sat an but his instrument whereas the words of Caluin truely reported are these n Cal. Inst l. 1. c. 18. s 2. fateor interposita satanae opera deum saepe agere in reprobis c. Dicitur verò ipse dare homines in reprobum sensum quia iustae suae vindictae praecipuus est author satan verò tantum minister That God by satans seruice doth often worke in the reprobate but yet as by and by it followeth that God is said to giue men ouer to a reprobate sense and to cast them into filthy lusts because he is the chiefe authour of his iust reuenge or punishment and satan only the minister or instrument thereof In which words what is it wherat M. Bishop is offended Surely Saint Austin attributeth to God o Aug. de grat l. arbit c 21. poteÌ„s est fiue per angeles vel bonos vel malos siue quocunque alio modo operari etiam in cordibus malorum pro meritis eorum a power to worke in the hearts of wicked men according to their deserts either by good or euill angels and saith that p Idem in Psal 77. Deus vtitur angelis maâ—is ad puniendos malos sicut in istis â—mnibus c. Et post Eu tribue re sine dubitatione pâ—ssumus obdurationâ—m cordu illorum God vseth euill angels to punish euill men as he did to punish the Aegyptians by hardning their hearts and therefore calleth them q Ibid per illes velut militiae caelestis carnifices the hangmen or executioners of the warfare of heauen So where in another Psalm God is said r Psal 105.25 to haue turned the hearts of the Aegyptians so that they hated his people Å¿ Ibid. Benè creditur deus fecisse per illos angelos malos c. we may wel beleeâ—e saith he that God did this by the euill angels Now then why doth M. Bishop doubt but that satan and his angels are rightly tearmed the ministers and instruments of Gods vengeance the hang-men and executioners of his wrath against wicked and vngodly men Is hee offended to heare that God is the chiefe authour of this vengeance But that wee haue heard before out of Thomas Aquinas whom I trow hee will not gainesay t Tho. Aquin. supra poena refertur in deum sicut in primumactorem that punishment is referred to God as the chiefe authour of it The truth is that if hee had reported Caluins words aright he had had nothing to say against them but leudly and vnhonestly he falsifyeth them that hee may seeme to haue some colour for this slanderous imputation where indeed he hath none Now to goe on with the rest in the same order as I haue begun from the last to the first there foloweth MelancthoÌ„ Of the same cursed crue was Melancthon saith he whereas he himselfe rather here carieth the mark of an accursed wretch in that hee so wilfully belieth and slandereth Melancthon He citeth him vpon the 8. to the Romans where no such are and vpon the 9. of the same Epistle there are words words directly contrary to that forwhich he citeth them u Melanct. ad Rom. c. 9. Etsi deus impertit vitam malis tamen deus non est causa peccati sed voluntas ipsa in malis in diabolo homine transferens agitationem ad obiectum prohibitum à deo est causa peccati Haec sententia tuta â—era est ac sacris literis consentanea Quod autem in scripturis legitur Ego indurabo c. Tradidit eos c. similia haec figura sermonis facilè potest explicari siquis obseruet naturam Hebraici sermonis Certum est enim has figuras habere quandam significationem permittendi Tradidit c. non significat positiuè deum efficaciter seu proprio quodam motu rapere animos ad explendas cupiditates sed significat desertionem Deus deserit impios sinit eos surere non cohibet eorum furorem Ego indurabo c. id est sinam indurari non flectam genuinam impij cordis duritiam Cum autem buius desertionis mentionem facit poenam significat qua punit impiâ—s Haec est vera Grammatica interpretatio nihil habet absurdi Though God saith he giue life to the wicked yet God is not the cause of sinne but the will it selfe in the euill whether the diuell or man transferring the cogitation to an obiect forbidden of God is the cause of sinne This opinion is safe and true and agreeable to the holy Scriptures And whereas saith
which by the condition of humane nature belongeth to that tender age And out of the same words of the Euangelist he obserueth as touching Christs not knowing the day and houre of the end of the world n Idem in Math. tract 30 Proficiens proficiebat quidem super omnes scientia est sapientia non tamen vt iam veniret quod perfectum est priusquam propriam dispeÌ„sationem impleret Nihil ergò mirum si hec nesciuit c. that Christ grew in wisdome and knowledge aboue all other but yet so as that that which is perfect should not come till he had fulfilled the dispensation that belonged to him and therefore that it was no maruell if he knew it not Now these things touch not only the infancy of Christ but also his riper yeeres and therefore take away that exception which M. Bishop will seeme to ground vpon that distinction And albeit the Apostle doe now set foorth Christ vnto vs as o Col. 2.4 Sundry cauillations against Caluin declared in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge which words nowithstanding belong to other purpose then M. Bishop heere produceth them yet this nothing hindreth but that something might be hidden to the manhood of Christ till the time should come that the diuine nature should fully explicate and lay open the glorious perfection of those endowments which by vnion and felowship therewith should redound vnto it But to come to his sweet obseruations which he noteth out of Caluin hee citeth for the collectour of them his fellow Gifford in his Caluinc-Turcismus a sweete youth and a master very fiâ— for such a scholer yet he thinketh himselfe to haue this aduantage heerby that if there be any knauerie or foolerie in these collections the blame thereof shall light vpon Gifford and not vpon him And first it is alleaged that Caluin in one place saith that Christ p Caluin in Math. ca. 6.18 speaketh vnproperly A high point in a low house as if it were any strange matter to note in many places of the scripture some impropriety of speech Saint Austin saith that q August de doct Christ l. 3. cap. 29. sciant literati modis omnibus locutionis quos GraÌ„matici tropos vocant authores nostros vsos esse the writers of the scriptures haue vsed al manner of tropes and figures and what are tropes and figures but the excusing and saluing of such improprieties Of that which Saint Paul saith The flesh lusteth against the spirit Cyprian speaketh as Caluin doth r Cyprian de cardinal Christi operib in prolog Quòd caro aduersus spiritum c. contendere dicitur improprie arbitror dictum I thinke it to be vnproperly spoken and will Master Bishop make Cypriano-Turcismus of this as Gifford doth a Caluino-Turcismus of the other The next matter is that Christ vseth harsh and far-fetched similitudes The words are spoken by occasion of the parable of the vnrighteous steward concerning which Caluin aduertiseth that Å¿ Caluin in Luc. 16.1 Christ thereby admonisheth to deale friendly and kindely with our neighbours that when we shall come to the tribunall seat of God the fruit of our liberality may returne to vs. Heereupon hee addeth t Quanquam autem dura longè petita videtur similitudo clausula tamen ostendit non aliud fuisse Christi consiliuÌ„ And albeit the similitude seeme to be hard and far-fetched yet the conclusion sheweth that the purpose of Christ was no other Where we may see what a speciall skill these fellowes haue in multiplication Caluin saith this similitude seemeth to be harsh and far-fetched and they turne it to he vseth harsh and far-fetched similitudes But Hierome saith of Saint Paul u Hieron Apolog pro lib. adu Iouiniam ad Pammach Videntur eius quaedam verba simplicia quasi innocentis hâ—minis rurusticani sed quocunque 〈◊〉 eris sulmâ—â—â— sunt some of his words seem to be but simple and as the words of a silly country man who neither hath skill to snare another nor to auoid the snare himselfe and yet hee did not hold them to be so indeed for he addeth yet whithersoeuer thou lookest they are very thunder Where Caluin then saith that the similitude seemeth to be hard and farre fetched will M. Bishop straight waies conclude that hee saith it is so And what doth it not so much as seeme to be hard and farre fetched that by the similitude of an vniust steward who to prouide for himselfe vsed his witte to deceiue and robbe his master Christ should teach vs liberalitie and almes-deeds S. Austin saw it to be such as that he gaue it for a speciall caueat that x Aug. q Euang. l. 2. q. 34. In villico quem dominus eijciebat c. non omnia debeâ—◠〈…〉 duÌ„ sumere c. et paulò post E coÌ„trario dicuÌ„tur stae similitudine vt intelligamus 〈…〉 ille à domino qui fraudeÌ„ faciebat quantò ampliùs placent dom deo qui secunâ—uÌ„ 〈…〉 illa faciunt We are not to take all things heere to imitate and that it is to be taken by way of contrarietie that if he were commended of his master that deceiued much more doth he please God who according to his commandement doth such things And that commending of the vniust steward Origen interpreteth y Grigen apud Th. Aquin. Caten Euang Luc. 16. Non secundum veram coÌ„mendationem seâ— abusiâ—è dictum est not to be spoken as touching any true commendation but by abuse of speech It should seeme therefore that all things are not heere so currant but that the similitude may at least seeme to bee hard and far-fetched And doth M. Bishop thinke that there are no similitudes in the Scriptures that are hard and farre fetched If there bee none then we hope that he is able very easely to giue reason of them all Which if he say he can doe we shall thinke him scant a wise man and if he say he cannot we shall thinke him as wise that will reprooue that for a lie in Caluin which he himselfe must confesse to be a trueth Againe he obiecteth to Caluin that he saith that Christ wresteth the Prophets words into a strange sense The place is noted in the margent to be vpon the seuenth of Matthew but it is vpon the eight chapter The words which he meaneth are the words of the Prophet Esay there cited z Esay 53.4 Hee tooke our infirmities and bare our sicknesses Of which Caluin there saith thus a Cal. in Math. 8.17 videtur parum appesitè citari immò in alienum sensum torquerthoc vaticinium This prophecie seemeth to be amisse or vnfitly cited yea to be wrested to a wrong meaning or to a strange sense Which words he vseth not as of his owne opinion but propoundeth them by way of obiection and addeth a reason of some doubt made as touching the application of the
of the flesh because it behoued that Christ to the end he might make satisfaction for vs should stand as guilty before Gods tribunall seat and that there is nothing more horrible then to feele God as a iudge whose anger goeth beyond all manner of deaths he addeth heereupon y Calu. in Mat. 27 46. Ergò cum species teutationis Christo obiecta esset quasi deo ailuerso iam esset exitio deuotus herrore correptus est quo centies cuncti mortales absorpti fuissent ipse autem mirifica spiritus virtute victor emersit When therefore an appearance or shew of temptation was obiected to him as if God being against him he were now deuoted to destruction he was stricken with horrour such as wherewithall mortall men would haue beene swallowed vp a hundred times but he by the woonderfull power of his spirit became the victour and conquerour of it The very repeating of Caluins words is sufficient to acquit them from the silly cauiling of this idle-headed wrangler For what doth he dislike in them Doth he dislike that Caluin should say that a semblance or appearance of such a temptation was obiected to Christ But who doubteth thereof when Christ himselfe saith My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee Is it amisse with him that he should say that Christ was stricken with horrour Why more then that z Arnob. Hier. Cassiodor in Psal 87. Arnobius Hierome Cassiodorus and others expounding the Psalme before mentioned of Christ should make him to say as the vulgar Latine hath it Terrores tui conturbauerunt me Thy terrours haue troubled mee Will he heere put a difference betwixt terrour and horrour will he tell vs that Christ might well be troubled with terrours but he could not be taken with horrour Indeed it may well become a Romish wit to babble so because many shifts they haue as rediculous as that but what will he say then to that which we reade in another Psame a Psal 55.4.5 which to be a prophecie of Christ see vers 13. compared with Psal 41.9 and is so taken by Austin Hierome Basil Theodoret c. My hart trembleth within me and the terrours of death are fallen vpon me feare and trembling are come vpon me and b So translated by Arias Montanus horrour hath couered me Heere is Christ himselfe confessing himselfe 〈◊〉 be couered with horrour and why then doth M. Bishop dislike Caluin for vsing the same phrase In the next words of Caluin he dealeth as honestly as he hath done in these c Calu. Institut l. 2. c. 16. sect 11 Christus cum lachrymis clamore valido orans a metu suo exauditur non vt à morte sit immunis sed ne absorbeatur vt peccator quia illie personam nostram gerebas Christ praying with strong crying and teares saith Caluin is heard out of his feare not so as to be free from death but not to be swallowed vp as a sinner because there he bare our person M. Bishop concealeth that that he saith of bearing our person because if he had expressed that his cauilling would haue beene discerned He himselfe in likely hood did not doubt but that without absurdity yea truely it might be said that to Christ bearing our person the horrour of that temptation might bee obiected of being swallowed vp as a sinner Which if he acknowledge for a truth why doth he blame Caluin If hee will not acknowledge it yet the former words of the Prophet vttered in the person of Christ wherin that horrour is expressed shall serue to stop his mouth d Psal 68.16 Let not the water floods drowne me neither let the deepe swallow me vp and let not the pit shut her mouth vpon me Caluin goeth on further saying e Ibid. Et certè nulla fingi potest magis formid abilis abyssus quà m sentire se à deo derelictum alienatum cùm inuocaueris non exaudiri perinde aâ—si in tuam porniciem ipse conspirasset Eò Christum videmus fuisse deiectum vt coactus fuerit vegente angustia exclamaâ—e Deus meus c. And verily there cannot be imagined a 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 as if he had conspired to his destruction And to that passe we see that Christ was throwen downe that anguish vrging him he was constrained to cry out My God my God why hast thou forsaken mee In which words if M. Bishops discretion had beene as great as his malice he would haue conceiued nothing to finde fault with But now his squint eies see nothing aright therefore he imagineth a knot in euery rush and thinketh nothing well spoken because he is offended with the speaker To the proposition we know his quarrell is not but onely to the application But if Christ to sense and feeling were not forsaken and estranged from God why doth he so cry out My God my God why hast thou forsaken me To sense and feeling I say but not to faith for by faith he still saieth My God my God If to sense and feeling it did not seeme to him as if God did not heere him when he praied why is he brought in saying in the next words of the Psalme f Psal 22.1 Why art thou so farre from my health or from sauing me and from the words of my complaint O my God I cry in the day and thou hearest not and in the night and I cease not And in another Psalme g Psal 69.3 I am weary of crying my throate is drie mine eies faile whilest I waite for my God And what is all this to sense and feeling but as if God had conspired his destruction He saieth only as if it were so he saieth not that Christ himselfe esteemed it so to be Doth it trouble him that Caluin saith that Christ by enforcement of griefe was compelled so to cry out But why doth hee doubt but that as Christ by hunger was compelled to eate by thirst to drinke by wearinesse to sleepe so by paine and griefe hee was also compelled and forced to complaine and seeke for ease Did not Christ vndergoe all the necessities and enforements of our nature It was voluntarily indeede that he did so but yet so he did and though he were able by his diuine power to saue himselfe yet putting himselfe into that condition that h Cyril de rect fide ad Reg. lib. post Opus habere alterius manu vt seruetur he needed the hand of another to be saued as Cyril speaketh he was forced by anguish and extremitie to crie and call to him that should saue him The next point is that i Caluin vt supra Oportuit eum cum inferorum copijs aeterneque mortu horrore quasi consertis manibus luctari Christ did hand in hand wrastle with the armies of hell and the horror
cannot bring so much as one man within the compasse of eleuen hundred yeeres after Christ that euer reduced the Sacraments to that number And shall not we well deserue to bee written vpon the backe-side of the booke of Wisedome if we shal take that for a principle of Christian religion which came first out of their schoole for the space of more then a 1000. yeres was neuer so knoweÌ„ in the church of Christ The Apostle m 1. Cor. 10.1.2 c. when he wil shew the Church of the Israelites to haue beene equall to vs in grace of Sacraments instanceth the same only in our two sacraments because he knew no more And no more did the ancient Fathers know who vniuersally holding the same mysterie of the creation of the woman out of the side of Adam being asleepe namely that n Aug. in Psal 56. Dormienti Christo in cruce facta est coniux de latere percussum est enim latus pendent is de lancea et prâ—fluxerunt Ecclesiae Sacramenta in Ioan. tract 15. thereby was figured the framing of the Church by Sacraments out of the side of Christ being dead when being pearced there issued out of it o Ioh. 19.34 1. Ioh. 5.6 water and bloud doe name those Sacraments as we doe p Aug. de symbol ad CatechuÌ„ lib. 2. c. 6. Sanguis aqua quae sunt Ecclesiae gemina sacramenta Chrysost in Ioan. hom 84. Theophy in Ioan. 19. Cyprian de passione Christi Of the effects of the Sacraments two onely and no more Whereas he saith that we extinguish the vertue and efficacy of those two sacraments it is only his blinde conceit We deny not but that the Sacraments are instruments of grace and of remission of sinnes and yet we deny them to bee so in that sort as is affirmed by the church of Rome namely as to giue grace ex opere operato for the very worke wrought as the Schoolemen speake It is worthily obserued by Saint Austin that q Aug. in Ioan. tract 80. Aâ—cedat verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbuÌ„ a Sacrament is as it were a visible word because by it in way of signification God as it were speaketh the same to the eie other senses which by the word he soundeth to the eare Yea hee affirmeth that the outward element of it selfe is nothing but it is by the word that it hath whatsoeuer power it hath r Ibid. Quare non ait Nunc mundi estis propter baptismum quo loti estis sed ait propter verbum quod locutus sum vobis nisi quia in aqua verbum mundat Detrahe verbum quid est aqua nisi aqua moxâ— Vnde ista tanta virtus aquae vt corpus tangat cor abluat nifi saciente verbo Non quia dicitur sed quia creditur Why doth not Christ say Now are yee cleane by the baptisme wherewith yea are washed but by the word which I haue speken to you but because in the water it is the word that clenseth Take away the word and what is water but water Whence is it that the water hath so great power to touch the body and to wash the heart but that the word doth it and that not because it is spoken but because it is beleeued Now if the Sacrament haue all his vertue and efficacy from the word and the word haue his power not for that it is spoken but for that it is beleeued we must conceiue the same of the Sacrament also that the effect thereof standeth not in being applied by the hand of the minister but in being beleeued by the faith of the receiuer God both by the one and by the other ministring and increasing faith and the holy Ghost accompanying both the one and the other to doe that that is beleeued Thus is baptisme a signe of representation to the vnderstanding and seale of confirmation to faith effectuallie deliuering to the beleeuer through the holy Ghost the grace of God and the remission of all his sinnes And why doth it trouble M. Bishop that wee make baptisme in this sort onely a signe and a seale when as though signes and seales be not the things themselues yet by signes and seales men are woont to be entitled and inuested to the things signified and sealed And hath not the Apostle himselfe taught vs thus to speake Gregory Bishop of Rome saith that Å¿ Greg. Moral lib. 4. c. 3. Quod apud nos vales aqua Baptismatis hoc egit apud veteres vel pro paruulis sola fides vel pro maioribus virtus Sacrificij vel pro his qui ex stirpe Abrahae prodierant mysterium circumcisionis what the water of baptisme doth with vs the same did the mystery of circumcision with the seed of Abraham But of circumcision the Apostle saith thus * Rom. 4.11 The reall eating of Christ a grosse fancie Abraham receiued the signe of circumcision as the seale of the righteousnes of faith Baptisme therefore must be to vs the signe and seale of the righteousnesse of faith Their doctrine of reall eating the body of Christ importeth no matter of comfort and dignitie but a carnall rude and profane fancy t Cyril ad Euopt cont reprehens Theodor anath 11. Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoâ— sacramentuÌ„ pronuntias irreligiose ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura inexquisita fide accipiuntur Doest thou saith Cyril pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man and irreligiously vrge the minds of them that beleeue to grosse imaginations and assay to handle by humane conceits those things which are to bee receiued by only pure and vndoubted faith Christ indeed is not the foode of the belly but of the minde and therefore u Cyprian de caena dom Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide syncerae panem sanctum frangim us partimur we doe not whet our teeth to bite but with syncere faith we breake and diuide the sacred bread saith Cyprian because x August in Ioan. tract 26. Credere in Christum hoc est menducare paenem viuum to beleeue in Christ saith Austin that is to eate the bread of life and y Iohn 6.54.56 he that thus eateth the flesh of Christ and eternall life and Christ shall raise him vp at the last day And because we thus teach that spritually and by faith we eate the very body of Christ and drinke his blood as alwaies so specially in that speciall helpe of faith which God hath ministred vnto vs in the supper of the Lord and that thereby we grow more and more into communion and fellowship with him to become partakers of the riches of his grace to immortality and euerlasting life therefore we doe not take
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
affirmeth them hauing ended this warfare to goe into blessed rest and in his other words in the same very place might haue seene and in likelihood did see it that he placeth this blessed rest no otherwhere but with Christ in heauen Hee applieth generally a Cal. Instit l. 3. ca. 25. sect 6. De fidelibus loquens to the faithfull the words of the Apostle that b 2. Cor. 5.1 when this earthly house shall be dissolued wee haue a house or building in heauen Hee saith that c Nisi superstites essent animae corporibus quid est quod habet deum praesentem vbi fuerit à corpore separatum Nisi etiam animae corporibus exutae retinerent suam essentiam ac beatae gloriae capaces essent non dixisset Christus latroni Hodie mecum eris c. the soule separated from the body hath the presence of God that vnlesse the soules seuered from their bodies did still retaine their being and were capable of blissefull glorie Christ would not haue said to the theefe This day shalt thou be with me inparadise Hereupon he taxeth as well he might the infinite curiosities of the schoole-men in inquiring and disputing of the place and state the maner and degrees of heauenly glory as now it is and heereafter shall be and condemneth it as a point of rashnesse and folly further to search concerning things vnknowen to vs than God permiteth vs to know d Scriptura vbi dixit Christum illis praesentem esse eas recipere in Paraedisum vt consolationem percipiant reproborum verò animas cruciatus quales meritae sunt perpeti non vltra progreditur The Scripture saith he haning said that Christ is present with them meaning the faithfull soules before spoken of and doth receiue them into Paradise to receiue comfort and that the soules of the reprobate doe suffer the torments which they haue deserued goeth no further For conclusion he saith by and by after e Quum scriptura vbique iubeat pendere ab expectationae aduentus Christi gloriae coronam eousque differat contenti simus his finibus diuinitus nobis praescriptis animas piorum militiae labore perfunctas in beatam quietem concedere vbi cum foelici laetitia fruitionem promissae gloriae expectent atque ita omnia suspensa teneri donec Christus appareat redemptor Seeing the Scripture euery where biddeth vs to depend vpon the expectation of Christs comming and thither doth deferre the crowne of glory let vs conteine our selues within these bounds which God hath prescribed vnto vs that the soules of the godly hauing ended the labour of this warfare doe goe into blessed rest where with happy ioy they expect the fruition of the promised glory and so all things are holden in suspense vntill Christ our redeemer shall appeare By all which words it appeareth that although Caluin according Col. 3.3.4 1. Ioh. 3.2 1. Pet. 5.4 to the scriptures doe referre the full reuealing of the glory of the faithfull vnto the comming of Christ when the same both in soule and bodie shall be made manifest to the whole world yet that in the meane time hee denieth not but that their soules departed are receiued into Paradise into heauen and doe enioy blissefull glory blessed rest the presence of God the presence of Christ and therefore doth not exclude them from the ioies of heauen vnlesse Christ himselfe whose presence they enioy be excluded from heauen And wheras M. Bishop maketh him absolutely to say that all things are holden in suspence vntill the comming of Christ he leaudly falsifieth his words by leauing out the terme of limitation the same being thus set downe as hath beene said And that so all things are holden in suspence vntill Christs comming importing that these things acknowledged before expressed all things further are to vs holden in suspence vntill Christ shall come are therefore God not hauing reuealed the same and not to be curiously enquired of The summe of all which beleefe Caluin himselfe in another place hath briefely comprised thus that g Caluin adu Libertin ca. 22. Etsi fidelium animae simulac separatae sint à corporibus viuunt cum deo ac foelici regni gaudio potiuntur tamen perfecta omnium filiorum dei foelicitas vsque ad secundum Christi aduentum defertur albeit the soules of the faithfull so soone as they are separated from their bodies do liue with God and doe obteine the blessed ioy of the heauenly kingdome yet the perfect happinesse of all the children of God is deferred vntill the second comming of Christ Now what is there heere for blinde Bishop to dislike in captain Caluin but that his malice ouerruleth his wit and carrieth him as it were with a violent streame to condemne that which notwithstanding his owne iudgement and conscience doth approoue And if Caluin had beene of that minde yet M. Bishop might with the more fauour haue excused it for that Bellarmine driuen thereto by the testimonie of Pope Adrian doth confesse that Pope Iohn the two and twentieth was of that minde h Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. Reuera sensit animas non visuras deum nisi post resurrectionem that the soules of the faithfull shall not see God till after the resurrection But as he dealeth with Caluin so doth he also with Luther most maliciously and leaudly It is true that Luther writing vpon Ecclesiastes reteining as yet somewhat too much of the dregs of Popery speaketh heereof somewhat obscurely though not to that meaning as M. Bishop citeth him Vpon the words of the Preacher i Eccles 9.10 Whatsoeuer thy hand can doe doe it instantly for there is neither worke nor inuention nor knowledge nor wisedome in hell as he readeth whither thou goest he commenteth thus that k Luth. Eccl. 9. Alius locus quòd mortui nihil sentiant nulla enim inquit est ibicogitatio ars cognitio sapientia sensit ergò Solomon mortuos omninò dormire nihil prorsus sentire Iacent ibi mortui non numerantes dies vel annos sed excitati videbūtur sibi vix momentum dormiuisse the place sheweth that the dead perceiue nothing for there is there no cogitation arte knowledge wisedome Solomon therefore thought saith he that the dead doe sleepe and haue no sense of any thing The dead lie there not reckoning daies or yeeres but being raised vp they shall seeme to haue slept a verie little while Now in these words there is no ambiguitie as shall appeere by the other place because that which he saieth of sleeping and not perceiuing any thing hath reference onely to the affaires and doings of this life Onely his errour is that he construeth hell for which wee rather choose to reade the graue to be the place where the soules thus sleepe expounding it l Ibid. Insernus propriè me iudice significat illum abditum recessum in quo
dormiunt mortui c. vt intelligas infernum dici vbi continentur animae quasi quoddam sepulchrum animae extra hunc corporalem mundum stcut terra est sepulchrum corporum quid autem illud sit nobis est incognitum to be that secret withdrawing place where the soules are conteined and which is as it were the graue of the soule without the compasse of this corporall world as the earth is of the body but what this is saith he it is vnknowen to vs. This conceit it seemeth hee drew either from the errour of Pope Iohn aforesaid or from the Popish fable of Limbus patrum reteining as yet some taste of that corruption which had beene long growing in him nad in respect whereof hee somewhere beseecheth his Reader to reade many of his works with compassion remembring that hee was sometimes a Monke as acknowledging that from his Cloister hee drew many things that were vnsound and in his writings might escape him vnawares But whatsoeuer his fancie were when hee wrote that Commentarie vpon Ecclesiastes hee was afterwards in expounding Genesis so farre from that opinion wherewith M. Bishop chargeth him as that most comfortablie hee setteth foorth the hope of the faithfull in their death yea euen in that very place whence M. Bishop cireth him the greater is his sinne that by dismembring a sentence would make him say that that is directly contrarie to the drift and purpose of that whole discourse He taketh occasion of his speech by the storie of Abrahams death and thereupon saith m Luther in Gen. c. 25. Nos habemus gratiam donum ac manifestam multiplicem scientiam de morte vita Siquidem certi sumus saluatorem nostrum Christum Iesum sedere ad dexteram dei patris expectare nos decedentes ex hac vita Quandocunque igitur excedimas è viuis ad Episcopum animarum nostrarum egredimur qui recipit nos inmanus suas is noster AbrahaÌ„ est cuius coÌ„plexu fruimur is viuit imò regnat perpetuò We haue a grace gift euen a manifest and manifold knowledge concerning death and life for we are sure that our Sauiour Iesus Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father and expecteth vs when we depart out of this life Whensoeuer therefore we die we goe to the bishop of our soules who receiueth vs into his hands He is our Abraham whose bosome or embracing we enioy he liueth and reigneth for euer Againe he saith n Ibid. In Christo mors non est acerba sicut impijs est sed est commutatio huius miserae calamitosae vitae in quietam besâ— tam. c. Et paulò post Multi loci scripturae sanctae comprobant quòd post mortem non morimur sed viuimus simplicitèr Esa 57. Requiescit in cubili c. Ingrediuntur non in mortem purgatorium aut infernum sed in pacem Death in Christ is not bitter as it is to the wicked but it is the changing of this wretched and miserable life into a quiet and blessed life Many places of Scripture saith he doe prooue that after death wee die no more but doe simply or perfectly liue And alledging the words of Esay o Esa 57.2 Peace commeth he shall rest in his bed whosoeuer walketh before him he inferreth They enter not into death into purgatorie or hell but into peace Heereupon hee mooueth a question p Et mox Alia quaestio nascitur cùmcertuÌ„ sit viuere esse in pace animas qualis illa vita aut quies sit Haec verò sublimior difficihor est quà m vt à nobis possit definiri deus enim noluit id a nobis cognosci in hac vita sufficit igitur nobis haec cognitio non egredi animas ex corporibus in periculum cruciatuum aut poenarum inferni sed esse eis paratum cubiculum in quo dormiant in pace Differunt tamen somrus siue quies huius vitae futurae Homo enim in hac vita defatigatus diurno labore sub noctem intrat in cubiculum suum tanquam in pace vt ibi dormiat ea nocte fruitur quite neque quicquam scit de â—llo malo siue incendij siue caedu Anima autem non sic dormit sed vigilat patitur visiones loquelas angeloruÌ„ dei Ideo somnus in futura vita profundior est quà m in hac vita tamen anima coram deo viuit seeing it is certaine that the soules liue and are in peace what maner of life or rest that is This saith hee is a higher and harder question than can be decided by vs for God would not haue vs to know it in this life It sufficeth vs to know that our soules depart not from our bodies to danger of the torments or paines of hell but that there is a chamber prouided for them where they may sleepe in peace But yet saith he there is difference betwixt the sleepe or rest of this life and of the life to come For man in this life being wearied with the daies labour at night entreth into his chamber as in peace that there he may sleepe and so in the night he enioyeth rest and knoweth nothing of any euill either of fire or of sword But the soule sleepeth not so but waketh and enioyeth the sight and heareth the speeches of the Angels and of God Therefore the sleepe in the life to come is more profound than in this life and yet the soule liueth in the presence of God Out of these last words M. Bishop taketh the occasion of his quarrell expounding sleepe as wee commonly take it as if Luther meant that the soule in death became wholly deuoid of all sense knowledge and vnderstanding and were as it were dead vntill the last day But what truth or conscience may we thinke is in this man who thus obiecteth the words as if Luther had put the soule in case of death when notwithstanding in the end of the same sentence he addeth that it liueth in the presence of God and in the whole circumstance of the place testifieth by the Scripture that it enioieth the bosome of Iesus Christ the sight and speech of God and his Angels a most peacefull and blessed life and that this sleepe is not such but that the soule waketh alwaies The meaning of Luther is plaine who finding the rest of the soules of the faithfull termed in Scripture a sleepe would signifie that this sleepe is a more sound and perfect rest than any is in this life voide of trouble and feare free from all knowledge of miserie and sorrow not distracted or interrupted with the cares or cogitations of our state not reckoning number of daies or length of yeeres all time seeming short for that blissefull and happie pleasure and contenâ—ment that is yeelded to the soule thereby For further declaring heereof he addeth anon after q Ibid. Qui somnum
c. 10. Quâ— sâ—ribit motum internum non esse 〈◊〉 â—â—si 〈◊〉 se prodat that the inward motion is no sinne vnlesse it do outwardly shew or bewray it selfe Wherein he dealeth very vnhonestly to make his Reader beleeue that he fetteth down the authors words when he setteth downe onely what hee himselfe list to collect and gather of them The words of Iosephus considering the occasion are very vnfitting and absurd and so contrarie to common sense as that we may woonder they should come from so wife a man Antiochus brought his army against the citie of Elymais as Iosephus there declareth where the temple of Diana was hee assaulted it with all his might hee left nothing vndone that he could doe for the atchieuing of his purpose though by the valour of the Citizens he was resisted and frustrate of his desire Now was it for Iosephus heere to say that to intend a mischiefe and not to act it seemeth not worthy of punishment when notwithstanding hee himselfe confesseth that thâ—â—e wanted no endeuour or attempt for the effect 〈◊〉 it It seemed strange to Tully that i Tuâ— Orat pro 〈…〉 forti 〈…〉 non 〈…〉 perind◠〈◊〉 〈…〉 non hâ—m aum conâ—â—â—ia legibus vindicâ—ntur a thing should 〈◊〉 be punished vnlessâ— it were effected as though saith he the issues of things onely were punished by lawes and not mens counsels and purposes of them And doe not humane lawes euery where take hold of attempts and practises of murther of treason and other villanies albeit they atteine not their intended end And if by the lawes of men such intents and purposes are thought woorthy of punishment would not or might not Iosephus thinke that much more they are so adiudged by the law of God But taking the words as they are yet that followeth not which Bellarmine reporteth that the inward motion is no sinne because Iosephus might thinke the same a sinne and yet not such a sinne as that a man therefore should be punished And so it seemeth the Rabbine conceiued therof whom M. Bishop further citeth out of Bellarmine who where Dauid saith k Psal 66.18 If I haue locked vnto or regarded iniquitie in my heart the Lord will not heare maketh this exposition and meaning of it l Bell vt supra ex R. Dauid Kimhi Non imputabit ad pâ—ccatum desiderium minstum si tantùm sit in corde The Lord will not impute an vniust desire for sinne if it be onely in the heart Where he doth not say that it is no sin if it be onely in the heart but onely that the Lord will not impute it or punish it for sinne For that it is sinne hee acknowledgeth in that hee calleth it vniust but hee acquitteth it from punishment so long as it is restrained and kept in But S. Pauls owne confession saith M. Bishop rightly vnderstood witnesseth the same And what is that for m Rom. 7.7 saith hee I had not knowen concupiscence to haue been sinne vnlesse the law had taught it to be sinne But what hindreth this but that as he knew by the law concupiscence to be sinne where it hath consent so by the law he knew it to be sin also though it haue no consent It is true that n Rom. 4.14 where no law is there is no transgression and without the law either written in our hearts or written in our bookes wee know nothing to bee sinne But what hindereth this confession I say but that as by the law he know the one so he knew the other also Doth not M. Bishop himselfe see how idlely he hath brought this in And in truth the Apostle spake those words of concupiscence it selfe by it selfe where it hath no consent For of the same concupiscence he saith soone after o vers 15. I allow not that which I doe for what I would that doe I not but what I hate that do I. All which coÌ„plaint being made in the person of p Aug. cont 2. epist Pelag. l. 1. c. 10. â—ont Iulian. l. 6. c. 11. the regenerate man who hateth the euill concupiscences of his owne heart and therefore giueth no consent vnto them doth plainly euict that of concupiscence without consent the Apostle saith that by the law hee knew it to bee sinne as hath beene q Of originall sinne sect 2. otherwhere declared more at large But howsoeuer M. Bishop will cauill concerning some learned Iewes the Romane Catechisme it selfe will iustifie that which M. Perkins saith that r Catech. Rom. part 3. de 9. 10 praecept Quodam naturaetumine intellectum est alienae vxoris potiundae cupiditatem prohiberi vetito adulterio nam si concupiscere liceret faâ— item esset potiri by light of nature it was vnderstood that in the forbidding of adulterie was forbidden the lust of hauing or enioying another mans wife because it should be lawfull to haue her if it should be lawfull to desire her Now if by light of nature it be discerned that in the forbidding of adulterie the will and desire of another mans wife bee also forbidden and therefore that the forbidding heereof belongeth to the seuenth Commandement then M. Perkins concludeth very rightly that the tenth Commandement goeth further to condemne euen the first motions of concupiscence and lust though they proceed not so farre as to gaine the will We may hold nothing heere superfluous God would not adde a latter commandement to forbid that which was already forbidden by a former 22. W. BISHOP Lastly saith M. PER. the words of the second Commandement and shew mercy vnto thousands on them that loue me and keepe my commandements ouer throweth all humane merits For if the reward be giuen of mercy to them that keepe the law it is not giuen for the merit of the worke done Answ Either simple was this mans iudgement sometimes or else most peruersly bent to deceiue the simple For God speaketh there neither of the reward that is rendred in heauen for good works neither of any reward at all that is rendred vnto the person himselfe that keepeth Gods commandements but of a superaboundant fauour that God of his bountie will shew vnto thousands of others for one mans sake that loueth him and keepeth his commandements therefore very peeuishly doth he draw hence any thing against merits R. ABBOT I haue before declared Gods mercy excludeth the merit of man that this promise of mercy maketh plainly against merit that it concerneth not the children onely but the fathers themselues and that if it bee mercy by which God bestoweth the things of this life which are the lesser then that it cannot be merit for which he bestoweth eternall life which is the greater See the seuenth section of the question of Merits before handled 23. W. BISHOP And to begin heere where M. PER. leaueth to shew how their new doctrine and inuentions doth crosse and make void the commandements of God First in that that he promiseth
in it euen as the badde may not abide it R. ABBOT The Protestants doe so well indure to heare the words of Gods spirit as that they haue made speciall choise therof as the principall weapon wherewith to fight against the superstitions and abominations of the Papists Whose absurd dotage as many other waies so in their Aue-Marie most notably appeareth in that of a salutation to the virgin Marie being present they haue made an inuocation of her being absent and thinke it a matter of great merit and deuotion to vse it like a charme by saying it ouer thus or thus many times at once which the Angell spake but once M. Bishop allegeth for it the old Catechismes but he neither telleth vs what Catechismes he meaneth nor how old they are which if he had we should easily haue descried the vanity of his speech For if by old Catechismes he meane as he should the Catechismes of the ancient fathers and primitiue Church he is therein found a liar because in those Catechismes there is nothing of it But if by old Catechisms he meane any that haue beene of latter times vnder the darknesse of Popery he abuseth his Reader who in case of Religion looketh for satisfaction euen from the first age because what was not then a part of religion can be no part of religion now the truth of Christ being one and the same from the beginning and for euer The words he saith are the words of the holy ghost and so say we but we say that the words of the holy ghost may be abused as here they are against the purpose and meaning of the holy Ghost They are the words of the holy Ghost which Christ vsed to the Apostles a Luk. 24.25 Fooles and slow of heart to beleeue all that the Prophets haue spoken and will M. Bishop therfore say that we may vse those words for inuocation of the Apostles He allegeth againe that it is prophecied that all generations should call the virgin Mary blessed and we deny it not but we may call her blessed in the meditations of our own hearts and in speaking of her to them that heare vs though we speake not idlely as to her that heareth vs not Be it that the words were composed by the Archangell penned by the Euangelists commended to the reading of all good Christians as other words of scriptures are be it that the sense of them is most comfortable vnto vs yet what is all this to prooue that these words are to bee vsed for a deuotion and seruice to the virgin Mary specially in such sort as Popery hath vsed them in a strange and vnknowen tongue which could yeeld no comfort of the sense nor remembrance thereby of the incarnation of Christ nor perfourmance of thanksgiuing or congratulation towards God That purest antiquity which he allegeth is but corrupt nouelty and leud forgery The Liturgies of Basill and Chrysostome are very falsly so termed and yet in Basils Liturgie there is no mention of the Aue-Mary Of Chrysostomes Liturgie there are so many different copies published one by Leo Tuscus another by Erasmus another by Pelargus who also testifieth that hee hath seen a fourth as that if Chrysostome did leaue any yet no man is able to say of any of them that this is it The sermon of Athanasius in Euangel de Deipara is by b Nann epist nuncupatoria praefixa oper Athanasij In tertiam classem relegaui omnes supposititios libros quos Athanasij non puto Nannius their own translatour put amongst the ranke of bastards and counterfets The name of Deipara was not so famous in the time of Athanasius as to be prefixed in the title of a sermon neither could it haue wanted memorable testimony in the councell of Ephesus if it had been then knowen for his Ephrems works as c Hieron in Catalog script ecclesiast Multa syro sermone composuit Hierome saith were written in the Syrian tongue If M. Bishop can shew them in the same tongue yea or ancientlie translated into the Greeketongue we can giue the better credit that they are his indeed Otherwise we know that they haue been in hucksters handling neither can we but be suspicious of that iugling and foisting which we finde to haue been so vsuall and common with them And if M. Bishop will haue vs to take it for Ephrems worke let him tell vs who is the translatour of it Gerardus Vossius who translated and published the works of Ephrem by the warrant of Pope Sixtus the fift whereas he putteth his name to so many as hee translated putteth no name to the Sermon which M. Bishop citeth shewing thereby that it is not in Greeke and therefore importing it to be a counterfeit He saith that these can with no more reason be denied to be theirs then the rest of their works But I answer him that though there were no other reason yet it is sufficient reason for vs to bee suspicious of these because in them some things are set downe whereof in the rest of their vndoubted workes and in the infinite volumnes of antiquitie which are approoued and acknowledged there is no token to be found As for Bernand he liued in latter times of great apostasie and corruption In that truth which he reteined he is a good witnesse for vs against them but hee can be no witnesse for them to make good those corruptions which hee drew from the time wherein he liued And yet neither is his testimonie cited out of any of his owne works but from another I know not whom and therefore is the lesse to be regarded to say nothing that the speech is ridiculous and fond for why should wee imagine that the Angels triumph and the heauens congratulate that the earth leapeth for ioy and hell trembleth at the deuout saying of the Aue-Mary more then when wee say deuoutly Our Father which art in heauen c Surely good Christians will reiect such absurd dotages and idle dreames though with bad Christians al is fish that commeth to net and what custome offereth they are readie to entertaine neuer regarding to consult with the word of Christ for warrant of that they doe 47. W. BISHOP Now let vs come to the last part of the Catechisme which is of the Sacraments where M. PER. doth briefly repeat his arguments vsed before against the reall presence I might therefore send the Reader vnto the first Chapter of this booke for the answer but because the matter is of great importance I will heere againe giue them a short answer First saith hee the reall presence is ouerthrowne out of these words hee tooke bread and brake it ergo that which Christ tooke was not his bodie c. A simple ouerthrow Christ indeed tooke and brake bread but presently after blessing it made it his body by these words this is my bodie R. ABBOT I might send the Reader saith M. Bishop vnto the first chapter of this booke for the
of the new testament c. The words of c Mark 24.23.24 S. Marke doe beare also the same sense which as it is the very Grammaticall construction of the words so it is also fully confirmed in that S. Luke and S. Paul doe expresly deliuer it in that sort So then by all three Euangelists and S. Paul there is a figure in one part of the Sacrament let vs then aske M. Bishop againe why may there not be so in the other also But hee doth not loue to be troubled with too many questions He cannot tell as yet what answer to giue vs and therefore we must be content to giue him further time till he may better bethinke himselfe 51. W. BISHOP Fiftly Christ did eat that supper but not himselfe Per. 5. Answ A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eat of that Sacrament as M. PERK doth because hee hath no warrant for it in the written word yet we doe grant that he did so and hold him most worthy to taste of that heauenly food R. ABBOT If the written word doe not warrant that Christ did eat of the Sacrament I maruell why M. Bishop citeth to that purpose out of S. Luke those words which a Sect 62. ex Luc 22.15 anon he doth that he maruellously desired to eat this last banquet with his disciples Whether hee cite it truely or falsly let himselfe looke to that but either hee must confesse that hee hath cited amisse there or else that he hath spoken rashly here But if Christ did eat of the Sacrament will M. Bishop haue vs to beleeue that he did eat himselfe or dranke the bloud of his owne bodie May we be perswaded that one and the same Christ at one and the same time was both wholly within himselfe and wholly also without himselfe that hee sate visible by his Apostles and yet was then wholly conteined within the compasse of his owne bowels or that in his owne bowels hee at that time caried his owne bloud or that moreouer hee was then by the Sacrament in the bellies of all the Apostles euen of the traitour Iudas Surely what Christ did eat the same Iudas did eat also But of Iudas S. Austin teacheth that b Aug. in Ioan. tract 59. Non est ex eis iste c. Illi manducabant panem dominum ille panem domini contra dominuÌ„ hee did eat of the Lords bread but not of the bread which is the Lord. Therefore although Christ did eat the Sacrament yet may wee not imagine that hee did eat himselfe These are horrible and vnchristian fancies but out of the schoole of Transubstantiation they come and they that maintaine the one must necessarily maintaine the other also 52. W. BISHOP Sixtly We are bid to doe it till he come Christ then is not bodily present Answ Wee are bid by S. Paul to shew the death of our Lord till he come to iudgement which we may very well doe 1. Cor. 11. v. 26. his body being present as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly vnto their children the slaughter of their fathers R. ABBOT It is true that his comming shall bee to iudgement but what shall he need to come if he be here already It was not questioned whereto he should come nor whether we may shew the death of the Lord his body being present if it were present but why the Apostle should say till he come if he be intended to be here already present His body being present saith he as though he meant that Christ were not wholly present whereas they tell vs that whole Christ is in the Sacrament both God and man soule and body flesh blood and bone as hee was borne of the virgin and nailed afterwards to the Crosse And if Christ be wholly present what reason had the Apostle to say till he come He telleth vs a ridiculous and impertinent tale of certaine noble Matrones who preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly to their children the slaughter of their fathers But what is this to the matter here in hand If those noble matrones had had their husbands with them and in the presence of their children then let him tell vs whether it had not been a witlesse thing to bid them expect their fathers till they come But hee stealeth away from the point and though he doe but gull his Reader with an idle iest yet he would haue it thought that hee hath giuen a worthy answer As touching the truth of this matter our Sauiour informeth vs when he telleth his disciples a Iohn 12.8 The poore ye shall haue alwaies with you but me ye shall not haue alwaies S. Austin giueth a reason of those word b August in Ioan tract 50. Quoniam conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diel us cum discipulis suis eis deducentibus videndo non sequendo a scondit in caeiuâ— non est hic because according to the presence of his body he was conuersant forty daies with his disciples and then they bringing him on the way by seeing but not by following he ascended into heauen and is not here Christ then according to the presence of his body is not here yea c Acts 3.21 the heauen must containe him saith S. Peter vntill the time that all things be restored and therefore d Phil. 3.20 from heauen wee looke for him saith S. Paul euen as in our Creed we professe to beleeue that from thence hee shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead Now because we beleeue according to the scripture that Christ as touching his body is in heauen and not here and that from heauen we are to looke for him at the last day we are able to giue a iust reason why the Apostle should say vntill he come which M. Bishop out of his learning cannot doe 53. W. BISHOP Seuenthly Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him but signes of remembrance are of things absent Answ We see one thing and remember another By Christs body really present we remember the same to haue been nailed on the Crosse for our redemption as Goliaths sword was kept in the tabernacle in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliaths head with the same sword and the women before rehearsed kept their husbands blood might much easier haue prescrued their bodies embalmed to keepe the better their deaths in fresh memory R. ABBOT We see one thing saith M. Bishop and remember another But a Aug. serm ad infantes apud Bedam in 1. Cor. 10 Quod videtis panis est calix quod vobis esiam oculi renuntiâ—nt that which you see saith S. Austin is bread as your very eies tell you If then our remembrance be by our sight it is by bread that we remember the body of Christ M. Bishop I hope will not say that we see the body of Christ really present and