vnto the children of Israel and as it were confined within the limits of one land and countrey wherefore it could not be called Catholike and Vniuersall R. ABBOT MAster Bishop is fouly ouerseene to make it a question here what time it was that the Church beganne to be called Catholike it being sufficient to my purpose that the Church before the time of Christ albeit it were not then called Catholike yet was a part of that Church which hath beene so called since the time of Christ euen as the arme which comming first out of the wombe beareth not the name of the child and yet is a part of the child which is afterwards called by that name Therefore St. Austin diuiding mankinde into a Aug. in psal 61. Vna ciuitas vna ciuitas Babylonia vna Hierusalem vna Illa rege Diabolo ista rege Christo c. Illa incepit à Cain haec ab Abel two Cities the one vnder the Diuell as King thereof the other vnder Christ the one Babylon the other Ierusalem b Heb. 12. 22. the heauenly Ierusalem c Gal. 4. 26. Ierusalem which is aboue which is the Mother of vs all beginneth Ierusalem at Abel as he doth Babylon at Cain and maketh d Aug. in psal 86. Ciuis inde Propheta ciuis inde Apostolus the Prophets as well as the Apostles cittizens thereof and by another similitude calleth the Christian Church e Idem in psal 79. Quid est expectandii secundae vincae in mò eidem vineae ipsa est enim non enim altera est one and the same vineyard with the Church of the Iewes And if M. Bishop will not learne this of Austin let him learne it of Gregory Bishop of Rome saying that God f Gregor in Euang hom 19. Habet vineam vniuersalem scilicet Ecclesiam quae ab Abel â—usto vsque ad vltimum electum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est quot sanctos pretulit quasi tot palmitâ—s misit hath his vineyard euen the vniuersall Church which yeeldeth so many branches as it bringeth forth Saints from righteous Abel vnto the last Elect that shall be borne in the end of the world and againe that g Idem in Ezech hom 15. Vna est Ecclesia electorum praecedentium atque sequentium there is but one Church of the Elect both before and since the time of Christ Or if he be loth to turne so great a volume as Gregories workes let him looke into their owne Roman Catechisme where he shall finde that it is one cause why the Church is called h Catechism Roman part 1. cap. 10. sect 16. Praeterea omnes fideles qui ab Adam in hunc vsque diem suerant quiâ—e futuri sunt quamdiu mundus durabit veram fiâ—em profitentes ad eandem Ecclâ—siam pertinent Catholike because all the faithfull who haue beene from Adam till this day and shall be to the worlds end professing the true faith doe belong vnto it What hath M. Bishop beene so long a Doctor of Diuinity and yet doth he not know that the Catholike Church though it were not called Catholike till after the comming of Christ yet now is vnderstood to contayne all the faithfull from the beginning to the end Vndoubtedly he knew it well enough but my collection galled him and he saw there was no way but by cauilling to make shew to shift it of But if he did not let him haue wit to learne it now and let him take my words accordingly that as of the Catholike Church from the beginning to the end there is but one body euen as one Lord one God and Father of all so there is also but one spirit which quickneth that one body and i Ephes 4. 4. one faith whereby we are all partakers of that spirit both which the Apostle ioyneth togither when of the faithfull both of the old and new Testament he saith that they haue k 2. Cor. 4. 13. the same spirit of faith Of this one spirit Gregory saith that l Greg. in psal 5. Poenitent Sicut est vna anima quae diuersa corporis membra viuisicat ita totam simul EcclesiaÌ„ vnus spiritus sanctus vegetat illustrat as it is but one soule which quickneth the diuers members of the body so one holy spirit giueth life and light to the whole Church Whether we respect them that were before the incarnation of Christ or them that come after they both make but one body and therefore the holy Ghost as the soule is but one and the same to both So of faith Gregory telleth vs that m Gregor in Ezech. hom 16 â—adé sides â—pes charitas in antiquis patribus quae in nouis Doctoribus fuit in the old Fathers was the same faith hope and charity as in the new teachers namely the Apostles and the rest So likewise Leo Bishop of Rome saith that n Leo in Natluit Dom. ser 3. Fides qua viuimus nulla fuit aetate diuersa the faith whereby we liue was neuer different in any age but o IdeÌ„ de Pass Dom. serm 14. Vna fides iustificat vniuersoruÌ„ temporuÌ„ sanctos one faith saith he iustifieth the Saints of all times p Aug in Ioan. tract 45. Tempora variata sut non fides c. In diuersis signis eadem fides There is difference of the times saith Austin but not of the faith in diuersity of signes there is the same faith q Idem Epist 89. Sacramenta variata sunt vt alia essent in veteri Testamento alia in nouo cùm fides varia non sit sed vna sit The Sacraments are altered one sort in the old Testament other in the new whereas faith is not diuers but one still Now though the signes and Sacraments were diuers yet because there was the same faith and the same spirit therefore the effects of faith and of the spirit were the same so that what we receiue spiritually in Baptisme and the Lords Supper they also though in other Sacraments receiued the same so that they were spiritually baptized they did eate the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud as well as we as was before intimated in my answere and M. Bishop giueth occasion to declare further in the next section Of the originall of the name Catholike and Catholikes I haue spoken before that that may suffice and though M. Bishop haue drawen it in it is impertinent here to stand vpon it W. BISHOP §. 2. ANd M. Abbot was greatly deceiued or else goeth about to deceiue others when for proofe of communicating with the Catholike Church hee recoileth backe vnto the beginning of the world Why did he not rather shew that their new Gospell flourished in all Countries assoone as the Christian faith was planted and that it hath continued in all ages since the Apostles dayes vntill our time that had beene to haue spoken directly to the purpose
him bring in Iacob 5. v. 14. the Priests of the Church and let them pray ouer them anoiling them with Oile in the name of our Lord c. Confesse therefore your sinnes one to Ibidem 16. another These and an hundred more plaine texts recorded in that fountaine of life wherein our Catholike Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse tearmes to wit Thereall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament That Priests haue power to pardon sinnes That Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter That good workes doe in iustice deserue eternall life That we are iustified not by faith alone but also by good workes That in extremity of sicknesse wee must call for the Priest to anoile vs with holy Oile That we must confesse our sinnes not to God alone but also vnto men these and diuers such like heads of our Catholike faith formally set downe in holy Scripture the Protestants will not beleeue though they bee written in Gods word neuer so expresly but doe ransacke all the corners of their wits to deuise some â—dde shift or other how to flie from the euidence of them Whereupon I conclude that they doe not receiue all the written word though they professe neuer so much to allow of all the bookes of Canâ—nicall Scripture For the written word of God consisteth Lib. 2. de Trinitate ad Const not in the reading but in the vnderstanding as S. Hierome testifieth that is it doth not consist in the bare letter of it but in the letter and true sense and meaning ioyned togither the letter being as the body of Scripture and the right vnderstanding of it the soule spirit and life thereof he therefore that taketh not the written word in the true sense but swarueth from the sincere interpretation of it cannot be truly said to receiue the written word as a good Christian ought to doe Seeing then that the Protestants and all other sectaries doe not receiue the holy Scriptures according vnto the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition they may most iustly be denyed to receiue the sacred written word of God at all though they seeme neuer so much to approue all the Bookes Verses and Letters of it which is plainly proued by S. Hierome vpon the first Chapter to the Galathians R. ABBOT I Haue noted a §. â— before in this Chapter that St. Austin faith of the Prophets and faithfull of the people of the Iewes that though not in name yet in deede they were Christians as we are As they were Christians then with vs so are we now Iewes with them not according to M. Bishops vnderstanding of the name of Iewes to whom I may well say as Austin said to Iulian the Pelagian b August coÌ„â— Iulian. l. 4. c. 3. Cùm insana dicis rides phrenetico es similis When thou speakest madly and laughest thou art like to a frantike Bedlem but according to the Apostles construction thereof c Rom. 2. 29. He is a Iew which is one within and d Phil. 3. 3. we are the circumcision which worship God in the spirit and reioyce in Christ Iesus and haue no confidence in the flesh We must be Iewes by vnity of faith with them as they were Christians with vs because they with vs and wee with them make but one body and one Church whereof though there be diuers Sacraments yet there is but one faith from the beginning to the end receiued first by the Patriarches written afterwards by the Prophets written againe more clearly by the Apostles so that e Ephes 2. 20. vpon the foundation not foundations but one foundation because one euen one written doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets the houshold of God are built and our faith resteth wholly thereupon I haue walked no rounds I haue broken through no brakes of thornes but haue kept a direct and euen way and haue so strongly builded all this as that I scorne M. Bishops poore paper-shot as much too weake to throw it downe To him I know these things are rounds and mazes he knoweth not which way to get out of them they are brakes of thornes he lyeth fast tyed in them God giue him grace to yeeld to that which he seeth himselfe vnable to reproue He is very angry it seemeth as touching the last point that I should say that the Protestants receiue and beleeue all the written word He saith that therein I begge that which is principally in question and thinketh that I haue little wit or iudgement to thinke that they would freely grant me that But our vsage and debating of questions with them is sufficient to put that out of question We vse the Scriptures our selues we translate them for common vse we reade and expound them publikely in our Churches we exhort men to reade them priuately in their houses wee instruct them to receiue no doctrine but what they see there wee make the same written word the soueraigne Iudge of all our controuersies wee defend the authority and sufficiency thereof against the impeachments and disgraces which Papists haue cast vpon it What may we doe more to make M. Bishop beleeue that we receiue and beleeue the written word Surely if I tell him that the Sunne shineth at noone day he will not beleeue it if it seeme to him to sound any thing against the Pope But he will giue instance to proue that we doe not so first for that we reiect diuers bookes of the old Testament Wherein he saith vntruly for the bookes of the old Testament are the bookes of Moses and the Prophets the Psalmes f August coÌ„t Gaudent lib 2. cap. 23. Non habent Judaei sicut legem Prophetas Psalmos quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis To which saith Austin our Lord Iesus gaue testimony as his witnesses of which we reiect none the other bookes that are adioyned to these we doe not reiect but we reade them and commend them yea we say as much of them as M. Bishop vouchsafeth to say of Pauls Epistles and the rest that they contayne many most diuine and rare instructions but yet we giue them no authority for confirmation of matters of faith because Christ and his Apostles haue giuen no testimony or witnesse of them and the primitiue Church in that respect hath expresly disclaimed them as I haue shewed at large g Of Traditions sect 17. before and resteth hereafter in this booke to bee shewed againe Secondly he bringeth sundry texts of the new Testament to proue that we doe not rightly vnderstand and beleeue all that is written in Gods word wherein he saith their Catholike Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse termes First to proue the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament he citeth the wordes This is my body which shall be giuen for you c. But if the Romish doctrine be here deliuered in expresse termes how is it that their owne Scotus saith that
any premises that in the written word there is no mention made of the Pope of his Supremacy of his Pardons c. Wisedome what premises should I vse to proue the negatiue in this case It concerneth you to proue that there is mention made of them and to designe vs the places where for me it is enough to say that there is none See now what proofe he bringeth that there is Belike saith he there is no mention made of St. Peter nor ought said of his singular prerogatiues it hath not peraduenture that whatsoeuer he should loose on earth should be loosed in heauen Wisedome what is this for answere to me I say there is no mention made of the Pope and doe you tell me of St. Peter And if it were said to St. Peter d Mat. 16. 19. Whatsoeuer thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heauen was it not also said to all the Apostles e Mat. 18. 18. Whatsoeuer yee binde on earth shall be bound in heauen What prerogatiue is here to St. Peter more then to all the rest of the Apostles or if there were any prerogatiue to St. Peter what is that to the Pope He would be glad to heare where the written word teacheth vs that Kings and temporall Magistrates are ordained by Christ to be vnder him supreme Gouernours of Ecclesiasticall affaires But he saith vntruly he would not be glad to heare it but how glad would he be if he could out of the written word say so much for the Pope as we can for the King We finde the Apostle St. Paul saying f Rom. 13. 1. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers and St. Peter expounding what is meant by those higher powers g 1. Pet. 2. 13. whether vnto the King as to the supereminent or chiefe or vnto Gouernours as sent by him thereby giuing absolutely to the King a superiority ouer euery soule and requiring euery soule h Chrysost ad Rom. hom 23. Etiam si Apostolus sis si Euangelista si Propheta siue quisquis tandem fueris euen the Prophet the Apostle the Euangelist as Chrysostome obserueth to be subiect to the King But he will say it is not here said in Ecclesiasticall affaires I answere him Neither is it said here only in temporall affaires The supremacy then being simply giuen will M. Bishop dare to set downe a limitation where God himselfe hath set none The office of a King is declared by those Apostles to be i Rom. 13. 3. 1. Pet. 2. 14. for the punishment of them that doe euill and for the praise of them that doe well and if well doing and euill doing doe extend as well to Ecclesiasticall as Temporall affaires what warrant hath M. Bishop to restraine the Kings power from gouerning in them both Are temporall Magistrates saith he any Ecclesiasticall persons at all Let the Emperour Constantine giue him answere hereof who told his Bishops thus k Euseb de vita Constant l. 4. c. 24. Vos inquit intra Ecclesiam ego extra Ecclesiam Episcopus à Deo constitutus sum You are Bishops within the Church but without the Church God hath appointed me to be a Bishop signifying thereby that the acting and administring of diuine offices Sacraments did belong to them but that otherwise the gouernement of the Church and the power of commanding all for the preseruation of religion and well ordering of Church affaires did belong to him Though temporall Magistrates then be no Ecclesiasticall persons in the former sense yet a King as a Christian is a member of the Church and as a King by Constantines iudgement is appointed of God to bee externally the Ruler and Gouernour thereof Wherefore to call the state of Kings as M. Bishop doth a secular state as hauing to meddle only with secular and temporall things is a secular and prophane interpretation of the office of Kings and a meere begging of the point in question And of that presumption he inferreth another when he saith Is it meete and decent that the lesse worthy member should haue the supreme command ouer the more honourable I will not here stand vpon his absurd crossing of himselfe who hauing euen now made the state Ecclesiasticall and Secular two distinct bodies doth make them here members both of one body To let that passe who will grant him that the King is the lesse worthy and the Priest the more honourable He will say that matters of the soule which are of highest nature are administred by Priests Be it so and matters of the soule which are of the highest nature are commanded by Kings and the commanding power as we suppose is alwaies more honourable then the administring office The very Heathens thought that the deuotions to their Gods which were acted by their Priests were of greatest respect and yet they were not so fond as to conclude hereof that the person of the Priest was more honourable then the King In the policy ordered by God himselfe we finde l 2. Kings 23. 4. the Priests commanded by the King but we doe not finde the King commanded by the Priest We finde the Prophet stiling himselfe m 1. Kings 1. 24. 26. 27. the Kings seruant and the King his Lord but we doe not finde the King giuing that honour to the Prophet We know that in the naturall body the heart ministreth life vnto the head and yet the supremacy of honour resteth in the head euen for the gouernement and direction of things belonging to that life which is administred by the heart Euen so albeit the ministring of those things which concerne the saluation and life both of Prince and people belong to the Priest yet that hindereth not but that the highest honour and dignity resteth in the Prince so farre as to command for the due vsage and execution of those things which concerne the saluation both of himselfe and of his people This is saith M. Bishop to preferre the body before the soule nature before grace earth before heauen Full wisely spoken as if a Christian King were nothing but body and nature and earth but a Priest no other but spirit and grace and heauen Yet we doubt not but that many Kings are more spirituall and gracefull and heauenly then many Priests and many Priests euen Popes themselues more sauouring of the body and nature and earth then many Kings and how doe we then by giuing the soueraignty to Kings preferre the body before the soule nature before grace earth before heauen Forsooth the matters of the soule and of grace and of heauen he will say are managed by Priests Be it so make comparison then of the things but make no comparison thereby of the persons Say he that preferreth the things that belong to the Kings affaires before those things that are ministred by the Priest preferreth the body before the soule c. but we say we may in outward state of gouernement giue the supreme honour
set his owne marke vpon the Church to call it the Catholike Roman Church and the members thereof Roman Catholikes that none should thenceforth bee called Catholikes but such as would bee called Roman Catholikes And hereof M. Bishop very rightly saith that hereby they separate those Catholikes that ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome from other sectaries as importing them also to bee Sectaries that ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome and that by this marke they are to bee knowen from other Sectaries For certaine it is that the name of Roman Catholike is a name of Sect and Schisme and an open proclaiming of a rent and diuision of the Catholike Church of Christ Now for conclusion of this passage hee telleth vs that out of the premises may bee gathered that the Roman Church may well signifie any Church holding the same faith which the Roman doth But what premises may wee thinke hee meaneth here Surely if this bee his conclusion wee finde here nothing but conclusion premises to proue it wee finde none Hee hath told vs before that it may bee so and here full wisely hee repeateth the same againe but neither before nor here doth hee say any thing whereof it should bee gathered that it may bee so And though it may be so yet it auaileth him nothing as hath beene said because it is but a part of the Church that ioyneth in faith with the Church of Rome and therefore the Roman Church cannot bee said to bee the whole Catholike Church so that my proposition still standeth good the Church of Rome is a particular Church and Master Bishop though hee bee a Doctor that sometimes vnderstandeth what hee speaketh yet is not so great a Doctor in this point as that hee can giue vs any reason why hee ought otherwise to vnderstand W. BISHOP §. 4. NOw to this his second sophistication The Roman Church by our rule is the head and all other Churches are members to it but the Catholike comprehendeth all ergo to say the Roman Church is the Catholike is to say the head is the whole body Here is first a mishâ—pen argument by which one may proue or disproue any thing for example I will proue by the like that the Church of England is not Catholike thus The Church of England by their crooked rule is a member of the Catholike Church but the Catholike church comprehendeth all wherefore to say the English Church is the Catholike Church is to say a member is the whole body Besides the counterfaite fashion of the argument there is a great fallacy in it for to omit Fellacia accidentis that wee say not the Church of Rome but the Bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church it is a soule fault in arguing as all Logitians doe vnderstand when one thing is said to be another by a metaphore to attribute all the properties of the metaphore to the other thing For example Christ our Sauiour is metaphorically said to bee a Lyon Vicit Leo de tribu Iuda now if therehence Apocal. 5. v. 5. any man would inferre that a Lyon hath foure legges and is no reasonable creature ergo Christ hath as many or is not indued with reason he might himselfe therefore bee well taken for an vnreasonable and blasphemous creature Euen so must M. Abbot bee who shifteth from that propriety of the metaphore Head which was to purpose vnto others that are cleane besides the purpose For as Christ was called a Lyon for his inuincible fortitude so the Bishop of Rome is called the head of the Church for his authority to direct gouerne the same but to take any other propriety of either Lyon or Head when they be vsed metaphorically and to argue out of that is plainly to play the Sophister Wherefore to conclude this passage M. Abbot hath greatly discouered his insufficiency in arguing by propounding arguments that offend and be very vitious both in matter and for me and that so palpably that if young Logitians should stand vpon such in the paruies they would be hissed oâ—t of the Schooles it must needs be then an exceeding great shame for a Diuine to vse them to deceiue good Christian people in matter of saluation And if after so great vaunts of giuing full satisfaction to the Reader and of stopping his aduersaries mouth that he should not haue a word to reply he be not ashamed to put such bables as these into print he cannot choose but make himselfe a mocking-stocke to the world surely his writings are more meete to stop mustard-pots if I mistake not much then like to stop any meane Schollars mouth R. ABBOT HEre it may well be doubted whether M. Bishop were such a Doctor as to vnderstand himselfe because it should not seeme likely if hee had so done that hee would haue giuen such a brainlesse and stupide answere The first part thereof serueth to shew that when hee hath plaid the wise-man once he cannot be quiet vntill he haue done the like againe Of the shape of the argument I neede say no more then hath beene said of the former being of the same kinde and let him propound as he should that by the like it may be proued that the Church of England is not the Catholike Church and we acknowledge so much and doe take his argument as he hath set it downe The Church of England is only a member of the Catholike church but the Catholike church comprehendeth all wherâ—â—â—re to sâ—y the English Church is the Catholike Church is to say a member is the whole body Wee confesse it to be true and therefore we are not so absurd as to say that the Church of England is the Catholike Church wee affirme it to bee only a member and part thereof and may we not then thinke that this man hath made a doughty fray But beside the counterfait fashion of the argument there is saith he a great fallacy in it And how Marry first wee say not saith he that the Church of Rome but the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church True it is M. Bishop that when yee compare togither the Church and the Bishop of Rome yee say that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church but is it not true also that when yee compare Church with Church yee say the Church of Rome is the head of all Churches Your Master a Bellarm. dâ— Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 13. câ— Synod Nicen. 2. Act. 2. Capuâ— omâ—â—ium Ecclesâ— arum Deâ— Bellarmine hath cited this title as a matter of great moment out of the second Nicene Councel approuing the Epistle of Adrian where it is so called b Ibid. cap. 14. out of Sâ—ricius Innocentius Iohn the second Pelagius the second Gregory the Great Bishops of Rome out of c Ibid. cap 16. Prosper and Victor Vticensis and doe you come now with your slecuâ—lesâ—c tale and tell vs that you say not so The truth is that
and perfection which is now presumed of them Of these M. Bishop is silent he can say nothing he can shew nothing there is no example no intimation of any such beleeued or practised in the Church I will not say for two thousand as before but for the space of foure thousand yeares as by his owne confession interpretatiuè we argue because he alleageth none His instance of workes of supererogation is only in legall vowes which albeit in the ceremony they were in some sort arbitrary yet carryed alwaies an implication of spirituall necessary duties which to make their vowes acceptable vnto God were then to be performed by them and are now still remaining to be performed by vs. The vow of the Nazarite did by certaine obseruations shadow forth what ought spiritually to be the holinesse and purity of them who either then were or now are by the calling of the grace of God separated vnto God And so it stood with all other vowes which were of things appointed by the law to bee offered and sacrificed which serued to aduertise both them and vs of that x Leo in Anniuersar suo ser 3. Vniuersi spirituales rationales Christiani Sacerdotalis officij consortes c. Quid tam sacerdotale quaÌ„ vouere Domino conscientiam puram immaculatas pietatis hostias de Altari cordis offerre Priestly duty as Leo calleth it common to all Christians to vow vnto God a pure conscience and vpon the Altar of the heart to offer vp vnspotted sacrifices of piety vnto him What is there here then for Popish vowes and why doth he goe about to build his works of supererogation vpon a foundation so vnfit for the bearing of them But of these matters I haue y Of Vowes sect 1. 5. confut of the Answ to M. Perk. Aduert sect 16. spoken also sufficiently before and haue handled those texts which as there so here againe he citeth to no end Very ill doth it sort that when I alleage that they vowed no vowes of Monkery he answereth me by texts that concerne vowes of sacrifices and ceremonies belonging only to that time But being offended at my terme of Monkery fearing it belike to be a charme to turne their Monkes into Monkeis he setteth himselfe to be reuenged on me by bringing a proofe ineuitable for the antiquity of them amongst the Patriarchs and Fathers of the old Church Forsooth Iosephus a graue authour amongst the Iewes witnesseth that there liued in the time of the law many thousands called Esseni who were contemners of riches liued in common hauing neither wiues nor seruants Similes habent labra lactucas Like matter like proofe Ridiculous man who for the iustifying of their Monkish vowes would bring vs the example of lewish professed Heretikes so recorded to haue beene by z Philast de haeres cap. 6. Philastrius and a Epiphan haeres 19. Epiphanius and by his owne authour Iosephus set downe for such another sect as were the other two of b Ioseph Antiquit ludaic l. 18. c 2. Iudai in trâ—s sectas diuisi Essenorum Saducaeorum Pharisâ—orum the Pharisees and Saducees Why did he not as well alleage the Pharisees and Saducees but specially the Pharisees amongst whom he might haue found some shew for their c Epiphan haeres 16. Quidam ipsorum â—â—m se exerâ—â—bant praescribebat decâ—nnium aut octennium â—ut quadrienâ—â—um virginitatis siue continentiae vow of continency and chastity but that their names being knowen out of the Gospell hee knew it would easily bee discerned what kinde of weapon he had brought to fight against me These Essees d Philast vt supra Christâ—m Dominum Dei silium non expectantes c. Sed Prophetam aut iustum hominem sâ—lum credâ—ntes expectant beleeued not that Christ the Messias should be the sonne of God but only some Prophet or iust man as Philastrius writeth of them Iosephus saith of them e Ioseph de bell Iudaic. l. 2. â— 7. Opinio apud illos sirmata est corruptibilia esse corpora ma teriamque 〈…〉 um non essâ— perpetuam anim is autem immortales semper manere quasi careeribus ita corporibus implicari c. qâ—um verò fuerint à carnalibus releuate vinculis quasi de seruitute longissiâ—a liber â—as â—â—a 〈◊〉 â—etaâ—i c. Bonas pronunciant vltra Oceanum degere c. illic qâ—ippe esse regâ—onem que neque imbribus neque niuibus neque aestibus aggrauetur c. malis autem animabus procellosa loca hyberna delegant that they beleeued the immortality of the soule but the resurrection of the body they beleeued not into which they said according to Origens opinion that the soule was brought as into a prison and shall greatly reioyce when it is freed therefrom They dreamed that the soules of the iust haue a place of rest beyond the Ocean where there is no raine nor snow nor heate and on the other side that some stormy and winter quarters were designed for the euill In the place cited by M. Bishop he sheweth further that f Idem Antiq. l. 18. cap. 2. Ad templum donaria mutentes sacraibinon faciunt quòd sanctioribus vtantur ceremonijs quapropter exclusi â— communi sano seorsum sacrificant they sent gifts to the Temple but did no sacrifice or deuotion there for that they vsed more sacred and holy ceremonies namely then were appointed by God himselfe for which cause being from thence excluded they sacrificed apart which was a thing contrary to the commandement of God Now whereas M. Bishop saith that they had neither wiues nor seruants though it were true in some of them yet it was not so in all For Iosephus noteth that there was one sort of them which though g Idem de bello Iudaico l. 2. c. 7. Est autem aliud etiam Essâ—norum collegium cibos quâ—dâ— mores legesque fimiles cum prioribus habens distans verò opinione de conâ—â—gio Maximam siquidemvitae hominum partem successionem scilicet amputare qui abstineant nuptijs arbitrantur c. they agreed with the rest as touching diet and orders yet differed from them in the opinion of marriage thinking that they that did forbeare marriage did cut off a great part of the life of men by taking away succession and therefore they did marry But it is not to be omitted how M. Bishop graceth these Essees with liuing in the time of the law making shew to the ignorant Reader as if they had had some great continuance of good and approued times whereas h Funcc Chronolog Anno mundi 3833. the beginning of them as of the Pharisees and Saducees was in the very declination of true piety and religion amongst the Iewes some two hundred yeares before the time of Iosephus about a hundred and forty yeares before the birth of Christ Neither in the law of Moses nor in any of the Prophets is there mention
from that imputation Well and what of that Marry Chrysostome and Hierome do argue saith he that euen so in the law of grace men infected with the soules leprosie are either to be bound and declared obstinate by the Priest if they will not repent or repenting and confessing the same are to be cleansed therefrom by the Priests absolution First Chrysostome in the place by him alleaged saith nothing either of confession or absolution but noting by occasion what grace is administred by Priests in baptisme that u Chrysost de Sacerdot lib. 3. Authores nobis sunt natiuitatis eius quam à Deo habemus c. atque adeò adoptionis eius qua nos per gratiam silij Dei sumus effecti Corporiâ— lepram purgare seu verius dicam haud purgare quidem sed purgatos probaâ—e Iudaeorum Sacerdotibus solis licebat c. At verò nostris Sacerdotibus non corporis lepram verum animae sordes non dico purgatas probare sed purgare prorsus concessum est they are as he speaketh authours of our new birth and of that adoption whereby we are made the sonnes of God he addeth further thereof thus Only the Priests of the Iewes might purge the leprosie of the body or so speake more truly not purge it but giue warrant of them that were purged but to our Priests it is granted I will not say to approue such as are purged but to purge not the leprosie of the body but the vncleannesse of the soule This the Priest doth sacramentally and ministerially in baptisme when he x Acts 2. 38. baptizeth in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ to the remission of sinnes and what is this to M. Bishops turne As little is there in the words of Hierome who saith that y Hieron in Mat. c. 16. Quomodo ibi Sacerdoâ— facit leprosum mundâ— vel immundum non quò Sacerdotes leprosos faciant immundos sed quò habeant notitiam leprosi vel non leprosi possint discernere qui mundus quiuè immundus fit sic hic alligat vel soluit Episcopus Presbyter noÌ„â—os qui insontes sunt vel nâ—xij sed pro â—fficio suo cum peccatorum audierit varietates scit qui ligandus sit qui soluendus as the Priest in Moses law did make the leaper cleane or vncleane not for that he did so indeede but only tooke notice who was a leaper and who was not and did discerne betwixt the cleanâ— and the vncleane so here the Bishop or Priest doth binde or loose not binde them which are innocent or loose the guilty but when according to his office he heareth the variety of sinnes he knoweth who is to be bound and who to be loosed We see here the office and duty of the Priest to discerne betwixt man and man to acquit the innocent to bind the guilty by the publike censure of the Church to decide who is to be holden for loosed with God who for bound all which belong to the outward and publike discipline and gouernement of the Church but as for auricular confession or priuate absolution and pâ—nance thereto appertayning there is not so much as one word spoken thereof It is plainly here to be seene why M. Bishop quoted the authours only but did not set downe their wordes because the Reader would haue discerned his folly that would set downe such impertinent stuffe nothing at all concerning the point in hand Yet he hopeth that he hath said that that may suffice for answere to my particulars whereas he hath brought no tollerable proofe or probability for any one particular and therefore leaueth vs to resolue that none of those points of religion by me mentioned were euer knowen to the old Fathers W. BISHOP §. 4. I Might easily adde how the Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine were both prefigured by Melchisedechs Host in bread and Genes 14. wine and fore-told by the Prophet Malachy and what a Malach. 1. liuely type Manna that Angelicall and delicate foode was of Christs body in the Sacrament And how the supreme authority of one headouer all the whole Church and that to belong to a Bishop and not to the lay Magistrate was not obscurely shadowed but liuely represented by the Soueraigne power that the high Priest of the old Testament had ouer all the rest To determine and end all doubts Deuter. 17. and controuersies arising about any hard point of the law As for consecrating of Priests and hallowing of Churches and Altars with all Vestiments and Ornaments thereunto appertaining and for the seuerall feasts and fasts there is so great resemblance betweene them and vs that Protestants commonly cry out against vs for the ouer great affinity that is betwixt the old law and our religion But as they are to be reproued of indiscreet zeale against the rites of Moyses law which were of God and good for the time and most of them figures and types of the law of grace according to that of the Apostle All 1. Cor. 10. things chanced to them in figure and were written for our correction and instruction so on the other side some strange defluxion and dâ—stillation of corrupt humours maruailously darkned M. Abbots sore eyes that he could not discerne nor find in the whole law of Moises any one shadow of that which we now practise May not these worthy words which S. Paul pronounced of the blinded Iewes in his time be verified of him Their senses 2. Cor. 3. were dulled vntill this day when Moyses is read a veile is put vpon their heart that is they reading and hearing the law of Moyses doe no more vnderstand it then doth a man hoodded or that hath a veile before his eyes see what is before him or else M. Abbot reading the old Testament could not choose but haue seene much of our religion and many articles of our faith there recorded And albeit we teach most mysteries of our faith to haue beene in the law of Moyses prefigured and foretold yet is it very absurd to say as M. Abbot doth that we beleeue no more articles of faith then they did for we were by the Sonne of God our blessed Sauiour giuen to vnderstand many high points of beliefe which were not reueiled vnto them as hath beene before declared R. ABBOT ANd I might as easily answere that the Popish Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ as they call it vnder the formes of bread and wine is an absurd nouelty neither prefigured by Melchizedecke nor fore-told by Malachy the Prophet nor euer knowen to any ancient Father of the Christian Church Strange it is that a reall propitiatory sacrifice of Christs body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine should bee deriued from Melchizedecke with whom we see no token or semblance thereof of whom it is not said that he offered bread and wine but only that
heauen The other points were touched before and shall be shortly againe But I would in the meane season be glad to heare where the written word teacheth vs that Kings and temporall Magistrates are ordained by Christ to be vnder him supreme Gouernours of Ecclesiasticall affaires because M. Abbot made choise of this head-article of theirs for an instance that the written word was plaine on their side he should therefore at least haue pointed at some one text or other in the new Testament where it is registred that Princes are supreme Gouernours of the Church Nay are temporall Magistrates any Ecclesiasticall persons at all or can one that is no member of the Ecclesiasticall body be head of all the rest of the Ecclesiasticall members or is the state Secular higher and more worthy then the Ecclesiasticall and therefore meete to rule ouer it though they be not of it to say so is to preferre the body before the soule nature before grace earth before heauen or is it meete and decent that the lesse worthy-member should haue the supreme command ouer the more honourable where the Christian world is turned topsie-turuy that may be thought meete and expedient but in other places that will not be admitted for currant which in it selfe is so disorderly and inconuenient without it had better warrant in the word of God then that new position of theirs hath R. ABBOT THe truth of mine assertions hath hitherto appeared by my defence of them but let them no further be taken for true then he is here found to be false that is the oppugner of them He saith that my conclusion conuinceth me euen by the verdict of my selfe to fall into the foule fault and errour of the Donatists To proue this he maketh me to speake in my answere in this sort Our faith because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolike faith and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is proued to be an Apostolicall Church c. and is the only true Catholike Church c. Hauing set downe all these as my words he inferreth thus see you not how he is come at length to proue their Church to be Catholike by perfection of their doctrine which was as he himselfe in this very assertion noted a plaine Donatisticall tricks reproued by St. Austin c. But I pray thee gentle Reader to looke where thou canst finde those wordes by me set downe And is the only true Catholike Church Aske M. Bishop if thou meete with him where he found them and if he cannot tell thee aske him in sadnesse what spirit he thinketh it was wherewith he was led when he set them downe for my wordes Fie M. Bishop fie for shame doe you talke so against lying and will you in the meane time lye so wittingly and willingly so as that there is no meanes to salue it no colour to excuse it I did not say that ours is the only true Catholike Church I made no shew of prouing it by perfection of doctrine to be the Catholike Church I neuer wrote it I neuer thought it and therefore once againe I wish you to bethinke your selfe of your words whereof I remembred you before a Reproofe pag. 283. The diuels cause it is that needeth to be bolstered out and vnderpropped with lyes Surely it is beyond doating folly it is desperate fury that draweth men on to such courses To let that goe foule and shamefull as it is he telleth vs next that he liketh well of Tertullians obseruation that our faith ought to haue consanguinity and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine But he curtolleth Tertullians obseruation by this recitall of his because Tertullian doth not only say what our faith ought to haue but telleth vs that b Tertul. de Praescript Quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authoreÌ„ suum proferaÌ„t vt mâ—â—tò posteriores quae denique quotidiè instituiâ—tur tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non mâ—â—us Apostolicae depâ—tantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae those Churches which cannot bring any of the Apostles or Apostolike men for their authour as being much later euen the Churches which daylie are begunne yet according in the same faith are for this consanguinity or agreement of doctrine reputed Apostolike Churches no lesse then the rest Hence I concluded that our Church because it agreeth in faith and doctrine with the Apostles is therefore to be reckoned an Apostolike Church But that saith M. Bishop is not the question at this time And what then is the question Marry saith he whether our doctrine or the Protestants be truly called Catholike that is whether of them hath beene receiued and beleeued in all nations ouer the world But did not he see that the one of these directly followeth of the other for the faith of the Apostles is it that was spred ouer the whole world Our faith is the same with the faith of the Apostles because it is that which is recorded in the Scriptures of the Apostles Therefore our faith it is that was spred and beleeued through the world Abrahams faith was it that was spred ouer the whole world for Abraham is c Rom. 4. 12. 16 the father and patterne of all that beleeue both circumcised and vncircumcised Our faith is the same with Abrahams faith Therefore againe it is our faith that was generally receiued throughout the world At this M. Bishop biteth the lip it troubleth him that he knoweth not what to say to it He seeth this proofe to be most certaine and impregnable aboue all other and therefore he seeketh by all meanes to diuert and turne away his Reader from listening to it He telleth him that I doe not deale plainly and soundly that I goe about the bush that I fetch wide and wild windlesses from old father Abrahams daies But I answere him that I haue so gone about the bush as that I haue scratched him with it and my wide and wild windlesses haue so inclosed him as that he cannot finde which way to get out againe Well if my course like him not what would he haue me doe I should he saith haue demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesiasticall histories or ancient Fathers that the Protestants religion had flourished since the Apostles daies ouer all Europe Afrike and Asia I haue done already sufficient to demonstrate that I haue astonished him and choaked him with the euidence of Scriptures Stories Councels Fathers so as that hitherto he hath left all that he hath written to the question of religion without defence I shall make further demonstration thereof in this booke euen in the Roman Church What am I the nearer with him by that that I haue done What shall I be the nearer when I haue all done for he hath resolued himselfe to a wicked course and therefore though the light shine into his eyes yet he will sweare that he seeth it not He blameth me for concluding without
Creatio in libertatem voluntatis facta est sine nobis the creating of vs to freedome of will is wrought without vs that our freewill following he may â—oe with vs that good whereto we are now become willing And againe in the same place u Gregor Moral vt supra Diuina nos bonitas innocentes faciat praeucnit eandem gratiam nostrum liberum arbitrium sequitur The goodnesse of God prâ—â—tenteth vs to make vs innocent and our free-will followeth the same grace Thus x August de Grat. lib. Arbit cap. 5. Vt coÌ„uerteretur gratia Dei eraâ— sola our conuersion as St. Austin saith of the Apostle Paul is the grace of God only but when by conuersion he hath reformed our will and wrought in vs the loue of righteousnesse vve by this worke of grace in vs doe thenceforth apply our selues to worke with grace and the worke that we doe is Gods worke and it is our worke but no otherwise ours but that by the gift of God it is wrought in vs and so becommeth ours Therefore vve doe not say that the grace of God so doth all as that we doe nothing but whatsoeuer we doe the grate of God it is that worketh in vs to doe it y August coÌ„t a Epist Pelag. lib. 1. c. 6. Nos quidem ambulamus verum est nos obseruamus nos facimus sed ille facit vt ambulemus obseruemus faciamus We walke saith Austin it is true we obserue we doe but he maketh vs to walke to obserue to doâ— Euen so we suffer not sinne to reigne in our mortall bodies as the Apostle teacheth vs but it is â—â— that maketh vs not to suffer it to reigne We giue the poâ—ers of our soules as instruments to the producing of good workes as M. Bishop speaketh but it is he that maketh vs to giue them to be so who z August de Praedest sanct cap. 11. Promittit facturum se vt faciaÌ„t quae iubet vt fiant promiseth to cause vs to doe those things which he commandeth to be done Therefore â—ee pâ—each to the people of God as Leo Bishop of Rome did a Leo in Epiphan serm 5. Cooperatores simus gratiâ— Dei operaÌ„tis in nobis non enim dormientibus proueâ—it regnum coelorum nec otio deâ—â—d aâ—â— torpentibus beatâ—tudo â—ternâ—tatis ingeritur Let vs be ioynt-workers with the grace of God that worketh in vs for the Kingdome of heauen befalleth not to sleepers neither is the blisse of eternity thrust vpon idle and slothfull persons But yet withall we say with Gregory that b Gregor Moral lib. 29. c. 13. Quòd verba praedicationis dâ—i ab auribus ad corda desâ—eÌ„ lunt solo diuino munere agitur c. Per internam gratiam solus omnipotens Deus praedicantium verbis ad corda aud 〈…〉 um inutsibilitèr aditum prâ—stat it is by the only gift of God that the words of the preacher doe descend from the care to the heart that it is only the almighty God who by inward grace inuisibly giueth passage for the wordes of the preacher to the hearts of them that heare Yea with Leo himselfe we say that c Leo de Quadrag serm 101 Quod deitatis habâ—tacuâ—um licet inchoari perfici sine suo authore non possit habet tamen ab 〈…〉 sicante donatum vt etiam labore proprio quaerat augmentum the habitation and temple of God which is euery faithfull man which can neither be begunne nor finished without the authour of it hath it giuen of God by it owne labour to seeke it owne furtherance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It vvoâ—kein then with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it selfe to God but it hath it giuen to â—â— of God 〈◊〉 to worke with God By it owne labour it seeketh it owne encrease but it is the gift of God vvhereby it laboureth for this increase In a vvord vve say with Fulgentiâ—â— d Fulgent â—d 〈…〉 brâ—ter prohibemtam in nostra side quà m in nostro opere â—tanquam nostrum nobâ—t aeliquid vendcare We in no sort sâ—ffer nay we by who 〈◊〉 doctrine fâ—rbidden 〈◊〉 in our suit or in our workes to chalenge to our selues any thing for our owne Nothing is ours but in 〈◊〉 sort as Gregory faith e Gregor Moral l. 24. cap. 5. Iustitia nostra dicieâ—r non quae ex nostro nostra est sed quae diuinâ—â—argitate fit nostrâ— It is called our righteousnes which â—â— not ours as of our owne but which by the gift of God is made ours or as Hierome saith f Hieron Epist ad Demeâ—riad Velle nolle nostrumest ipsamque quod nostrum est sine miseratione Dei nostrum non est To will and to nill is ours but that which is ours without the mercy of God is none of ours This was the doctrine of the old Church of Rome concerning free-will this we approue and teach and because we approue this therefore we detest the doctrine that is now taught in the Church of Rome which is quite contrary to this But here M. Bishop being come away from iustification and fallen to a new matter yet bethought himselfe vpon a sodaine that he had some what further to say of it and therefore leapeth backe againe He was departed from it to free-will and yet before we depart from iâ— faith he you shall heare more of â—â— out of the same Apostle And vvhar shall we heare He teacheth expresly saith he that it man in the state of grace may fulfill the law The vvordes which he citeth for this purpose are these g Rom. 8. 3. that that was impossible for the law in that it was weakened by the flesh God sending his some in the similitude of sinnefull flâ—sh and for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that the iustification of the law might be fulfilled in vt which walke not after the flesh but after the spirit Concerning which place I haue giuen full answere and satisfaction h Of Iustification sect 38. 43. before to which Preferre the Reader all 〈…〉 it shall not be amisse here also to say somwhat of it And first it is worth the while to obsâ—rue with vvhat discretion he bringeth this place to proue in â—s here an ability to fulfill the law vvhen as the place ministreth to vs a certaine and infallible argument to proue the contrary For the Apostle here affirmeth an impossibility in the law to iustifie and saue vs not by any defect of it selfe but by reason of the weakenesse of the flesh So long then as this weakenesse of the flesh continueth so long must the same impossibility continue also But this weakenesse of the flesh continueth so long as we liue here So long therefore as we liue here there shall be an impossibility of being iustified by the law For i Rom. 8. 7. the flesh is not subiect vnto the law of God nor can be k Rom. 7. 23. it
another Psalme handling the wordes at large expoundeth them as in al these places he hath done z Idem in Psal 80. Qui aedificat amorem terrenorum super fundamentum regni coelorum c. ardebit amor rerâ—m temporalium ipse saluus erit per idoneum fundamentum â—t paulo ante Grauâ—tèr conturbâ—ntur foenum stipula ligna ardent Si tristis perdis saluus eris tanquam per ignem He that buildeth the loue of temporall things vpon the foundation of the Kingdome of heauen that is vpon Christ his loue of temporall things shall burne namely by sorrow and griefe in the losse of them but he himselfe shall be saued by the right foundation Thus very constantly doth he vnderstand the fire spoken of by the Apostle of the griefe and tribulation that God layeth vpon the faithfull in bereauing them of those earthly goods which they haue ouer-carnally affected and desired Now in all these places it is to be noted that Saint Austin was so farre from expounding that text of the Apostle concerning Purgatory as that in euery of the former he hath signified expresly that hee doubted thereof and in the last of all denyeth it expresly In the first place hee saith a De â—ide Oper. c. 16. Siâ—â— in haâ— vâ—â—a tantum homines ista patiuntur siue etiam post hac vitam â—alia quae dâ— iudicia subsequnâ—â—r non abhorret quantum arbâ—â—ror à ratione veritatis iste intellâ—ctus bâ—â—us â—â—ntentiae Whether in this life only men suffer such things or whether after this life also some such iudgements fâ—llow the meaning which I haue giuen of this sentence as I suppose abhorreth not from the truth In the second place hee saith b Enchirid. ad Laurent c. 69. Tale aliquid 〈◊〉 pest hanc vitam â—eri incredibile nâ—a est vtrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inueniri â—ut latere nâ—nnullos fidelâ—s per ignem quendam pâ—rgatoriii quatò magis unâ—usue bâ—na pereuntia dâ—lexerunt tanto tardâ—â—s citiâ—sâ—â— saluari That sâ—me such thing there is also after this life it is not incredible and may be enquired of whether it be so or not and either be sound or remaine hidden that some faithfull by a kinde of Purgaâ—ory fire by how much they haue either the more or the lâ—sse loued transitory goods are either the sooner or the more slowly saued The repeating of both these places to Dulcitius without any reuocation or alteration may serue in steede of a third testimony of his doubting of it And in the last place he saith againe c De ciâ— Dâ—â— lib. 21. cap. 26. Post istius corâ—oris mortem c. si hoc 〈◊〉 â—tâ—ruall◠〈◊〉 tus defunctorum eiusmodi ignem dicuntâ—r perpeti c. sâ—â—â— ibi tantum sâ—u◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vt noa ibi secâ—laria quamâ—â—s à damnatione vemalia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inueniant non redarguo quiâ— forsiâ—an verâ—m est After the death of this body if the soules of the dead in this meane time till the râ—surrection be sâ—id to suffer some such kinde of fire and whether there only or both here and there or whether here they finde a fire of transitory tribulation burning their secular desires that they may not finde it there I reproue it not I say not against it because perhaps it is true Here we finde it is not incredible and it may be disputed whether it be so and perhaps it is so but vpon his best aduice hee could not finde in the Apostles wordes or in any other place of Scripture that certainely it is so Yea in the last place which is worthy to be noted propounding to answere some who by pretence of the Apostles wordes here in question hoped to be saued by a Purgatory fire he vseth these words d In Psal 80. 〈◊〉 per 〈◊〉 salaus eâ—o Nam quid est quod art Apostolus fundamentum aliud c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 das esse volo 〈◊〉 est enim non vobis dare securitatem malam Non dabo quod non 〈◊〉 tâ—meus terreo securos vos saccrem si securus â—iâ—rem ego Ignem aeternum tin â—â— Non 〈◊〉 nisi ignem aeternum de quo â—lio loco Scriptura dicit c. Brethren I am very fearefull it is not good to giue you any euill security I will deliuer nothing but what I receiue in feare I terrifie you I would secure you if I could secure my selfe I feare eternall fire I receiue or learne no fire but that that is eternall of which the Scripture saith in another place Their fire shall neuer goe out and so hee goeth on to expound the place in such sort as I haue said Marke this well St. Austin will deliuer nothing but what he hath receiued and hee professeth to haue receiued no other fire but only eternall fire Therefore very definitely he saith elsewhere e Hypognost l. 5. Tertum loâ—um penitus ignoramus un mò nec esse in Scripturis inuenimus Wee are vtterly ignorant of any third place yea and we finde in the Scriptures that there is none and therefore he diuideth all the soules of the dead either to perpetuall ioy or perpetuall torment as I haue shewed f Answere to Doctor Bishops Epistle sect 10. otherwhere As Austin so Gregory also though hee expound the place concerning Purgatory as M. Bishop citeth yet saith elsewhere that g Greg. Dial. 〈…〉 c. 39. Hoc de â—â—â—e tribulationis in hac nobis vita adâ—nbito potest intelligi the same may be vnderstood of the fire of tribulation applyed vnto vs in this life and if it may be vnderstood of tribulation in this life then can it be no proofe for warrant of a Purgatory in the life to come Now it is true indeed that Gregory was superstitiously conceipted concerning Purgatory although allowing of it only h Ibid De quibusdam 〈◊〉 culpis de paruts minimâ—â—que peceatis for very small and light offences but it is worth the while to note how sometimes the truth forcing it selfe vpon him hee crosseth himselfe in this behalfe and putteth that downe in one place which he buildeth in another For he writing vpon Iob he saith i Greg. Mor. l. 8. c. 8. Quem nequaquam modo miserecordia eripit sola post praesons seculum iustitia 〈◊〉 Hinc Salomo ait quia lignum ta quocunque loco ceâ—â—derit c. qua â—um humani casus tempore fiue sanctus fiâ—e malignus spiritus egredientem amnâ—a claustra carnis acceperit in 〈◊〉 secum 〈◊〉 pernâ—â—tat 〈◊〉 aterâ—is suppliâ—iis vltra ad remedium creptionis ascendat Whom mercy now deliuereth not him iustice only after this world imprisoneth Hereof Salomon saith that in whatsoeuer place the tree falleth whether towards the South or towards the North there it shall be because when at the time of a mans death either the good spirit or the euill spirit shall receiue
mandauerunt c. the bodies of the iust and faithfull which the holy Ghost hath vsed for instruments and vessels to all good workes are not to be despised and cast away inferreth that therefore the funerals of the iust of old were with all officious piety regarded their exequies celebrated and their buriall prouided for and they themselues whilest they liued gaue charge to their children for the burying of them or else for transferring them from the place where they were to be buried otherwhere He alleageth examples that Tobie in burying the dead is commended to haue pleased God that our Sauiour Christ commended the good worke of the religious woman which powred the pretious ointment vpon his body as of purpose for his buriall that they are laudably mentioned in the Gospell who tooke the body of Christ from the Crosse and vsed care to haue it diligently and honorably buried And thus Origen professing q Origen coÌ„t Cels lib. 8. Solas rationales animas honorare nouimus earli instrumenta solenni honore sepulturae dignamur Meretur enim rationalis animae domicilium non temerè proijci sicut brutorum cadauera praesertim quod fuit anima benè ac sanctè instrumento suâ— in certaâ—inibus vsae receptâ—culum to honour only the soules endued with reason sheweth what this honour is Their instruments that is their bodies we vouchsafe the solemne honour of buriall For the habitation of the reasonable soule is of more worth then carelesly to be cast away like the carkasses of brute beasts specially that which hath beene the receptacle of a soule that hath in spirituall fights and combates well and holily vsed the body Now if it be the honour that is to be done to the bodies of the Saints to bury them in the ground then is it a barbarous dishonour that is done to them in Popery vnder the name of piety to pull them out of their graues and to rent them in peeces and carry one peece this way and another another way the skull to one place the toe or finger to another one tooth hither and another thither as amongst them hath beene accustomed to be done Wherein how farre they haue departed from the ancient Church of Rome appeareth by Gregory Bishop of Rome who for his time affirmeth that r Gregor lib. 3. Epist 30. In Romanis totius OccideÌ„tis partibus omnino intolerabile est atque sacrilegum si sactorum corpora tagere quisquam fortassè praesumpserit Quod sl praesumpserit certum est quia bâ—c temeritas impunita nullo mâ—do remanebit in the Roman Church and whole Westerne parts it was a thing altogether intollerable and a matter of sacriledge to presume to touch the bodies of the Saints and if any man doe presume so to doe saith he certaine it is that his rashnesse shall by no meanes remaine vnpunished And hauing shewed diuers examples of them who aduenturing too neare to the stirâ—ing or touching of the bodies of some holy persons were thereupon greatly frighted or by death miscarried he concludeth Å¿ Ibid. Quis tam temerarius possit existere vt hâ—c sciens â—orum corpora non dico tangere sed vel aliquatenùs praesumat inspicere Who then knowing these things can be so rash as that he will presume I will not say to touch the bodies of such but in any sort to looke vpon them How is the world now changed in the Church of Rome that they dare not only looke vpon such buryed relikes but pull them out of their graues touch them kisse them carry them about as hath beene before said and will M. Bishop still notwithstanding be so impudent as to say that the religion of the church of Rome is now the same that of old it was For conclusion of this passage he alleageth t Heb. 11. 21. that Iacob adored the toppe of Iosephs rodde which was a signe of his power which he saith giueth all iudicious men to vnderstand that the Images of Saints for their holy representation ought to be respected and worshipped But what a spiâ—e hath the Apostle put him to thus to seeke for Images vpon the toppe of Iosephs rodde What meant he to be so sparing in the behalfe of the Roman Church as that hee would not name so much as one holy man to whom an Image had beene set vp to be worshipped in his name But the Apostle knew no such Marry M. Bâ—shop is able by a Romish art to supply that want by fetching an image out of the toppe of Iosephs rodde He had heard of Garnets image in the straw and hee thought the toppe of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rodde or staffe to bee much more capable of an image But for the bringing of this about hee betaketh himselfe to a translation which is manifestly false the Greeke text not saying that he worshipped the toppe of his rodde but â— he worshipped vpon the toppe of his rodde that is as we translate it hee worshipped God leaning vpon the end or toppe of his staffe This Thomas Aquinas acknowledgeth and telleth vs the whole reason hereof u Tho. Aquin. in Heb. 11. sect 5. Super fastigium vt habetur in Graeco c. Ipse erat senex ideò portabat virgam vel recepit sceptrum Joseph donec iâ—rasset antequam redderet ei adorauit non ipsam virgam nec Joseph vt quidam malè putaueruÌ„t sed ipsum Deum innixus ad cacumen vel super fastigium virgae cius Iacob was an old man saith he and therefore carried a rodde or staffe or else he tooke the scepter of Ioseph vntill Ioseph had sworne namely that he would bury his father in Canaan according to his desire and before he restored it to him he worshipped not the rodde nor Ioseph as some haue thought amisse but God himselfe leaning at the toppe or vpon the toppe of his rodde We neede no more this is enough to dash M. Bishop out of comfort and to bereaue him of all hope to finde any succour for his Images in this place But if any man desire further satisfaction let him see this place handled at large in the question of Images the sixteenth section W. BISHOP §. 5. WIth as great facility and no lesse perspicuity we doe collect out of S. Paul that the Saints in heauen are to be prayed vnto for he doth hartily craue the Rom. 15. ver 30. Romans to helpe him in their prayers and hopeth by the helpe of the Corinthians prayers to be deliuered 2. Cor. 1. ver 11. from great dangers Whence we reason thus If such a holy man as S. Paul was stood in neede of other mens prayers much more neede haue we poore wretches of the prayers of Saints S. Paul was not ignorant how ready God is to heare vs nor of the only mediation of Christ Iesus and yet as high as he was in Gods fauour and as well informed of the office of
Christs mediation hee held it needfull to request other farre meaner then himselfe to pray for him All this is good saith a good Protestant for to instruct vs to request the helpe of other mens prayers that are liuing with vs but not of Saints who are departed this world Yes say we because the Saints in heauen are more charitable and desirous of Gods honour and of our spirituall good then any friend we haue liuing and therefore more forward to assist vs with their prayers They are also more gracious in the sight of God and thereby better able to obtayne our requests All which may easily be gathered out of S. Paul who saith that charity neuer faileth but is maruailously encreased 1. Cor. 13. ver 8. Ephes 2. ver 19. in that heauenly Country Also that we are not strangers and forraigners to the Saints but their fellow Cittizens and the houshold seruants of God with them yea we are members of the same body wherefore they cannot choose but tender most dearely all our sutes that appertaine vnto the glory of God and our owne saluation They therefore haue finally no other shift to auoide praying to Saints but to say that though all other circumstances doe greatly moue vs thereto yet considering that they cannot heare vs it is labour lost to pray to them To which we reply and that out of S. Paul that the Saints can heare vs and doe perfectly know our prayers made vnto them For the Apostle comparing the knowledge of this life with that of the life to come saith In part wee know and in part wee prophesie but 1. Cor. 13. ver 9. â—0 12. when that shall come which is perfect that shall be made voide which is in part And a little after VVe see now by a glasse in a darke sort but then face to face Whence not I but that Eagle-eyed Doctor S. Augustine De Ciuitat Dei lib. 22. cap. 29. doth deduce that the knowledge of the heauenly Cittizens is without comparison farre more perfect and clearer then euer any mortall mans was of things absent and to come yea that the Prophets who were indued with surpassing and extraordinary light did not reach any thing neare vnto the ordinary knowledge of the Saints in heauen grounding himselfe vpon these expresse wordes of the Apostle We prophesie in part that is imperfectly in this life which shall be perfect in heauen If then saith he the Prophets being mortall men had particular vnderstanding of things farre distant from them and done in other Countries much more doe those immortall soules replenished with the glorious light of heauen perfectly know that which is done on earth though neuer so farre from them thus much of praying to Saints R. ABBOT WE collect saith he as though it were any thing to vs what they collect when the question is what the Apostle teacheth It is true that the Apostle heartily craueth the Romans a Rom. 15. 30. to helpe him in their prayers and hopeth by the helpe b 2. Cor. 1. 11. of the Corinthians prayers to be deliuered from great dangers but what of that Marry saith he hence we reason thus If such a holy man as Paul was stoode in neede of other mens prayers much more neede haue we poore wretches of the prayers of Saints But doth not the wise man see that he here maketh a rodde to whip himselfe for if such a holy man as Paul was standing in neede of other mens prayers yet craued not any prayers of the Saints that were dead but only of the brethren that were aliue doth he not teach vs to doe the like that though we be to begge the helpe of other mens prayers yet we begge the same of the liuing only not of them that are dead Yea but the Saints in heauen saith he are more charitable and desirous of Gods honour and our spirituall good more forward to pray for vs and more gracious in Gods sight to obtaine our requests But why then say I did not St. Paul rather seeke to the Saints in heauen then to men liuing vpon the earth Why did he not say O Abraham Isaac Iacob pray for vs Why did he not desire God that by the merits and intercession of the holy Virgin of Saint Stephen St. Iames St. Ioseph and such others he would haue mercy vpon him Why did he seeke to them that were farre meaner then himselfe when hee might haue gone to those that were superiors to himselfe and more gracious in Gods sight Did not he know that charity is maruelously increased in that heauenly Countrey that they tender dearely all our sutes that they can heare vs and doe perfectly know our praiers made vnto them Why did he omit then rather to craue their prayers then the prayers of the Romans the Corinthiaus and others to whom he wrote M. Bishop cannot here answere any thing to giue satisfaction to any reasonable man yea it plainly appeareth by the Apostles example that all his collections are but vaine and phantasticall speculations Against which we oppose briefly that it is c Iam. 5. 15. the prayer of faith which saueth and true faith hath it seate d Rom. 10. 10. in the heart and God heareth euery mans prayer e 1. Kings 8. 39. as he knoweth his heart and f Ibid. he only knoweth the hearts of all the children of men and therefore the Saints know not our prayers because they know not our hearts And thus the Prophet Esay saith g Esay 63. 16. Abraham knoweth vs not and Israel is ignorant of vs. Wherupon St. Austin concludeth h August de cura pro mort gerenda c. 13. Si tanti Patriarchâ— quid erga populum ex his procreatum ageretur ignoraâ—erunt quibus Deo credentibus populus ipse de illorum stirpe promissus est quomodomortui suorum rebus atque actibus cognoscendis adiuâ—aÌ„disque miscentur Quomodo dicimus cis fuisse consultum qui obierunt antequam venirent mala quae illoruÌ„ obitum consecuta sunt si post mortem sentiunt quaecunque in vita humanae calamitate contingunt Et paulò pòst Ibi sunt ergò spiritus defunctor um vbi non vident quaecunque agâ—tur aut euenâ—â—nt in ista vita hominibus If so worthy Patriarches did not know what was done as touching the people that was descended of them to whom beleeuing God the same people was promised to come of their stocke how haue the dead to doe with the knowledge or helping of the state and doings of theirs and how doe we say that they were prouided for who died before those euils came which ensued after their death if after death they vnderstand what euils befall in the calamity of this life He concludeth The soules of the dead are there where they see not what things are done or happen to men in this life This M. Bishop cannot abide to heare of from St. Austin because he thinketh
it to be great disaduantage to him and on the contrary to aduantage himselfe by St. Austins authority he sticketh not most wilfully and absurdly to belie him calling him in the meane time the Eagle-eyed Doctor after the manner of the i Mat. 23. 30. Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites who garnished the Sepulchres of the Prophets but their doctrine they could not abide First he setteth downe St. Austins ground in the Apostles wordes k 1. Cor. 13. 9. We know in part and we prophesie in part but when that which is perfect is come then that which is vnperfect shall be done away And againe l Vers 12. Wee see now by a glasse in a darke sort but then face to face Hereof he saith that St. Austin doth deduce that the knowledge of the heauenly Cittizens is without comparison farre more perfect and cleare then euer any mortall mans was of things absent and to come Yea he alleageth these as the very words of Austin If then the Prophets being mortall men had particular vnderstanding of things farre distant from them and done in other Countries much more doe those immortall soules replenished with the glorious light of heauen perfectly know that which is done on earth though neuer so farre from them For this hee quoteth August de ciuit Dei lib. 22. cap. 29. Now would not a man maruell that M. Bishop should dare to cite such a sentence as out of Austin when Austin hath no such And yet he doth so most folsly and vnhonestly St. Austin saying nothing in that place of the immortall soules now in heauen but only of the body and soule conioyned after the resurrection The very thing that he propoundeth to speake of in the beginning of the Chapter is this l August de Ciu. Dei l. 12. c. 29. Nunc iam quid actari sint in corporibus immortalibus atque spiritualibus fancti non adhuc eâ—rum carne carnaliter sed spiritualitèr iam viuente quantum Dominus dignatur adiuuare videamus What the Saints shall doe in their immortall and spirituall bodies the flesh now liuing no longer carnally but spiritually To set forth the sight and knowledge of things which the Saints shall then haue he taketh a coniecture from the example of Elizeus m Ibid. Si Propheta Helizeus pucrum â—uum Gâ—eziabsens câ—rpore vidâ—t accipientem munera quae dedit et Naaman Syrus c. quantò magis in illo corpore spirituali videbunt sancti omnia non solum sioculos claudaÌ„t verumâ—tiam vnde sunt corpore absentes Tunc enim erit perfectum illud de quo loquens Apostolus Ex parte inquit scimus c. Itane cum venerit quod perfectum est nec iam corpus corruptibile aggrauabit animam sed incorruptibile nihil impediet illi sancti ad ea quae videnda sunt â—culis corporeis quibus Helisaeus absensad seruum suum videndum non indiguit indigebunt who being absent yet saw his seruant Gehezi taking gifts of Naaman the Syrian How much more saith he shall the Saints in that spirituall body see all things not only though they shut their eies but also where in body they are absent fir then shall be the perfection saith he whereof the Apostle speaketh citing the wordes which are before set downe and then inferring againe When that is come which is perfect and the corruptible body shall no longer clogge the soule but being incorruptible shall nothing hinder it shall the Saints neede bodily eyes for the seeing of things which Elizeus needed not for the seeing of his seruant I will not stand here to dispute of the strength of this collection nor of St. Austins application of those words of the Apostle but wee see that here is no such matter as M. Bishop pretendeth but by his collecting head hee bath meerely coined a sentence of his owne St. Austin in the one place denyeth that the Saints now are acquainted with our matters and in the other place saith nothing to the contrary but speaketh only vncertainly of the state that shall be after the resurrection from the dead and is not M. Bishop in the meane time a trusty man thus to bolster a false matter with a forged proofe I conclude with a briefe answere to his ground that our crauing of ech others prayers liuing is a request of mutuall loue but Popish prayers to Saints are prayers of adoration and religion performed to them In the one we pray only as fellow members in compassion in the other the Saints are made to pray as Patrones by mediation The one therefore hath no fellowship or agreement with the other and very deceiptfully doth M. Bishop deale to bring the pretence of the one for the colouring of the other W. BISHOP §. 6. NOw to the Masse The same profound diuine Saint Aug. Epist 59. ad Paulinum Ambros Chrysost in hunc locum Augustine with other holy Fathers who were not wont so lightly to skimme ouer the Scriptures as our late new Masters doe but seriously searched them and most deeply pierced into them did also finde all the parts of the Masse touched by the Apostle S. Paul in these wordes I desire that obsecrations prayers postulations 2. Tim. 2. vers 1. thanks-giuings be made for all men c. declaring how by these foure wordes of the Apostles are expressed the foure different sorts of prayers vsed in the celebration of the holy Mysteries By Obsecrations those prayers that the Priest saith before consecration By Prayers such as be said at and after the consecration vnto the end of the Pater noster By postulations those that are said at the Communion vnto the blessing of the people Finally By Thanks-giuing such as are said after by both Priest and People to giue God thanks for so great a gift receiued He that knoweth what the Masse is may by these wordes of the Apostle see all the parts of it very liuely paintedout in this discourse of S. Augustine who though he calleth not that celebration of the Sacrament by the name of Masse yet doth he giue it a name equiualent Sacri Altaris oblatio the oblation or sacrifice â—pistola 59. of the holy Altar in the solution of the fift question at the exposition of these wordes Orationes As for the principall part of the Masse which is the Reall presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrament S. Paul deliuereth it in as expresse termes as may be euen as he had receiued it from our Lord This is my body which shall be deliuered 1. Cor. 11. v. 23. for you c. and addeth that he that eateth and drinketh it vnworthily eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe not discerning the body of our Lord. And in the Chapter before maketh this demaund The Chalice or cup of benediction which we blesse is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of
of the carnall high Priest and Priest-hood and to make way to the treaty of the Priest-hood of Christ and therefore not to be vnderstood themselues of Christs Priest-hood either executed by himselfe or by him instituted if there were any such to bee executed by men But this appeareth more plainely by Chrysostome who saith that y Chrysost in Hebr. hom 8. Vult ostendere beatus Paulus quà m multò melius sit testamentum hâ—c quà m vetus the Apostle here goeth about to shew that the new Testament is much better then the old Where Theophylact saying the same addeth further z Theophyl in Heb. 5. Vult arguere nouum vetere Testamentum longè esse praestantius orditurque sacerdotalia munera ipsa conferre cum priscorum sacerdotum illorum tum Christi ostenditque maximum in modum excellere Christi sacerdotium Hee beginneth to compare the Priestly duties both of those old Priests and of Christ and sheweth that the Priest-hood of Christ doth most highly excell Oecumenius goeth yet further and particulateth the difference a Oecumen in Heb. 5. Vult hic osten lere nonum testamentum praestantius esse veteri hoc intcrim facit velut indâ—cta à sacerdotibus comparatione quòd illud quidem homines habuit sacerdotes hoc autem Christum Hee goeth about to shew saith hee that the new Testament is more excellent then the old and this he doth by bringing in a comparison of the Priests that the old Testament hath men for Priests but the new hath Christ. Now if there be here an intention of a comparison betwixt the old Testament and the new and the wordes cited by M. Bishop belong to a part of the comparison to set forth the Priest-hood of the old then doth hee very absurdly apply them to an assertion of Priest-hood in the new and by taking away the distinction of the parts doth vtterly ouerthrow the whole comparison Yea and if one part of the difference betwixt the two Testaments consist in this as Oecumenius hence obserueth that in the old Testament men are Priests then more absurdly doth M. Bishop deale to force these words to the maintenance of their Popish Priesthood whereby men are Priests in the new Testament as well as in the old But there is yet further proofe that the wordes belong only to the Leuiticall Priest-hood in that he nameth it a Priest-hood appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sinnes there being herein implied another difference that in the old Testament the Priests offered gifts and sacrifices for sinnes but in the new Testament Christ our Priest offereth vp himselfe And this opposition Theophylact expresseth out of these wordes in question b Theophyl in Heb. 5. Qui Patrem conciliandi gratia seipsum obtulit aâ—ij verò alia quaeda donum videlicet sacrificium Christ saith he to reconcile vs to his Father offered vp himselfe but the other offered other things to wit gifts and sacrifices The same Primasius also setteth downe from the same wordes c Primas ibid. Quod dicit vâ— offeral dona sacrificia c. illi pro suis delictis offerebaÌ„t sacrificia boues scilicet arietes hircos caetera talia Chrislus veâ—â— seipsum They offered for their sinnes sacrifices of Oxen Rammes Goates and such like but Christ offered himselfe If the wordes then haue their vnderstanding of a Priest-hood offering other sacrifices then Christ offereth who hath offered vp himselfe and doe import an opposition betwixt the Priest-hood of Christ and the Iewish Priest-hood then can wee not here vnderstand M. Bishops Priest-hood wherein they take vpon them to offer the same that Christ offered euen Christ himselfe and to bee Priests of the same order as Christ is Here then wee see what conscience M. Bishop vseth in the allegation of this text for their Priest-hood and Sacrifice of the Masse when as it hath no affinity or agreement with it but goeth wholly another way Yea his iniquity and the iniquity of his fellowes in this behalfe is so much the greater in that it being the Apostles drift in this Epistle to exclude all Priesthood and Sacrifice for sinne saue only the personall Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ only they dare presume thus to wrest some sentences spoken by the way of the Iewish Priest-hood in the law as if they extended to another Massing Priest-hood to be continued in the Gospell But against this their deuised Priest-hood pretending daylie to sacrifice Christ when as it is no other but a meere blasphemy and derogation to the sacrifice of Christ wee are armed by that the Apostle telleth vs that d Heb. 7. 27. Christ needeth not daylie to offer vp sacrifice that e Heb. 9. 25. he is entred into heauen not to offer himselfe often because f Heb. 10. 14. by one offering hee hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified hauing thereby purchased g Mat. 26. 28. remission of sinnes and h Heb. 10. 18. where remission of sinnes is there is no more offering for sinne The wordes are plaine euery eye may discerne them that because by Christs once offering there is remission of sinnes therefore there is now no more offering for sinne and therefore no Priest-hood for that vse Howsoeuer therefore vse and custome haue brought the name of Priest-hood into the language of the Church yet as touching the propriety and truth thereof wee say as before with Cyril i Cyril ad Neslor Epist 10. Nec praeter ipsum alteri cuipiam homini siue sacerdotij nomen siue rem ipsam ascribimus We ascribe not the name of Priest-hood or the thing it selfe to any other man saue to Christ and therefore doe wholly disclaime M. Bishops Priest-hood To which notwithstanding to get some further colour he falsifieth another text of the Apostle as if it had beene said Priests are Gods coadintours and helpers whereas the Apostle hath no name of Priests nor any intendement at all of such Priests as M. Bishop speaketh of but of Apostles Preachers and Ministers of the Gospell he saith k 1. Cor. 3. 9. Wee are Gods helpers or labourers togither with God Now who denieth this who saith that Preachers are only idle instruments as hee here obiecteth who doth not rather imagine that he is scant right that maketh motion of such a causelesse and idle quarrell But much more may wee thinke that his head stoode awry in his next conclusion That St. Pauld and Timothy did saue other men and therefore it is no blasphemy to pray to Saints to helpe and saue vs. For tell vs M. Bishop doe not you tell your Disciples that the end of your calling and trauell is to saue soules Doe not you beare them in hand that to saue them you aduenture the losse of your owne liues And what because you in your opinion doe saue them must all men in your opinion also make prayers to you to helpe and saue
sensibly apprehended as appeareth by that that is said of Simon Magus that c Acts 8. 18. he saw that through laying on the Apostles hands the holy Ghost was giuen and is otherwise also plainly to be perceiued Very absurdly therefore doth M. Bishop apply this place to their Sacrament of Orders where it is manifest that no such grace is giuen yea and to proue it to be a Sacrament because here is mention of grace giuen whereas the grace of Sacraments is no temporary gift but that inuisible eternall grace of remission of sinnes and sanctification of the holy Ghost whereby the inner man is renewed from day to day and the soule prepared and furnished vnto eternall life And thus we are come to an end of his proofes of their religion out of St. Pauls Epistles He telleth vs that he should be too long if he would prosecute all but be thou assured gentle Reader that he hath made here as good choise of his proofes as his wit would serue him and thou seest what they are and maiest by these esteeme what all the rest would be impertinent idle detorted wrested strained carrying no shew no colour when they are looked into of any such matter as he pretendeth Albeit thou art also to remember that all this while he hath sitten beside the cushion the thing propounded being that of Theodoret that the Epistle to the Romans containeth in it all kind of doctrine whence I inferred that sith the doctrine of Popery teacheth so many things whereof there is nothing to be found in the Epistle to the Romans it cannot be that doctrine which was at first deliuered to the Church of Rome To this he should haue directly answered and haue shewed vs that their Popery is to bee proued by the Epistle to the Romans But from this he stealeth away and to dawbe vp this breach as well as he can he maketh a scambling shift out of the rest of the Epistles and catcheth here and there a sentence as much to the purpose as if he had said nothing But the trimmest iest of all is his answer to that which I vrged as touching St. Peter whom they haue made the founder and head of their Church that it is strange that he should forget the triple crowne that he should say nothing for Popery no not a word that nothing hindereth in either of his Epistles but that he must be taken for a Protestant What doth M. Bishop say to this Marke it well gentle Reader for it is a learned answere and such as may giue thee great satisfaction in the cause As for St. Peter saith hee I will wholly omit him because the Protestants haue no confidence in him Where I may very well vse the words of St. Austine as touching the like dealing of Petilian the Donatist d Aug. contlit Petil. lib. 3. cap. 57. Videatis quà m inuictè positum sit contra quod ille nihil tutius inuenire potuit quâ—m silentium Marke how inuincibly this is set downe against which he could finde no way more safe then to say nothing What St. Peter to be theirs so nearely so entirely and yet to say nothing for them to be wholly the same that the Papists now are and yet writing two Epistles to write nothing tending thereto to say nothing at all but what we say Looke vpon the Epistles which they attribute to the Bishops of Rome that succeeded and what a worke is there in them concerning the exaltation of St. Peter concerning the dignity and authority of the Church of Rome by him ouer all other Churches and what is it not strange that St. Peter himselfe if hee had beene of the same spirit should say nothing thereof nothing of all the religion which is now proper to the Church of Rome nothing but what wholly standeth with the Protestants religion Will M. Bishop thus ridiculously babble that the Protestants haue no confidence in St. Peter when as he can alleage nothing that St. Peter saith against them or can we be perswaded that the Papists haue any confidence in him when as they can tell vs nothing that he hath said for them M. Bishop you obiect to me in this matter shamelesse impudency but I wish the Reader to consider by this answere of yours to whom the title of shamelesse impudency doth most iustly belong As for your forked argument I doubt not but you your selfe see and know that I am out of the danger of it but I feare that the one graine of it hath already giuen you a deadly wound I am afraide that it will be found that you haue wittingly and wilfully rebelled against God I feare there is a sting in your conscience pricking and vexing you day and night which howsoeuer you for the present violently oppresse yet you are not able to pull out Take heede and beware in time if you doe not glorifie God by your conuersion and confession of his truth God will certainly glorifie himselfe in your destruction FINIS Errata PAge 18. line 24. so reade to p. 19. l. 11. for all r. for all ibid. l. 33. you r. your p. 27. l. 11. accordeth r. accorded p. 28. l. 2. in marg scrip sit r. scripsit p. 66. l. 19. in marg Part. 1. r. Chapt. 1. p. 144. l. 2. Achan only r Achan only p. 179. l. 10. in marg cedite r. incedite p. 214. l. 33. these Kings to whom haue they r. these Kings to whom they haue p. 245. l. 34. in marg creatum quae r. creatum secundum piam fidem quae p. 291. l. 21. they they r. then they p. 334. l. 19. widomes r. widowes p. 363. l. 21. a matter r. matters