R. ABBOT.

I Doe not maruell that my narrations seeme to M. Bishop to be extrauagant and rouing, who hauing set vp his owne marke, thinketh all to be extrauagant and rouing, that flyeth not by his aime. Albeit he is beholding to me for those extrauagant and rouing narrations, because they haue ministred him matter towards the making vp of a prety handsome booke, which must haue beene much shorter if he had beene tyed to the substantiall points of his owne de­fence. As for the victory that I ominated to my selfe, thanks be to God, I haue obtained it; being become Master of the field, and M. Bishop enforced to leaue the maine battell, contented now only out of a corner to thrust an ambush that he may make some shew that he is not quite spent. I triumph ouer him in his owne conscience, being priuy to himselfe what desperate shifts he hath beene faine to vse, to how cruell a racke he hath beene forced to put himselfe to make men beleeue that he hath strength enough left to saue him­selfe. It is but risus Sardonius, whereby he iesteth at the sim­ple Minister driuen to winding and turning and doubling; it is indeede for his behoofe to haue it taken so, but the Ministers proceeding is direct and orderly, familiar and sensible to e­uery mans vnderstanding, inferring by due course the very point that doth require proofe. The Minister is not so sim­ple but that he can easily discerue the pittifull case of a Popish Masse-monger, who being troubled with a vertigo or some other distemperature of the braine, thinketh all to be win­ding and turning about him, when there is no turning at all but in his owne head. The issue betwixt him and me was, [Page 4] Whether his Maiesty doe [...] and maint [...]ine the only true Catholike and Apostolike faith. To proue that he doth so, it was necessary first to explicate what is meant by the Catho­like and Apostolike faith. Of the Catholike Church it is that the faith is called The Catholike faith. For there hath beene one and the same faith from the beginning, as shall after­wards appeare, but it could not be called the Catholike faith, till the Church became the Catholike Church. If of the Ca­tholike Church the faith be called the Catholike faith, then to shew what is meant by the Catholike faith I was first to shew what is meant by the Catholike Church. This I did, and [...] occasion thereof taxed, as due order required, the [...] of the Pope and his complices in vsurping to themselues the name of the Catholike Church, and thence terming them­selues Catholikes; that hauing destroyed their ridiculous and foolish claime, there might be thereof no let to the collecti­on whereat I aimed, that the Catholike faith is the faith of the Catholike Church; that the Catholike Church though be­comming Catholike by being spred ouer the whole world, yet containeth as a part thereof (euen Aug. de Ca­techiz. rudib. c. 19. Ʋelut totus hom [...] dum nas­citur etiamsi ma­num in nascendo praemittat, tamē vniuerso corpori sub capite con­iuncta at (que) com­pacta est, quem admodum etiam nonnulli in ipsis Patriarchis in buius ipsius rei signum manu praemissa nati sunt, &c. as an arme or hand come out of the wombe before the rest of the body) the whole Church of God from the beginning of the world; that of this whole body of the Church from the beginning to the end there is in substance but one faith and religion towards God; that therefore what was the faith of the Patriarks and Fathers from the beginning, the s [...]me and no other is now the Catholike faith; whence it followeth, that seeing we re­taine the same saith and religion, whereby the Patriarks and Prophets and other Fathers from the beginning serued God, which the Papists doe not, as by instance and comparison I then declared and remaineth now to be made good; therefore not the Popish faith but our faith must needes be holden to be the Catholike faith. This processe is cleare, the Reader seeth in it neither winding nor turning: and therefore it was but a simple shift of so learned a Doctor against a sim­ple Minister, to mocke his Reader with a tale of flying the [Page 5] point in Question, where it hath so direct and expresse conclu­sion. He saith that they willingly admit of S ^t. Austins doctrine that that religion and faith is Catholike which is spred ouer all the world, &c. but I brought nothing out of Austin concer­nin [...] Catholike faith and religion; I only noted out of him why the Church is called the Catholike Church. And there­fore preposterously and idl [...]ly doth he here vrge me in that sort; Proue (good Sir) that his Maiesty imbraceth and main­taineth that religion which is spred ouer all the world, &c. and then you may iustly say that he vpholdeth the Catholike religion. For of the Catholike faith and religion, the conclusion follow­eth after in due place; why then doth he thus preuent the time, and like Dauus disorder ali, but that he loueth to fish in troubled waters where his deceiptfull baites may be the lesse seene? But if we must needes speake here of Catholike faith, I will returne to him his owne question: Proue (good Sir) that the Pope imbraceth and maintaineth that religion that is spred ouer all the world: that Christians throughout the world are perswaded of that which you call the Catholike faith. Bellarmine hath said it, and Bellarmines ghost main­taineth it, that the supremacy of the Pope for the deposing of Kings and Princes, is Bellar. epist. ad Archipre [...]b. apud Mat. Tort. Vnum ex praecipuis fidei nostrae capitibus ac religionis Ca­tholicae funda­mentis. one of the chiefe points of your faith and of the very foundations of Catholike religion. Proue now (I pray you) and bring vs hands and seales for it, that we may beleeue you, that the Christian Churches throughout Gre­cia, Armenia, Aethiopia, Russia, Palestina and such like, are all become drunke, and haue entertained this for a point of Catholike faith. You will falle ( M. Bishop) in this proofe, and therefore why would you so much prei [...]i [...]ate your selfe to require the same of vs? But Bellarmine himselfe shall free vs from any neede to trauell for this proofe, who saith that Bellar. de notis Eccles. cap. 7. Si sola vna Prouincia retineret veram fidem, adhuc vere & proprie diceretur Eccle­sia Catholica dummodo clare ostéderetur [...]am esse vnam & eandem cum illa quae fuit aliquo tempere vel di­uersis in toto mundo. Though one only Prouince or Country did retaine the true faith, yet the same should truly and properly be called the Ca­tholike Church (and therefore their faith the Catholike fa [...]) so long as it could be cleerly shewed that the same is one and the same with that which at any time or times was ouer the whole [Page 6] world. To proue then that our faith is the Catholike faith, it shall be sufficient to proue that it is that which once was spred ouer the whole world. Now with the proofe thereof M. Bishop is choked already, and all that we see from him now, is but a vaine and bootlesse strugling to recouer his breath againe. But yet he saith, M. Abbot gaue this the slippe, and turneth himselfe to proue the Roman religion not to be the Catholike. And was not that ( M. Bishop) a shreud turne for you, to proue the Roman religion not to be the Catho­like? and was it not very pertinent for me so to doe, when you exhorted the Kings Maiesty to the Roman religion vn­der pretence of that name? Yea, but he shuffles from the reli­gion and faith, of which the question was, vnto the Roman Church. But what, will he haue vs thinke that there is a Ro­man Church without faith or religion, that a man must shuffle from religion and faith to goe to the Roman Church? forsooth he shuffles from the faith professed at Rome to the per­sons inhabiting the City of Rome, to proue that they are no Ca­tholikes, and that the Roman Church is not the Catholike Church. And doth not he shuffle amisse for you ( M. Bishop) that can shuffle you from being Catholikes, and the Roman Church from being the Catholike Church? And he that shuffleth you from being Catholikes, doth he not also shuffle the saith professed at Rome from being the Catholike faith? Are these things so diuided each from other as that they can­not in their order be incident to the same discourse? Surely M. Bishop my shuffling will yeeld but a bad game to you, vn­lesse you can cut more wisely for your selfe the [...] hitherto you haue done. If you haue no better cardes then yet we see, you will certainly loose all.

R. ABBOT.

VVHereas M. Bishop made motion to his Maiesty; to accept of the Catholike faith, I tooke occasion to note that the Catholike faith is so called of the Catholike Church, and consequently to shew that the Catholike Church by the very signification of the word importeth the vniuersal Church, so called as I noted out of Austin and Athanasius, Aug. de vnit. Eccles. cap. 2. Q [...]am maiores nostri Catholicam nominar [...]t vt ex ipso nomine osten­derent qui [...] per totum est. Athanas. quest. 71. Catholica propterea quòd per totum mun­dum diffusa sit. Quia per totum est, because it is ouer all or through all the world, and is not tyed to any Countrey, place, person, or condition of men: Aug. in Psal. 56. Corput eius est Eccles [...], non h [...]c aut illa, [...]ed toto orbe diffusa; nec ea quae nunc est in hominibus qui pr [...]sentem vitam agunt, sed ad [...]am pertinentibus [...]iam his qui fuerunt ante nos, & his qui fut [...]ri sunt post nos vsque in sinem seculi. Not this Church or that Church as S. Au­stin further saith, but the Church dispersed through the whole world, and not that which consisteth in men now presently liuing, but so as that there belong to it both those that haue been before vs, and shall be after vs to the worlds end. Now before I could conueniently make vse and application hereof, I was to re­moue the stumbling blocke that lay in the way by the absurd presumption of the Church of Rome, which like Anian. fabul. the Asse [Page 11] in the fable of Antanus, that to make himselfe terrible put on him a Lions skin; so being become the Asse to carry Balaam the false Prophet, who for 2. Pet. 2. 15. Apoc. 2. 13. the wages of vnrighteousnesse hath set his heart to curse and scandalize the people of God, to take away the reproch hereof, and to gaine to it selfe a soue­raigne authority ouer other Churches, hath laboured by all meanes to entitle it selfe to a propriety of the name of the Ca­tholike Church, so as none should be taken to be a member of the Catholike Church, but only as he is subiect to the church of Rome. Duraeus the Iesuit out of the abundance of his Ca­tholike wit, hath told vs a tale, which the old Catholike Church neuer once dreamed of, that Duraeus. cōt. Whitak. lib. 3. In nullam planè aliam Catholicae Ecclesiae nomen & quaecun (que) de Christi Ecclesia Prophetae praedi­xerunt quàm in Romanam con­uenire possunt. the name of the Catho­like Church and those things which the Prophets haue forespoken of the Church of Christ, can agree to no other but to the Roman Church. Vpon this mad conceipt they haue made of the holy Catholike Church, a holy Catholike Roman Church; and wher­as the Nicene Councell taught vs to say, I beleeue one holy Catholike and Apostolike Church, they teach vs to expound it, Bristow, Re­ply to Doctor Fulke, cap. 10. dem. 6. I beleeue one holy Catholike and Apostolike, that is, Roman Church: and therefore bind men by a principle of Catechisme Ledesm. Ca­techis. trāslat. into English. to beleeue all that the holy Catholike Roman Church beleeueth and holdeth. It is not enough for interpretation of the Catho­like Church in the articles of our beleefe, to call it Aug Hunae. proaem. Cate­chism. Catholica Ecclesiae nomine intelligo perspi­cuum & sensui expositum coetum illorum qui bap­tizativeram sin­ceram (que) Christi fidem profitētur, & se Beati Petri successori Roma­no Pontifici vt Christi in terris Vicario subiectos agnoscunt. the visible company of them that are baptised, and doe professe the true and sincere faith of Christ, vnlesse it be added, and doe acknowledge themselues subiect to the successor of Peter the Bishop of Rome as Christs Vicar vpon earth. Pope Goodface the eighth hauing declared it for a new article of Christian faith, that Extrauag. de maiorit. & obe­dient. e. Vnam Sanctam. Sub­esse Romano Pō ­tifici omnihuma­nae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus [...] esse de necessitate saluti [...]. for euery humane creature it is necessary to saluation to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome. So extremely they doate in this behalfe, as that wheresoeuer they reade the name of the Church or Ca­tholike Church, they presently sing as the horse-bals in the poole amongst the apples, nos poma natamus, & like children that imagine the bels in ringing to sound whatsoeuer they fancy; so doe vndoubtedly imagine that the church spoken of [Page 12] must needes be meant of their Roman Church. But for the pulling of this visard from their faces, I noted the absurdity that is implied in that stile of the Catholike Roman Church: for the Catholike Church, say I, is the vniuersall Church; The Roman Church is a particular Church; therefore to say, the Catholike Roman Church, is all one as to say, the vniuersall par­ticular Church. Against this M. Bishop as a notable Logician taketh exception as an ill shapen argument, consisting all of particular propositions, as if I had here intended a Categorical syllogisme, in moode and figure, which no smatterer but himselfe would euer haue dreamed. The wordes haue plaine implication of an Hypothetical syllogisme seruing to inferre an absurdity against them: If the Catholike Church be the v­niuersall Church, & the Roman Church a particular Church, then to say, the Catholike Roman Church, is as to say, the vni­uersall particular Church. But it is absurd to say, the vniuer­sall particular Church. Therefore it is absurd to say, the Ca­tholike Roman Church. Will he haue it reduced for him to a Categoricall syllogisme in moode and figure? Let him take it thus; No particular Church can be the Catholike Church. But the Church of Rome is a particular Church. Therefore the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholike Church. Must I proue the maior? No particular Church can be the vniuer­sall Church. But the Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church. Therefore no particular Church can be the Catho­like Church. So learned a Doctor should not thus haue played boyes-play, but should of himselfe haue conceiued these things being cleare and plaine, without any new aduer­tisement thereof by the simple Minister. But by this forme, saith he, a man might proue that no one Church in the world were Catholike. But keepe your termes aright M. Bishop, and say as you should, that no one Church in the world is the Catholike Church, and then it is true that by the same argu­ment it is proued that no one Church in the world (particu­lar Churches being each and euery of them but a part) can be called the Catholike or Vniuersall Church, which is the [Page 13] whole. And tell vs I pray, good Sir, haue yee found that any of ours hath entitled the Church of England to the name of the Catholike Church? If not, why then doe you thus a­buse your Reader, to put that for an instance, as if we affirmed it so to be? The truth is, gentle Reader that M. Bishop see­keth to blinde thee by altering the termes that by mee were set downe, naming a Catholike Church, which importeth soundnesse of doctrine in any one Church; whereas I men­tion the Catholike Church, as importing the vniuersall ex­tent of the whole Church. It followeth not indeede that because a Church is particular, therefore it is not Catholike, that is, sound in doctrine; but it followeth that because a Church is particular, therefore it is not the Catholike, that is, the vniuersall Church. Let him direct the argument against the Church of England, as I did against the Church of Rome, and it shall be as strong against the Church of England as a­gainst the Church of Rome. Let him say, and wee will not contradict him, The Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church; the Church of England is a particular Church; therefore to say the Catholike English Church, is as absurd as to say the vniuersall particular Church; or more nearely to his owne wordes, Therefore to say, the Church of England is the Catholike Church, is the same as to say, a particular Church is the vniuersall Church. But he turneth the conclusion, that the Church of England is not Catholike, which we hold to be most Catholike, declaring by that addition that he referreth Catholike by a Donatisticall fallacy to quality of doctrine and faith, because more Catholike and most Catholike, haue no vse but only in comparing truth and sincerity of faith. This co [...]senage of his the learned see well enough, but he careth not for that, because his thrift lieth in abusing the ig­norance of the more simple and vnlearned. This not ser­uing his turne, hee commeth to the particulars, and of the first proposition, The Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church, hee saith that it is both absurd and captious. And why absurd? Forsooth because the same thing is affirmed of it [Page 14] selfe, for vniuersall is no distinct thing but the very signification of the word Catholike. But what; is it now absurd to expresse the true signification of a word? The one is Greeke, the o­ther is English; and though there be no distinction in the thing, yet is there not a distinction in the tongue? Is the Ro­man Catechisme absurd because it saith, Catechism. Rom. p. 1. c. 10. sect. 16. Tertia proprietas Eccle­sia ea est vt Ca­tholica, nempe, vniuersalis voce­tur. The third property of the Church is that it is called Catholike, that is, vniuersall: or might the Catechisme say without absurdity that Catho­like is Vniuersall, and must I be absurd because I say, The Ca­tholike Church is the Vniuersall Church? Surely when words of one language are borrowed to speciall vse in another, the reddition of them in the tongue to which they are borrowed is taken with the learned as supplying the place of a defini­tion, and it is thereby made to appeare whether they be pro­perly and rightly vsed or vnproperly abused. M. Bishop and his fellowes abuse the name of Catholikes and of the Catho­like Church, which English men doe not so readily vnder­stand. Let them giue the signification of the word, and call themselues vniuersals, & their Church the vniuersall Church, and then all that haue will to vnderstand can easily see their foolery, and are ready to deride them. But this they hide vnder the veile and couer of a Greeke word, and wee, that the truth may be the better seene, are necessarily to discouer, and therefore iust cause had I to say, The Catholike Church is the vniuersall Church, and he is an absurd man to taxe it as a thing absurd. Yet notwithstanding I wish the Reader duly to obserue how that taxation stand [...] with the other, that the same proposition of mine is captious. For why is it cap­tious? Marry, because the Catholike Church doth signifi [...] both the whole body of the Church compacted of all the par­ticular members, in which sense no one p [...]rticular Church can be called the Catholike Church, because it is not the whole body; and secondly the Catholike Church doth also designe and note very properly euery particular Church that embra­ceth the true Christian faith. Where we may wonder that within the compasse of so few lines the mans wits should [Page 15] so extremely faile him. For if the Catholike Church and the vniuersall Church be one and the same thing, as he hath alrea­dy told vs, and vniuersall be no distinct thing but the very sig­nification of the word Catholike, then how can it be which here he telleth vs, that the Catholike Church signifieth both the whole body of the Church, which is the vniuersall Church, and doth also very properly designe and note euery particular true Christian Church? If the Catholike Church be no distinct thing from the vniuersall Church, then it cannot properly note or designe euery particular Church; or if it doe properly de­signe euery particular Church, then it is distinct from the vniuersall Church. Tell vs, M. Bishop, how these things hang togither; for if the vniuersall Church be the very sig­nification of the Catholike Church, then we cannot see how a particular Church can bee properly called the Catholike Church, because no particular Church can properly be cal­led the vniuersall Church. As for the exception that here lyeth against vs, that the Fathers in pointing to a particular assembly, doubt not sometimes to vse the name of the Ca­tholike Church, I shewed it before to be no whit preiudiciall to that that wee say, because they minded not in so doing to limit themselues to that particular assembly, but in a particular assembly to demonstrate the vniuersall Church. For to say in any Citty for distinction sake, this is the Catho­like Church, what was it else but to say, this is that Church which is vniuersally dispersed through the whole world? euen as when a man to demonstrate the elements, saith; This is the aire, this is the earth, pointing to the aire or earth whereat he is present, but therein intending to demonstrate the whole body of the aire or earth, hauing continuation with that whereto he pointeth. For as the Apostle directing his speech to the Church of Ephesus nameth, Act. 20. 28. The Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud, and a­gaine, 1. Tim. 3. 15. the house of God, which is the Church of the liuing God, the pillar and ground of truth, so speaking of a part as to con­ioyne it with the whole, euen so & no otherwise was it that [Page 16] in noting any particular Church, it was said, This is the Ca­tholike Church; the whole Church being totum similare, as I said before, and the whole being subiect to be designed in any part. But M. Bishop here saith, that this was not only be­cause the Church is totum similare, but because each of the said particular Churches hath the same faith, the same Sacraments and order of gouernment. Which is as wisely and discreetly spoken as if he had said that this was not only because the Church in all parts thereof hath the same faith and sacraments, but because the said particular Churches haue all the same faith and Sacraments. For why is the Church said to be totum homogeneum or similare, a body whose parts are all of the same nature, kinde and being, but because in all parts thereof there are the same faith and Sacraments, or to vse the wordes of the Apostle, Ephes. 4. 4. One body, one spirit, one hope of calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptisme, one God and Father of all, who is aboue all, and through all, and in vs all. Surely either M. Bishop was sleepy or else his wits were a wooll-gathering when he put in this exception. Now then it was not said that the word Catholike is not or may not bee directed to any particular, M. Bishop doth therein but meerely calumniate; but I said and shewed that it is neuer rightly applied any way or to a­ny particular, but with implication of the vniuersall Church. The faith is called Catholike, because it is the faith of the vniuersall Church, propagated and spred by the Apostles o­uer the whole world. Particular Churches are called Catho­like, and particular persons are called Catholikes, as a man would say, Vniuersalists, for maintayning communion and fellowship of this faith, with the Church of the whole world. And as the name of the aire or the earth, being absolutely vsed importeth that whole element whereof we speake, but yet according to distinction of places we say, The aire of London, the aire of Oxford, the aire of Winchester, &c. with­out restraining the name of the aire to any one place more then other, and only meaning that part of the aire, that is in such or such a place; euen so whereas the name of [Page 17] the Catholike Church simply and absolutely vsed importeth the whole vniuersall Church, the same notwithstanding is found to be distinguished by diuersity of places, the Catholike Church of such a place, or the Catholike Church of such a place; not limiting the name of the Catholike Church to any one place more then other, and in true propriety of speech mea­ning nothing else but that part of the Catholike Church, that is in this or that place. And therefore I formerly noted and thinke not vnfit here to be repeated, that as Leo wrote him­selfe Leo. epist. 12. Leo Papa Ecclesiae Catho­lic [...] vrbis Romae. Bishop of the Catholike Church of the Citty of Rome, so doth Constantine the Emperor write Socrat. hist. l. 1. c. 6. Constan­tinus Catholic [...] Alexandrinorum Ecclesiae. to the Catholike Church of Alexandria; and Austin nameth August. cōt. Crescon. l. 3. c. 13. Omnis A­fricana Catholi­ca Ecclesia. the Catholike Church of Africa, and Aurelius writeth himselfe Collat. cum Donat. cognit. 1. c. 16. Aurelius Episcopus Eccle­sie Catholicae Car­thaginensis. Bishop of the Catholike Church of Carthag [...], & another Aurelius Ibid. cap. 201. Aurelius Episco­pus Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae Maco­madiensis. Bishop of the Catho­like Church of Macomadia, & Nouatus Ibid. c. 204. Nouatus Episco­pus Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae Sitifi. Bishop of the Catho­like Church of Sitif. And so in the fift Councell at Constanti­nople we reade, Conc. Con­stātinop. 5. act. 1. Supplicatio à Clericis & Mo­nachis Apostolici throni Antioche­nae magnae ciui­tatis Catholicae Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei. The holy Catholike Church of Antioch: and in the subscriptions of the Councell, Sextilianus Bishop of the Catholike Church of Tunis, and Ibid. Act. 8. in subscript. Sext [...]lianus mi­sericordia Dei Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Tuniensis: Megethius gratia Dei Episcopus Sanctae Dei Catholicae Ecclesiae ciuitatis Heracleae. M [...]gethius Bishop of the holy Catholike Church of the citty of Heraclea, and Pompeianus Bi­shop of the holy Catholike Church of the citty of Victoria, and many other in the like sort. Herein then standeth the error, not that the name of the Catholike Church is vsed of a particu­lar Church, but because it is absurdly made a propriety of one particular Church, which was neuer vsed but indifferently of all Churches, and neuer but with implying the signification of the vniuersall Church. Thus I am still constant in one tale; what I said before I said after, and I say it now a­gaine, and more cause there was for M. Bishop to haue ta­ken another Cocke to himselfe then to put the weather­cocke to me. Now he himselfe confesseth that no one Ortho­doxe Church is more Catholike then other, if the word Catho­like be taken precisely; but what it meaneth with him if it be taken precisely, he telleth vs not. If Orthodoxall and Catholike [Page 18] precisely taken be all one with him, he playeth the Donatist as we shall see hereafter, and in that sense amongst many Churches that may bee called orthodoxal and sound, there may yet be some more sound then other. If in true meaning it be taken precisely and properly, then it is taken as in the Creede we professe to beleeue the holy Catholike, that is, the vniuersall Church, and so no particular Church, as hath been said, and as M. Bishop hath confessed, can be called the Catho­like Church, M. Bishop therefore vnlesse he be wilfull must also necessarily confesse, that the church of Rome being a par­ticular Church, dealeth absurdly in applying to it selfe the name of the Catholike Church there, where the word Catho­like without all doubt is precisely and properly taken. But though speaking precisely no one Church be more Catholike then other, yet we hold, saith M. Bishop, that among all the particu­lar Catholikes the Roman holdeth the greatest priuiledges both of superiority in gouernement and stability in true faith. Hold it, M. Bishop, where you haue it, and blinde men as much as you can in the conceipt of it: but where you haue it not, yee are neuer likely to obtaine it. To vs it is nothing what you hold: what you proue is somewhat; but you may hold with Co­pernicus, if you will, that the Sunne standeth still and the earth turneth round, or with Anaxagoras that snow is black. So the Church of Rome, according to that it was, we attri­bute eminency of place, precedence of honour, authority of estimation and account, but authority of power or superio­rity of gouernment, we acknowledge none belonging there­to. We reade that other Churches haue yeelded vnto it ami­ty and loue, Rom. 16. 16. The Churches of Christ salute you; but no where doe we reade, All the Churches of Christ are subiect vnto you. And will any man thinke it credible that such priuiledges should appertaine to the Church of Rome, and yet that nei­ther S ^t. Paul nor S ^t. Peter himselfe should make any mention of them? The one of them wrote to the Church of Rome it selfe, they both wrote to many other Churches, and would they neuer haue remembrance to say any thing of the Lord God the Pope? Yea S ^t. Iohn did honor to Apoc. 1. 4. the seuen Churches of [Page 19] Asia by writing to them, and would he neuer speake of Apoc. 17. 9. the seuen hils of Rome, but only as the seate of the whoore of Ba­bylon? Yea & of those seuen Churches of Asia, it is to be no­ted which Gregory Bishop of Rome oftentimes deliuereth, & hath Austin therin agreeing with him, that Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 15. In [...]oannis Apo­calypsi septem Ecclesijs scribi­tur per quas vna Catholica desig­natur. Praefat. ad exposit. Iob. Per septem Ec­clesiar [...]m nume­rum vniuersalis Ecclesia designa­tur. Sic August. Ep. 161. in them is desig­ned or figured the Catholike or vniuersall Church. And to this accordeth Optatus also, when of those Churches hee saith; Optat. Mile­uit. lib. 2. Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid foris est alienum est. Whatsoeuer is without the seuen Churches is altene and strange. Now amongst those seuen Churches none had any priuiledge either of superiority in gouernement, or of stability in faith. There is not one Angell or one Church questioned for all, as hauing charge and authority ouer all, but euery Angel, euery Church seuerally censured by it selfe, and according to euery their works either allowed or reproued. Sith then the princi­pall must haue correspondence with the figure, it must like­wise be in the vniuersall Church, that no one Church hath priuiledge or superiority aboue all, but euery Church accor­dingly as it performeth fidelity vnto God, either standeth or falleth; either is accepted or refused. And the lesse hath the Church of Rome to presume of priuiledge in this behalfe, for that it hath speciall caution giuen to the cōtrary; Rom. 11. 20. Be not high minded but feare; f [...]r if God spared not the naturall branches, take heede lest he also spare not thee. Behold the bountifulnes of God towards thee if thou continue in his bountifulnes, or else thou shalt also be cut off. This notwithstanding M. Bishop telleth vs that that which they hold of those Romish priuiledges, is de­duced out of the word of God. But how? because that Church is the Rocke (according to the exposit [...]on of the ancient Fathers) vpon which the whole Church was built, and against which the gates of hell should neuer preuaile. Here is chalke for cheese; we were promised a deduction out of the word of God, and ins [...]eede thereof he bringeth vs an exposition of the ancient Fa­thers. But M. Bishop, shew you selfe a man of your word; let vs see that which you say is deduced out of Gods word; for as for the exposition of the Fathers it auaileth not if it be not deduced out of the word of God. Hee is dumbe and can say no more; if you will take the Fathers exposition [Page 20] for a deduction out of Gods word, be it so; otherwise de­duce he that can; for M. Bishop can deduce nothing. Albeit let vs aske him, who be those ancient Fathers that haue ex­pounded the Roman Church to be the Rocke, vpon which the Church is built? What, M. Bishop, are you afraid to name them? Though you set not downe their words, yet did not leisure serue you to quote them in the margent of your book that we might take knowledge of them? It is true that S ^t. Pe­ter is sometimes termed the Rocke vpon which the Church was built, but who euer said that the Rock is the Church of Rome, or that the Church is built vpon the Roman Church? The truth is that he belieth the Fathers, and fathereth vpon them that which they neuer meant. The Rocke vpon which Christ would build his Church is often by the Fathers expounded to be Christ himselfe, and the true faith & confession of Christ. Aug. de verb. Dom. ser [...]. 13. Super hanc Pe­tram quam con­fessus es, super hanc petrā quam cognouisti, dice [...], Tu es Christus, &c. adisicab [...] Ecclesiam med; id est, super me­ipsum fi [...]ium Dei viui, &c. Vpon this Rocke which thou hast confessed, saith Austin, vpon this Rocke which thou hast acknowledged, saying, Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God, I will build my Church; that is, vpon my selfe being the sonné of the liuing God. Hilar. de Tri­nit. lib. 6. Super banc confessionis Petram Ecclesi [...] aedificati [...] est, &c Haec fides Eccle­siae fundamentum est; per hanc fi­dem infirma ad­uersus cam sunt portae inferorum: h [...]c fides regni c [...]lestis babet [...]l [...]ues, &c. Vpon this Rocke of confession, faith Hilary is the building of the Church. This faith is the foundation of the Church, by this faith the gates of hell preuaile not against it; this faith hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, &c. Chrysostome saith; Chrysost. in Math. hom. 56. Super hanc Pe­tram, id est, fidē & confessionem. Vpon this Rocke, that is, this faith and confession. Theodoret likewise expoundeth it. Theodor. in Cant. l. 2. Petrā appellat fidei pi­etatem, veritatis profession [...], &c. the piety of faith, the profession of truth. An [...] ­brose saith; Ambros. in Eph [...]. c. 2. Su­per hanc petram &c. id est, in hac Catholicae fidei confessione statuam fideles ad vitam. Vpon this Rocke will I build my Church, that is, in this confession of the Catholike faith will I stablish the faith­full vnto life: and againe that those wordes of the Apostle, Ibid. In quo omnis structura, &c. Hic sensus est vnde Dominus a [...]t, super hanc petram, &c. In him (that is in Christ) all the building is coupled together, &c. are the sense and meaning of that which the Lord saith, vp­on this Rocke will I build my Church. And thus the whole number of the Bishops of Palestina in the Councell of Chal­cedon vnderstood it; Epist. Iuuenal. & Episc. Palest in ap­pend. Concil. Chalced. Super hanc confessionem roberata est Ecclesia Dei. Ʋpon this confession the Church of God is confirmed and strengthened. By many other such like [Page 21] expositions of the ancient Fathers it may appeare that Christ I [...]SVS, euen the true faith of Christ (for Christ is nothing to vs but by faith) is the true Rocke whereupon the Church is builded, that the gates of hell may not preuaile against it. And to this S ^t. Iohn accordeth; 1. Iohn 5. 4. 5. This is the victory that o­uercommeth the world, [...] our faith; for who is it that ouer­commeth the world, but he that beleeueth that Iesus is the sonne of God? If Christ then be the Rocke by faith in him, how falsly doth M. Bishop deale to foist in the Roman Church in steede of Christ or of the faith of Christ? Now if Christ pro­perly and truly be the Rocke, then it can be but accidentally and vnproperly that Peter is so called, only in respect of his doctrine and example of faith, expressed and vttered in his confession; Math. 16. 16. Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God. As Abraham is Esa. 51. 1. the Rocke from whence we are hewed, so is Peter the Rocke whereupon we are built: not for that either of them conferreth any thing to vs, but only for that they stand before vs for patternes of imitation, whereto we are to con­forme our selues, that togither with them we may be buil­ded vpon the true Rocke, 1. Cor. 3. 11. that foundation beside which no other may be laid, which is Iesus Christ. But in this Peter was not alone, the rest of the Apostles as well as hee Iohn 6. 69. beleeuing and knowing that Iesus was Christ the sonne of the liuing God. Yea, and in the place where Peter vttereth that confession, as the question was asked of all the Apostles, Whom say yee that I am? so we must vnderstand also, and so S ^t. Austin affirmeth that Augustin. in Psal. 88. Re­spondens Petrus pro omnibus, v­nus pro vnitate. Peter answered for all, one for vnity, and con­sequently that all being in the like case, the wordes which Christ returneth though in token of vnity vttered to one, yet in that vnity did appertaine to all. Therefore, by the words there spoken to Peter, Hi [...]rome concludeth that Hieron. in A­mos, lib. 3. c. 6. Petra christus est, qui donauit Apostolis sui [...] vt ipsi quoque Petra vocentur. Tu es Petrus & super hac petram, &c. Christ the Rocke gaue, not to one only Apostle; but to his Apostles that they also should be called Rocks. And in like sort Origen con­ceiueth it when he saith; Origen. in Math. cap. 16. Quod si super v­num illum Pe­trum tantum ex­istimas [...]dificari tota [...] Ecclesiam quid dicturus es de Ioanne filio tonitr [...]i & Apo­ [...]lolor [...] vn [...] quo­que? Quin alio­qui num audebi­mus dicere, quòd aduersus Petrum vnum nō pr [...]ua­litur [...] sin [...] port [...] inferor [...], aduen­sus caeleros au [...]. Apostolos praeua­liturae sin [...], ac nō potius in omni­bus & singuli [...] [...]orum fit illud quod dictum est, super [...] Petram, &c. Quòd si dictum hoc, Ti [...]i dabo claues, &c. c [...]teris quoque commune est, cur non simul omnia, & quae prius dicta s [...]nt, & quae sequun­t [...]r [...] ad Petrum dicta, sunt omnium communia? If thou thinke that the Church was [Page 22] built vpon Peter only, what wilt thou say of Iohn the sonne of thunder & euery of the Apostles? shal we dare to say that against Peter only the gates of hell shall not preuaile, and that they shall preuaile against the other Apostles, and not rather that in all & euery of them it is verified which is said, Ʋpon this rocke will I build my Church? In a word he reasoneth thus, that because that which is said, I will giue to thee the keyes of the Kingdome of heauen, is common to them all, therefore all the rest both go­ing before and following after as spoken to Peter, is common to them all. And this the Scripture confirmeth in that it saith, that Ephes. 2. 20. the houshold of God are builded, not vpon the foundation of Peter only, but vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Pro­phets, and not S ^t. Peter only but Apoc. 21. 14. the Lambs twelue Apostles haue their names written in the twelue foundations of the city of God. Yea, it is yet further to be obserued out of the Fathers, that they make Peter in all this matter August. E­pist. 165. Petro totius Ecclesia figuram gerenti Dominus ait; super hanc Pe­tram, &c. to be are the figure as S ^t. Austin saith of the whole Church. Idē de verb. Dom. serm. 13. Hoc nomen ei vt Petrus appella­retur à Domino impositum est, & hoc vt [...]a figura significaret Ec­clesiam. Quia e­nim Christus Pe­tra, Petrus popu­lus Christianus. The Lord, saith he, gaue him that name to be called Peter, that by that figure he might signifie the Church; for because Christ is (Petra) the Rocke, therefore Peter is the people of Christ. And thus of that which Christ there saith, Mat. 16. 19. Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heauen, Gregory Bishop of Rome deliuereth that Greg. expo­sit. in 1. Reg. l. 6 c. 3. Quod anti­quis [...]usquam di­citur, m [...]dò vni­uersali Ecclesiae dicitur, Quod­cun (que) ligaueris, &c. it is spoken to the vniuersall Church. Therefore Origen applieth the name of Peter to euery man that ioyneth with Peter in the confession of the same faith: Orig. in Mat. c. 16. Quòd si nos quo (que) locuti quod dixit Petrus, Tu es Christus, &c. t [...]nquam non ac­cepta [...] reue­latione à carne & sanguine, sed luce cordi nostr [...] illucescent [...] à Patre qui in c [...]lis est, efficimur Petrus & nobis dicetur, quod hunc sermonem se­quitur▪ Tu es Petrus, &c. If we say as Peter said, Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God as not receiuing reuelation hereof from flesh and blood, but by light shining into our hearts from the Father which is in heauen, we also are made Peter, and it shall be said to vs which followeth that speech, Thou art Peter, &c. And anone after he affirmeth againe, that Ibid. paulò post. Dicta sunt vt doc et spiritus illius ad quemuis qui t [...]lis factus fuerit, qualis [...]rat ille Petrus: siquidem nom [...] ducunt à Petra quicun (que) sunt imi­tato [...]es Christi, qui est petra spiritualis, &c. Christi membra cum sint, ab [...] nomen habe [...]t dicti Christiani, & à Petra Petri. the spirit of the Gospell speaketh those wordes to euery one that is such as that Peter was: for they take their name, saith he, of (Petra) the Rocke, whosoeuer are followers of Christ [Page 23] who is the spirituall Rocke; being called of Christ Christians, and of (Petra) the Rocke being called Peters. Hereto S ^t. Am­brose also alludeth, when giuing the reason why Peter was so called, Ambros. in Luc. lib. 6. cap. 9. Vt & ipse sit Petrus quòd de petra habeat so­liditatem cōstan­ti [...], fidei firmi­tatem. Enitere ergò vt & tu pe­tra sis; itaque non extra te sed intra te petram require, &c. si petra fueris, in Ecclesia eris, quia Ecclesia supra petram est. For that of (Petra) the Rocke, he had soundnesse of con­stancy, and stedfastnesse of faith, hee vseth this exhortation; Therefore endeauour that thou also maiest be a Rocke, and not without thee but within thee require this rocke; if thou bee a Rocke, thou shalt be within the Church, because the Church is vpon a Rocke. To conclude, Origen expounding by way of allegory that which is written, as befalling vpon the death of Christ, that the rocks were clouen in sunder, maketh the rocks to be the Prophets; whom he proueth rightly to be so called. Origen. in Math. tract. 35. Probamus scis­sas tum Petras esse Prophetas, primùm ex eo quòd Christus dicitur Petra spiritualis & rationis est om­nes imitatores Christi dici simi­litèr Petras esse, sicut & lux mun­didicuntur ex eo-quòd ipse Do­minus [...]orum est lux mundi; de­inde etiam ex eo quòd ipse Petrus à Domino Petra est appellatꝰ cum dicitur ei, Tu es Pe [...]rꝰ, &c. Max­imè autem de­monstratu [...] ex co quòd o [...]nes quibus non pr [...]ualent portae inferorum, qui opus nominis pe­tr [...] babe [...]t in se, id est, Apostoli & Propheta, Petra sunt ipsi, & sunt [...]um qui super eis adificantur, &c. First, for that Christ is called the spirituall rocke, and it stan­deth with reason that all that are followers of Christ should like­wise be called Rocks, as they are called the light of the world, be­cause Christ their Lord is the light of the world; and secondly, for that Peter is by Christ called a Rocke, when it is said, Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke, &c. For it is strongly proued thereby, saith he, that all against whom the gates of hell doe not preuaile, who haue in them the worke or effect of the name of Rocke, as namely the Apostles and Prophets, are themselues Rocks, and the foundations of them that are builded vpon them. Thus doe the Fathers turne and wind those words of Christ; they finde Christ himselfe to be the Rocke, they finde Peter in some sort to be a Rocke, albeit not Peter alone but the rest of the Apostles, yea the Prophets also as well as he; yea they finde euery faithfull Christian man to be a Rocke by constan­cy of faith, and by drawing on others through his example of confession to the acknowledgment thereof, but no where doe we finde that euer they tooke the Roman Church to be the Rocke. How vnhonestly then doth M. Bishop abuse his Reader, by setting downe in grosse that parenthesis (accor­ding to the exposition of the ancient Fathers) when as no such exposition is to bee found amongst the ancient Fathers? [Page 24] Albeit it is also to bee noted how vnhandsomely this matter hangeth together, and cannot be stained in any sort to serue his turne; for seeing the Church was when as yet there was no Roman Church, how senslesse a thing is it that the church should be said to be builded vpon the Roman Church? Sure­ly that against which the gates of h [...]ll shall not preuaile, is the Church builded vpon the Rocke. If then the Rocke bee the Roman Church, and other Churches in the beginning were builded vpon it, it must needes follow that the gates of hell should neuer haue preuailed against other Churches. But they will not denie but that the gates of hell haue preuailed against other Churches. Therefore the Rocke is not the Ro­man Church, neither were other Churches in the beginning builded vpon it. If he will haue the meaning to be that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against other Churches, so long as they continue builded vpon the Roman Church, he teach­eth vs an exposition against himselfe, that so long as the Ro­man Church continueth builded vpon the Rocke which is Christ Iesus, so long the gates of hell shall not preuaile a­gainst it; but no assurance haue we that it shall alwaies con­tinue so builded vpon the Rocke. But hee saith further that the Bishop of Rome li [...]ally succeedeth vnto S. Peter. Be it so; and so did Caiaphas succeede lineally to Aaron; yet did Caiaphas giue sentence against Christ. Their owne law saith; Non sunt om­nes filij Sancto­rum qui te [...]ent loca Sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera [...]orum. All are not the children of Saints that hold the places of Saints, but they that practise the workes of Saints. Yea but Christ prayed for Peter Luke 22. 32. that his faith might not faile. He did so, but I aske then with Austin; Aug. quaest. vet. & noui te­stam. 75. Pro Petro rogabat, & pro lacobo & Ioanne non r [...]ga­bat vt c [...]teros taceam? Mani­festum est in Pe­tro omnes [...]ti­n [...]ri [...] r [...]gans e­nim pro Petro, pro omnibus r [...] ­gass [...] dignoscitur. Did he pray for Peter, and did he not pray for Iames and Iohn, to say nothing of the rest? It is manifest that in Peter they are all contained; and praying for Peter he is knowen to pray for them all. Of them all hee prayeth; Iohn 17. 11. 25. Holy Father keepe them in thy name, I pray thee to keepe them from euill. And what is the meanes whereby they are kept? Euen the same that S ^t. Peter expresseth when hee saith; 1. Pet. 1. 5. Yee are kept by the power of God through faith vnto saluation. If through faith, then Christ in praying to the Fa­ther [Page 25] to kee [...] them, is consequently vnderstood to pray that their faith may not faile, through which they are kept. Yea S ^t. Austin maketh it common to all the elect, that August. de corrept. & grat. cap. 12. Pro his ergò interpellan­te Christo ne de­ficiat fides eorū, sine dubio nō de­ficiet vs (que) in fi­nem, ac per hoc perseuerabit vs­que in finem. Christ prayeth for them that their faith may not falle, and that by vertue of this prayer it doth neuer faile finally, but perseuereth to the end. If then Peter in this prayer haue no priuiledge aboue other, then can nothing in this behalfe be deriued to other by priuiledge from him. Albeit let it be admitted that Christ here meant a singular fauour to Peter, what shall that be to the Pope? What Art hath M. Bishop whereby to de­riue the effect of Christs prayer from Peter to their Popes, from an holy Apostle to a ranke and succession of men, a­mongst whom there haue beene so many Atheists, Infidels, Idolaters, Heretikes, so many incarnate Diuels and hatefull Monsters of mankind? This is a matter of great weight, and we require some good authority and proofe for it, that what Christ prayed for the Apostle Peter, the same he hath prayed for the Pope also. But in the proofe of this he faileth wholy, neither can he any way perswade it vnlesse he meete with ei­ther simple or well-willing creditors, who will bee content for payment to take counters in steede of gold. And yet I would further aske him what faith it was whereof Christ prayed in the behalfe of Peter that the same might not faile? Surely by S ^t. Austins application formerly mentioned, it ap­peareth that it was meant of that faith which is Tit 1. 1. the faith of Gods elect, that iustifying and sauing faith whereby Peter should rise againe from his fall, and should resist thenceforth the temptations of Satan, and stand stedfast thereby vnto e­ternall life. But M. Bishop will not deny but that many Popes there haue beene in whom this faith hath failed, or ra­ther in whom it neuer was; many who haue beene repro­bates and cast awaies, and their end euerlasting death. Of Sixtus the fift, namely Bellarmine being asked what hee thought after his death, answered as Watson in his Quodlibets reporteth, Wats. Quod­libet. Quantum capio, quantum sapio, quantum intelligo, descen­dit ad infernum. Qui sine poeni­tentia vi [...]it, & sine poenitentia moritur, procul­dubio descendit ad infernum. So farre as I can conceiue or vnderstand he is gone downe to hell; he that liueth and dieth without repentance, goeth [Page 26] vndoubtedly to hell. In him therefore and ma [...] other such like, the prayer of Christ did not take effect, and therefore certaine it is that it did not appertaine vnto them. If M. Bi­shop will needs vnderstand it that Christ praied for Peter that he might be free from errour in iudgement of faith; then not to question whether Peter thenceforth committed any errour in iudgment, it must needs be that the Pope cannot be subiect to errour in that behalfe. But they themselues confesse that the Pope as a priuate man may erre, that hee may be an Heretike and defend heresie; only in his Consisto­riall sentence and Pontificall decree hee cannot erre. Was this then the intent of Christs prayer in the behalfe of Peter, that howsoeuer he might otherwise be an Hypocrite or an Heretike, yet when he should set himselfe down in his chaire to define any matter, hee should bee like Balaam to blesse where hee meaneth to curse, and like Caiaphas to prophesie without vnderstanding what he saith? I dare appeale to M. Bishop himselfe, if he be sober, that this was not Christs mea­ning in respect of Peter. If it were not thus meant of Pe­ter, and it can bee no otherwise deriued to the Pope, but as it was meant of Peter, then it must follow that because it can in no other meaning be fitted to the Pope, therefore it can haue no reference to the Pope at all. If hee bee so ab­surd as to say that it was so meant of Peter, I will not stand to disproue a drunken mans dreame; I only require proofe of that hee saith. But because hee can deduce nothing out of the word of God, he will make some flourish with some few sentences of the ancient Fathers. And first hee begin­neth with Ireneus who going in hand to auouch the true doctrine of faith by the testimony of the Churches, which had receiued the same from the Apostles, for auo [...]ding tediousnesse bringeth in steede of many other the Church of Rome, being a very great and very ancient Church, and knowen to all men. Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Ad hanc Eccle­siam propter po­tent [...]rem prin­cipalitatem ne­cesse est omnem conuenire Eccle­siam, hoc est, eos qui sunt vndi (que) fideles, in que semper abhis qui sunt vndi (que) con­seruata▪ est ea qua est ab Apo­stolis Traditi [...]. To this Church, saith he, because of her more potent principality, it is necessary for euery Church to accord, that is, the faithfull euery where, wherein the [Page 27] Tradition which came from the Apostles hath beene alwaies preserued. Now take this reason added by Ireneus which by M. Bishop is concealed, and it will plainly appeare why it was necessary for other Churches to accorde with the Church of Rome. For this Church for the renowme and fa­mousnesse of the place, being then the seate of the Empire, was the most eminent Church in the world, and therefore continuing still in the doctrine of the Apostles without alte­ration or change, it was most fit of all other to be propoun­ded as a patterne to other Churches, whereto to conforme themselues; and with which whosoeuer accordeth not, did thereby swarue from the doctrine of the Apostles. But the case is now altered, because the Church of Rome it selfe is now questioned for swaruing from the Tradition of the Apostles; which being so, that cannot be said to be necessa­ry now, which was necessary so long as shee continued in that Tradition. And thus sarre we finde only a necessity of consenting then in doctrine with the Church of Rome, but for her superiority in gouernement wee finde nothing. Yes, saith M. Bishop, for Ireneus attributeth to the Church of Rome, a mightier or more potent principality, which what should it import, will he say, but a superiority of Dominion and gouernment ouer all other Churches? But I answer him, that principality doth not enforce soueraignty and dominion; for he himselfe is holden for a principall man amongst the Se­minary Priests, and yet hee hath no rule or dominion ouer them. Principality importeth specialty and chiefty, and no­teth an honour of estimation and account, and thus the Church of Rome though hauing no title of dominion for ruling and gouerning, yet had the honour to bee a chiefe and principall aboue other Churches. Now principali­ty is alwayes potent, and they that are chiefe and emi­nent aboue others sway much by their example and per­swasion, and their very names are very auailable to induce other, whom notwithstanding they haue no authority to command, according to that which Hilary saith, that Hilar. Epist. apud August. tom. 7. Plure [...] sunt in Ecclesia qui authoritate nominum in sen­tentia tenentur aut ad sententi­am transferu [...] ­tur. in the [Page 28] Church there are many who by authority of names are moued, either to hold still their opinion, or to alter and change the same. Such and no other was the potent principality of the Church of Rome, and thus doth Ireneus in the same place say, that that Church Iren. vt supr. scrip. Sit qua est Rom [...] Eccle­sia, potentissimas literas Co [...]inthijs &c. wrote most potent letters to the Corinthians, namely such as were effectuall and strong to moue them, and the rather for that they came from such a famous and renow­med place. And that M. Bishop may vnderstand that I doe not answere him by a deuice of mine, but according to the truth, he shall find that Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome Cypr. lib. 1. Epist. 3. Ad Pe­tri Cathedram & Ecclesiam principalem, &c. the principall Church, and yet in the same place he denieth Ibid. Naui­gare audent ad Petri Cathedrā, &c. Oportet eos quibus praesum [...]s non circumcur­sare, &c. Nisi paucis d [...]speratis & [...]erditis minor esse videtur au­thoritas Episco­porum in Africa constitutorl [...]. &c. the authority of the Bishops of Africa to be inferiour to the Bi­shop of Rome. And thus the African Councell acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be Conc. Afric. cap. 6. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princ [...]ps Sacer­dotum, aut sum­mus Sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmo­di, sed tantùm primae sedis E­piscopus. the first or principall Sea, and the Bishop thereof they terme the Bishop of the first or principall Sea, and yet they denied to the Bishops of Rome to haue a­ny authority ouer them. Yea when Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestmus, challenged the same by a forged Canon of the Nicene Councell, those Ibid. c. 101. Quia hic in nullo c [...]di [...] Gr [...]c [...] ea po [...]imus inuenir [...], ex Orientalibus Ecclesijs vbi perhibetur ea­dem decreta posse etiam authentica reperiri, magis nobis desideramus adferri. African Bishops for the disprouing thereof sent to the Patriarches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople for authenticall copies of the said Councell, wherein they found no such matter; and Ibid. c. 105. Vt aliqui tanquam à tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur, nulla inuenimus patrum Synodo constitu­tum. Quod ex parte Nicem Concilij transmisistis in Concilijs verioribus tale aliquid non potui­mus reper [...]e. Executores Cle [...]icos vestros quibus (que) petentibus nolite mittere, &c. thereupon wrote to Celestinus that he should forbeare to send his Legates to entermeddle in their matters, and Ibid. c. 92. Non prouocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad primates Prouinciarium s [...]rum: ad transma­rina autem qui putauerit appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiatur. forbad all appeales saue to their owne Councels, excommunicating them that presu­med to appeale to Rome, and in this recusancy of subiection they continued afterwards for the space of an hundred yeares vntill Eulal [...]s the Bishop of Carthage, if it be true which is reported of him and not coyned at Rome, betrayed the li­berty [Page 29] of that Church, and submitted the same to Boniface the second, who doubted not most wickedly to say of those African Bishops, of whom the learned Father S ^t. Austin was one, that Bonifac. 2. Epist. ad Eulal. tom▪ 2. Concil. Aurelius Cartha­ginensis Ecclesi [...] olim Episcopus cum collegis suis inf [...]igante Dia­bolo superbire tē ­porib [...] praedeces­sorum Bonifacij at (que) Celestini cō ­tra Romanā Ec­clesiam coepit. by the instigation of the Diuell they had then begunne proudly to demeane themselues against the Church of Rome. As for that potent principality of the Roman Church, and neces­sity of according therewith, which M. Bishop intendeth, Poly­carpus knew it Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 23. Neque e­nim Anicet [...] sua­dere Polycarp [...] poterat ne serua­ret, &c. quae sem­per seruauerat. not, when he would not be perswaded by Ani­cetus Bishop of Rome to keepe the feast of Easter according to the manner of the Church of Rome. Neither did Ibid. cap. 22. Episcopis per A­siam qui morem ipsis ab antiquo traditum retinē ­dum esse affirma­bant, pr [...]erat Polycrates. Polycra­tes the Bishop of Ephesus with the rest of the Churches of Asia, acknowledge any such when they withstood Victor Bi­shop of Rome in the same cause, and neglected his excom­munication; the same Polycrates alleaging for himselfe, that Ibid. Ego qui sanctam Scriptu­ram volui ac re­uolui, non t [...]rba­bor illis quae ter­rendi gratia obij­ciuntur. Et [...]nim maior [...]s mei Deo magis quàm ho­minibus obedien­ [...] esse dixerunt. hauing read the holy Scripture ouer and ouer, he would not be troubled with those things that were threatned to him, because his ancestors had taught him rather to obey God then men. Neither did Cōcil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. Per totum. Cyprian and his African Bishops conceiue any such when in their Councell they determined the point of the Baptisme of Heretikes, professedly against the knowen iudgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome; whether truly or falsly that skilleth not, only hereby it appeareth that they had not learned nor did beleeue M. Bishops necessity of according with the Church of Rome. Neither did the Ea­sterne Churches imagine any such principality in the church of Rome, when as Leo hauing affirmed it to be Leo. Epist. 62. Ad octa­uum Calend. Maiar. Paschalem obseruantiam perducere nimis insolens & aperta transgressio est. a strange and manifest trespasse or transgression to bring Easter day to the eighth of the Calends of May, he was faine notwithstanding to yeeld Idem Epist. 93. Studio vnitatis & pacis malui Orientalium definitioni acquiescere, quàm in tantae festiuitatis obseruantia dissidere. to them therein because they would not yeeld to him. Neither did Hierome beleeue any such who writing purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome saith; Hieron. epist. ad Euagr. Si authoritas quaritur, vrbis maior est vrbe, &c. Quid mihi pr [...]fers vnius vrbis consuetudin [...]? quid paucitatem de q [...]a ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesi [...] vindicas? If authority be required, the whole world is greater then one [Page 30] City: what doest thou bring me the custome of one City? why doest thou maintayne a paucity or fewnesse, whence hath growen proud vsurping vpon the lawes of the Church? Nei­ther did Ambrose admit it, who for defence of a cere­mony vsed in his Church of Millan, saith, Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1. Cupio in omnibus se­qui Romanam Ecclesiam, sed tamen & nos homines sensum habemus. I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome, but wee also are men that haue vnderstanding, and therefore what is more rightly obserued otherwhere, wee iustly obserue the same. Neither was it acknowledged by the sixe hundred and thirty Bi­shops of the Councell of Chalcedon, who affirming Chalcedon. Concil. Act. 15. Can. 28. Anti­quae Roma thro­no quòd vrbs illa imperaret iure patres priuilegia tribuere. [...]t ea­dem considera­tion [...] mo [...]i cen­tum quinquagin­ta Dei ama [...]tis­simi Episcopi Sanct [...]ssimo no­ua Rom [...] thro [...]o [...]qualia priuile­gia tribuere, rectè iudicantes vrbem quae & Imperio & Se­natu honorata sit, &c. etiam in rebus Eccle­siasticis non se­cus ac illam ex­toll [...], &c. the priuiledges of the Church of Rome, to haue beene giuen to it by the Fathers before, f [...]r that that City was the seate of the Empire, did for the same consideration giue to the Church of Constantinople equall priuiledges with the Church of Rome, when the City of Constantinople was honoured with the Em­pire and Senate as well as the City of Rome, which in the Synod. 6. in Trullo, Can. 36. Decerni­mus vt thronus Constantinopoli­tanus aequalia priuilegia cum antiqu [...] Romae throno obti [...]eat. sixt Synode holden at Constantinople, in Trullo by almost three hundred Bishops more was againe approued and con­firmed. Now then by the continuall practise of the Church it appeareth that the wordes of Ireneus cannot be truly ap­plied to approue any superiority of gouernement to apper­taine to the Church of Rome. As little doe the wordes of Cyprian auaile to challenge thereto certaine continuance and stability in true faith, who exagitating the tumultuous and disorderly courses of certaine lewd and schismaticall persons who being censured by the Bishops of Africa sought to pa­tronage themselues vnder the fauor of the Bishop of Rome, vpbraideth them, that Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 3. Nec cogi [...]re [...]os esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia hab [...]re non possit accessum. they considered not that the Romans were men whose faith by the testimony of the Apostle was com­mended, to whom perfidiousnesse can or may haue no accesse. Where M. Bishop adding in his translation of the wordes, or falshood in matters of faith, to make the wordes serue his purpose, thrusteth them quite from the purpose of him [Page 31] that wrote them. It made nothing for Cyprians purpose, that falshood in matters of faith could haue no accesse to the Romans; the thing that hee aimeth at, is, that in mat­ters of iurisdiction, perfidious and trecherous persons iustly punished for their euill demeanours, and thereupon comming to Rome with lies and tales should finde no ad­mittance or harbour there. M. Bishop though hee giue to the Bishop of Rome a priuiledge not to erre in deci­ding matters of faith, yet will not denie but that hee may erre in cases and proceedings of iurisdiction, and in ex­amining and iudging matters of fact, may giue counte­nance to lewde and vngracious men, as hee did to the Iesuites against the Priests. It beeing then impertinent here to Cyprians occasion, to affirme the Church of Rome to bee free from errour in question of faith, ei­ther wee must make him speake idlely, or else wee must construe his wordes the other way, that those lewde and euill disposed persons should finde no fauour or entertainement there. Which hee saith, cannot bee: not as to affirme an impossibility thereof, but as to sig­nifie how farre hee presumed of their integrity in this be­halfe, and that they would make good the Apostles com­mendation of their faith, one fruit whereof should bee to resist the courses of such tumultuous disturbers of Ecclesia­sticall order and peace, and to yeeld no accesse or [...]are to their calumnious and false suggestions. Gregory Nazian­zene well noteth that in diuers meanings it may bee said of a thing that it cannot bee▪ Greg. Na­zianz. Orat. 5. Significata horū (posse vel nō pos­se) cōplura sunt. Interdum dicun­tur de virium de­sectu & certo huius tempore & respect [...] alicuius &c. Interdum vsurpamus de eo quod vt plurimùm accidit, &c. Non­nunquā vt rati­oni non consen­taneum, &c. Nonnunquam vt quod voluntas nō admittat, &c. Praeterea quod nat [...]rae quidem respectu sieri ne­quit, praestari au­t [...]m à Deo potest, si is velit, &c. Praeter haec quod prorsus vel fieri vel contingere nequit, &c. First, to note want of strength at a certayne time and in some respect, as to say of a child that hee cannot wrastle, which notwithstan­ding beeing growen hee can. Secondly, it signifieth that such a thing commonly, or for the most part cannot bee; as when it is said, A Citty that is set vpon a hill cannot bee hidde, which notwithstanding by interposing somewhat may bee hidden and not seene. Thirdly, that wee say cannot bee, which is not conuenient or agreeable to reason, as when it is said, [Page 32] The children of the Bride-chamber, so long as the Bridegroome is with them, cannot fast, meaning that so long it is not rea­sonable or fitting so to doe. Fourthly it is said cannot bee, which the will admitteth not or liketh not to doe, as when the Euangelist saith of our Sauiour; He could doe no great mira­cles there because of their vnbeliefe, wherein is a relation to the former meaning, the will not admitting that which is not fitting or conuenient to be done. Fiftly, we say that can not be which by naturall course cannot be, though by the power of God it may be done. And lastly, we say so of that which in no sort can be, and is wholly and altogether vnpossible. It was farre from Cyprians meaning that it was a thing wholly vn­possible for the Romans to admit the hearing of such per­sons, (for if he had so thought, what needed he so much to labour Cornelius the Bishop in that behalfe?) but he would note it as a thing vnfitting to that testimony, which the A­postle had giuen of them, and which being so vniust he assu­red himselfe they would by no meanes yeeld vnto. Euen in the same manner as Gregory saith, that Greg. Mor. l. 33. c. 22. Iniqui si ap [...]rtè mal [...] es­sent, à bonis om­ninò recipi non possent men openly euill can­not be receiued or entertained of them that be good; and as Marcellinus saith of a Bishop, that Collat. cum Donat. 1. c. 62. Falsi crimen nec obijcere condecet sacerdotem, nec committere po­tuisse credendum est. it beseemeth him not to obiect falshood to another, nor is it to be beleeued that he could commit the same himselfe; and as Leo saith, Leo. Epist. 52. Priuilegia Ecclesiarū San­ctorum patrum Canonibus insti­tuta & Nicena Synodi fixa de­cretis nulla pos­sunt improbitate conuell [...], nulla no [...]itate mutari. The priuiledges of Churches established by the Canons of the Fathers, and by the decrees of the Nicene Councell, cannot by any sinister practise be impeached, on by any nouelty changed: and as we common­ly say out of the law, Id tantùm possumus, quod iure possumus: Aug. cont. Gaudent. lib. 2. c. 22. Quod non potest iustè, non potest iustus. We can doe that only which we can lawfully doe, or as S ^t. Au­stin saith to the same effect; The iust man cannot doe what he cannot iustly doe; agreeable to the wordes of the Apostle, 2. Cor. 13. 8. Wee can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth. Where, as in infinite places more, wee may not vnder­stand a meere deniall of possibility, but a signification of improbability, of vndecency or breach of duty, if the thing bee done that is spoken of, euen as S ^t. Austin ex­poundeth the wordes of the Angel to Lot; Genes. 19. 22. I can doe nothing [Page 33] till thou be come thither; Aug. cont. Gaudent. lib. 2. c. 22. Non posse se dixit, quod sine dubi [...] poterat per potentiam, sed non poterat per iustitiam. He saith he could not, which doubt­lesse by power he could, but by iustice he could not doe. Now if M. Bishop be pecuishly wilfull against common sense to vn­derstand perfidiousnesse of falshood or errour in matters of faith, yet that Cyprian can be vnderstood no otherwise but accor­ding to the same meaning it is infallibly proued, for that in a matter of faith he with his Councell of African Bishops, as I said before, determineth contrary to the Church of Rome: and of Stephanus the Bishop of Rome saith expresly, that hee Cyprian. ad Pompei. Haere­ticorum causam contra Christia­nos & cōtra Ec­clesiam Dei ass [...] ­rere conatur &c. Imperitè at (que) im­prouidè scripsit, &c. Quae ista obstinatio, quaeu [...] pr [...]sumptio hu­manam traditio­nem diuina dis­positioni antepo­nere, &c. vni­tatem & verita­ti de diuina le­ge venientem nō tenens, h [...]res [...]m contra Ecclesiam vindicat. endeauoured to mainteine the cause of Heretikes against Chri­stians and against the Church of God, that he wrote ignorant­ly and vnwarily, that obstinately and presumptuously he preferred the Tradition of man before the ordinance of God, that not hol­ding the vnity and truth that proceeded from the law of God, he defended heresie against the Church. Wherein although it be true that Cyprian did erre, yet we cannot doubt but that vpon aduertisement giuen him by the Bishop of Rome, he would haue reformed his errour and submitted himselfe to the iudgement of that Church, if he had knowen that priuiledge of immunity from errour, which M. Bishop now by his testi­mony challengeth thereunto. In a word to shew the weak­nesse of the foundation whereupon M. Bishop buildeth all this fable, Cyprian where he saith as the other Fathers some­times doe, Cypr. Epist. ad Iubaian. & alt. ad Quirin. Petrus super quē Dominus aedis [...] ­cauit Ecclesiam▪ suam. that Christ builded his Church vpon Peter, in the very same place disputeth against the sentence of the Bishop of Rome, thereby plainly declaring that from Peter to the Bishop of Rome there is by his iudgement no such pri­uiledge deriued as these men so infinitely babble of. Now though his proofes hitherto be vaine, yet those that follow are more vaine, beside that hee is faine to report them falsly to giue them that little colour that they seeme to haue. Ambrose, saith he, taketh it to be all one to say the Catho­like and the Roman Church. Forsooth Ambrose reporteth that his brother Satyrus hauing escaped the danger of ship­wracke, and being come to land was destrous in token of thanks-giuing to receiue the Sacrament. So it was that [Page 34] the heresie or schisme of the Luciferians at that time, pre­uailed in those parts, and hee was carefull by no meanes to communicate with them. Therefore, Ambros. de obitu Fratris. Percontatus ex [...]o est vtru [...]am cum Episcop [...]s Catholicis, hoc est, cum Roma­na Ecclesia con­ [...]eniret. he questioned with the Bishop whom hee had sent for vnto him whether hee accorded with the Catholike Bishops, that is, with the Roman Church. Hee held it not enough to name Catholike Bishops, because Heretikes and Schismatikes doe take vpon them to be called Catholikes, but because he knew the Church of Rome then retayned the Catholike faith, he would take knowledge of them to be Catholike Bishops, by this that they ioyned them­selues in fellowship of faith with the Roman Church. And is not here, thinke you, a goodly reason, They were then Catholike Bishops that did communicate with the Church of Rome; therefore it is all one now to say the Catholike and to say the Roman Church? The Church of Rome as the most famous and chiefe Church was most fit to bee named in this case, but otherwise it may euen as well be said, They were Catholike Bishops that cōmunicated with the Church of Millan where Ambrose was Bishop; therefore to say the Church of Millan, is all one as to say the Catholike Church. As little discretion is there in his next allegation out of Hie­rome, who mentioning the words of Ruffinus, concerning some workes of Origen by him translated, The Latin Reader shall finde nothing in them different from our faith, demandeth thus, Hieron. A­polog. aduers. Ruffin. lib. 1. Fide suam quam vocat? Eamnè qua Romana pol­let Ecclesia, an illam qu [...] Ori­genis volumini­bus contin [...]tur? si Romanam re­sponde [...]it, ergo Cathol [...]ci sumus qui nihil de Ori­genis errore transtulimus, &c. Which calleth hee his faith? that which the Church of Rome professeth, or that which is contained in the bookes of Ori­gen? If he answere, the Roman faith, then are we Catholikes, who haue translated nothing of the errour of Origen. For what is there here said of the Roman Church, but what might likewise bee sa [...]d of any other Church professing the true faith? The argument followeth, because the Roman Church did then maintayne the true Catholike faith; so should it fol­low of the rest, If he professe the faith of the Church of Con­stantinople, of Antioch, of Alexandria, yea of the poore Church of Eugubium, then is he a Catholike, because al these did then professe the Catholike faith. But what is this to [Page 35] M. Bishops purpose to proue in the Church of Rome a priuiledge of continuance and stability in the same true Ca­tholike faith; to proue that the Roman faith should bee al­waies the certayne and vndoubted patterne of the true Ca­tholike faith? In which conclusion his other Authours also doe all faile him, who though it be graunted him that they did, as he saith, proue themselues then to be Catholikes and their Churches Catholike, by declaring themselues to com­municate with the Church of Rome, and their aduersaries to bee Heretikes because they did not so, for that the Church of Rome was then famously knowen to haue con­tinued the same from the beginning in the points of faith then impugned by the Heretikes; yet very idlely and chil­dishly are they alleaged to proue that which M. Bishop in­tendeth, that it should alwayes thenceforth continue so. But indeede hee racketh his Authours and wrongeth them, neither doe they say that which hee would haue them taken to say. Tertullian appealeth to other Churches as well as to the Church of Rome, and referreth his Reader to the most famous of them accordingly as they are nearest at hand; Tertul. de praescript. Per­curre Ecclesia [...] Apostolicas a­pud quas ipse ad­huc Cathedrae A­postolorum suis lo­cis praesidentur, &c. Proxima est tibi Achaiai ha­bes Corinthum. Si non longè es a Macedonia, ha­bes Philippos, ha­bes Thessaloni­censes. Si potes in Asiam tender [...], habes Ephesum. Si autem Ital [...]ae adiaces, habes Romanam. Runne through the Apostolike Churches in which there are Bishops still sitting in the seates of the Apostles in their places. Is Achaia next vnto thee? thou hast Corinthus. If thou be not farre from Macedonia, thou hast Philippos and the Thes­salonians. If thou canst goe into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. If thou border vpon Italie, thou hast the Church of Rome. What is there here for M. Bishops turne? Epiph. hae­res. 27. Epiphanius set­teth downe a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, but saith not a word to that effect as M. Bishop citeth him. Optatus approueth his part to be Catholike, not simply by communi­cating with the Church of Rome; but for that tog [...]ther with the Church of Rome, Optat. lib. 2. Si [...]icius hodie noster est socius; cum quo nobis to­tus orbis cōmer­cio formatarum in vna communi­onis societate concordant. they communicated with th [...] [...]hurch of the whole world. Yea in the same booke hee attributeth as much in this behalfe to the seuen Churches of Asia as to the Church of Rome, & therby as strongly reproueth the Dona­tists. Ibid. Cum quibus Ecclesijs nullum commu­nionis probamini habere cons [...]rti [...], &c. Extra sep­tem Ecclesias quicquid soris est alienum est. You are proued to haue no fellowship of cōmunion with the [Page 36] seuen Churches. Whatsoeuer is without the seuen Churches is stranger to the Church. Austin setteth downe the succession of the Bishops of Rome, and vpbraideth the Donatists, that Aug. Epist. 165. In hoc or­dine successionis nullus Donatista Episcopi [...] inue­nitur. no Donatist was found amongst them; but as well doth he ob­iect to them, that whereas Ibid. Quile gunt in codicibus sanctis Ecclesias quibus Apostoli scripserūt & nul­lum in eis habēt Episcopum. Quid autem peruersius & insaniꝰ quàm lectoribꝰ easdem Epistolas legen­tibus dicere, pax tecum, & ab ea­rum Ecclesiarū pace separare quibus ipsa Epi­stolae scriplae sūt. they read the Epistles of the Apo­stles, they diuided themselues from the peace and fellowship of those Churches, to which the Apostles wrote the same Epistles. So then in all these Authors which he alleageth he doth but meerely abuse his reader, which is the cause why he thus set downe their names without their wordes, for that he presu­med that only alleaging their names, men would imagine that vndoubtedly they said somewhat for him, whereas if he had set downe their wordes, euery man might see that they said nothing. Yea, but it is greatly to be noted, saith M. Bishop, that there is no generall Councell of sound authority wherein the Christian truth hath beene expounded and determined, but is confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. Well; and it is as greatly to be noted that the sentence of no Bishop of Rome was anci­ently holden sufficient for the deciding of a question of faith, except the same were confirmed by a generall Councell. Therefore doth Leo Bishop of Rome mention Leo epist. 61. Apostolicae sedis Epistola vniuer­sali sancta Syno­di assens [...] firma­ta. Et Epist. 70. Scripta mea ad­iecta vniuersalis Synodi cōfirma­tione, &c. his Epistle a­gainst the heresie of Eutyches, confirmed by the vniuersall assent of the sacred Synode, and his writings hauing the confirmation of the generall Councell added thereto. And what his authority was in the Councell it may be conceiued by that he wrote to the Councell of Ephesus, Idem Epist. 14. Misi qui vice mea sancto con­uētui vestrae fra­ternitatis inter­sint, & commu­ni vobiscum sen­tentia qua Domi­no sint placitura constituant. I haue sent my deputies to be present with you in your assembly, and by sentence in common to decree those things which may be pleasing to the Lord; where wee see that he challengeth no more but a voice in common with the rest of the Bishops there. And that Councels held it not an [...] [...]atter of necessity to haue the confirmation of the Bishop of Rome, it is manifest both by the African Councell excluding his authority from amongst them, as hath beene before shewed, and by the Councell of ^k Chalcedon, which notwithstanding the opposition of the l Concil. Chalced. Act. 16. Contradictio nostra his gestis inh [...]reat, &c. J [...]dices dixerunt, Quod interlocuti sumus, tota Synodu [...] approbauit. [Page 37] Legates of the Bishop of Rome and Leo Epist. 51. 52. his owne reclayming thereto, yet decreed to the Church of Constantinople equa­lity of priuiledges with the Church of Rome, saue only that the Bishop of Rome had precedence and priority of place, as before also is declared. As for M. Bishops other note it is a vaine and fond presumption, that all heresies sprung vp since the Apostles daies haue opposed themselues against the Roman Sea, and haue beene by it finally ouerthrowne. The Church of Rome hath had nothing singular in this behalfe; Yea many heresies there haue beene that haue more bent themselues against o­ther Churches then against the Church of Rome, neither hath the Church of Rome done so much in the confounding of them as other Churches haue done. But yet he bringeth Austin, affirming for him that that chaire obtained the top of authority heretikes in vaine barking round about it. Where he dealeth very vnhonestly in falsifying the wordes of Austin who in that whole booke by him cited, neuer once nameth the Roman Church or chaire, nor saith any thing that may be auouched to haue any speciall reference or respect thereto. Of the Catholike or vniuersall Church so apparantly to bee discerned from all hereticall combinations, S ^t. Austin there saith; Aug. de vti­lit. credendi. c. 17. Dubitabi­mus nos eius Ec­clesiae condere gremio, quae vs (que) ad confession [...]m generis humani ab Apostolica se­de per successio▪ nes Episcoporum frustra hareticis circumlairanti­bus, &c. culm [...]n authoritatis ob­tinuit. Shall we doubt to repose our selues in the bosome of that Church which euen by the confession of mankinde from the A­postles sitting (or time when the Apostles sate) by successions of Bishops hath obtained a height of authority, Heretikes in vaine barking round about, &c. In the whole processe of that booke from the beginning to this place which is almost the very end, he speaketh generally of the Catholike Church without relation to any particular Church, and therefore vn­likely it is that his wordes here should beare any speciall ap­plication to the Church of Rome. M. Bishop will say that I mistranslate the wordes ab Apostolica sede, and that Apostoli­ca sedes is there meant the Apostolike Sea, that is, the Roman Church. But he must giue vs leaue to vnderstand the meaning of S ^t. Austins wordes by S ^t. Austin himselfe, who in this cause so often signifieth by that phrase of speech, the time [Page 38] wherein the Apostles themselues sate, that is, wherein they liued and occupied the roomes of teaching and gouerning the Church. Thus he saith in another place, Aug. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 11. cap. 2. Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat authoritas quae ab ipsis fundatis­simis sedibus A­postolorum vsque ad hodiernum diem succeden­tium sibimet E­piscoporum & lot populorum con­sensione firma­tur. Thou seest how much the authority of the Catholike Church herein auaileth, which from the most surely founded seates of the Apostles vntill this day (that is, from the time that the seates of the Apo­stles were most surely founded vntill this day) by ranke of Bishops succeeding one another, and by the consent of so many peoples is confirmed. And againe, Ibid. lib. 28. cap. 2. Vniuer­sa Ecclesia ab A­postolicis sedibus vsque ad praesen­tes Episcopos cer­ta successione perducta. The vniuersall Church, saith he, which is deriued by certaine succession from the seates of the Apostles (that is, from the time that the Apostles sate) vnto the Bishops that now are. And in another place, Ibid. lib. 33. cap. 9. Eam sequamini que ab ipsius praesentiae Christi tempo [...]i­bus per dispensa­tiones Apostolo­rum & [...] ab corum [...]edibus successiones Epis­coporum vsque ad haec tempora peruenit. Follow that authority which hath come from the time of the presence of Christ himselfe, by the ministery of the Apostles, and by other successions of Bishops from their seates (from the time wherein they sate) vntill this time. Which when hee will in more proper wordes expresse▪ hee speaketh thus: Ibid. lib 28. cap. 4. Ecclesia quae ab ipsius Matthaei temporibus vsque ad hoc tempus certa successionum scrie declaratur. The Church which from the very time of Matthew vntill this time by certaine ranke of successions is declared. Ibid. lib. 32. cap. 19. Euangelica authoritas ab A­postolorum temporibus vsque ad nostra tempora per successiones certissimas commendata. The authority of the Gospell commended by most certaine successions from the time of the Apostles vntill our times. And in another place: Contra Aduers. leg. & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 20. Ecclesia quae ab illorum (Apostolorum) temporibus per Episcoporum successiones certissimas vsque ad nostra & deinceps tempora per­seuerat. The Church which from the times of the Apostles by most certaine successions of Bishops continueth to our times and so for­ward. Now then sith all these speeches, as by conference appeareth, serue to expresse only one and the same thing, it is plaine that S ^t. Austin when hee said ab Apostolica sede, meant nothing else but from the sitting, that is, from the age and time of the Apostles. Of the Apostles, I say, though he speake in the singular number, because hee nameth from thence not a succession as speaking of one, but successions as res [...]rting himselfe to those many seates wherein Bishops [Page 39] had succeeded from the time of the Apostles. And though wee doe vnderstand it of one Apostle S ^t. Peter, as else­where he saith, Cont. Epist. fundam. cap. 4. Tenet ab ipsa e­de Petri vs (que) ad praesentem Epis­cop [...]tum succes­sio Sacerdotum. The succession of Bishops from the very seate of Peter ( from the very time when Peter sate) vntill the Bi­shopricke that now is, holdeth me in the Catholike Church; yet doth there nothing hereby follow more to the Church of Rome then to the Church of Antioch, where Peter sate as well as he did at Rome, and where there had beene Bi­shops succeeding him vntill that time. In a word let M. Bishop take those wordes as hee will, yet is there nothing therein to be seene concerning the Church of Rome, but only that as the principall Church, and specially [...] these Westerne parts, it serued him most conueniently for in­stance of the succession which hee pleaded; but as for the height or toppe of authority there spoken of, it belongeth to the Catholike or Vniuersall Church, discountenancing all partiall and schismaticall combinations, and meere im­pudency is it by those or any other wordes of Austin to challenge to the Church of Rome an authority or superio­rity of gouernement ouer other Churches, when as wee see that both Austin and the rest of the Bishops of Africa did with one consent vtterly disclaime the same. Hitherto, therefore wee see no cause to attribute to the Church of Rome any such priuiledges as M. Bishop pretendeth, and the lesse opinion haue wee that any such there are for that hee bringeth no shew of proofe, but onely by wresting and falsifying the Authours whom hee alleageth in that behalfe.

R. ABBOT.

HEre is a new-found distinction, and I confesse my selfe to be one of those Doctors that know it not, and wee see that M. Bishop as great a Doctor as he is, yet can bring neither Scripture, nor Father, nor Councell, nor Story, nor any ancient writer whatsoeuer for the warrant of it, but such as it is wee must take it barely vpon his owne word. The Church of Rome hath abused the world vnder pretence of the name of the Catholike Church, alleaging falsly of it selfe that which is truly said of the Catholike Church, that with­out the Church there is no saluation. To discouer this fraude we instruct men, as truth is, that the Church of Rome is but a particular Church, and therefore cannot be called the Ca­tholike, that is, the vniuersall Church; and therefore againe that it is but a meere mockery of Popish impostours, where­by they say that out of the Church, meaning the Church of Rome, there is no saluation. To this M. Bishop answereth, that in that proposition, The Church of Rome is a particular Church, there is doubling and deceipt. And how I pray? Forsooth, albeit the Church of Rome in rigour of speech doe comprehend only the Christians dwelling in Rome, yet it is v­sually taken to signifie all Churches of other Countries, agreeing in faith with the Church of Rome, and confessing the Pope to be chiefe Pastor of the whole Church. Where it is to be ob­serued how hee setteth himselfe meerely to circumuent and cosen his Reader. For it being admitted that the Church of Rome is taken to signifie all Churches of other Countries, [Page 42] agreeing in faith with the Church of Rome, and confessing the Popes chiefty ouer them, yet this nothing hindereth, but that the Church of Rome is still a particular Church or a part only of the Church, because the whole Church doth not agree nor euer hath agreed to giue to the Pope and Church of Rome that chiefty which they require. For how many Churches are there not in Europe only, but also in Asia and Africa, that deride that claime of theirs, and neither yeeld nor acknowledge any such superiority to belong vnto them? Yea and his owne instance of the Roman Empire confoun­deth him in this behalfe, because as the Roman Empire was not the Empire of the whole world, but imported only the Countries subiect to the Romans; there being many other Dominions and Kingdomes that were neuer subiect vnto them; euen so the Roman Church is not the Church of the whole world, which is the Catholike Church, but signifieth only those Churches which professe subiection to the Bi­shop of Rome, there being many other Churches which professe no such subiection. Now therefore be it so, that the Church of Rome is so vsually taken to signifie other Churches, submitting themselues to the Church of Rome, M. Bishop for all this to his purpose is neuer a whit the nearer, vnlesse he can shew that the Church of Rome is taken to signifie the whole Catholike Church of Christ. For if it be not the whole Catholike Church, then it is but a mem­ber and part thereof, and therefore only a particular Church. Tell vs then, M. Bishop, is it any where to be found that the Roman Church is taken to signifie the whole Catholike Church? Marke, I pray thee, gentle Reader, how it sticketh betwixt his teeth. Faine hee would speake it, and yet be­cause hee knoweth it to bee an absurd lye, his heart faileth him, and only faintly hee telleth vs, The whole Catholike Church may be called the Roman Church. But M. Bishop doe not tell vs what in your foolish conceipt may bee, tell vs what hath beene done? The Fathers were interested in this cause as well as wee; they haue told vs of the [Page 43] East Church and the West Church; the Greeke Church and the Latin Church; they haue infinite times made mention of the Roman Church; but shew vs that euer they meant by the Roman Church, to signifie the whole Church. Here hee is blancke and can say nothing; and if he would say any thing, the testimony of Pighius one of his owne fellowes should be sufficient to choake him, Pigh. Eccles. Hierarch. l. 6. cap. 3. Quis per R [...]manā Eccle­siam vnquam in­tellexit aut vni­uersalem Eccle­siam aut genera­le Concilium? Who did euer by the Roman church vnderstand the vniuersall Church! A generall Councell is hol­den to be by representation the vniuersal or Catholike church, and who was there euer so far out of his wits as to cal a gene­rall Councell the Roman Church? The seuen Churches of A­sia haue been taken to betoken the vniuersall Church, as we haue seene before, but who euer said or thought that they did betoken the Roman church? Now whereas he telleth vs that it may be so taken, I answer him, that so some man may take M. Bishop to signifie a ioined-stoole. For if men will take names & words to signifie what they list, why may not some man be as wilfull in the one as he seeth them witlesse in the other? What authority haue they to impose significations vp­pon words and phrases contrary to the first original thereof, and to the alwaies continued custome and vse of the whole Church? The Church of Christ absolutely is but one, disper­sed and scattered ouer the whole world. Of this one Church there are notwithstanding diuers parts, which all being in nature alike are by the name of the whole called by the name of Act. 15. 41. Rom. 16. 16. Churches. For distinction of these Churches they haue e­uery of them their denomination of the places where they are. The church of Antioch is called Act. 13. 1. the Church which is at Antioch: the Church of Corinth is 1. Cor. 1. 2. the Church of God which is at Corinth: the Church of Ephesus are Ephes. 1. 1. the Saints which are at Ephesus. And thus when the Apostle meant to write to the Church of Rome he writeth Rom. 1. 7. to all that be at Rome belo­ued of God, &c. For as the Church of Thessalonica is 1. Thess. 1. 1. the Church of the Thessaelonians, that is, of them that inhabite Thessalonica, so the Church of Rome is the Church of the Romans, that is, of them that inhabite Rome. And thus we [Page 44] see that in the inscriptions of the Epistles of the ancient Bi­shops of Rome accordingly as we haue them, albeit some­times they wrote themselues Bishops of the Catholike Church, yet doe shew that they meant it no otherwise then as all Bi­shops wrote themselues Bishops of the Catholike Church, as I haue before shewed, namely with limitation thereof to the Citty of Rome whereof they were Bishops, without euer dreaming of M. Bishops vniuersall Roman Church. Thus we finde, Calixt. E­pist. 1. Calixtus Archiepiscopus Ecclesiae Catho­licae vrbis Romae. Calixtus Archbishop of the Catholike Church of the Citty of Rome; Marcellin. Epist. 1. Mar­ceilinus Episco­pus Sanctae Ec­clesiae Catholicae vrbis Romanae. Marcellinus Bishop of the holy Catho­like Church of the Citty of Rome; Marcell. E­pist. 2. Marcel­lus Episcopus Sanctae & Apo­stolicae & Catho­licae vrbis Romae. Marcellus Bishop of the holy and Apostolike and Catholike Citty of Rome. And so Leo onewhere writing himselfe, Leo. Epist. 13. Leo Catho­licae Romanae Ecclesiae Epis­copus. Leo Bishop of the Catholike Roman Church, doth otherwhere plainly expresse the mea­ning thereof, Epist. 1 2. 3. Leo vrbis Ro­mae Epi copios. Et Epist. 12. Leo Papa Ecclesiae Catholicae vrbis Romae. Leo Bishop of the City of Rome; Leo Bi­shop of the Catholike Church of the Citty of Rome. To bee short, it is not to bee found that euer the Church of Rome was otherwise vnderstood, but only for the Church of the Citty of Rome, and shall wee hearken to these new vpstart Minters, that thus coyne vs a Church of Rome that was ne­uer heard of before? And therefore it is nothing to vs what they by abuse of speech teach their followers to say; let their French Disciples say they are of the Catholike Roman Church; we vnderstand them thereby to take part with the Church of Rome, but the Church of Rome is that of Rome only whereto they addict themselues. Albeit by that addi­tion, what doe they but shew themselues Sectaries and Schismatikes, diuiding themselues factiously apart from the whole? the Catholike Roman Church absurdly so named by themselues, from that which is absolutely, and therefore truly called the Catholike Church. For the Catholike Church is the whole Church as hath beene said, but Roman put to it is a terme of diminution, and abridgeth the whole to a part, the vniuersall to a particular, because the whole is not Roman. Therefore to say Catholike Roman, is to say, Catho­like not Catholike; and Roman Catholikes are Catholikes which [Page 45] are no Catholikes, and of them it may be truly said which Op­tatus said of the Donatists; Optat lib. 2. Vultis vos solos esse totum qui in omni toto non e­stis. You would haue your selues only to be the whole who are not in all the whole. Now here we may aske them with what face they can talke of antiquity, who haue brought into the Church so strange a nouelty as this is. The name of Catholikes and of the Catholike Church, which pleased antiquity, is not enough for them. Pacianus said of old; Pacian. ad Simpron. epist. 1. Christianus mihi nomen est; Catholicus verò cognomen. Christian is my name, and Catholike my surname; but that is changed now into Roman Catholike is my sur­name, disclaiming thereby the communion and fellowship of the Catholike Church, and banding themselues in a par­tiall and factious confederacy with the Roman Church. Thus hauing departed from the ancient faith and discipline of the Catholike Church, they doe notwithstanding for co­louring of their Apostasie, retaine certaine names and for­malities thereof, but they doe it so as that by their additions and constructions they make no other but mungrels and ba­stards of them. And this appeareth by the reason that M. Bishop giueth of their adding Roman to Catholike, namely to separate them that ioyne in faith with the Church of Rome from other sectaries; because Catholikes were of old so cal­led, not for ioyning in faith with this or that Church, but for being members of the vniuersall Church. And if that reason were sufficient, it should haue waighed of old as well as now, when there were so many Sects and Heresies in the Church, when Schismatikes and Heretikes vsurped to them­selues the name of Catholikes, and yet the Catholike saw no reason to draw the whole to the name of any part, or to call themselues otherwise then by the name of Catholikes, as resoluing to professe no other communion or fellowship, but vniuersally with the Church of the whole world. Nei­ther was it otherwise till Antichrist had exalted himselfe in the Roman Sea, who challenging to himselfe and his only to bee the Church of God, tooke vpon him to set his owne marke vpon the Church, to call it the Catholike Roman Church, and the members thereof Roman Catho­likes, [Page 46] 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.

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 [Page 49] 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; wher [...]re to s [...]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 Bellarm. d [...] Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 13. c [...] Sy­nod. Nicen. 2. Act. 2. Capu [...] om [...]ium Eccles [...] arum De [...]. 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; Ibid. cap. 14. out of S [...]ricius, Innocentius, Iohn the second, Pela­gius the second, Gregory the Great, Bishops of Rome, out of Ibid. cap 16. Prosper and Ʋictor Vticensis, and doe you come now with your slecu [...]les [...]c tale and tell vs that you say not so? The truth is that you know not what to say, because you see it sorteth absurdly whatsoeuer you say. Well, let vs omit this because M. Bishop is willing so; the vpshot of his answere is, that it is a fiule fault in arguing when one thing is said to be another by a metaphore, to attribute all the properties of the me­taphore to the other thing. And this he handleth very grauely by example of Christs being called a Lyon, whence not­withstanding hee saith, it is not to bee argued that hee hath foure legges, and therefore that M. Abbot must bee an vnreasonable creature who shifteth from that propriety of the metaphore, Head, which was to purpose vnto others that are cleane besides the purpose. Now here a simple man, [Page 50] who commonly admireth that most which hee vnder­standeth least, imagineth that M. Bishop hath shewed himselfe a learned man, and hath told a worthy tale, when as that which hee hath said is as much to the matter as if hee had told vs in great sadnesse, that a bird bolt hath no braines. Vndoubtedly hee dreamed very strong­ly that I had said that the Church of Rome because it is the head, must haue a nose in the middle of the face, or because it is old, must haue wrinckles in the browes, or must haue long eares, because it is become an Asses head. If not, who can take him for any other but a foure-leg­ged creature, that thus impertinently commeth in with a tale of foure legges? What property of a head doe I speake of that he should say, that I shift from that pro­priety which was to the purpose, to others that are beside the purpose? My wordes are these; To speake by their rule, the Roman Church is the head, and all other Chur­ches are memb [...]rs vnto it. I name no property of a head at all; let it bee what it will or what they will haue it; it shall bee all one to mee; for in whatsoeuer respect they will make the Church of Rome the head of all Churches, in the same respect they must make all other Churches the members and body to this head. Let it bee that property of a head which he mentioneth, and which I intended as meant by them, that all other Churches are to bee directed and gouerned by the authority of the Church of Rome, as the members of the body by the head; according­ly my argument shall proceede, that the Church of Rome by their learning is the head of all other Churches, and all other Churches are as the members and body to this head; but the Catholike Church comprehendeth all, euen the whole both head and body. To say then that the Roman Church is the Catholike Church, is all one as if a man should say that the head is the whole body. Who can speake hereof more clearely then I haue done, and who can answere more absurdly then hee hath done? And albeit hee haue thus [Page 51] egregiously played the foole, and hath bewraied plainly that hee was here put to his trumps and knew not what to say, yet to flourish and face the matter, hee admira­bly vaunteth and insulteth vpon my insufficiency in [...]rgu­ing, and telleth mee of being hissed o [...]t of the Schooles, and making my selfe a mocking-stocke, and that my wri­tings are more meete to stoppe mustard-pots, then likely to stoppe any meane Schollers mouth. You say well, M. Bi­shop; You shall doe well to stoppe your mustard-pot with some part thereof that your mustard may bee kept quicke and strong to cleare your head; for if it bee alwayes as dull as you haue shewed it here, it may very well bee said that such a head hath but a little wit. As for your mouth it may bee it will not bee stopped, because you are sicke of Pisoes disease, Hieron. ad Ocean. Pisoni­ano vilio cum l [...]qui nesciret, tac [...]re non po­tuit. Who though hee knew not what to say, yet could not hold his peace. A man may well thinke that your mouth is not easily stopped, who rather then you would say nothing, would tell such a wise tale as you haue here done.

R. ABBOT.

IN this comparison betwixt the Donatists and the Papists, I must confesse that I com­mitted some little ouer-sight by vnderstan­ding that generally of the Donatists which belonged only to a part of them, and there­by affirming that wholly of Cartenna in Mauritania, which is to be referred to that which properly and particularly is called Africa. I obserued the errour my selfe long since, and meant in another edition, if any should be, to correct it; and in the meane time to haue noted it in the Preface of my third part. But now since it falleth out to be first noted by M. Bishop, I will take it here in his due place, making it to appeare that this mistaking in a circumstance altereth no­thing of the substance of that comparison which I had there in hand. The first branch then of the comparison shall bee this; The Donatists did set vp a particular Church to be the Catholike Church; all of them first in the south of Africa, some of them afterwards, namely, the Rogatists, at Cartenna in Mauritania, and so haue the Papists done at Rome in Italie. Against this branch as it was before set downe, hee giueth two exceptions. First, that they doe not hold it so to be at Rome a [...] the Rogatists did at Cartenna. And what is the difference? Marry, they hold it to be so at Rome, as that it is dispersed also all [Page 54] the world ouer, but the Rogatists held it to be wholly inclu­ded in the bounds of Cartenna and confines thereof. The first part of which answere on their owne behalfe is false, and the second part thereof concerning the Rogatists is vaine. For it is false that hee saith that their Romish Church is dispersed all the world ouer, and hee know­eth well that the Churches of Greece and all the Easterne Churches are holden by them to be Schismatikes, because they disclaime subiection to the Church of Rome. True it is, they would haue it all the world ouer, and they make simple fooles beleeue that it is so, but they themselues know that the skirts of it are too short to reach so farre, and that a huge part of the Church there is that will haue nothing to doe with them. And this drew from Bellar­mine that caution that I before mentioned in the first Chap­ter, that Supra. cap. 1. §. 1. though one only Prouince did imbrace the true faith, yet the same should truly and properly be called the Ca­tholike Church, so long as it could bee plainly shewed that it is one and the same with that which at any time or times was ouer the whole world. Now hereof it followeth that the other part of his exception concerning the Rogatists is vaine. For although the communion of the Church of Rome be farre larger then that was of the Rogatists at Cartenna, yet doth neither of them containe any more but a part, and their do­ctrine as touching their communion sorteth all to one. For whereas M. Bishop saith that the Rogatists included the Church within the bounds of Cartenna and the Countrey thereabout, it was not by position of doctrine that they so included it as if it could not be any where else; but because they pretended that the Church was only in their commu­nion, and there were none in any other part of the world that tooke part with them, it followeth of this defect that they so included it. But though there were now not aboue Aug. Epist. 48. Tu cum de­cem Rogatistis qu [...] remansistis, &c. ten or eleuen Bishops of them remayning, as Saint Austin obiecteth to them, yet by that hee vpbrai­deth them with this number remayning, it appeareth that [Page 55] they had beene of greater number and extent, and wee cannot doubt but that they would as willingly haue had the whole world to ioyne with them as the Church of Rome would. Now inasmuch as they held themselues on­ly to bee the Catholike Church; And there were none of them otherwhere to bee▪ found to Baptise and reconcile pe [...]itents, but only within the confines of Cartenna, Saint Austin rightly obiecteth it as an absurdity ensuing thereof, that Ibid. Quisquis f [...]rit hac prae­dicatione com­motus in quali­b [...]t pa [...]te orbis ter [...]arum, nisi quaesierit & in­uenerit latent [...]m in Mauritania Caesariensi Car­tennensem Vin­centium aut ali­quem ex cius no­u [...]m aut decem con [...]ortibus, di­mitti ei peccata non pos [...]int, &c. Nisi Cartennas venerit aut in vi [...]iam Carten­nensium, mun­dari omnin [...] [...] delictis suis non pot [...]rit. then whosoeuer there were in any part of the world, that were moued with the preaching of the Gospell, vn­lesse he did seeke and finde out Vincentius Bishop of Cartenna lurking in Mauritania Caesariensis, or some one of his nine or ten consorts, he could not haue remission of sinnes; or as otherwise hee expresseth it; except hee came to Cartenna or into the Countrey neare adioyning, hee could not bee clensed from his sinnes. Now although the Roman Church, as M. Bishop vnderstandeth it, is of much larger extent, and stretcheth it selfe into sundry Countries and Nations, yet being but of small compasse in comparison of the whole world, the exprobration of the same madde fancy lyeth vpon it, that whosoeuer in the further parts of the world shall be moued with▪ the preaching of the Gospell and con­uerted thereby, vnlesse hee come to Rome or into some part of the world where he may meete with a Popish Priest, hee cannot bee baptised or reconciled to God, hee cannot obtayne the remission of his sinnes, it being by them resolued of themselues, as by the Rogatists of themselues that out of their particular communion there is no salua­tion. Therefore, both Rogatists and Papists let them goe together, and the truth is that in this behalfe there is no difference betwixt them. As touching his second exception, although it bee not generally true of the Donatists that they placed the Catholike Church at Cartenna, yet it is not altogether vntrue, because the Rogatists were Donatists; August. vt supra. Vos qui non solum cum illis communiter Donatistae a Do­nato, verumeti­am propriè Ro­gatis [...] a Rogat [...] app [...]ll [...]nu [...] ▪ being in common with the rest called Donatists of Donatus, as Sa [...]nt Austin [Page 56] noteth, and by a more proper name Rogatists of Rogatus. For although they had in some spleene and vpon some pe [...] ­uish quarrell diuided themselues from the rest, yet the sub­stance of their doctrine was still the same as before, as ap­peareth by S ^t. Austin, who disputing against Vincentius the Rogatist, chargeth him in effect with nothing else but the common positions of the Donatists, and therefore they were all at once cōmonly comprehended vnder the name of Do­natists. The Donatists then, though not all the Donatists but of them the Rogatists only, placed the Catholike church at Cartenna; and to the Rogatists, then being a part of the Donatists, the Papists are like, who doe in the same sort place the Catholike Church at Rome. Yea, and although the Donatists in generall did not seate the Church at Carten­na, yet M. Bishop is not ignorant that they in generall be­fore some quarrelling fell amongst them, did in effect the same thing by designing the place thereof in Africa properly so called, so as that none should be called Catholikes in any part of the world, but such as did communicate with that A­frican Church of theirs. For although they acknowledged that the Church by the preaching of the Apostles had beene dispersed ouer the world according to the manifold testimo­nies and prophecies of holy Scripture in that behalfe, which they professed to beleeue, [...]et they said that Aug. de vnit. Ecclesiae, c. 12. Ista, inquiunt, credimus & co­pleta esse cofite­mur, sed postea o [...]bis terrarum apostatauit & so­la rema [...]sit Do­nati communio. [...] postea cap. 15 Postea c [...]ter [...]s de [...]icientibus so­lam Christo As [...]i­cam remansisse. the Church af­terward fell away by Apostasie, and there remained only the communion of Donatus; that the rest failing, there remained to Christ Africa only. Whereupon it was vrged vpon them as consequent of this opinion, that either Ibid cap. 16. Ostendat Ecclesi­am vel in sola A­frica perditis tot gentibus retinen­dam, vel ex Afri­ca in omnibus gentibus repara­dam at (que) adim­pl [...]dam. [...]t ibid. Declaretur Afri­ca vel in reliquis sola derel [...]cta, vel ad priacip [...] [...] ­nouandi at (que) im­plendi orbis sol [...] [...]ruata. the Church was to be retained thenceforth in Africa only, or else that from thence as the beginning the Churches of the whole world were to be re­paired and restored againe. The former they disauowed, be­cause they had their partakers, till there fell out distraction amongst them, not only in Africa but also in Ibid. cap. 3. & Epist. 48. Mauritania Caesariensis, in Tripolis, Byzacium, amongst the Auzuges, in Idem cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 108. Spaine, yea and at Rome also as followeth to bee said hereafter. Yea by the wordes of the Catholike Bishops to [Page 57] Marcellinus the Lieutenant, Collat. cum Donatist 1. c. 16. Ne (que) enim desperare debe­mus multò digni­ùs & sacilius [...]os velle vt par [...] Donati vniuer­so [...]rbi Christiano reconcilietur, quàm vniuersus orbis Christianu [...] à parte Donati rebaptizetur. hoping that the Donatists would thinke it more meete and more easie that their part should be reconciled to the whole world, then that the whole world should be rebaptized by them, it appeareth plainly that their opinion did not exclude the hauing of their communion throughout the whole world. It remained therefore that Africa was to be as it were the head and foundation of their Catholike Church, and from thence the Church through the world was to bee renued and restored againe by holding communion and fellowship with that Church. Euen in the same sort standeth the matter with the Papists, who tell vs that the Church in all the farre parts of the world hath fai­led; that Rhem. Te­stam. Annotat. 2. Thess. 2. 3. the Patriarchall and Apostolike Seas are all either extinguished, or by Schisme and Heresie fallen away, and only the Roman Church hath remained, wherein only is the communion of the Catholike faith, and whence the Church through the whole world is to be reedified and reduced to the obedience of the Pope. And to that purpose they tell vs of strange wonders that they haue done, and make as if they had conuerted whole worlds of nations to their Roman faith, when as indeede they doe but mocke the world with lies and tales, talking liberally of Countries whither they know it vnlikely for vs to come to search out whether they speake truth or not; and the nations which they pretend to haue conuerted being either colonies of their owne people transported thither, or some Insidels forced to accept bap­tisme without religion, or such as by wiles they haue surpri­sed to make profit of by trafficke and merchandise, as in Iaponia the Iesuits most lewdly and trecherously haue done. Thus then M. Bishop auoiding to be like the Donatists by putting the matter spoken of ouer to the Rogatists, is in this point become like both to Rogatists and Donatists, by tying the seate of the Catholike Church to one only par­ticular place.

R. ABBOT.

THe second branch of this comparison betwixt the Pa­pists and the Donatists, I set downe thus; The Dona­tists would haue the Church to be called Catholike, not by rea­son of the communion and society thereof through the whole world, but by reason of the perfection of doctrine and Sacra­ments, which they falsly chalenged to themselues, and the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to it selfe, and will therefore be called the Catholike Church. M. Bishop saith that there are many faults here, yet he reckoneth but only two; belike he would haue me thinke that he doth me a fauour to let passe the rest. As touching the first, he very grosly telleth me that in the chiefe branch there is a grosse lye; for the Donatists, saith he, did not call the Church Catholike for perfection of doctrine and Sacraments. For what then? Marry, for the fulnesse of Sacraments and for the obseruation of all Gods Commandements. Well; it is true indeede that Saint Austin challengeth Vincentius Aug Epist. 48. Acutum a­liquid videris di­cere cum Catho­lic [...]e nomen non ex totius orbis communione in­terpretaris, sed ex obseruatione omnium praecep­torum diuinorum & omnium Sa­cramentorum. for interpreting the word Ca­tholike, not of the communion of the whole world, but f [...]r the ob­seruation of all Gods Commandements and all the Sacraments; and in the other place bringeth them in, saying, that Breuic. col­lar. cum Dona­tist. di [...] 3. cap. 2. Donatist [...]e res­ponderunt non Catholicum no­men ex vniuersi­tate gentium, sed ex p [...]enitudine Sacramentoru [...] institutum. the word was instituted not to import vniuersality of nations, but ful­nesse [Page 60] of Sacraments, but did I amisse for a briefe hereof to name perfection of doctrine and Sacraments? Is not fulnesse of Sacraments the same with perfection of Sacraments? and when they professed the obseruation of all Gods Commande­ments, did they not thereby pretend an obseruation both to teach and practise all that God had commanded, and is there not perfection of doctrine in teaching all? Or if M. Bishop be foolishly wilfull, and will say still that he seeth not perfection of doctrine in those wordes, yet he might haue seene it in the very next wordes to those that I alleaged, where S ^t. Austin expresseth the Donatists conceipt in other termes thus, that Idem Epist. 48. Si sorte hinc sit appellata Ca­tholica quod to­tum veraciter teneat. the Church is called Catholike, for that it holdeth all wholly (what but the whole Christian faith?) according to truth; for what is perfection of doctrine, but the holding of all ac­cording to truth? And whereas he saith that S ^t. Austin ob­serueth the Donatists to bee more sharpe-witted, then to goe about to proue vniuersality by perfection (a very ridiculous iest, because Austin only in mockery telleth Vincentius that hee seemed to himselfe in so expounding the world Catholike as before, to speake very acutely and wittily, meaning that he did nothing lesse,) let Gaudentius himselfe, a Donatist and a chiefe man amongst them, tell him that by Catholike they did meane perfect; Coliat. 3. [...]um Donatist. cap. 102. Hoc est Catholicum no­men quod Sacra­mentis pl [...]num est, quod perfe­ctum, quod im­maculatum. The word Catholike importeth that which is full in Sacraments, which is perfect, which is vnspotted. Now then as I haue in this point belyed the Donatists; euen so and no otherwise in the application doe I belye the Roman Church. M. Bishop saith, that I should haue belyed them if I had s [...]id as due proportion required, that they hold their Church to be Catholike as the Donatists did theirs for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments. But was he blinde, and did he not see that I said so much? Are not my wordes very expresse and cleare, The same perfection (of doctrine and Sacraments) the Church of Rome now arrogateth to it selfe, and will there­fore be called the Catholike Church? And what? doe I there­in belye the Roman Church? Aske his owne fellow Bristow the great Motiue-Master, who saith to Doctor Fulke, [Page 61] Reply to Fulke, Chap. 10. Dem. 6. We tell you with the wordes of S ^t. Austin, that the Church our Mother is called Catholike of this, because shee is vniuersally perfect and halteth in nothing (though the Donatists and other like Heretikes doe neuer so much triumph in that interpretation) and is spred ouer all the world. Both interpretations agree to our Mother, saith he, and we claime them accordingly. And it is true indeede that S ^t. Austin in a worke which he wrote in his yonger time, and which hee himselfe for the imperfe­ction thereof August. Re­tract. l. 1. c. 18. Qu [...]m neque [...] ­d deram, & abo­lere decreueram. had purposed wholly to suppresse, doth giue that double interpretation of the word Catholike, that the Church is so called, Idē de Gen. ad lit. imperf. cap. 1. Quae Catholica di [...]itur ex eo quòd vni­uersalitèr perfe­cta est & in nul­lo [...]laudicat, & per totum orbem dissusa est. not only f [...]r that it is spred ouer all the world, but also for that it is vniuersally perfect and halteth in nothing; but in his further experience and iudgement, ha­uing speciall occasion to discusse and examine that point, he leaueth that interpretation wholly to the Donatists, and ne­uer vouchsafeth once to make mention of it. In the meane time notwithstanding seeing Bristow a Catholike writer of their creation hath so affirmatiuely told vs, and claimed it to the Church of Rome to be Catholike in that sense, let it be considered with what discretion M. Bishop saith, that so to say of them is manifestly vntrue, and clearely against the do­ctrine of all Catholike writers. And whereas he concludeth that perfection of doctrine and Sacraments, though it be only found in the Catholike Church, yet is so farre wide from the sig­nification and vse of the word Catholike, that none except such wise men as M. Abbot is, doe thinke any thing to be Catholike because it is perfect, to say nothing that S ^t. Austin when he g [...]ue that construction was vndoubtedly as wise as M. Bi­shop, let the same wise M. Bishop tell vs what he thinketh of Cyril of Hierusalem, who amongst diuers reasons of the name of the Catholike Church giueth one, that it is so called, Cyril. Hie­rosol. Catech. 18. Quia docet Catholicè, hoc est, vniuersal [...]tèr & sine vllo defect [...] vel differentia omnia dogmata quae deberent ve­ [...]re in cognitio­nem. be­cause it teacheth Catholikely, that is, vniuersally and without any defect or difference, all doctrines that are to be knowen. Yea let him tell vs what he thinketh of Pacianus, whom he na­med before as his Authour for Pacian. ad Symph [...]ian. Catholicus vt do­cti [...]es p [...]tant o­bedientia omni­um nuncupatur; [...]ndatorum scilicet Dei▪ Catholike, to be the surname to Christian, who noteth it for the opinion of the learned [Page 62] that Catholike signifieth obedience to all the Commandements of God. Which I say not, as to approue that which either Austin, or Cyril, or Pac [...]anus haue said in that behalfe, but that it may appeare what wise men M. Bishop maketh of the Fathers, yea and of his owne fellowes when he list, not [...]lie­king to crosse both the one and the other, so that hee can thereby shift for the present to saue himselfe. But Bristow is our witnesse, as we haue seene, that the Church of Rome doth call it selfe Catholike, as the Donatists did for the perfe­ction of doctrine and Sacraments, and M. Bishop hath shewed himselfe scantly wise in the deniall of it, because it being manifest to all that are not blinde, that it is a meere foppery and cogging deuice of theirs, to say that the Roman Church is spred ouer the whole world; either he must proue the same to be Catholike by perfection of doctrine, or else it must wholly leaue the name of the Catholike Church.

R. ABBOT.

PVt Africa here in steede of Cartenna, and M. Bishop hath no shift to auoid this point of resemblance betwixt the Romanists and Donatists. The Donatists designed the fundamentall place of the Catholike Church in Africa, as the Papists doe at Rome. The Donatists laboured the extent of their communion into all other Countries, as also the Papists doe. Optat. lib. 2. Sed & habere vos in vrbe Ro­ma partem ali­quam dicitis. In the Citty of Rome it selfe, as Optatus witnesseth, the Donatists bragged that they had a part that ioyned with them. They had there a Bishop of their owne to assemble and gouerne that part of theirs, insomuch that Optatus in the same place reckoneth sixe Bishops of that faction, Victor, Bonifacius, Encolpius, Macrobius, Lucianus, Claudianus, who had there succeeded one another. Of the manner of the appointing of these Bishops S ^t. Austin saith in the place by me cited to M. Bishop: Aug. cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 37. Roma­norum Ecclesia, quò ex Africa paucis vestris or­dinare soletis E­piscopum. To Rome for those few followers that you haue there, you are wont to order and direct a Bishop out of Africa. Out of Africa, saith M. Bishop, not out of Car­tenna in Mauritania. True it is if Africa be in speciall vn­derstood, but I, not waighing the matter so strictly, vnder­stood Africa more largely as the third part of the world, and in that signification Mauritania, and therefore Cartenna in Mauritania is a part of Africa. Well, let Cartenna be put out, and take Africa, as indeed it was meant, for Theo▪ l [...]ret. haeret. fabul. l. 4. de Donatist. Regio quae olim Lybia, nunc au­tem Africa ap­pellatur. that Coun­trey [Page 64] which of old was called Lybia, and in which meaning S ^t. Austin noteth that Mauritania Caesariensis, where Car­tenna was, Aug. Epist. 48. Mauritania Caesariensis quā ­do nec Africam se vult dici, &c. refused to be called by the name of Africa; from this Africa the Donatists ordered and established Bishops o­uer that part which they had at Rome; and so, said I, from Rome by the Papists order must Bishops now be authorised to all other Churches. Now M. Bishop, seeing that Africa being thus put in steede of Cartenna, the resemblance would som­what touch their Church of Rome, bringeth a very poore and silly shift for the auerting of it. The Catholike Church, saith he, he meaneth the Roman Church, doth not appoint that euery Bishop should goe to Rome to take holy Orders, and from thence to be sent to other Catholike Countries. No more, say I, did the Catholike Church of the Donatists binde men to come into Africa to be ordered Bishops there, but it was e­nough if by Bishops of their communion he were ordered otherwhere. For whether it were by sending some to order Bishops where none were, or by sending Bishops already or­dered, it may either way stand, which S ^t. Austin noteth as a matter of their conceipt, that August. de vnit. Eccles. c. 13. Ostendant esse praedictum solam Africam remansuram & quocun (que) Episco­pi ex Africa [...]tierer tur. out of Africa Bishops should be sent into all places. And thus the same S ^t. Austin although in the place alleaged, he mention no more but the ordering of a Bishop to be sent to Rome out of Africa, yet in another place declareth it to haue beene indifferent with them, either August. ad Quodvult h [...] ­rel. 69. In vrbe Roma Mont [...]nses vocantur qu bus [...] ex Africa sol [...]nt Episco [...]um mittere, aut [...]inc illuc Afri Epi­copi corum per­gere si fortè ibi cum ordinare placuisset. to send a Bishop to Rome out of Africa, or that the African Bishops should goe to Rome if they thought good to order a Bi­shop there, namely because there were no other Bishops there of their communion, by whom otherwise he might be ordered. Whereas therefore M. Bishop saith, that Bishops may lawfully be consecrated in any region where be three Catho­like Bishops, he saith no more for their Popish Bishops, then the Donatists acknowledged of theirs, and therefore in this point of the resemblance, there is no difference at all betwixt the Donatists and the Papists. Albeit by reason of that which M. Bishop confesseth, that all Bishops must be confumed by the Bishop of Rome, it may bee truly said that Bishops are [Page 65] made at Rome only, because they are not taken to be fully and absolutely Bishops till they be confirmed there. Which confirmation is not for vnity and order, as M. Bishop pre­tendeth, but for extortion and couetousnesse, the Pope be­ing wont to make infinite aduantage and profit to himselfe thereby; neither is it giuen by the supreme head vnder Christ, as he stileth the Pope, but by a Nimrod and proud vsurper ouer the Church of Christ.

R. ABBOT.

I Said, the Donatists; I should haue said, the Rogatists (who were but one part of the Donatisls, as I haue before obser­ued) the Rogatists, I say, would be taken to be Catholikes for keeping communion with the Church of Cartenna, and euen so will the Papists be accounted Catholikes for keeping communion with the Church of Rome. For the Rogatists expounding the word Catholike of integrity and perfection of faith, as before we haue seene, and affirming Aug. Epist. 48. Persuadere conaris solos re­mansisse Rogati­stas qui Catholici rectè appellandi sant, &c. Et vos esse solos in qui­bus fidem inu [...] ­niat filius homi­nis cum venerat, themselues only to be Catho­likes, [Page 66] and that with them only Christ at his comming should finde faith, left it as consequent that none could bee called Catholikes, but by communicating and ioyning with them. Now they did but apply to their Schisme at Cartenna those thinges which the Donatists in common held concerning their Church in Africa, who said of themselues that Collat. Car­thag. 3. cap. 22. Apud nos est ve­ra Catholica. with them only was the true Catholike Church; August. de vnit. [...]ccles. c. 13. Velut pro se commemorant quod ait Domi­nus, Filius homi­nis veniens putas inueniet fidem in terra? that with them only Christ should finde faith, whence it should remaine that in their communion only men were to beare the name of Ca­tholikes. Now whether we looke to the Rogatists for Car­tenna, or to the Donatists for Africa, the Papists are like them both, who pleade the same for their Roman Church that they did for the other two, that men are Catholikes for kee­ping vnity of faith and agreement therewith. But M. Bi­shop telleth vs that they doe not call men Catholikes for keeping communion with the Church of Rome if it be taken for that particular Church, which is contayned within the walls of Rome. Where we see how true it is which Optatus saith; that Optat. lib. 2. Memoriam cu­stodem oportet habere menda­cem. a lyar needeth to haue a good holding memory; for he himselfe a little before speaking of that particular Roman Church, to which he attributeth the priuiledges of stability in faith and superiority in gouernement aboue all other Churches, hath told vs that S ^t. Hierome Part. 1. § 2. affirmeth men to become Catholikes by holding the Roman faith; and that Tertullian, Epiphanius, Optatus, and Austin doe proue their Churches to be Catholike, and themselues to be Catholikes, by declaring that they doe communicate with the Church of Rome, and did condemne their aduersaries to be Schismatikes and Heretikes, because they did not communicate with that Church. If it bee true which hee hath told vs thus before, that men become Catholikes by communicating with that particular Roman Church, why doth he here tell vs the contrary, that they doe not call men Catholikes for that cause? The reason is, because he speaketh no otherwise then as Optatus obiecteth to Parmenian the Donatist, Optat. lib. 1. Omnis pro tem­pore, nihil pro veritate. All for the time and present shift, and nothing for the truth. Well, let vs heare what it is for which men with [Page 67] them are called Catholikes. Because that communicating with that Church, the particular Roman Church, in faith and re­ligion, they doe communicate with all other of the same faith, which are spred all the world ouer. So then men are not Aug. Breuic. Collat. cum Donat l. 3. c. 2. Quia communi­cant Ecclesiae to­to orbe di [...] Cathol [...]ci meritò & sunt & vo­cantur. Ca­tholikes now as of old, because they communicate with the Church dispersed ouer the whole world, but because in the communion of the Church of Rome they cōmunicate with the Church of the whole world. But what if the Church of the whole world doe not hold communion with the Church of Rome, as when the East and West Churches haue beene diuided, and when Arianisme had ouerflowed in a manner the whole world; whence was the name of Catholikes to be taken then? Yea to speake of later times before the Por­tugals and Spaniards had gotten the Indies, or discouered the new world, and before Ignatius Lo [...]ola had hatched his cockatrices broode, which braggeth of so great conuersi­ons there attayned vnto, when neither the Greeke Churches in Europe receiued the Roman faith, and out of Europe scant any Church at all, how could it then be said that men were called Catholikes, for that in communicating with the Church of Rome they communicated with the Church spred ouer all the world? And sith they say that all other Churches may erre, and only the Church of Rome hath the priuiledge of perpe­tuall truth; put case that all other Churches doe erre, how shall the name of Catholikes be continued, but only for hol­ding correspondence with the particular Church of Rome? Yea how is it that he seeth not that he meerely circumuen­teth and ouerthroweth himselfe? For if a man be a Catho­like for cōmunicating with the Church of the whole world, and it be by communicating with the particular Church of Rome that he communicate with the Church of the whole world, then it is by communicating with the particular Church of Rome, that the name of a Catholike doth belong vnto him. To be short, M. Bishops former acknowledge­ment iustifieth the resemblance as I haue set it downe, and yet the Donatists if they could haue had their way would ne­uer [Page 68] haue doubted to say of their Church as M. Bishop doth here of his, that men should be called Catholikes, not for communicating with their African Church, as it was con­tayned only within the bounds of Africa, but for that in communicating with that Church, they communicated with all other of the same faith spred wheresoeuer in the world. Neither could the one nor can the other assume to them­selues, that they were or are spred ouer the whole world, and therefore neither could the one nor can the other take vpon them to be Catholikes, but only each for communion with their owne Church.

R. ABBOT.

THe Rogatists as touching their Church of Cartenna, and the Donatists as touching their Church of Africa, were of minde that howsoeuer a man beleeued he could not be saued, vnlesse he did communicate with their Church. This M. Bishop acknowledgeth to be true, and if this be true, what hindereth but that the resemblance standeth good, The Papists likewise hold that there is no saluation but in com­municating with the Church of Rome. Forsooth we must vn­derstand that the Rogatists and Donatists spake falsly con­cerning their Church; but most sure it is, saith he, that there is no saluation out of the true Church of Christ. It is sure in­deede, and will not both Rogatists and Donatists, and all manner Heretiks say the some as well as he? They all con­fesse that out of the true Church of Christ there is no saluati­on, and therefore doe euery sort of them take vpon them to be the true Church of Christ, that so they may perswade men that there is no saluation but with them. But M. Bishop inferreth; Wherefore whosoeuer doth not communicate with the Church of Rome, which is the chiefe member thereof, is out of the state of grace and saluation. And would not a Donatist as well inferre, Wherefore whosoeuer doth not communicate with the Church of Africa, which is the chiefe member thereof, is out of the state of grace and saluation. Indeed he should haue said somewhat to the purpose if he had made it good, that out of the communion of the Church of Rome, there is no communion of the Church of Christ; but if he cannot make this good, then full simply doth he conclude, There is no saluation out of the true Church of Christ, there­fore there is no saluation out of the Church of Rome. But he telleth vs that the Church of Rome is the chiefe member of Christs Church. Be it so, and so was the Church of Ierusa­lem the chiefe member of the Church of the Iewes, and yet the Church of Ierusalem put to death the Prophets and Christ himselfe, and in that communion there could be no [Page 70] saluation. Is not a chiefe member of the same substance as is the rest of the body? and what hindereth then but as the o­ther members, so the chiefe member may be wounded and corrupted, and cause annoyance to other members that ad­ioyne vnto it? Albeit we desire him to proue to vs that the Church of Rome is the chiefe member of the Church of Christ. I regard not what humane estimation hath attributed vnto it for the renowme and eminency of the place, but I require some diuine institution whereby it hath beene founded the chiefe member of the Church. We say that with God there is no more respect of the Church of Rome then of any other Church; if they will haue vs to beleeue more, we put them to that for their Roman Church which S ^t. Austin required of the Donatists, for proofe of that which they said for their African Church; August. de vnit. Eccles. c. 6 Legite nobis hoc de Lege, de Pro­phetis, de Psal­mis, de Euange­lio▪ de Apostolicis literis; legite & credimus. Reade vs this out of the law, out of the Prophets, out of the Psalmes, out of the Gospell or Writings of the Apostles; reade it to vs, and we beleeue it, namely that Christ abideth no where heire vpon the earth, but where he can haue the Pope to be Ibid. Quare superordinatis dicendo in nullis terris haeredem permanere Chri­stum vbi non p [...] ­tuerit coh [...]redem habere Donatli? his fellow heire, as the Donatists said of their Pope Donatus; or that the Roman Church is such a chiefe member of the Church, as that no man can liue but by the breath that he draweth from thence, or obtayne forgiue­nesse of sinnes but in the society and fellowship thereof. I know I trouble M. Bishop now; he loueth not to be called vpon for Scripture for the proofe of this matter; for hee knoweth well that the Scripture hath nothing at all to giue testimony thereof. Well though hee bring nothing out of Scripture, yet he hath that out of Hierome that will serue his turne: Hieron. ad Damas. Ego nul­lum primum nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedr [...] Petri communi­one consocior su­per illam petram aedificatam Ec­clesiam scio; qui­cun (que) extra hanc domum agnum comedcrit, pro­phanus est: si­quis in Arca Noe non fuerit, per­ibit regnante di­lu [...]i [...]. I following no chiefe but Christ, saith he to Da­masus Bishop of Rome, ioyne my selfe to your blessednesse, that is, to the communion of Peters chaire; vpon that Rocke I know the Church to be built; whosoeuer eateth the Paschall Lambe out of this house, he is prophane; whosoeuer is not in the Arke of Noe, shall perish by the floode. By these wordes M. Bishop would beare vs in hand that Hierome beleeued a perpetuall necessity of hauing communion of faith with the Bishop and [Page 71] Church of Rome. But tell vs, M. Bishop, in good sooth doe you thinke that Hierome not long before would haue said the same to Liberius, that here he saith to Damasus? He saith of Liberius, that Idem in Ca­talog. Liberium Romanae vrbis Episcopum pro fide ad exilium pergentem pri­mus solicitauit & fregit & ad subscriptionem haereseos com­pulit. by the perswasion of Fortunatianus he was ouercome and brought to subscribe the heresie of Arius, and would he then haue ioyned in communion with him? If he would in this case haue disclaimed Liberius, then certainly he could not meane to Damasus that it standeth for a perpe­tuall rule in the Church, that who so will be saued must ioyne in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But Hie­rome dealt aduisedly by expounding himselfe in his first wordes though M. Bishop list not to take knowledge of it. He professeth to giue primacy to none but to Christ himselfe; to make none the Authour or Lord of his faith but only Christ. Notwithstanding in communion and fellowship of faith he professeth to ioyne with Damasus. But how farre or in what sort? I ioyne in communion with your blessednesse, that is, with Peters chaire. Not simply then with Damasus Bishop of Rome, but with Damasus sitting in Peters chaire. Now as Mat. 23. 2. the sitting in Moses chaire, importeth the teaching of the doctrine of Moses, so the sitting in Peters chaire, im­porteth the teaching of the doctrine of Peter. Damasus at that time did so, and maintayned against the Arians the con­fession of Peter, Mat. 16. 16. Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God. This Hierome well knew, and therefore what hee would not haue yeelded to Liberius though Bishop of Rome because hee sate not in Peters chaire, that hee yeeldeth to Damasus because he did so; and desireth by him to be in­structed, whether the vse of the word hypostasis might stand with the truth of the confession of Peter. It is therefore com­munion with Peters chaire which Hierome commendeth, that is, with the faith and doctrine which therein Peter taught, but he doth not tell vs that the Bishop of Rome doth alwaies and infallibly sit in Peters chaire. For of Peters chaire at Rome we deeme the same as of Peters chaire at An­tioch, and Alexandria, both which Gregory Bishop of Rome [Page 72] maketh Gregor. lib. 6. Epist. 37. Se­des Apostolorum Principis in tri­bus locis vnius est, vnius atque vna est sedes, cui tres nunc Epis­copi praesident. Idem lib. 4. E­pist. 37. Aposto­licam sede regis. Idem. lib. 6. vt supra. Petri Ca­thedram tenet. one with Peters chaire at Rome, and saith of the Patriarchs there to the one, that he gouerned the Sea Aposto­like, and to the other that he possessed Peters chaire. But Hie­rome in the place alleaged disclaimeth Paulinus the Patri­arch of Antioch, that he might ioyne himself to Peters chaire, signifying that Paulinus though succeeding Peter at Antioch, yet sate not in Peters chaire, because he taught not the faith of Peter. Now if to be Bishop of Rome where is the place of Peters chaire, be infallibly to sit in Peters chaire, then to be Bishop of Antioch should be so also, because there also is the place of Peters chaire. Which appearing by Hierome to be vntrue, it followeth that to be Bishop of Rome likewise is not necessarily to sit in Peters chaire; because a man may be Bishop as of Antioch, so of Rome, and not teach the same as Peter did. Of Peters faith and confession then it is that he saith; Vpon that Rocke I know the Church to be built. Erasmus very well noteth thereat, Erasm. in Schol. Epist. ad Damas. Non su­per Romam, vt arbitror; nam fieri potest vt Ro­ma quoque dege­neret, sed super cam fidem quam Petrus professus est. Not vpon Rome, as I suppose; for it may be that Rome also may degenerate, but vpon that faith which Peter professed, euen as Gregory himselfe Bi­shop of Rome expoundeth, Greg. lib. 3. Epist. 33. In pe­tra Ecclesiae, hoc est, in consessione beati Petri. The Rocke of the Church to be the confession of S ^t. Peter. The communion of this faith is the house wherein Christ our Paschall Lambe must be eaten; the Arke of Noc wherein who so is not, shall be drowned. If the Bishop of Rome shall thus sit in the seate of Peter, wee are ready to accord with him, and so farre as he doth so, we still hold communion with him; but that hee shall alwaies sit there, we haue no warrant; and we are sure that now hee doth not sit where Peter sate. Now sith M. Bishop can giue vs no warrant that the Pope and Church of Rome shall al­waies continue in the faith of Peter, his conclusion is but a fond and vaine presumption, that out of the communion of the Church of Rome there is no saluation, and no other­wise chalenged to the Church of Rome then by the Dona­tists to their Church. Now albeit I see that I much offend M. Bishop in making this comparison betwixt the Papists and the Donatists, yet that it may more fully appeare that there [Page 73] was some cause why I did so, I will to those resemblances that I haue already set downe adde some few more, where­by it may be discerned how directly they walke in the same steps. And first of Donatus the Pope of the Donatists, Op tatus recordeth that Optat. lib. 3. [...]ùm super Impe­ratorem non sit nisi solus D [...] qui fecit Imperato­rem, dum se D [...] ­natus super Im­peratorem extol­lit, iam quasi b [...] ­minum excesse­rat metas vt se vt Deum, non vt hominem [...]stima­ret, &c. Quam­uis non sit vsus hac voce (Ego sum Deus) tamen aut fecit aut pas [...] si [...] est quod defe­ctum huitu vocis impleret, &c. tantum sibi ipsu [...] exegit vt eum nō minori metu om­nes venerarentur quàm Deū, &c. Primus Episco­porum quasi plus esset ipse quàm caeteri, exaltauit cor suum, &c. vt nullum hominem sibi comparandū arbitraretur. he exalted himselfe about the Emperour, and thereby made himselfe more then man, and euen as it were a God, because aboue the Emperour there is none but God that made the Emperour; and although he vsed not those wordes, I am God, yet hee either did or suffered to bee done to him, that which might supply the want of those wordes, requiring so much to himselfe as that all stoode in no lesse awe of him then they did of God himselfe, being the first Bishop that aduanced himselfe as if he were more then the rest, and did thinke no man comparable to himselfe. Now is there not in this Pope of Africa a very iust and liuely description of the Roman Pope? Hee hath made himselfe more then all other Bishops, and no man comparable to himselfe. He hath lifted vp himselfe aboue the Emperour, and thereby as Optatus concludeth, made a God of himselfe. Hee hath not only done and suffered to be said and done to him such things as whereby in effect he hath taken vpon him to be God, as namely in dispensing a­gainst the law of God, and disannulling the institution of Christ, but in very wordes hath yeelded to be so called, and in the Glosse of his Canon law where he professeth to haue corrected such things as were amisse, yet hee hath suffered this title giuen to him to stand still, Extrauag. Ioan, 22. Cum interim. in Glossa. Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam non potuisse, &c. haereticum censeretur, Paris. anno 1601. cum priuileg. Gregor. 13. &c. Our Lord God the Pope. He bath made men to stand in no lesse awe of him, yea more then of God himselfe, whilest hee hath made shew to haue Gods anger at his command to inflict it where he will. Se­condly, the Donatists tooke vpon them that Collat. Carthag. 3. c. 165. Cum pacis & Ecclesia Dei possessores semper fuerimus ac simus. they had al­waies beene possessors and owners of vnity and of the Church of God, in so much that they reckoned Aug. c [...]t. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 92. In vestri [...] exemplis aduer [...] Imperat [...]es quā plures ac Iudices. vestros persecutionē nobis faciēdo perijsse, vt relinquam N [...], Domitian [...], Traianū, Vari [...]. &c. Nero, Domitian, Tra­ian, [Page 74] Ʋarius, Decius, Dioclesian, and the rest, to haue beene persecutors of their Church, whereas their begin­ning whereby they were Donatists, was after the time of those persecutions, and had they beene then, Ibid. Au­gust. Isti om­nes vniuersali­tèr Christianum nomen pro suis idolis persecuti sunt, &c. Vni­tatem ipsam vel vnde nos sicut, vos putatis, vel vnde vos sicut Christus docet, exijstis, totam persequebantur. had not suf­fered any thing for being partakers with Donatus, but for professing the name of Christ. No otherwise doe the Pa­pists take vpon them to haue beene alwaies the Church of God, and that it was their Church that was persecuted, that they were their Martyrs that were slaine by the same Tyrants; whereas their beginning whereby they are Pa­pists (which properly they are for worshipping their Lord God the Pope) yea and that whole forme of doctrine al­most which is properly theirs, is of farre latter time, and though they had beene then, yet had beene persecuted on­ly for that profession of Christ which is common both to vs and them. The Donatists alleaged that Aug. cont. Epist. Gaudēt. l. 2. c. 30. Per iu­stitiam non verā sed vestram ad Imperatorum curam pertinere cause huiusmodi non deberent. Emperours and Princes had nothing to doe in Church matters. And Idem Epist. 48. Vos quibus crimen videtur de inimicis com­munionis nostra Christiono Impe­ratori aliquid conq [...]eri. held it for a great fault in the Catholike Bishops to complaine to the Emperour of them. Optat. lib. 3. Quid est Impe­ratori cum Ec­clesia? What hath the Emperour to doe with the Church? saith their Pope Donatus: and so his followers, Aug. in psal. 57. Quid nobis & Regibus, in­quiunt? Quid nobis & Impe­rateribus? What haue we to doe with Kings? what haue Emperours to doe with vs? for the teaching of the people of Israel, Idem cont. Gaudent. Epist l. 2. c. 26. Ad docendū populum Israel omnipotens Deus Prophetis pr [...]ium dedit, non Regibus imperauit. Saluator ammarum Dominus Christus [...]d insi [...]dam fidem piscatores, non milites misit. saith Gaudentius, God gaue charge to Prophets and not to Kings, and our Lord Christ the Sauiour of soules sent Fishermen, not Souldiers for the planting of the faith; thus vpbraiding the Emperours for condemning their Schisme, and for vsing power and force of armes for repressing the infinite rage of their madde-brained Cir­cumcellions. Thus they say to Marcellinus the Tribune, whom the Emperour had appointed to be Iudge in the con­ference at Carthage; Capit. gest. collat. Ca [...]hag. 3. c. 295. Si Christus non es, cur de Sacerd [...]tibus iudicas? Hoc iudicium Christo seruandum est. If thou bee not Christ why doest thou iudge of Priests? this iudgement must be reserued for Christ: [Page 75] And another of them, that Aug. Epist. 162. Non debuit Episcopus Pro­consulari iudicio purgari. a Bishop should not haue his purgation at a Lieutenants iudgement, and therefore Dona­tus their Patriarch writeth contemptuously to Gregory, one of the Emperours Officers, Optat. lib. 3. Adquem sic scri­bere minimè du­bitauit; Grego­ri macula Sena­tus & dedecus Praefectorum & caetera talia. Gregory the blot of the Senate, the disgrace of Lieutenants, with other termes of the same kinde, as Optatus hath reported. Of the same hu­mour are the Papists, who make the Prince Dist. 96 Si Imperator. Fi­lius est non Prae­sul Ecclesia; quod adreligionem cō ­petit, discere ei conuenit, non do­cere, &c. Ad Sa­cerdotes Deꝰ vo­luit quae Ecclesiae disponenda sunt pertinere, non ad seouli Potestates, &c. Imperato­res Christiani subdere deb [...]nt executiones sua [...] Ecclesiasticis Praesulibus, non praeferre. a sonne only and not a Gouernour of the Church, who must learne and not teach what appertayneth to religion, because God would haue Church matters to belong to Priests, not to the secular powers; and Christian Emperours are to submit their executions to the rulers of the Church. Therefore they hold the Com­missioners and Officers of Princes to bee incompetent Iudges in their causes; they carry themselues contemp­tuously and despightfully towardes them; they thinke it lawfull by equiuocations and mentall reseruations to abuse them, because they will not acknowledge any sub­iection to them. The Donatists Aug. Epist 48. Multis aditū intrandi obsere­bāt rumores ma­ledicorū qui nes­cio quid aliud nos in Altare Deiponere iactiraba [...]t. by false rumours discou­raged and terrified men from comming to Church, and a­mongst other thinges gaue out of the Catholike Bishops, that some of them Optat. l. 3. & 7. Dicebatur venturos P [...]ulum & Macarium qui interessent Sacrificio, vt cum Altaria solenitèr aptarentur profe [...]rent illic imaginem quam primò in Altare ponerent, & sic Sacrificium offerretur. Hoc cùm acciperent aures percussi sunt & animi, &c. vt omnis qui hoc audierat diceret, Qui degustat, de sacro gustat. at the time of the celebration of the Sa­crament did set an Image vpon the Altar or Communion ta­ble; whereat the minds of men were greatly moued, and e­uery one said, He that tasteth thereof, tasteth of a prophane thing; so contrary was it holden to religion then, which Of Images▪ sect. 9. M. Bishop approueth now to set Images vpon the Al­tar. But in this also the Papists are their followers, who in the like sort deuise rumours and tales of our diuine Ser­uice, and put strange conceipts thereof into the minds of men, that without cause they may abhorre to haue any communion with vs. The Donatists alleaged their August. Epist. 162. Prolata sunt à partibus vestris gesta quaedam quibu [...] recitatum est, &c. Temerarium Concilium quamlibet numerosissimum. owne [Page 76] Councels assembled by their owne authority, and managed wholly by themselues for defence of their cause, both against the Idē in psal. 57. Lectum est Concilium Bagai­tanum vbi dam­nati sunt Maxi­mianistae, Et cōt. lit. Petil. l 2. c. 43. Plenarij Cō ­cilij vest [...]i ore damnas [...]is. Maximinianists their owne Schismatikes, & against the Bishops and Pastors of the Catholike Church. Euen so doe the Papists alleage against vs their owne partiall conuenticles wherein they themselues haue been both accusers, witnesses, and iudges, and wherein none hath beene suffered to sit, but only such as haue first been sworne solemnly to the Pope. The Donatists Aug. Epist. 137. Non ha­bendo in causa sua diu [...]sionis quod defendant, non nisi hominū crimina colligere affectant & [...]aipsa plura falsis­simè iactant, vt quia ipsam diui­ [...]a Scripturae veritatem, &c. criminari & ob­scurare non pos­sunt, homines per quos pradicatur adducāt in od [...]ū. not knowing how sufficiētly to make good their cause, and rent from the Church by argument and reason, sought to make themselues the more plausible, by deuising and publishing crimes and slanders against them, who in the behalfe of the Church were aduersaries to them, that men disliking the persons of men might consequently thinke the worse of the truth of God, that was maintained and defended by them. In the same steps the Papists walke, with whom no­thing is more common in all their bookes, then to labour by strange & odious imputations, to blemish the names of Lu­ther, Caluin, Beza, and all other by whom the gospell of Christ hath beene specially defended, yea generally of the Bishops and Ministers of our Church, that bringing men into hatred and detestation of the men, they may cause them to like the worse of the faith and religion which they did or doe teach. Collat. Car­tag. 3. c. 30. D [...] ­natist [...] nos ap­pellādos esse cre­dunt, cum si no­minum paterno­rum ratio verti­tur & ego [...]os di­cere possum imò palam apert [...] (que) design [...] Mensuri­s [...]as & Cecili [...] ­nistas esse. Petilian the Donatist being offended that they were called Donatists, as iustly they were, for tying themselues to Dona­tus as their Patriarch and Ibid. cap. 32. Nec [...]lic abnu [...] esse mi [...]i Principē ac fuisse Donatum. Prince, retorted vpon the godly Bishops, the names of Mensurists of Mensurius, and Cecilia­nists of Cecilianus, as if they in like sort depended vpon them. So the Papists being vexed at that name of Papists giuen to them for being wholly at the deuotion of the Pope, seeke to disgrace vs with the names of Lutherans, and Zwinglians, and Caluinists, of Luther, Caluin, and Zwinglius, as if we were in like sort affected and deuoted vnto them. The Do­natists complained that Aug. cōt. lit. Petil. l. [...]. c. 43. Derebus vel locis Ecclesiasticis quos tenebatis & nō tenetis querimi [...]i. Et cōt. Gaudēt. l. 2. c. 28. Obijcitis nobis quòd res vestras possidere cupiamus. the goods and reuennues of their [Page 77] Churches bestowed vpon them by their ancestors were ta­ken from them, and giuen into the hands of the Catholike Pastors and teachers of the Church, vpon whom they cryed out Cont. Gau­dent. lib. 2. cap. 2 [...]. Alienarum rerum incubaeto­res. as robbers and spoilers of them. The same complaint Epist. to the King, sect. 31. M. Bishop and his fellowes vse, that Bishopricks and Dean­ries and Benefices founded by men of their religion, and to the vse thereof, are now as they pretend by wrong and vsur­pation bestowed vpon vs. The Rogatists being one part of the Donatists Aug. Epist. 48. Solos vos Christianos esse perhibetis. affirmed themselues only to be Christians, euen as the Donatists generally did challenge Ibid. Vniuer­si Donatist [...] se pro Ecclesia Christi supponen­tes. Optat. lib. 2. Nitimini suade­re hominibus a­pud vos solos esse Ecclesiam. to themselues only to be the Church of Christ, and so now the Papists in their fa­ction esteeme themselues only to be Christians, in so much that Bellarmines Ghost doubteth not to say, that Tort. ad A­polog. resp. Ja­cobus cum Ca­tholicus non sit, neque Christia­nu [...] est. our King Iames because he is no Catholike (of their coine) therefore is no Christian. The Donatists Aug. Epist. 50. 68. 122. & cont. Crescon. Grammat. lib. 3. cap. 42. &c. prouoking Emperours and Kings by their intollerable outrages and villanies, to make lawes for the punishing of them, when the same were execu­ted, complained of Aug. cont. Gaudent lib. 2. c. 12. Propter fi­lium hominis ac fidem, &c. vos persecutionem sustinere iactatis. persecution, and termed themselues Collat. Carthag. 3. c. 22. Apud nos est vera Catholica quae persecutionem patitur, non quae facit. the Church persecuted which persecuteth n [...]t: and such of them as were iustly executed for murders and other vnlawfull acts they called Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 83. Cum viuatis vt latrones, mori vos iac­tatis vt Martyres. Et Epist. 166. Dementia vt latronum facta fac [...] & cum iure punimin [...], marlyrum gloriam requiratis. Martyrs, yea such as threw themselues downe from sleep places to kill themselues, that it might be thought that others killed them, yea such as forced others to kil them, threatning to kill them if they did not so, these all I say they blazed Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 71. Petil. Vos beati non estis, sed beatos martyres facitis quorum scilicet animabus c [...]li repleti sunt, corporum (que) memoria terr [...] storuerunt. Vos [...]on colitis [...]ed facitis quos colamus. Aug. Si dictum esset, Beati qui seipsos prae­cipitant, implerent coeum martyres vestri. Et l. 1. c. 24. Praeci [...]tatorum vltrò [...]adauerum cultus sacrilegos mitto. for Martyrs, and to their Relikes and dead bodies they did great deuotion, and canonized them otherwise for [...]ints in heauen. Euen the same course doe the Papists take with vs, who by their traiterous attempts and practises and most diuellish conspiracies, giuing cause of making lawes for their punishment and restraint, do vpon execution there­of [Page 74] cry out Concertat. Eccl. Cathol in Angl. Epist. De persecution [...] An­glicana. of persecution, Epistle to the King, sect. 33. terrible persecutions, saith M. Bi­shop, in the late Queenes daies, and doe call them Martyrs that are notoriously put to death for such horrible treasons. Vn­der which name they haue registred Apolog. pro Henr. Garneto pag. 169. Garnet, that wretched caitife, a principall abettour of the gunne-powder practise, then which there was neuer a more impious designement a­mongst men. Yea and these thus iustly put to death, they honour with great deuotion, they deuise miracles of them, they dippe handkerchiefes in their bloud, they ioy to get peeces of their bodies, they make of them Saints, and Concertat. Eccl. Cathol. in Angl. vers. de Campian. Sis mihi quaeso tuo facilis patronus alumno; Nec cesses pro me sae­pe rogare De [...]. pray vnto them. The Donatists, though of their detestable and enormous acts Emperors tooke occasion to make lawes a­gainst them, yet would not haue it thought that the Empe­rors did it as of their owne minde, but moued and drawen thereto by the godly Bishops and Pastors, that were aduer­saries to them. Aug. cōt. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 9 [...]. Calumniamini nobis dicentes, à nobis in vos ad iracundiam Re­ges seculi conci­tari, dum cos nō docemꝰ diuinam Scripturam, sed malitiam nost [...]ā suggerimus. Yee calumniate vs, saith S ^t. Austin, saying that by vs Kings are incited to anger towards you, for that we teach them not the Scripture of God, but suggest to them our owne malice. Euen so our Papists, and namely Reproofe, pag. 85. M. Bishop, although they know that of their owne vngodly misdemea­nours the State hath taken occasion to make lawes against them, and that our Princes haue had very iust cause to deale seuerely with them, as Watson their owne proctor hath large­ly confessed; yet that their owne blame may be the better hidden, doe impute these proceedings to the instigations and exasperations of our Bishops and Ministers, as if other­wise no cause were conceiued but that they should be mo [...] gently intreated then now they are.▪ The Donatists albeit they knew well that it was a very small part of the world that ioyned with them, yet ioyed to vse wordes as if they had had a Church throughout the world, saying in their Councell of three hundred and ten Bishops, that Aug. cont. Crescō. Grām. lib. 3. cap. 56. Cùm Ecclesiae Catholicae Sanc­titatem vir me­morie vtnerabi­lis ab errore per­sidia Donatus as­sereret, in [...]ius nomen & cultum mundi penè totius obseruantia [...]trita c [...]aluit. when Do­nat [...] [...]reed the Catholike Church from the errour of perfidious­nesse, the obseruance or obedience almost of the whole world ioy­ned to his name and honour; in which manner [...]armenian al­so, [Page 75] though he held the Church Optat. lib. 2. Eam tu apud [...]os solos esse dixisti. to be with them only, yet pre­tended Ibid. post. Of­ferre vos dicitis pro vna Ecclesia quae sit in tot [...] terrarum orbe dissusa. to offer or pray for one Church which is dispersed ouer the whole world. Euen so the Papists also, albeit they know that it is but a small part of the world, wherein the commu­nion of the Bishop and Church of Rome is accepted or ac­knowledged, yet take pleasure to babble and prate as if the Popes triple crowne were so wide as to compasse the whole earth, and his scepter so long as to reach to the worlds end. Thus much then M. Bishop hath gained by being angry at my comparing the Papists to the Donatists, that whereas I mentioned but fiue resemblances before, I haue now added twelue more, and so like are they in all these, that I doubt not but by obseruation they may be found like in many moe. As for the retortion of this comparison which he hath vsed in his answere to my Epistle Dedicatory, as it is wholly for­ced and violent in it selfe, so it argueth only malice and folly in him. I will set downe the branches of the Donatists he­resie as he hath noted them, and adde the application that he hath made of euery of them. First he Reproofe, pag. 42. saith they held that the true Church of Christ was perished all the world ouer, sauing in some coastes of Africa, where their doctrine was currant. Well, and what is that to vs? The Protestants, saith he, teach euen as they did, that Christs visible Church was perished for nine hundred yeares at the least all the world ouer, and is now wholly decayed in all other parts of the world, sauing where their doctrine is embraced; and this, he saith, was the maine point of the Donatists heresie. To shew why he nameth the visible Church, he putteth in a parenthesis, thus; for the inuisible Church the Donatists held could not perish, as S ^t. Austin witnes­seth in Psal. 101. Which is a very lie▪ neither is there any thing to be found in S ^t. Austin to that effect. But as touch­ing the visible Church, where doe the Protestants hold or af­firme that it was or is perished in that sort as he saith? Why doth he not cite vs some authour of this assertion? Well, whether we say so or not, it skilleth not; Bellarm. de notis Eccles. c. 9. Ecclesiam vi­sibilem a multis seculis perijsse, & nunc solum esse in septentrionali­bus partibus vbi ipsi sunt, doce [...]t omnes. Bellarmine hath told him that we all say so, and that is enough for him. Yet [Page 80] that we doe not all say so, M. Bishop may sufficiently vnder­stand by that that hath beene before handled at large, as touching this point in the answere Sect. 17. to the Preface to his second part, whither I referre the Reader for further satis­faction hereof. Here I briefly answere him, that we hold in all that time wherof he speaketh one only Catholike church, whereof the Church of England was a part, and the Church of Rome another part, and the Greeke Church another part, and so the rest throughout the whole world. The Church in these parts was in that time blemished with many corrupti­ons and errours, whilest first the Teachers in steede of 1. Cor. 3. 18. siluer and gold and pearle, built hay and straw and stubble vpon the foundation; and secondly the Pastors more and more Ierem. 10. 21. became beasts, as the Prophet saith, and sought not the Lord, nor had any vnderstanding to teach Gods law, by meanes whereof ignorance encreased, and of ignorance grew superstition, and one idolatry begat another, till the whole face of the Church was berayed with the filth thereof, Mat. 24. 15. the abhomina­tion of desolation standing in the holy place, and the man of sinne tyrānizing ouer the Church, and giuing strength to all abuse and corruption for his owne gaine. So grosse were the enor­mities and superstitions which in this time had growen into the Church, as that the great Rabbines of the Church of Rome could not for shame but in some part acknowledge the same, and tooke vpon them to correct sundry things Trident. Cō ­cil. sess. 22. de Missa celebr. Quae siue tem­porum vitio, siue hominum incu­ria & improbi­tate irrepserunt in Missam ipsam. which either by the corruption of times or by the carelesnesse and naughtinesse of men were crept into the very Masse. And thus the Pope himselfe confessed concerning their Offices and Primers, that Offic. Beatae Mariae per Pi­um V. in Sum­mar. constitut. & indulgent, &c. Vanis su­perstitionum er­roribus alia ferè omnia huiusmo­di officia, etiam Latino sermone referta esse de­prehensum fuit, &c. Credant ijs­de [...] alijs [...]fficijs multas sub falsis & confictis san­ctorum nominiꝰ confict [...] oratio­nes fuisse inser­tas. they were found to be stuffed with vaine errours of superstitions, and that many counterfaite praiers were inserted into them vnder false and counterfaite names of Saints. Of these errours and superstitions they reformed what they list, and purged their bookes and Seruice of many things that were amisse: and what? will any man say hereupon that they became another Church? We proceeded further and voided the Church of the rest of those abhominations, which igno­rance [Page 81] and errour had brought in, which they were not wil­ling to haue medled with, because the same were gainfull to them; and shall we be said hereupon to deny that there was any visible Church before, and to beginne a new Church? No, we say that the Church hath continued still from the time that it was first planted; we affirme it to haue been the house of God, the garden and vineyard of the Lord, but we say that the husbandmen had long dealt wickedly and vn­faithfully in the vsage of it; they drest not the Lords vine but suffered it to grow wild; they let this garden be ouer­growen with briars and weedes, and Foxes and Swine had liberty to tread it downe and to destroy it. All that we haue done hath beene but to loppe and prune the vine, to dresse and water the garden that lay wast, to plucke vp the weedes and thornes, to driue out the noysome beasts, and to repaire the fence that they may be kept out. Therefore, we doe not take vpon vs to be another Church, but the same Church re­formed, neither haue we gone about to bring in a new reli­gion, but only to reforme that which they call the old, retai­ning still the same Scriptures which they acknowledged, the same articles of faith, the same Sacraments of Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord, the same forme of diuine Seruice, saue only that we haue cut off what their superstition had brought in contrary to the word of God, and practise of the first Church. Many goodly stones and pillars of Christian doctrine there were remayning amongst them, which we continue and acknowledge according to the word of Christ, and whereby we cannot doubt but that in those times of darkenesse many found meanes to see the light of God, and were thereby directed vnto eternall life. Farre therefore are we from Donatisme, who neither affirme the perishing of the Church in any part of the world, no not in Rome it selfe, nor tie it to any one place as the Papists doe to Rome, nor hang it vpon the necke of any one man as they doe vp­pon the Popes necke; but acknowledge all nations and all men indifferently accepted with God, accordingly as in spi­rit [Page 86] and truth they faithfully worship him. The second point of the Donatists heresie he nameth this, that they rebaptized Catholikes that fell into their sect. His application is, Though all the Protestants doe not rebaptize, yet one part of them, to wit, the Anabaptists doe vse it. But his foolery in that deser­ueth no answere, it being knowen to himselfe that the Ana­baptists are exploded and detested vniuersally of all Prote­stant Churches. The Anabaptists shall be rather theirs then ours. And whereas he diuideth the Protestants into Luthe­rans, Sacramentaries and Anabaptists, as answerable to the Donatists, Rogatists and Maximianists, he should rather haue made the like diuision of Papists into Anabaptists, Secularists, and Iesuitists; the Anabaptists answering the Rogatists in challenging the Church from the rest of the body of their Schisme only to themselues; the Secularists and Iesuitists ful­ly resembling the Donatists and Maximianists, each diuided for a time by mortall quarrell amongst themselues, but con­tent after a while as men of one Church and religion to bee reconciled againe. The third point that he mentioneth is this, They held not the faith of the blessed Trinity entire and whole, but some of them taught like Arians, the sonne to be lesse then the father, though as S ^t. Austin noteth this was not marked of their followers. This he applyeth to vs in this sort, Third­ly, diuers of their principall teachers, as Melanchton, Caluin, and many others doe corrupt the sound doctrine of the most sa­cred Trinity, as I haue shewed, saith he, in the Preface of the Reformation of a deformed Catholike, though the common sort of them doe not greatly obserue it. In which third point he very wilfully belyeth both S ^t. Austin and the Donatists and vs. For S ^t. Austin doth not say of the Donatists, but on­ly of a second Donatus, who was a follower of the former, that August. ad Quodvult. hae­res. 69. Apparet cum etiam non Catholicam de Trinitate babu­isse sententiam, &c. Verùm in hunc quem de Trinitate habuit [...]ius errorem Do­natistarum mul­titudo intenta nō fuit, nec facilè in eis quisquam qui hoc ill [...] sen­sisse nouerit in­uenitur. he had an vncatholike opinion of the Trinity, which the Donatists were so farre from approuing as that he saith, there was scant any one found amongst them that knew that hee thought so; so that to him only it is referred which S ^t. Austin saith in his Epistle; Idem Epist. 50. Si aliqui ip­sorum [...]orem filium dixerunt esse quàm pater est, [...]iusdem ta­men substanti [...] non negarunt. If any of them haue said that the sonne is [Page 87] lesse then the Father, yet they haue not denyed him to be of the same substance. And indeede S ^t. Austin though liuing a­mongst them and hauing perfect knowledge of them, yet neuer vpbraideth them with this heresie, and therefore M. Bishop doth wrong both to them in laying this heresie to them, and to S ^t. Austin in making him the witnesse thereof. Neither shall it helpe him that Theodoret chargeth them therewith, who as it plainly appeareth by his relation neuer knew what their heresie was, and being deceiued perhaps by the writings of that Donatus, reporteth that as common to them all, which S ^t. Austin of his knowledge noteth to haue beene proper to him only. As for that he chargeth Melancthon, Caluin, and other our principall teachers with corrupting the doctrine of the holy Trinity, how lewdly and falsly he dealeth therein, Answere to the Preface of the second part of Doct. Bishops Reformation, sect. 6. 7. I haue fully declared in answere of the Preface, where he saith he hath shewed the same. The fourth matter of the Donatists by him noted, is their being soone diuided into three sects, whereof he saith nothing but what is before touched. Only he addeth; There were also amongst them many frantike furious fellowes called Circumcel­lions, who rouing vp and downe committed many outrages, &c: But what is this to the Protestants? Forsooth, for plucking downe of Churches, abusing the most blessed Sacrament, holy Oiles, and all holy ornaments that belonged to Catholikes Chur­ches, the Protestants are not behinde, but goe farre beyond the Donatists. But this I let passe as another part of his idle bab­ling, only telling him that to fit the example of the Circum­cellions, he should rather haue looked to those memorable acts that haue beene done by the Leaguers and Iesuits, and other madde-braines of their imployment in France, Ger­manie, Poland, and in all places almost of Christendome, where they haue gotten any strength, whereof goodly sto­ries might be here set downe if it were pertinēt to the maine point that we haue now in hand. In the last thing which he noteth of the Donatists, he specially sheweth his great abun­dance of little wit, the matter whereto he alludeth being [Page 84] such as whence I might most iustly haue taken yet a further resemblance betwixt the Donatists and them. Finally, saith he, the Donatists deuised a new kinde of Psalmes to be sung be­fore their diuine Seruice and Sermons. And what the Prote­stants? Forsooth, they haue also compounded and framed a new kinde of Psalmes, saith he, called Geneua Psalmes, to be sung before their Sermons. A new kinde of Psalmes, say you, M. Bishop? What? doe not you know that those Geneua psalmes, as you call them, are only the Psalmes of Dauid and other Prophets and holy Men, translated into English Meter, and doe they seeme to you a new kinde of Psalmes? They were turned into Meter and Verse, and fitted with plaine and easie notes and tunes, to serue for popular and common vse of Christian exercise and edification, both in our Churches and priuate houses, that we may answere the exhortation of the Apostle, Col. 3. 16. Let the word of Christ dwell plentifully in you, in all wisedome teaching and admonishing your selues, or one another, in Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs, singing with a grace in your hearts vnto the Lord. Now marke, I pray thee, gentle Reader, what S ^t. Austin faith hereof in the place whence M. Bishop would fetch a resemblance betwixt the Donatists and vs. Of Aug. Epist. 119. cap. 18. De Hymnis & Psalmis canendis & ipsius Domini & Apostolorum habemus docu­menta & prae­cepta & exēpla. De hac re tam vtili ad mouen­dum piè animū & accendendum diuinae lectionis affectum varia consuetudo est, &c. Donatista nos reprehendūt quòd sobriè psal­lamus in Eccl [...] ­sia diuina canti­ca Prophetarū, cum ipsi ebrieta­tes suas ad can­ticum Psalmorū humano ingenio compositorum quasi tubas ex­hortation is in­slāment. Quan­do autem non est tempus cum in Ecclesia fratres congregantur Sancta cantandi nisi cum legitur aut disputatur, aut anti [...]ites clara voce de­precantur, aut communis oratio voce Diaconi indicitur. singing Hymnes and Psalmes we haue lessons and examples, and precepts of the Lord himselfe and his Apostles. It is a thing profitable to stirre vp the minde to piety, and to kindle deuotion and affection towards the lessons that are read from God. Of the Donatists contrarywise he saith; The Donatists reprehend vs for that we soberly sing in the Church the holy songs of the Prophets, whereas they by singing of songs deuised by men as it were by trumpets of encouragement, doe in­flame and prouoke themselues to drinking vntill they be drunke. Against this he saith: When is it out of time when the brethren are gathered together in the Church to sing Psalmes, but when there is reading or preaching, of when the Ministers doe pray with loud voice, or when by the voice of the Deacon warning is giuen of common prayer? That the Donatists vsed those songs in the Church or before their Seruice and Sermons S ^t. Austin [Page 85] saith not; that is M. Bishops lye; his wordes import that as their August. cōt. lit. Petil. l. 1. c. 24. Mitto pro­phanas baccha­tion [...]s [...]bri [...]t [...]tū. drunken meetings and feastings which elsewhere he obiecteth to them, they vsed such songs, as the manner is of carnall prophane men at their meetings and merry-makings, by vaine and wanton and lewd songs, to cheare and sport themselues. But out of S ^t. Austins words it is easie to be ga­thered whether of vs in this behalfe are more like the Do­natists, either we that retaine the same religious custome of singing Psalmes which S ^t. Austin commendeth, and not he only, but also Leo Bishop of Rome witnesseth, that Leo de col­lect. ser. 4. Psal­mi Dauidici per vniuersalem Ec­clesiam cum om­ni pietate can­tantur. the whole Catholike Church with all deuotion then vsed; or the Pa­pists who reproue vs for the same, and haue wholly abando­ned it, both out of their Churches and houses, and can better brooke to solace themselues with secular and prophane rimes and sonnets, yea with filthy and vncleane ribawdries, insomuch that some of their owne as touching their Seruice haue complained, that Cornel. A­grip. de vanit. scient. cap. 18. Hodie cum Mis­sa ipsius Canone obsc [...]n [...] canti­unculae pares vi­ces habènt. obscene and filthy songs had their course and turne therein, as well as the Canon of the Masse. Very vnfortunately therefore hath M. Bishop entred into the retorting of this comparison; nothing fitteth, nothing ser­ueth his turne; his ball reboundeth vpon himselfe, but nei­ther in doctrine nor in manners can hee truly alleage any thing reproueable in the Donatists that can be fastened vp­pon vs.

R. ABBOT.

I Wish M. Bishop to take heede lest the doome which he pronounceth vpon me be returned vpon himselfe by the sentence of the Gospell, Luke 19. 22. Out of thine owne mouth will I [Page 87] iudge thee thou euill seruant. Mistake I did in a circumstance, but lye I did not, because Mentiri est contra mentem ire. to lye is to goe against a mans owne minde and knowledge, which it is plaine I did not, for that my errour was disaduantage to my selfe, in that I alleaged the Papists to be like the Donatists only, whereas by more per­fect relation they are found to be like both Rogatists and Donatists. But now to make the matter the more goodly for himselfe, he for conclusion notably playeth the Skoggin, and most grosly deludeth the simple Reader that hath not discretion to espie his fraude. Forsooth, he will shew at what great square the Donatists were with the Church of Rome. But trouble not your selfe M. Bishop about that matter: wee know it, and will acknowledge it alwaies as farre as you; only we desire to know what that maketh to the matter here in hand? What? because the Donatists in the time of Opta­tus and Austin, were at great square with the Church of Rome, doth it follow that there can be no cause now to compare the Papists to the Donatists? When M. Bishop was clapt vp in prison at Rome, there was great enmity betwixt the Seculars and Iesuits, and doth it therefore follow that they are not friends now? What is it, M. Bishop, but your legerdemaine, to pretend a comparison made by me, betwixt the Donatists and the Church of Rome that was of old, when as my comparison concerneth only Romanists and Pa­pists that now are, who are farre departed from that way wherein that Church of old did walke? Why doe you in this case alleage to vs Optatus and Austin, to disproue this resem­blance, as if they were able so long before hand to tell vs that the Papists now in the points alleaged are not like the Donatists? The Donatists of old were at square with the Church of Rome, for resisting their claime of the propriety of the Church: neither doe we doubt but that if they were now in being, the Church of Rome would be at square with them, for challenging that to Africa which they hold proper­ly to belong to Rome, but this squaring on the one side or the other, hindereth not but that Papists now in their kinde [Page 88] are like to Donatists in their kinde, each tying the Catholike Church respectiuely to their owne place and faction; where­in the condemning of the Donatists of old by the Church of Rome for so tying it to Africa, is an instruction to vs to con­demne the Papists now for doing the like to Rome. But M. Bishops purpose of cosenage doth more liuely appeare in the first citation which he here bringeth out of Austin, where purposely he omitteth a part of the sentence, whereby the Reader should perceiue that it maketh nothing for his pur­pose. To P [...]tilian the Donatist condemning all Churches saue their owne, he saith; Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. [...]. c. 51. Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romana in qua Petrus se­dit & in qua [...]o­di [...] Anastasius sedet; vel Ec­clesiae Hier [...]s [...]ly­mitana in qua Iacobus sedit, & in qua bodie Jo­annes sidet, qui­bus nos in Catho­lica vnitate con­nectimur & à quibus v [...]s nefa­ri [...] fur [...]re sepa­rastis? Quare appellas Cathe­dram pestilentia Cathedram Apo­stolicam? What hath the chaire of the Church of Rome done to thee wherein Peter sate, and wherein at this day Anastasius sitteth; or the chaire of the Church of Ierusalem wherein Iames sate, and in which Iohn at this day sitteth, to which we are ioyned in Catholike vnity, and from which you haue seuered your selues by wicked fury? Why doe you call the Apostolike chaire the chaire of pestilence? Now what doe these wordes make more for the Church of Rome then for the Church of Ierusalem? The Donatists were then at square with the Church of Ierusalem, and yet that hindereth not, M. Bishop will confesse, but that the Church of Ieru­salem may be now Schismaticall: and the Donatists were then at square with the Church of Rome; what is there here to hinder but that the Church of Rome may be now Schis­maticall as the Donatists were then? The Church of Ierusa­lem is by S ^t. Austin termed an Apostolike chaire or Sea, as all the Churches planted by the Apostles are by him stiled Aug. Epist. 162. Possent A­postolicarum Ec­clesiarum iudici [...] causam suam in­tegrā reseruare. A­postolike Churches, as well as the Church of Rome▪ The Church of Ierusalem M. Bishop will not deny, both might be and hath beene since S ^t. Austins time a chaire of pestilence. And doth S ^t. Austin say any thing there to let, but that the Church of Rome also may be since become the chaire of pe­stilence, though it were then the chaire of vnity and peace? Yea what he saith here concerning the Churches of Rome and Ierusalem, the same he saith elsewhere of other Churches also. Ibid. Quid tibi fecit, 6 pars Donati, quid tibi fecit Ecclesia Corinthiorum? Quod autem de ista dic [...], de om­nibus [...]a [...]bus & tam longè positi [...] intelligi v [...]l [...]; quid vobis fece­runt? &c. O yee Donatists, what, what, I say, hath the Church [Page 89] of the Corinthians done to you? What I say of it, I would haue to be vnderstood of all such and as farre distant Churches; what haue they done vnto you? &c. with all which the Dona­tists were at as great square as they were with the Church of Rome, and yet M. Bishop will not yeeld to any of them any prorogatiue thereby. But all mention of the Church of Ie­rusalem and the rest, he thought it behouefull for him to sup­presse, because if he had set it downe he knew well that the Reader would easily see that in all this great shew hee had said nothing. And by the premises it appeareth that he hath said as little in producing the wordes of Optatus; for be it that the Donatists did then cruelly wage battell against the Church of Rome, and there were no agreement betwixt them, what is that to that that I say concerning the Church of Rome now? what hindereth that, I say still, but that there may be now a iust resemblance betwixt the Papists and the Donatists? His conclusion therefore is ridiculous, that be­cause Austin saith that Cecilianus needed not to care for the Donatists, so long as he saw himselfe ioyned with the church of Rome, therefore they neede not to care so long as they stand in the like society of faith and religion with the same Church of Rome. For seeing the Church of Rome is not the same now that it was then, as in the processe of this booke, God willing, shall plainly appeare, there may be iust cause in many things now to forsake the communion of the church of Rome, though it were piety and religion to hold it then. But it is not to be omitted how falsly he dealeth here againe, in alleaging the wordes of Austin, as if he spake of being ioyned with the Church of Rome only, whereas he nameth other Churches as well as the Church of Rome. Aug. Epist. 162. Qui posset non curare con­spirantem multi­tudinem inimi­corum, cùm se [...]ideret & Ro­man [...] Ecclesiae in qua semper Apostolic [...] Ca­thed [...] viguit principatus, & c [...]teris terris vnde Euangeli­um ad ipsam A­fricam venit per communicate [...] as literas esse coniunctum. He needed not care, saith he, for the conspiring multitude of his enemies, when he saw himselfe ioyned by communicatory letters, both to the Church of Rome, where the principality or chiefty of the A­postolike chaire hath alwaies flourished, and to other nations whence the Gospell came into Africa. What is here more for the communion of the Church of Rome, then for the com­munion [Page 90] of other Churches? Why doth M. Bishop thus de­ceiptfully appropriate to one that which S ^t. Austin maketh to concerne many? Doe we finde it in S ^t. Austins words, which he pretendeth, that it shall be alwaies an infallible rule of safety to hold communion with the Church of Rome? He will say that there is there attributed a principality to the Church of Rome. Be it so, a principality of honour, not of power, as I haue Chap. 1. §. 2. before made plaine by Austin himselfe: but doth it follow that because the principality of the Apo­stolike chaire had flourished there till that time, therefore it should be necessary or safe to communicate with that church for euer vntill the worlds end? These are loose and vaine col­lections, meere mockeries of simple and credulous persons, very vnfit to stablish and resolue the conscience of any sober or aduised man.

R. ABBOT.

THe name of the Catholike Church might iust­ly moue S ^t. Austin to continue in the society thereof, when vnder that name August cōt. Epist Fundam. cap. 4. Tenet ip­sum Catholica nomen quod non sine causa inter tam multas h [...] ­rescs ista Ecclesia sola obtinu [...]t. Catholike he saw the communion of a Church succes­siuely continued from the time of the Apo­stles throughout the world, and that only communion euery where termed by that name. There was reason for him to exhort men. Idem de ve­ra relig. cap. 7. Tenenda est eius Ecclesiae commu­nicatio quae Ca­tholica est & Catholica nomi­natur non solum à suis verumeti­am ab omnibus inimicis. to hold communion with that Church which was thus Catholike or Vniuersall, and so called both of the friends and of all the enimies thereof; and thereby to be fortified against all hereticall distractions and separations, as knowing that to draw them away from this communion, should bee to draw them away from the Church of Christ. The appella­tion of Catholikes according to the originall of it, as I haue Chap. 2. § 4. before noted, importeth an interest holden by them that are so called in this vniuersall communion, without renting themselues by heresie or schisme from the common society and fellowship of the Church. In this only meaning is it rightly vsed, and they are meere vsurpers of it who take it to themselues without this or in any other sense. Now where­as M. Bishop according to that sense, as he pretendeth, tel­leth vs that that name is of great force to perswade all reaso­nable men to make themselues members of the Roman Church, he is greatly deceiued himselfe, and doth but seeke to deceiue others therein, because they wholly faile in the ground of it, the Church of Rome being neither Catholike indeede, as S ^t. Austin requireth, nor so called by any other, but only by it selfe. Who is there in the world so madde as to call the Roman Church the Catholike Church, but only they that are drunke by drinking of the same cup? He saith that we confesse that the faith and religion of the Church of Rome hath beene re­ceiued all the world ouer; but that is both waies a lye, because neither doe we confesse so much, neither was it euer so. And therefore whereas he saith, that by ioyning in society of faith [Page 93] with the Church of Rome, we shall communicate with the Church spred ouer the whole world, hee againe abuseth his Reader, there being at this day no Church in Asia or Africa that hol­deth communion with the Church of Rome, to say nothing of the Greeke Church, and sundry other in Europe, that doe detest the fellowship thereof. I am not ignorant how they seeke to gull the world in this behalfe, and what goodgeons they giue men by telling and writing tales from Rome of Gentill [...]t. in Exam. Concil. Trident. Patriarches and Metropolitans of the Aegyptians, the As­syrians, the Armenians, the Aethiopians, and such other like, comming to Rome to submit themselues, and to be re­conciled to the Pope; these iests are now growen stale; these suborned and counterfait Patriarkes haue beene dis­cryed, and were they not men absurdly impudent they would neuer practise the like cosenage againe. And yet my friend And. Eudoem. adu. R. Abbat. Respon. lib. 3. sect. 6. Aegyptius C [...]phtorum Pa­triarcha à qu [...] Aethiopia petit pracepta fidei, ad communionem Catholicam nu­per Clemente oc­tau [...] Pontifice redijt. Cac [...]daemon telleth vs in sadnesse of the Aegyptian Patri­arch, vpon whom all the Churches of Aethiopia depend (his name is neither knowen to him nor me) that now very lately in the time of Clement the eight, he returned to the communion of their Catholike Church; the wise man not considering that thereby he doth intimate vnto vs contrary to other fables and tales which they haue giuen out before, that therefore before that time he was a stranger to them. Thus by reason that these submissions and reconciliations are still to seeke, and the world seeth no appearance nor ef­fect of them, they are euery while put to their shifts to de­uise new rumours hereof, and to stuffe the old coate of some Gibeonite with straw, setting him vp vpon a poles end vnder the name of the Patriarch of some farre Countrey, so to feede the humours and fancies of them, that doe yeeld them­selues content to be gulled and deluded by them. But against this foolery the Catholike Bishops truly noted against the Donatists, that Collat. Car­thag 1. cap. 55. Non in vnum a­liquem terra lo­cum ex alijs locis ad Deum gentes venturas esse praedictum est, sed in ocis suis [...]um adoraturas it was not foretold by the Prophets, that the nations should from other places come to God into any one place of the earth, but that in their owne places they should worship him. This they held to be enough, and knew no need [...] of [Page 94] hunting or seeking to this place or that place, either to Rome or to Africa, as vnder the ouerture whereof they might haue readier accesse to God, because all places were alike to him. Where if M. Bishop will say that they doe not require that euery one shall come to Rome to worship God there, I an­swer him, that when the Donatists did require August. cōt. Crescon. Grā. mat. lib. 3 c. 34. Tot populi quid fecerunt, quicùm ista nescirent, ta­men à v [...]bis re­baptizandi cen­sentur? all nations to be rebaptized by them, they were not so madde as to thinke that it should concerne all men personally to come into A­frica, but would haue thought it sufficient that though not immediately by themselues, yet mediately by their rebapti­zers, though not in person, yet in deuotion and affection they had beene there; that in the meane time they did respect it as the rocke from whence in their conuerters they were dig­ged; as the roote of their Christianity, the oracle of their doubts, the place of their appeales, the sanctuary of piety, from whence by communicating with it, all their Seruices and Sacrifices should ascend to be acceptable vnto God. Such as would haue yeelded them this regard, they would neuer haue doubted, though they had neuer come into Afri­ca, to adiudge them true members of their Church: and therefore the Fathers in denying any one place to which the nations should need to come, that they might come to God, either spake idlely against the Donatists, or else must be vn­derstood to deny any such one place as I haue said. But the Papists not content to attribute that to their Rome which the Donatists did to Africa, haue further made it a matter of so great merit and moment with God, to come to Rome to doe deuotion there, as that to them that doe so or doe by money redeeme the necessity of going thither, thereby to be esteemed as if they did goe, they haue proclaimed the full pardon and remission of all their sinnes. Sith then the Ca­tholike Church importeth the vniuersall communion of 1. Cor. 1. 2. all that call vpon the name of our Lord Iesus Christ in euery place through the world, and the communion of the Roman Church is extremely short of being extended ouer the whole world, being limited to one place, and being particular and [Page 95] priuate only to one sect and sort of men, out of the number and company whereof are innumerable Christians and Chri­stian Churches, which as the case standeth neither haue nor desire to haue any portion therein, yea vndoubtedly a num­ber that neuer haue heard either of the Pope or of the Ro­man Church, it must needes follow that as they deale absurd­ly who call the Roman Church the Catholike Church, so they deale as absurdly who appropriate the name of Catholikes to the communion of the Roman Church, which cannot arise but from the communion and fellowship indifferently of the vniuersall Church. And hereby it appeareth that though some of them had dispersed themselues into all nations, yet they could no more take vpon them thereby to be Catho­likes, then the Donatists in the like case could haue done. For as the Donatists though they had set foote into all other Countries, as they did into Italie and Spaine, and out of A­frica particularly so called into many parts and Prouinces of Africa at large, yet could not for that haue beene called Ca­tholikes, because through the whole world they should haue beene but a part of the whole Church, Aug. Epist. 161. Pars vestra quae Donati dici­tur, &c. Pars Donati, Donatus his part, depending vpon one man, and diuided vn­der his name from the common society of the Church; euen so the Papists also though they should spread themselues in the same sort, yet should not thereby obtayne the right of the name of Catholikes, because they should be but a part of the whole, the Popes part, depending vpon him and vnder his name diuided from an innumerable multitude of all na­tions, who though they disclaime the Pope, yet doubt not to haue interest in the Church as well as they, and therefore where they are, are no other but a faction and schisme, ren­ting the vnion and communion of the Church of Christ. Sure­ly if anciently there had beene any such dependence of the Church vpon the Bishop of Rome, as the Papists pretend now, the Donatists being offended as S ^t. Austin witnesseth, August. cōt. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 39. Quia vos de parte Donati essedicimus, qu [...] ­ritis hominem de cuius parte [...] esse dicatis. that they were called Donatists or Donatus his part, and see­king to entitle their aduersaries vnder the name of another part▪ [Page 96] would neuer haue beene to seeke herein, but being at so great square with the Church of Rome as M. Bishop hath al­leaged, would haue giuen them a name from the Bishop of Rome, to whom as their Prince and chiefe they were as fast tyed as they themselues were to Collat. Car­thag. 3. cap. 32. Petil. N [...]c nunc abnuo esse mihi principem ac f [...] ­isse beatiss [...]m [...] santae (que) memo­ris Donatum. their Prince Donatus. But because there w [...]nted ground and occasion of so doing, the Church then standing in the liberty whereunto Christ had called it, and neither addicting it selfe to any one place, nor yeelding it selfe seruant to any mo [...]all man, therefore they diuised otherwise as occasion and stomacke led them, sun­dry names which they applied vnto them, Aug. Epist. 164. Nos Ma­carianos appel­latis. Macarians, Collat. Car­thag. [...] cap. 30. Petil. Palam a­perte (que) designo Mensuris [...] cos & Ceci [...]istas esse. Mensurists, Cecilianists, of Macarius, Mensurius, Ceci­ltanus, euen in the like manner as the Papists, being offended that we call them Papists, for tying their deuo [...]on wholly to the Pope, seeke to returne the same obiection of partiali­ty vpon vs, by calling vs Zwinglians, Lutherans, Caluinists; whereas we yeeld no more either to Zwinglius, or Luther, or Calum, then we doe to all other learned men, so farre on­ly to regard them as their proofes goe: yea and doe deter­mine that whosoeuer in adhering to any one place or any one man, doe affirme themselues only in that communion to be the Church of Christ, they are no other but Donatists, they are no other but Schismatikes, meere breakers and dis­turbers of Christian peace. Whence it followeth as I haue said that the Papists are no other, who limit the name of Ca­tholikes, and of the Catholike Church, only to the commu­nion of the Pope and of the Roman Church. Which M. Bishop here doth, who though he say that all other Churches of what Countrey so [...]r may be called Catholike, maketh re­str [...]int of his [...]ll in this sort, that with the Church of Rome keep [...] entirely the same faith. In which sort the Donatists al­so would not haue denyed all other Churches to be called Catholike, that with their Church of Africa kept entirely the same faith: and therefore I said rightly before, that the name is now by the Papists Donatistically applyed not only to one par­ticular Church of Rome, as M. Bishop falsly repeateth, to put [Page 197] the sot if he could from himselfe to me, but also as I added to men bearing the name of Catholikes only for communicating with that Church. As for vs, we apply the name Catholike no more to the congregations of the Protestants, then we doe to all that professe in truth the communion of one vniuersall Church. The name of Protestants being casuall, and arising by occasion in these Northerne parts, may haply be inclosed and confined within the bounds of Europe, but the Church of Christ cannot be so inclosed, and Aug. Epist. 48. Erit Ana­thema quisquis annunciauerit Ecclesiam prae­ter communio­nem omnium gentium. cursed is he, saith St. Austin, that preacheth the Church otherwise then in the com­munion of all nations. No otherwise doe wee preach the Church; wee limit it not to our selues; wee say the Papists ought not to limit it to themselues. There are questions be­twixt them and vs, but how many Christian Churches are there in the world which neither know them nor vs, nor haue euer heard any thing of the quarrels that are betwixt vs? How many Churches are there in the East which haue heard of the Pope and his proceedings, and will by no meanes endure to hold communion with him? He will say that those Churches doe not accord with vs in iudgement of all points of faith. Be it so; no more did Cyprian and Aug. cont. Gaudent. lib. 3 art. 10. Quando rebaptizabat Cy­prianus ab h [...]re­ticis venientes, Ecclesia Cartha­ginēsis Episcopus, tunc Ecclesi [...] Romanae Stepha­nus Episcopus in [...]odem baptism [...] quem foris acce­p [...]rāt suscipiebat [...]aereticos & am­bo haec diuersa facien [...]es in vni­tate Catholica permanebant. Ste­phanus Bishop of Rome agree in all points, and yet they were both members of one Catholike Church. How many diffe­rences of opinions are there found amongst the Fathers, and yet we doe not therefore diuide them into many Churches. They may erre, and we may [...]rre, but we beleeue that where­soeuer the Gospell of Christ is read and published, there Christ hath a people to whom hee reuealeth all truth that shall be necessary vnto eternall life. In a word they professe the same Christ, they reade the same Gospell and Scriptures that we doe, and therein our faith both hath beene from the beginning, and doth now continue dispersed and spread o­uer the whole world.

R. ABBOT.

SVch examples, saith he, proue nothing, but serue only for ex­plication. And what of that? As though it were vnlaw­full for me to vse explication, and I were bound to proofe only. His first exception then is wholly idle and of no effect at all. Whereas secondly he saith, that it can hardly be shewed that the name of Iew was a name of honour, he saith vntruly, because the Scripture in sundry places mentioneth it with honour, as the name of them with whom God did dwell; Zachar. 8. 23. Men of all languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Iew, and say; we will goe with you, for we haue heard that God is with you: as the name of them from whom saluation was to be deriued to other nations, Iohn 4. 22. Saluation is of the Iewes: as the name of them that had receiued prefer­ment at Gods hands; Rom. 3. 1. What is the preferment of the Iew? much euery manner of way: the same giuing them a preemi­nence aboue others; Galat. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles: as a name gloried and reioyced in; Rom. 2. 17. Behold thou art called a Iew; in respect whereof the Apostle teacheth the truth of the name, that they might not vainly reioyce in it; Vers. 28. He is not a Iew which is one outward; but he is a Iew which is one within; for which cause the holy Ghost challengeth it from them who literally assumed to them­selues the name for carnall propagation only without regard of inward truth: Ap [...]c. 2. 9. They say they are Iewes, and are not, but are [Page 101] the Synagogue of Satan. He againe denyeth it to haue beene a proper title of the people of God; but his instances to that pur­pose are vaine; for albeit to speake of particular men God had many good seruants of other nations, Iob the Husite, Naaman the Syrian, the Sydonian widdow, and many Pro­selites and conuerts as he alleageth, yet there was no other nation vouchsafed the honour to be called the people of God, but only the nation of the Iewes, according to that of the Psalme, Psal. 147. 19. He hath giuen his lawes vnto Iacob, hi [...] Statutes and Ordinances vnto Israel; he hath not dealt so with any other nation. As for the wordes which he addeth; Many Gen­tiles were saued without the law, they are his owne; the Apo­stle hath no such; and therefore he dealeth falsly to cite them vnder the name of the Apostle. Well, I say then that the name of Iewes was of old a name of honour, and the proper title of the people of God, and yet afterwards by their Apo­stasie who were so called, it was left for a name of curse and reproch. I quoted for this the words of the Prophet Esay: Esay. 65. 15. Ye shall leaue your name as a curse vnto my chosen. M. Bishop hereto saith; Most vncertaine it is of what name the Pro­phet Esay speaketh, when he saith, It shall be left for a name of curse. But the reason of his vncertainty is, because he will be certaine of nothing, which he seeth in any sort to make a­gainst him. Certaine we are that the prophesie hath had his effect, and we see the effect thereof in the name of Iew, and in no other name, and therefore how should we but be cer­taine that the prophesie hath reference to that name? It is true that the place with some vndergoeth another translati­on, and is thereby drawen to another construction; but be­ing translated as by M. Bishop it is set downe, which is ac­cording to the most proper signification of the wordes, no man vnderstandeth the name there mentioned of any other, but of the name of Iew only. Thus Hierome according to that translation expoundeth it; Hieron in Esa. l. 8. c. 65. Nomen vestrum erit in iuramen­tum Electis meis vt pro malorum exemple vos ha­beant & dete­stentur talia su­slinere & iurent sic; Non hac pa­ti [...]r qua poss [...] est popul [...] Iud [...] ­ [...]rum. Your name shall be for an oth to mine Elect, so as that they shall take you for an example of euils, and shall abhorre to suffer such things, and shall say: Let me not [Page 102] suffer those things which the Iewes suffered. The ordinary Glosse yeeldeth the meaning thus; Gloss. Ordi­nar. in Esai. 65. Vt aliqui affir­mantes dicant: si alitèr fecero, conti [...]gat mihi si­cut Judaeis Ro­manorum gladio occisis. So as that men by way of affirmation shall say; If I doe otherwise (then I say) let it be­fall to me as to the Iewes, that were slaine with the sword of the Romans. Lyra thus: Lyra. ibid. Christiani sic iu­rant aliquando; si feci istud quod mihi imponitur, suspendar ego per pedes sicut Iu­daeus. Christians sometimes sweare thus; If I haue done that wherewith I am charged, let me be hanged by the feete like a Iew. Osorius their owne Paraphrast vnder­standeth it in the same sort; Osor. Para­phras. in Esai. l. 5. o. 65. Nomen relinquetis elec­tis infaustum & abhominandum, quod in dirarum imprecationibus vsurpetur; ita vt quise voluerit execratione de­uincire, exitum sibi Iudaorū im­precetur si quic­quam in se con­tra quàm fas & officium requirit admiserit, &c. seruos suo [...] non tudaeos appella­bit Dommus, &c. Yee shall leaue your name to mine Elect as vnfortunate, and to be had in abhomination, so as that it shall be vsed in imprecations and curses, and he that will binde himselfe with a curse, shall wish to himselfe the destruction of the Iewes, if he haue done any otherwise then right and iust. The Lord shall not call his seruants Iewes, but shall giue them a new more excellent name. The name of Iewes then it is which is meant in the wordes of the Prophet, and therefore hither to there are no impertinences in mine example, but his exceptions are altogither impertinent. Yet being taken for such, he is content like a kinde Gentleman to remit them, but telleth me that there is a grosse fault in the maine point of the comparison which he cannot pardon. Doubtlesse it is some re­serued case: his holy Father the Pope must pardon it, and none but he. And what is it I pray you? Forsooth, the name Iew being the name of a certaine people of one race and kindred, and hauing a law giuen them by Moses, which should continue only for a prescript time, and end at the comming of Christ, is not like the name Catholike. It may be, M. Bishop, that in all things it is not like, and I suppose you are not so ignorant, but that you know that it is needlesse that things compared should euery way and in euery respect answere each the o­ther. It is a common saying, that Omnis simili­tudo v [...] pede claudicat. euery similitude halte thou one foote at the least: and concerning the similitudes and pa­rables vsed by our Sauiour Christ in the Gospell, Origen no­teth, that Origen. in Mat. cap. 13. Quemadmodum in imaginibus & statuis similitudines non omni ex parte respon­dentijs adqu [...] conferuntur, &c. simititer mihi cogita & de similitudinib [...]s quae s [...]t in Euangelio: as images and pictures doe not on all parts and in all respects fit to those things which they represent, so neither doe [Page 103] those similitudes that are vsed in the Gospell. It is sufficient al­waies in this case that the resemblance stand good in that, in respect whereof the similitude is taken. Now therefore al­beit the name of Iew doe import a people of one race and kindred, and the name of Catholike doe not so, yet the name of Iew implyeth withall a certaine profession of religion and deuotion towards God, according to the oracles of God, de­liuered vnto that people, and therin it agreeth with the name of Catholike, which amongst Christians hath done the like. The name of Iew importing of old a prerogatiue of being the people of God, and of hauing the knowledge of God and of true religion, was a name of honorable respect, as I haue shewed, and therein the name of Catholike is answe­rable to it, hauing beene wont to signifie the true professors of Christian faith, liuing in the vnity and fellowship of one Catholike Church, being thereby partakers of the honour that belongeth to the same Church. The name of Iew though in it selfe a gracious and louely name, yet by the infidelity and apostasie of them who for carnall propagation only con­tinued it to themselues, without regard of the spirituall duty thereto annexed, became a name of curse and reproch. What hindereth but that I might also say, the thing being so, that the name of Catholikes also, though honorable and desireable in it selfe, and in that vse whereto it was of old ap­plied, yet being abused by vniust vsurpers of it, is in them and in their abuse a name of curse and infamie, so as that when we heare such a man call himselfe a Catholike, we take him thereby to be a man of shame, and to carry the marke of an Apostata and an Heretike. Yea but the law of the Iewes, saith he, was to continue but for a time, and to end at the com­ming of Christ, whereas the name of Catholike shall neuer faile▪ It is true that the law of the Iewes as touching the outward ceremonies was to end at the comming of Christ, but in the spirituall vse and doctrine thereof accomplished in Christ, it was to remaine for euer. Wherein if the Iewes had conti­nued by faith, their name and they themselues had continued [Page 104] in honour, but Rom. 11. 20. by vnbeliefe they were broken off, and thereby their name grew to that detestation spoken of. Euen so the faith for which men at first were called Catholikes, shall re­maine without end, wherein if they had continued that as­sume to themselues that name, it should haue beene to them still as of old it was a name of honour; but hauing seazed vp­pon the name only by externall and carnall succession, and hauing banished that faith which they professed, who of old were called Catholikes, the name according to their vnder­standing of it is odious and hatefull, neither doth any faith­full man ioy to be called a Catholike, lest he should seeme to be partaker with them in their perfidious apostasie from the faith of Christ. For the better clearing whereof and better discouery of M. Bishops fraude, who to deceiue the simple hudleth and confoundeth all, it is to be obse [...]ued that the word Catholike in our common speech is taken sometimes adiectiuely and sometimes substantiuely. Adiectiuely as when we say the Catholike Church, the Catholike Faith, the Catholike Doctors and Fathers; and thus we forbeare not to vse the name, but it is common in our mouthes and in all our writings, neither will we make it any doubt or question with M. Bishop, but that the Church hath beene from the beginning, and shall be to the end called the Catholike Church. But it is otherwise taken substantiuely, and put ab­solutely to designe the persons that are stiled by the name of Catholikes, as when a Papist saith that he is a Catholike, and that they generally are Catholikes, in which sort it was not v­sed from the beginning, and therefore there is no necessity of the continuance of it to the end. For the space of three hundred yeares after Christ vntill the time of Constantine, and the arising of the heresie of the Donatists, I doe not thinke it can be shewed that Christians of true beliefe were accustomed any where to be called by the name of Catho­likes. I would intreate M. Bishop for my learning to bring me Tertullian, or Origen, or Athanasius, or Clemens Alex­andrinus, or Cyprian, or Euscbius, or any other of those times, [Page 105] by whom it may appeare that there was any such vse there­of. Nay Athanasius certainly knew it not, who to expresse the true professors of the faith, vseth no other names but to call them, Athanas. A­polog. 2. Epist. Sardic Concil. Omnes vbi (que) Or­thodoxae fidei ho­mines. Men of the orthodoxe or right faith, or more briefly to the same effect, Ibid. Ab Eu­sebianis contra Orthodoxos acta. & Epist. proxima. Toti in hoc sunt vt Orthodoxos eij­ciant. The Orthodoxe, or elsewhere, Ibid. Epist. Iulij. Ferè om­nes Clericos & Populos Ecclesiae Catholicae insidij [...] appeti. The Clergie and People of the Catholike Church, or such like, and found no generall or vsuall name to that purpose but only Christians. Which appoareth very plainly where ar­guing against the Arians from their very name of Arians, he saith thus: Athanas. cōt. Arian. Orat. 2. Nunquam popu­lus ab Epi [...]copis suis sed à Domi­no in quem cre­didit, nomen ac­cepit. Certè à beatis Apostolis preceptoribus nostris ministris (que) Euangelij Saluatoris nostri app [...]llationes adepti non sumus, sed à Christo Christiani & sumus & nuncupamur. Illi verò qui al [...]unde originem suae fidei dedu­cunt, meritò authorum suorum cognomenta, vt ad quos pertineant, praeseserunt. Quaproptèr cùm omnes à Christo Christiani & essemus & diceremur, explosus est Morcion inuentor haereseos: reliqui autem qui cum Marcionis explosore remansere. Christiani titulum retinuerunt: qui verò secuti sunt Marcionem, non iam inde Christiani sed Marcionistae appellati sunt. Ita quoque Va­ [...]entinus, Basilides, Manichaeus, & Simon Magus sectatoribus sua vocabula impertierunt, ind [...] (que) factum vt alij Valentiniani, alij Basilidiani, &c vocitati sint, Ita Melctius eiectus à Petro, &c. suos qui ipsum sequebantur non Christianos postea, sed Meletianos denominauit. Eadem it erum ratione Alexandro Arium eijciente, ij qui Alexandro adhaeserunt remanserunt Christiani, illi verò qui vnà cum Ario recesserunt, nomen Saluatoris nostri Alexandro cum suis relinquentes, Ariani deinceps appellati sunt. Quinimò ecce [...]tiam nunc post mortem Alexandri qui eiusdem communionis sunt cum Athanasio Alexandri successo [...]e & quibus ipse Athanasius communione coniunctus est omnes eundem pariter characterem habent neque ille suis nomen indit aut à suis recipit, sed omnes, vt antea, consuet [...] more Christiani nominantur. Neuer any people tooke name of their Bishops, but of the Lord in whom they beleeued. We haue not taken names from the holy Apostles our Masters and Ministers of the Go­spell of our Sauiour, but of Christ we both are and are called Christians, but they who deriue the originall of their faith from any other, doe worthily beare the names of their authours as to whom they doe belong. When as therefore we all were and were called Christians of Christ, Marcion the inuentor of heresie was worthily exploded. The other which remained with him by whom Marcion was exploded, retayned the name of Christians, but they who followed Marcion were no longer called Christians, but Marcionites. And thus Valentinus, Basilides, Mani­cheus and Simon Magus gaue names to their followers, and thence it came that some were called Valentinians, other Basili­dians, [Page 106] other Manichees, other Simonians, other Cataphry­gians of their Countrey Phrygia, other Nouatians of Nouatus▪ Thus Meletius being eiected by Peter a Bishop and Martyr, named them that followed him not any more Christians but Meletians. In the same sort when Alexander eiected Arius, they who cleaued to Alexander remayned Christians, but they who went away with Arius leauing the name of Christians to Alexander and his, were thenceforth called Arians. Moreouer euen now after the death of Alexander, they who are of the same communion with Athanasius the successor of Alexander, and with whom Athanasius himselfe is ioyned in communion, they all still keepe the same marke; he neither giueth any name to them nor they to him, but all as before according to the accu­stomed manner are called Christians. This place I haue set downe at large, that the Reader may see that Athanasius here could not haue omitted the name of Catholikes, there being such occasion to draw it from him, if it had been then in vse, and that the common names of opposition were then, not Catholikes and Heretikes, but Christians and Heretikes: euen as Cyprian also vseth it, saying of Stephanus; Cyprian. ad Pompeium. Qui haeret [...]corū caus [...]m contra Christianos & contra Ecclesiam Dei esscrere co­natur. He goeth about to maintaine the cause of Heretikes against Christians and against the Church of God, the word Catholike being ne­uer found in either of them, personally taken or substantiuely as before was said, but only that Athanasius mentioneth one surnamed Athanas. E­pist. ad solita­riam vitam a­gentes. Fausti­nus Catholicus homo & genere Bithy [...]us & opi­nionibus haereti­cus. Catholicus, an Arian Heretike, and a perse­cutor of the faith. We may therefore well thinke that there was little discretion riueted to M. Bishops head, that would tell vs that the name so taken is so fast ioyned and riueted with Christian profession and religion, as that it cannot be separated from it; for if it were not so riueted then, how commeth it to passe that it is so now? The originall thereof was as we may well coniecture, by occasion of the heresie of the Dona­tists, who challenged the name of the Church to a part in A­frica or elsewhere, which were followers of Donatus, against whom they that defended the Church Catholike, were there­of in processe of time termed by the name of Catholikes. The [Page 107] first vse then of the name of Catholikes, stood in opposition betwixt Catholikes and Donatists, albeit custome soone transported it to make a generall opposition betwixt Catho­likes and Heretikes. Now the name thus arising accidental­ly and only by occasion, who doubteth but that without preiudice of Christian profession it may by occasion be let fall againe? And what greater occasion can there be then the Popish abuse thereof, who make a Catholike to import the same in effect now, that a Donatist did then? For with them a Catholike is no otherwise taken but for a Roman Catholike; and because the whole Church is not Roman but a part only, what is this Roman Catholike, but one who vnder the false name of a Catholike diuideth himselfe from the whole Church, as the Donatists did, to cleaue to a part thereof? What is the name of a Catholike then with them but a Do­natisticall name, schismaticall and factious, and therefore wicked and hatefull, and in their sense wholly to be abando­ned out of the Church of God? Hereby it may appeare how idlely M. Bishop saith, that the Apostles did ascribe and appro­priate the name Catholike to true Christianity; for although they taught vs to beleeue the Church to be Catholike, that is, vniuersally extended through the world; yet did they ne­uer teach, neither was it for a long time after them accusto­med, that true Christians were called by the name of Catho­likes, and therefore without wrong to any thing which the Apostles taught, we may rightly say that the name according to the Popish abuse thereof, is become the proper badge and marke of Apostataes and Heretikes. And therefore although if we had beene in the time of Austin, we would with him August. in Ioan. tract. 32. Catholico nomi­ne & fide gau­demus. haue reioyced in the Catholike name and faith, yet now we cannot with the Papists reioyce in the name of Catholikes, and without any blasphemy we reiect it; because vnder that name they haue diuided themselues from the Catholike Church, and haue destroyed the true Catholike faith. Who though they be no other but proud and false fellowes, as M. Bishop speaketh, and meere vsurping companions, and their in­solent [Page 108] and audacious folly haue beene both rebuked and conuic­ted, yet doe still impudently and infinitely persist in their ab­surd claime, and doe leaue vs no way but only to desist from the communion of the name, which we cannot free from that abuse. Now whereas I say further, that Rom. 2. 28. the Apostle denyeth the name of Iewes to them, who yet according to the letter were so called, because of the circumcision of the flesh, and applyeth the truth of the name to them, who were so according to the spirit, albeit according to the letter they were not so named; M. Bishop very discreetly answereth, that the name Iew being taken in the Apostles sense for one of what nation soeuer that fulfilleth the iustice of the law, neuer was nor shall be a name of reproch. But what is this, I pray to that, that I say? Doe my words import that the name of a Iew in that sense is or hath beene a name of reproch? When I say, that the Apostle applyeth the truth of the name to the faithfull, would he conceiue me that the Apostle applyeth to them a name of reproch? My words plainly signifie that the name in vulgar and literall constructi­on applyed to them, who by propagation of nature are the seede of Abraham, is become a name of reproch and shame; but that as it hath implication of spirituall circumcision and conformity with Abraham, it is a name of honour, though they to whom it appertayneth be not according to the letter, and in common speech called by that name. Let him then vnderstand proportionably that the truth of the name of Ca­tholikes, belongeth not to the Romish faction, who chal­lenge to themselues as the Iewes did, to haue gotten by succession the possession of the name, and will be common­ly so called; but it belongeth to vs, who though we vse not the word being growen to ill meaning by their abuse, yet do maintayne one and the same truth with them, who first were called by that name. In a word as there is a double sense in the one, so is there also in the other, and I doe not so hoppe from one sense to another in the one, but that I shew a iust [...]orrespondence betwixt them both.

R. ABBOT.

IT pleaseth vs very well, M. Bishop, that we haue the kernell of the name of Catholikes, and in the meane time because your importunity so requireth, we are content to leaue the shell to you. The kernell serueth vs to feede vpon, and it is very tastfull to vs; but you haue berayed the shell, and there­fore we haue no care to meddle with it. Our inueighing a­gainst it is no otherwise but in respect of your abuse; let it be restored to his true vse, and we shall be ready to extoll it, and where it is so, we doe so. As for your wager, M. Bishop, of twenty pound to a peny, you haue lost it, and you know that you haue lost it, because you see that I haue set no other face vpon the matter then by sufficient proofs I haue made good. But here he taketh in hand to bereaue vs of the kernell, be­cause our faith and religion was neuer Catholike, that is, was neuer spred ouer the whole world. Whereas I on the other side doe tell him, that it is only our religion which ap­peareth to haue beene absolutely spred ouer all the word▪ [Page 111] and none but ours. For our religion is no more nor other then is contained in the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles, and because we know that the religion there set downe was spred ouer all the world, therefore we cannot doubt but that our religion is that, that was spred ouer all the world, and though Apostasie hath ouershadowed it, yet hath euer since continued in the world. As for that which he alleageth to the contrary, it is no vniforme confession of ours, but a de­formed lye of his owne. We doe not acknowledge that for nine hundred yeares togither there was not a man of our religion to be found in the world. The Papacy indeede did mightily do­mineer accordingly as it was foretold, but yet it could neuer so preuaile to the extirpation of our religion, but that euen in the middest of the Papacy it hath continued still; yea thou­sands and hundred thousands, as by their owne stories ap­peareth, haue beene murthered and slaine for the profession thereof. Yea in the very religion of Popery our religion hath continued; for what is Popery, but a doctrine compounded of our religion, and their owne deuice? Our religion hath serued them for a foundation, whereupon to build, not only their wood, and hay, and stubble, but also the wild-fire and poison of their idolatries and damnable heresies, which with­out the pretence and colour of our religion, Christian eares would haue detested and abhorred, but therefore dreaded them not, because they saw them cloaked with shew of still retaining that which we professe. They durst not deny those Canonicall bookes of the old and new Testament, which our religion receiueth, but to serue their turne they added other bookes not inspired of God, to be notwithstanding of like authority with those. They acknowledged the Lords praier, the articles of the Creede, the ten Commandements, which we receiue as principles of our religion, but they frustrated them by a superstitious custome brought in of reciting them like a charme in an vnknowen tongue. They haue neuer de­nyed the two Sacraments which we teach, which were fast rooted in Christian profession; but they haue added to them [Page 112] other fiue, and made them vp seuen. They vsed no other sub­stantiall forme of Baptisme then we doe; only they propha­ned it with sundry polluted and corrupt ceremonies of hu­mane deuice. In their Masse and Sacrament of the Altar, the ground of all is that that we doe according to the institution of Christ, and example of the primitiue Church. They bring bread and wine to the Lords table, they sanctifie or conse­crate the same with the words of Christ; when and where they list they administer the same to the people, and all this they take vpon them to doe in remembrance of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord Iesus. This is our reli­gion, and herein their example iustifieth vs; but their doc­trines of transubstantiation, and reall presence, and conco­mitancy, and sacrifice propitiatory for quicke and dead, with the rest of that kinde, are additions of theirs, whereof the in­stitution of Christ which togither with vs they recite, maketh no shew at all. If they should haue disclaimed redemption and remission of sinnes, by the bloud-shed and death of Christ, Christian people would haue defied them; therefore they left the name thereof in the Church, which is our reli­gion, but they defeated the power of it by bri [...]ging in a thousand other deuices, wherby men should redeeme them­selues, and purchase the remission of their owne sinnes. It is our religion to acknowledge Christ to be the Mediator be­twixt God and Man, and this they would neuer disauow; but to Christ they haue ioyned the Saints also to be our Me­diators. It is our religion to teach that God is to be wor­shipped, and all spirituall deuotion is to be done vnto him, and this they cannot deny: but they haue added hereto the worshipping of Saints and Saints Images, and thereby haue defiled the worship of the immortall God. They deny not grace which our religion teacheth, but they put to it the power of nature and free will. They dare not but confesse Christ to be the head of the Church, which our religion teacheth; but they haue added the Pope to be another head, and so haue made the Church a Monster with two heads. [Page 113] Thus in euery point of doctrine take away those patcheries and additions of theirs, which are things not taught vs by the word of God, and euen in their religion that which re­maineth is our religion, the very truth of the Gospell of Ie­sus Christ. For these and such other propositions of true faith the Diuell could neuer abolish out of the Church; only by Antichrist he suppressed the knowledge and vse of them, and to this wholsome wine put such abundance of his cor­rupt and poisoned waters, as might frustrate the power and effect thereof. Wherein notwithstanding he could not so farre preuaile, but that the light here and there brake forth by such chinks and lattises as were remaining, which many of our forefathers in the time of that Aegyptian darkenesse, did discerne and see to their euerlasting comfort and soules health. Yea M. Bishop knoweth well that there were in those times both Pastors and Flocks, not in one only Coun­trey, but in many, who detested those blendings and mix­tures of theirs, and kept themselues either wholly or for the most part to the entire truth of our religion, the light where­of euen then shined vnto them out of the very darkenesse of the Church. Which notwithstanding we wonder not that he pretendeth not to know, who will seeme not to know that our religion hath spred it selfe into Italie and Spaine, when as all the world knoweth that the Inquisition hath shed the bloud of many thousands there only for the profes­sion of our religion. Yea the principles of our religion are so residing, will they, nill they, in the very bowels of Pope­ry, as that they are forced to vse many sinister courses to drowne and stifle them, and to keepe the people from taking knowledge thereof, because they see that if there be but winde to blow away the ashes, our fire will straightwaies burne amongst them, and the flame presently ascend to the consuming of their roofe; they see that if men be but stirred a [...] awaked out of their sleepe, they will be forthwith ready out of the very common instinct of Christianity to beeleeue as we doe. In Greece, in Africa, in Asia, wheresoeuer the [Page 114] Gospell is, there is no other but our Gospell, because there is no Gospell but that which the Euangelists and Apostles haue recorded in the writings of the Gospell, neither is Christ any where knowen, but where he is knowen by that Gospell. Therein hath our Gospell beene spred ouer the whole world; therein we communicate with the Church of the whole world; wheresoeuer this Gospell is free, there our religion is not bound; but thereby euen amidst errour and apostasie, ^b wisedome is iustified of her children, and God Mat. 11. 19. according to the purpose of his grace giueth light vnto euer­lasting life. As for the Indians, lamentable experience haue they had of the Popish Gospell. Neuer any Apostle or E­uangelist carryed their religion abroade as the Papists haue done thither: and they haue cause to wish that the Roman Church had neuer beene so Catholike as to extend to them. Vpon some few of the remainder of them they haue forced baptisme & some of their ceremonies, but they haue taught them nothing of religion, nothing of the Gospell of Iesus Christ. How otherwise their religion hath beene spred ouer the whole world, enough hath beene said already: in briefe I say here that they can alleage no age nor time wherein they can make good that it hath so beene. We know they can talke at will, but farre are they from proofe that their doctrines of the Popes Supremacy, his Pardons and Iubi­lees, of Purgatory, of Transubstantiation, of their priuate Masse and halfe Communion, with a number of such other, were euer or at any time recei­ued throughout the whole world.

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, [Page 117] S ^t. Austin diuiding mankinde into 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 ( Heb. 12. 22. the heauenly Ierusalem, 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 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 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 Gregor. in E­uang. hom. 19. Habet vineam, vniuersalem sci­licet Ecclesiam, quae ab Abel [...]u­sto vsque ad vl­timum electum qui in fine mun­di nasciturus est quot sanctos pre­tulit, quasi tot palmit [...]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 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 Catechism. Roman. part 1. cap. 10. sect. 16. Praeterea omnes fideles qui ab Adam in hunc vsque diem suerant qui [...]e futuri sunt quamdiu mundus durabit, veram fi­ [...]em profitentes ad eandem Eccl [...]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 Ephes. 4. 4. one faith, whereby we are all partakers of that spirit, both which the Apostle ioyneth togither when of [Page 118] the faithfull both of the old and new Testament, he saith, that they haue 2. Cor. 4. 13. the same spirit of faith. Of this one spirit Gre­gory saith, that Greg. in psal. 5. Poenitent. Sicut est vna a­nima quae diuer­sa corporis mem­bra viuisicat; ita totam simul Ec­clesiā 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 Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 16 [...]adé sides [...]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 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 Idē de Pass. Dom. serm. 14. Vna fides iustificat vniuersorū temporū sanctos. one faith, saith he, iustifieth the Saints of all times. 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. 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.

R. ABBOT.

I Was neither deceiued my selfe, M. Bishop, neither did I goe about to deceiue others, the case being so plaine as that a man of vnderstanding cannot easily be deceiued there­in. [Page 121] If the Catholike Church be but one from the beginning to the end, and of this Church from the beginning to the end there be but one faith, as hath beene shewed, who is so blind as that he seeth not that the Catholike faith now must be the same with the faith of all the Patriarchs and Fathers since the world beganne? It was not Catholike then, because it was peculiar only to some few whom God enlightened, or to one only nation which he specially selected, but it was the very same which afterwards became Catholike by being preached and spred ouer the whole world. Now then most cleare it is that if our faith be the same with the faith of Abel, of Enoch, of Abraham, and the rest of those times, then our faith is the Catholike faith, euen the faith which the Apostles preached through the world; and if the faith of Popery be not the same, then is Popery falsly termed the Catholike faith. M. Bishop blameth me for recoiling to the beginning of the world, and telleth me what it is that I should haue pro­ued, when by recoiling, if I must so call it, to the beginning of the world, I proue that which he requireth, howsoeuer he vnder pretence of calling for proofe would make his Rea­der beleeue that he seeth no proofe. But he well enough seeth the worke too hard for Hercules, as he calleth it, by this proofe very readily dispatched; for if there be but one faith of the Church from the beginning to the end, and our faith be that which was in the beginning, then is our faith that which was spred ouer the world, and shall continue to the end. As though, saith he, they had reuealed vnto them all those particular points of faith which Christ taught his Apostles, and the same religion and manner of worshipping God that wee Christians haue. I answere him, that all particular points of faith were reuealed vnto them, but not all circumstances of all particular points, nor so clearly as to vs; and the same re­ligion and manner of worshipping God in substance was de­liuered vnto them, though in outward rites and ceremonies we differ from them. Christ was Apoc. 13. 8. the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world. Aug. Epist. [...]. Christū Deū in carne ventu­rum, moriturū, resurrecturum, in coelum ascensurū &c. in (que) illo re­missionem pecca­torum, salutem (que) aeternam creden­tibus futuram esse, omnia gentis illius promissa, omnes prophetiae, Sacerdotia, Sa­crisicia, templ [...] & cunc [...]a omni­nò Sacramenta sonuerunt. All the promises of that time, saith [Page 122] S ^t. Austin, all the Prophecies, the Priest-hood, the Sacrifices, the Temple, and all the Sacraments did tell them that Christ should come God in the flesh, that he should die, that he should rise againe, and ascend into heauen, and that all that beleeue should haue remission of sinnes in him. These are particular points of faith, and these they beleeued, albeit the manner and circumstances of the Birth, the Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, were not reueiled vnto them as they are in the Gospell liuely described, and set forth to vs. For as in the first draught of the painter there is to be discer­ned the whole feature, proportion, and parts of the body which he hath in hand to paint, which remaine afterwards by filling and garnishing to bee brought to full and perfect forme; so the whole frame of Christian faith was in the be­ginning made knowen to the Patriarchs and Fathers of the first world, though the same remained more and more clear­ly to be reueiled vntill by the comming of Christ it should re­ceiue full and perfect light. It skilleth not therefore which he saith, that those ancient Patriarchs did not so distinctly dis­couer the mysteries of Christian faith as the Apostles did; they did discouer them, though not so distinctly; they saw them, though it were as it were Hebr. 11. 13. a farre off. Euen as we see those things that are taught vs concerning the end of the world, the resurrection of the dead, the day of iudgement, and the life to come, which yet distinctly we doe not see, so did they see those things, which since by the effecting of them in Christ are become distinct and plaine to vs. Therefore S ^t. Austin saith; August. de nat. & grat. c. 44. Ea sides iu­stos sanauit anti­quos quae sanat & nos, id est, me­diatoris Dei & [...]emi [...]um homi­nis Jes [...] Christi, fides sanguinis e­ius, sides crucis eius, sides mortis & resurrectionis [...]. The same faith saued the iust of old, that saueth vs, the faith of the Mediator betwixt God and Man, euen the man Iesus Christ, the faith of his bloud, the faith of his crosse, the faith of his death and resurrection; hereby signifying that they beleeued all these points of faith as well as we, though being things to come they were not as yet so cleare and ma­nifest vnto them. As for the Scriptures which he alleageth, because they make nothing against this, therefore they make nothing against vs. He bringeth the Apostle, saying, that [Page 123] Ephes. 3. 5. the mysterie of Christ in other generations was not knowen vn­to the sonnes of men, as now it is reueiled vnto his holy Apostles and Prophets. Be it so; it was knowen then, but it was not so knowen, as it was reueiled and made knowen to his Apo­stles. Let him take this from Thomas Aquinas, so expoun­ding the words: Tho. Aquin. in Ephes. cap. 3. lect. 1. [...]et mysteria Christi Prophetis & Pa­triarchis fuerint. reuelata, non ta­men it a clarè si­cut Apostolis. Nam Prophetis & Apostolis fue­runt reuelata in quadam genera­litate, sed Apo­stolis manifesta­ta sunt quantum ad singulares & determinatas circumstantias. Though the mysteries of Christ were reuei­led to the Patriarchs and Prophets, yet not so clearly as to the Apostles; for to the Prophets and Patriarchs they were reuei­led in a kinde of generality, but tot he Apostles they were mani­fested, as touching particular and definite circumstances. And hereby the answere is ready to the words of our Sauiour Christ, Mat. 13. 17. Many Prophets and iust men haue desired to see the things which yee see and haue not seene them, and to heare those things which yee heare and haue not heard them. For Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 37. Omnes su­periorum tempo­rum iusti & Pro­phetae cupicbant videre copl [...]tum quod reuelante spiritu futurum esse cernebant, vnde & ipse Do­minus ait, Quo­niam multi iusti, &c. they desired clearly and perfectly to see those things which they beleeued, and with their eyes to behold the promised Saui­our, in whom all their hope and ioy was fixed, and to heare the gracious words that should issue from his mouth, which notwithstanding they obtayned not. Iohn 8. 56. Your father Abraham saith our Sauiour elsewhere, desired to see my day, and he saw it and reioyced. He saw it, and yet still desired to see it, because as yet he saw it not as he did desire to see. He desired to see with his eies Christ come in the flesh, but so he saw him not; yet by faith he so foresaw his comming, as that it was great ioy and gladnesse to him. Three other Texts he quoteth, not to proue his purpose, but only to let vs see that he is able for a neede to cite the Scripture. Two of those he appropria­teth to the Apostles, which appertaine to all the faithfull. To shew that the Apostles were taught by Christs owne mouth, he alleageth the wordes of Christ, citing a sentence of Esay the Prophet; Iohn 6. 45. It is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God, whereas it is plaine that the words are spo­ken not of being outwardly taught by the mouth of Christ, but of being inwardly taught by Mat. 16. 17. the reuelation of the Father; nor contayne any thing peculiar to the Apostles, but com­mon to all the Elect, as both by the course of Christs speech [Page 124] appeareth, and by the words themselues, as they are set downe by the Prophet, Esa. 54. 13. All thy children shall be taught of the Lord. So to the Apostles also he referreth the words of S ^t. Paul, of Rom. 8. 23. hauing receiued the first fruits of the spirit, where­as to be partaker of the first fruits of the spirit, is the condition of euery regenerate man, in which manner S ^t. Austin gene­rally applyeth it; August. de Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. l. 2. c. 7. Nunc ei simi­les esse iam coe­p [...]mus primitias habentes spiri­tus. Wee haue now begunne to bee like him by hauing the first fruits of the spirit, and not only in the new but in the old Testament also, because of vs both the Apostle witnesseth, as we haue heard before, that 2. Cor. 4. 13. * John 15. 15. we haue the same spirit of faith. In the third place Christ saith to his Apostles, [...] I haue called you friends, for all things that I haue heard of my Father, haue I made knowen to you. But what will M. Bishop conclude hereof? Will he argue that because Christ taught his Apostles all points of faith more plainly and clearely, therefore the ancient Patriarchs knew not all points of faith? Nay, we will argue to the contrary, that sith Christ maketh knowen to his friends all his fathers secrets, as M. Bishop speaketh, therefore God made knowen all those secrets to Abraham, because Abraham was Esa 41. 8. Iames 2. 23. called the friend of God, and such a friend as that he saith of him: Genes. 18, 17. Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I will doe? And seeing Abraham is called Rom. 4 11. 12. the Father of all that beleeue, as in the steps of whose faith we are to walke, how can we doubt but that God reuei­led vnto him all that faith which concerneth vs vnto eternall life? In a word, S ^t. Austin saith againe of all those fathers and of vs, Aug. cont. 2. Epist. Pelag. l. 3. c. 4. Eadem sides & in illis qui nondum no­mine sed reipsa fucrunt Christia­ni, & in illis qui non solum sunt sed & [...] ­cantur, & in v­tris (que) eadem gra­tia per Sp. San­ [...]um. There is the same faith both in them who before-time not yet in name, but indeede were Christians, and in them who not only are, but also are called so, and in both the same grace by the holy Ghost. From which words it may be obserued, what will become of those two absurdities which M. Bishop hath taken vpon him to obserue in me. For first, if those old Fa­thers were indeede Christians, and therefore members of the Catholike Church, as well as we, what tergiuersation doe I vse, or how doe I leape backe from the point in question, when by affirming our communion with them, I affirme conse­quently [Page 125] our communion with the Catholike Church? For­sooth, the Church was not then Catholike. Bee it so, but it was then the same Church which was afterward to be­come Catholike, a part of the Catholike Church, and in com­ [...]nicating with a part of the Catholike Church, we com­municate with the whole, because of the whole there is but one and the same saith. Secondly, if they were Christians by the same faith, whereby we are so, what absurdity do I com­mit in saying, that they beleeued all the articles of faith that we beleeue; so clearly I doe not say, because they beleeued them not in those particular circumstances, which by the story of the Gospell are knowen to vs, but yet all the same, and as clearly as wee beleeue those points of faith, which are of those things that are yet to come? And if they did so, what hindereth but that we rightly conclude, that those branches of the Roman faith which were not then sprung vp, are only Romish additions, and not any parts of the true Catholike faith? Against this M. Bishop excepteth: But good Sir, did they beleeue that all their children were to be baptized? and that all persons of riper yeares among them were to receiue the holy Sacrament of Christs body? I haue answered him before, that as touching outward signes and Sacraments, there is diffe­rence betwixt them and vs, and I now answere him further, that as touching the power and effect of Sacraments, they were in their Sacraments spiritually baptized as well as we, and spiritually partakers of Christs body and bloud as well as we. For Leo in Na­tiu Christi. ser. 3. Verbi inca [...] ­natio haec contu­lit facienda quae facta, &c. Hoc magna pietatis Sacramentum quo totus iam mundus impletus est tam potens e­tiam in suis sig­nificationibus fuit vt non mi­nùs adepti sine qui in illud cre­didere promis­sum quàm qui suscepere dona­tum. the incarnation of Christ being yet to come, saith Leo, yeelded the same that it doth now being done, and the great mysterie of godlinesse whereof now the whole world is full, was so powerfull in the significations of it, as that they attamed no lesse, who beleeued therein being promised, then they did who haue receiued it, now giuen and performed. And againe, Idē de Pass. Dom. ser. 13. Sanguis vnius ius [...] quem nobis pater donauitqui [...]um pro reconci­liatione mundi credimus fusum, hoc contulit pa­tribus qui simili­tèr credidere fund [...]dum. The bloud of one iust one which the father hath giuen vnto vs, who beleeue the same to haue beene shed for the reconciliation of the world, yeelded the same benefit to the Fathers, who did beleeue that it should be shed. Therefore, we see that the Apostle as [Page 126] on the one side he saith of vs, that we are Col. 2. 11. circumcised, be­cause the effect of circumcision is with vs, so saith of them also that they were 1. Cor. 10. [...]. baptised, because the grace and effect of baptisme was with them. And thus Gregory saith, that Greg. Mor. l 4. c. 3. Quod a­pud nos valet a­qua bapt [...]matis, hoc e [...]t apud ve­teres vel pro paruulis sola fi­des, vel pro ma­ioribus virtus sacrificij, vel pro his q [...]i ex Abra­hae sti [...]pe prodie­rant mysterium circumcisionis. what the water of baptisme auaileth with vs, the same with [...] old Fathers did either faith only for infants, or for them of el [...] yeares the power of Sacrifice, or for them that came of the stocke of Abraham the Sacrament of circumcision. And thus of their Sacraments, whereto now answereth our Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, the Apostle saith, that therein 1 Cor. 10. 4. they did eate the same spirituall meate, and drinke the same spi­rituall drinke. For their Sacraments and ours August. in Ioan. tract. 26. Sacramenta illa fu [...]runt; in sig­nis diuersa sunt, sed in re quae sig­nificatur pari [...] sunt. in signes are diuers, faith S ^t. Austin, but in the thing signified they are both alike. They that did eate Manna aright, Idem de vtil. po [...]it. cap. 1. Quicunque in Manna Christū intellexerunt, [...]undem quem nos cibum spiri­tuilem mandu­cauerunt. did vnderstand Christ therein, and thereby did eate the same spirituall meate that we doe, euen the flesh of Christ, and they that did drinke of the Rocke aright, did therein also drinke of Christ, euen the bloud of Christ, for the Rocke was Christ, that is, Idē de Tēp. sor. 108. Petra illa typum habu­it corporis Christi &c. Quod vti (que) non ad d [...]uin [...]tatem [...] sed ad cara [...]m relatum est quae siticntium corda populorum perenni ri­u [...] sang [...]nis sui inundauit. was the type or figure of the body of Christ, saith Austin: againe, the same not being referred to his Deity, but to the flesh which watered the hearts of the thirsty people by the euer-flowing riuer of his bloud. Idem de vtilit. Poenit. cap. 1. Eundem [...]rgò cibum, eundem p [...]tum, sed intelligentibus & credentibus. Non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna, illa sola aqua; ille cibus esurienti; potus iste sitienti: nec ille net iste credenti; credenti autem [...]dem qui [...]c. There was, saith he, the same meat and the same drinke to them that had vnderstanding and faith; but to them that vnderstood not, the one was only Manna, the other was on­ly Water; the one foode for the hungry, the other drinke for the thirsty, neither the one nor the other meate or drinke for the be­leeuer, but he that beleeued had the same that we haue now. And if they had so; if by Manna they did eate the body of Christ, and by the Water of the Rocke they did drinke the bloud of Christ, what hindereth then but that wee may say that though not by outward signe, yet as touching inward [Page 127] grace and effect, they were partakers of the Lords Supper? Whereas he further asketh, Can M. Abbot demonstrate that they had perfect faith of the Trinity, beleeuing distinctly in three persons and one God? I answere him that it may bee to him in [...]ade of a demonstration that they did so, because sundry Heathen Philosophers, as Cyril. cont. lulian. lib. 1. Ex Hermete, Or­p [...], Porphyrio, &c. Ʋide Phil. Morn. Plessi de verit. Christ. relig. cap. 6. Cyril at large sheweth, were not ignorant of this secret of the diuine nature, who had no o­therwise knowledge thereof but by some kinde of Tradition from the Fathers, who had beene so instructed from God himselfe. For can we thinke that it could be knowen to Phi­losophers and Pagans, and that it was vnknowen to the Pa­triarchs and godly Fathers? Nay, it is a certaine demonstra­tion that they had this knowledge of the God-head, because out of those Scriptures wherein their knowledge and faith is set forth vnto vs, wee haue testimony and proofe thereof; though not so formall and cleare as in some few places of the new Testament is expressed, yet such as from whence this point of faith is most certainly and vndoubtedly to be con­ceiued. For when we finde on the one side, Deut. 6. 4. The Lord our God is one Lord, and on the other side doe reade, Psal. 2. 7. The Lord hath said vnto me, Thou art my sonne, this day haue I begotten thee; and againe, Psal. 110. 1. The Lord said vnto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, &c. and againe, Esa 48. 16. The Lord and his spirit hath sent me; Esa. 61. 1. The spirit of the Lord God is vpon me, with infinite other places to like effect, how can we doubt but that in vni­ty of the God-head they saw distinctly three persons▪ the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost? And thus Gregory resolueth, that Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 16. Si [...]e hi qui elects in testamēto ve­teri fuerunt, siue hi qui in nouo te­stamento secuti sunt, [...]imirum constat quia om­nes ex amore Trinitatis accen­si sunt, &c. Ad veram speciem ex Trinitatis sunt cognitione decorats. whether the elect in the old Testament, or they that followed in the new they were all enkindled with the loue, and adorned to true beauty with the knowledge of the holy Trinity. As touching the last point which he mentioneth of Christ in vnity of person being both God and Man, I answer him by S ^t. Austin, that they did so beleeue; for Aug. Epist. 157. Cuius ho­minis eiusdem (que) Dei saluberrima fide [...]tiam illi iu­sti salui facti sunt qui priusquam in carne vemret crediderunt il­l [...]m in carne centurum. by the most wholsome beleefe, saith he, of Christ both God and Man, euen those iust were saued who beleeued that hee should come in the flesh before that hee did come. And in another place hee saith [Page 128] yet more expresly concerning Abraham, Idem cont. Pelag. & Ce­lest lib. 2. c. 27. Nunquid & il lud quod iubet Abraham pone­re mark seruum suum sub semo­re suo & iurare per Deum coeli, alitèr quisquam rectè intellectu­rus est nisi A­braham scisse in qua v [...]ntu [...]us es­set Deus coeli, carnem de illo semore propa­gari? When Abraham bid his seruant put his hand vnder his thigh, and sweare by the God of heauen, can any man otherwise vnderstand it aright, but that Abraham knew that from that thigh should be deriued that flesh, wherein the God of heauen should come. If Abrah [...] knew that the God of heauen should come in flesh, taken of his flesh, hee could not bee ignorant, I trow, that when hee should bee come, hee should bee in the flesh both God and Man. To be short, the same S ^t. Austin presently after saith, Ibid. cap. 28. Nondum factum sed adhuc futu­rum eadem ta­men ipsa & pa­trum quae nostra est sides vna cā ­tabal, Tues Sacerdos in ater­num, &c. The faith of the Fathers all one with our faith did sing that which then was not done, but was as yet to come, Thou art a Priest f [...]r euer after the order of Melchisedec. Where we can­not doubt but their faith obserued as ours doth, from the be­ginning of the Psalme, that it was Dauids Lord to whom this was said, and therefore that he was very God; and be­cause he could not be a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, except he were man, therefore that he was truly man, and because God notwithstanding speaketh vnto him as only one, therefore that in vnity of person he should be both God and man. For conclusion M. Bishop granteth that they belee­ued some few points of faith in particular, and had a certaine confuse and darke conceipt by figures and types of most of the rest; but inasmuch as he instanceth against me the most high mysteries of our Christian faith, and yet it appeareth that they had the beleefe and knowledge thereof, we doe not doubt but that they had likewise knowledge, though not so easily as we, but with more labour attained vnto, yet they had knowledge not only of the most, but also of all the rest.

R. ABBOT.

I Gaue instance in mine answere of sundry points of faith and religion, which I affirmed to bee vnknowen to the first Fathers; which notwithstanding are such as they could not haue beene ignorant of, if they were matters of so great moment in religion, as they are pretended now. I named the worshipping of Idols and Images, Inuocation of Saints and Angels, Merits and supererogations, Monkish vowes, Popish pardons, and prayers for soules in Purgatory, Pilgrimages to Re­likes and dead mens bones, auricular Confession and shrift, in which and sundry other such like deuices, the very substance of Catholike religion is now with the Papists imagined to consist. Now M. Bishop affirmeth to the contrary, that they held the most of these; the most, he saith, not all; thereby im­porting concerning some of them, at least that they were vn­knowen to them. And yet as though hee wist not what hee had said, he taketh in hand to touch euery one of my instances, and to giue some proofe of euery one of them, referring the Reader for more full satisfaction, to the proper places of the head controuersies, whereas he knoweth well that in the answere to those controuersies is already taken away almost all that he hath here said. As first, his exception against the name of Idoll, Of Images, sect. 5. I haue shewed to be wholly vaine, and haue made it plaine out of Tertullian and others, that euery Image con­secrated to be worshipped, is properly an Idoll. Againe, his allegations of Images in the Tabernacle, and in the Temple of Salomon, and of the wordes which he bringeth out of the Psalme, Ibid. Sect. 8. 16. Adore yee his foote-stoole, haue beene also declared to be to his purpose false, impertinent, and vaine. But yet to giue a touch for a touch, note here also briefly the folly of them. I say that the old Fathers worshipped no Images; and he to proue the contrary alleageth that in the Taberna­cle and Temple they had Images. What is the one of these to the other? Be it that they had them, but doth it thereof [Page 134] follow that they worshipped them? Doth he not know that some of our men doe defend the hauing of Images in Chur­ches, and yet doe hold it grosse idolatry to worship Images? It is written in the Psalme, Adore yee his foote-stoole, but what is that to Images? Doth it any where appeare that I­mages are Gods foote-stoole; or that there were in the Ta­bernacle or Temple any Images that went vnder that name? He citeth two places for Images there, which both mention the Cherubins, Ioseph. An­tiquit. l. 8. c. 2. Hae Cherubicae [...]ffigies quanam specie fuerint n [...]mo [...]el conij­cere potest vel cloqui. the shape and fashion whereof, Iosephus saith, no man can coniecture or tell; but can he shew vs that they had the Images of Abel, of Enoch, of Abraham, Isaac, Ia­cob, and such other holy men? Did they set vp any such in the Temple or Tabernacle, and fall downe to worship them? If they did, let him make it appeare to vs. If they did not, why doth he trisle and dally in this sort? why doth he abuse the vnwarinesse of simple and ignorant men, thus hauing one thing in hand to proue, to bring testimony of another? As for Inuocation of Angels, how farre the Patriarchs and Fathers were from it, may appeare by Origen, who when Celsus the Pagan obiected to the Iewes that they did worship Angels, saith, that Origen. cōt. Cels. lib. 1. Vbinam inuenit in Mosaicis lite­ris à legislatore tradi cultum Angelorum? it is no where found in the writings of Moses, that the Law-giuer did deliuer the worshipping of them; and saith againe, that Ibid. lib. 5. Coelestes Angelos nemo adorat qui se legi Mosis sub­didit. no man worshippeth Angels that yeel­deth himselfe subiect to Moses law. M. Bishop notwithstan­ding out of the law of Moses bringeth proofe, as he would make vs beleeue, of the practise thereof by the Patriarch Ia­cob, who saith concerning the two sonnes of Ioseph, as M. Bishop setteth downe his words, God, &c. and the Angell that hath deliuered mee from all euill, blesse these children. Where it is to be obserued how for the seruing of his turne he doth by putting in, and, very wickedly corrupt and forge the text. For it is not said as he citeth, God and the Angell blesse them, as if there were a diuiding of the Angell from God, but thus the words are, Genes. 48. 15. The God before whom my Fa­thers Abraham and Isaac did walke, the God which hath fedde me all my life long vntill this day, the Angell which hath deliue­red [Page 135] me from all euill, blesse these children, so as that the God, the God, the Angell, are by apposition to be applyed all to one, as if he had said; The God who hath fed me who is the Angell; or euen the Angell which hath deliuered me from all euill. For M. Bishop should not be ignorant of that which Hierome saith, that Hieron. in Agg. cap. 1. In multis locis Do­minus noster at­que Saluator Angelus Dei di­citur. in many places our Lord and Sauiour is called the Angell of God. Which Tertullian declaring at large, and defining it as a thing Tertul. de Trinit. Personae Christi conuenit vt & Deus sit quia Dei filius est & Angelus sit, quoniam pater­nae dispositionis adnunciator est. agreeing properly to the per­son of Christ, both to be God, because he is the sonne of God, and to be an Angell, because he is the messenger for declaring his Fathers will: and giuing sundry examples hereof, commeth at length to the words which M. Bishop citeth, saying, Ibid. Etiam post haec aequè nō cessat eade Scri­ptura diuina An­gelum Deum di­cere, Deum An­gelum pronunci­are. Nam cùm Manassem atque Ephram filios Joseph benedic­turus esset hic ip­se Iacob trans­uersis super capi­ta puerorū ma­nibus collocatis, Deus, inquit, qu [...] pascit me, &c. Angelùs qui li­berauit me, &c. And yet further the holy Scripture ceaseth not to call God an Angell, and to pronounce the Angell to be God; for when Iacob was to blesse Manasses and Ephraim the two sonnes of Ioseph, laying his hands a-crosse vpon their heads, he saith; God who siedeth me from my youth vp to this day, the Angell who hath deliuered me from all euill, he blesse these children. Now then it is no created Angell that is here spoken of, but it is God that is called the Angell, euen the second person in Trinity the Sonne of God. And that it is no otherwise to be vnderstood, Tertullian euicteth out of the very words; Ibid. Vsque­ad [...]ò eunde An­gelum ponit quem Deum dixerat vt singularitèr in exitu sermonis sui posuerit personam de qua lo­quebatur, dic [...]ndo, benedicat pueros hos. Si enim alterum Angelum voluisset intell [...]gi, plurali numero duas personas complexus fuisset, &c. So certaine is it that he calleth him the Angell whom he had called God, as that in the issue of his speech he setteth downe in the singular number, the person of whom he speaketh, saying, Benedicat, hee blesse these children; for if he would haue had the Angell to be vn­derstood another then God, he would in the plurall number haue comprised two persons (benedicant; they blesse these children.) And thus Chrysostome reciteth the words as all of one; Chrysost. in Genes. hom. 66. Ille, in­quit, cui patres mei benè placuerunt, qui me à inuentute mea vsque in praesentem di [...]m educa­uit, qui me ab initio ab omnibus malis liberauit, qui tantam erga me declarauit prouidentiam, ipse benedicat hos pueros. He whom my Fathers serued, who hath brought me vp from my youth vntill this present day, who from the beginning hath deli­uered▪ [Page 136] me from all euill, who hath declared towards me so great prouidence, euen he blesse these children. M. Bishop therefore is yet to seeke for inuocation of Angels amongst the Fathers, because the Angell here spoken of, is no other but the same God whom Iacob doth there innocate and call vpon. And if inuocation of Angels faile, then faileth his argument, whereby from them he would proue inuocation of Saints, because Saints forsooth are said in the Gospell Luke 20. 36. to be equall to Angels. How vnhandsomly he vseth that text, I stand not here to declare, because it is nothing pertinent to the point in hand. But to proue it better then only by such collection, he telleth vs of Iob that he was counsailed Job 5. 1. to pray and call for aide to some of the Saints; Turne thee to any or some of the Saints. They are the words of Eliphaz to Iob, depending vpon a discourse in the former Chapter, wherin Eliphaz had intimated it to him, that it appeared by this calamity of his, that there had beene hypocrisie and iniquity in his former life, without which God is not wont to lay his hand so hea­uily vpon any. Job 4. 7. Remember I pray thee, saith he, who euer pe­rished being an innocent, or where were the vpright destroyed? This hee amplifieth and prosecuteth vnto the end of that Chapter, and then saith to the same effect againe, Call now if any will answere thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turne? thereby willing him to aske and enquire whether there were any that could tell that euer any of the Saints, a­ny iust and vpright man had tasted of that misery, that was now lying vpon him? To the same purpose Bildad also af­terwards saith: Cap. 8. 8. Enquire I pray thee of the former age, and pre­pare thy selfe to search of their Fathers; shall not they teach thee and tell thee, and vtter the words of their heart? &c. Behold God will not cast away an vpright man. This being manifestly the drift and purpose of these wordes, and nothing appearing whereby to draw them to inuocation of Saints, wee must thinke M. Bishop to be very destitute of proofe, that would apply them to that end, neither can they serue thereto, be­cause of all the Saints departed, we must conceiue the same [Page 137] then, that expresly we reade of some; Esa. 63. 16. Abraham is igno­rant of vs, and Israel knoweth vs not. The words are some­what otherwise expounded by Gregory B [...]shop of Rome, but yet so as that for inuocation of Saints he findeth nothing in them. He referreth the first part to God, the other part to liuing Saints, such as Dauid speaketh of; Psal. 16. 3. My delight is vpon the Saints that are in the earth: as if Eliphaz had told Iob that he neglected their company in his prosperity, and therefore that now in his affliction they yeelded no helpe or comfort to him. Greg. Moral. l. 5. cap 31. Ac si apertè dicat, Qua [...] tumlibet afflictus clames, Deum tibi re­spondentem non habes quia vox cum in tribula­tione non inuenit quem mens in tranquillitate contempsit. Vbi adhuc deriden [...]o subiungit, Et ad aliquem Sancto­rum conuertere; acsi despiciens dicat, Sanctos quoque inuenire in afflictione ad­iutores nō vales, quos habere so­cios in [...]ilarita [...]e roluisti. He saith, Call if there be any to answere thee, as if he plainly said, Howsoeuer in thy affliction thou crie, yet thou findest not God to answere thee, because the prayer fin­deth not him in trouble, whom the minde in tranquillity hath despised. Where yet further in derision hee addeth, saith he; And turne thee to any of the Saints; as if by way of despight he said, Thou canst not finde the Saints thy helpers in affliction, whom thou wouldest not haue for thy companions in thy mirth and welfare. In a word, we finde not in the words that Iob was counsailed to pray to Saints, neither doe we finde it any where else that Iob followed any such counsell, neither is there any example of any other of those Fathers that they did so, and therefore neither in this can M. Bishop finde their re­ligion in the Fathers. The next matter is concerning Merit and Free-will, for which he bringeth two texts which are already wrested from him, being by himselfe Of Free-will Sect. 10. 11. before allea­ged, and by me fully answered. But yet obserue briesly how well they make for that for which he alleageth them. If thou doe well, saith God to Cain, shalt thou not receiue? His argu­ment hence must be this: He that doth well, shall receiue; therefore he meriteth that which he shall receiue. It follow­eth not, because that which he receiueth is of the bountiful­nesse of the giuer, not of the merit or desert of workes, as through the whole question of merits I haue declared at large. Such is his other argument from those wordes of Moses; Deut. 30. 19. I haue set before you life and death; choose life that thou maiest liue, by louing the Lord thy God, &c. For God [Page 138] thus setting life before vs, doth not tell vs what we by right deserue, but what it is his pleasure to giue to those that loue and obey him. We choose life by louing the Lord our God, and obeying him, and cleauing vnto him; but in all this wee doe but our duty, and cannot presume to merit any thing thereby. No better successe hath he for Free-will, albeit in that manner as he propoundeth it, we deny it not, for wee grant that man hath by Gods grace free-will to doe good works; we deny only that free-will which they hold as a power of nature, and not the effect of the grace of God, whereby man himselfe doth something for himselfe beside that which God doth. We doe well; who denyeth it? but it is only of the grace of God that we doe well. We choose life, it is true; but it is of the gift of God that we choose life; August. de Praedest. sanct. cap. 10. Ipse sa­cit vt illi saciant quae praecepit. Who maketh vs to doe those things, saith S ^t. Austin, which he hath comman­ded to be done. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that power is giuen to the wicked to doe well if they will, it is an absurd speech, because they cannot will till God worke in them to will, neither can they haue any power to doe well, vntill they haue the will. For the forbearing of outward hainous acts, we deny not but that God hath left in man, euen in the wicked, some power of free-will, else in vaine were all lawes and admonitions, neither could there continue any society amongst men. Be it that the wordes cited by M. Bishop doe yeeld so much to Cain; but to the conuerting of the heart, to the inward renewing of the soule, to the embracing of the loue of righteousnesse, to true repentance, faith, obedience, the will of man hath nothing at all but what is wrought in it by the grace of God. But of all these things I haue spoken so fully before, that it is not fit here to stand vpon them any more. For workes of supererogation he is faine to betake himselfe to the ceremoniall law of Moses; thereby leauing vs to take it as of his owne confession, that before that time, which was the space of two thousand and almost fiue hun­dred yeares, the Church of God knew no such; and hereup­pon to conclude, that because they stood only in ceremonies [Page 139] which were not meerely for themselues to bee reckoned in the number of good workes, therefore the ceremoniall law being abolished in Christ, those workes of supererogation must therein haue an end. But the workes of supererogation which they maintaine, and whereof I spake, are workes of the morall law, the precepts and righteousnesse whereof hath concerned the whole Church from the beginning, and before the written law; and therefore which must needes haue beene found in the Church from the beginning, if there were in them that righteousnesse 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 Leo in An­niuersar. suo. ser. 3. Vniuersi spirituales & ra­tionales Christia­ni Sacerdotalis officij consortes, &c. Quid tam sacerdotale quā 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 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 [Page 140] 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 Philast. de haeres. cap. 6. Philastrius and Epiphan. haeres 19. Epiphanius, and by his owne authour Iosephus set downe for such ano­ther sect, as were the other two of Ioseph. An­tiquit. ludaic. l. 18. c 2. Iudai in tr [...]s sectas diuisi, Essenorum, Sa­ducaeorum & Pharis [...]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 Epiphan hae­res 16. Quidam ipsorum [...]m se exer [...]bant, prae­scribebat dec [...]n­nium aut octen­nium [...]ut quadri­en [...]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 Philast. vt supra. Christ [...]m Dominum Dei si­lium non expec­tantes, &c. Sed Prophetam aut iustum hominem s [...]lum cred [...]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 Ioseph. de bell. Iudaic. l. 2. [...]. 7. Opinio a­pud illos sirmata est corruptibilia esse corpora, ma teriam (que) [...]um non ess [...] perpetu­am. anim is autem immortales semper manere, & quasi careeribus ita corporibus implicari, &c. q [...]um verò fuerint à carnalibus releuate vinculis quasi de seruitute longissi [...]a liber [...]as, [...]a [...] [...]eta [...]i, &c. Bonas pronunciant vltra Oceanum degere, &c. illic q [...]ippe esse reg [...]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, [Page 141] 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 Idem Antiq. l. 18. cap. 2. Ad templum dona­ria mutentes sa­craibinon faci­unt, quòd san­ctioribus vtantur ceremonijs; qua­propter exclusi [...] 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 Idem de bel­lo Iudaico, l. 2. c. 7. Est autem aliud etiam Es­s [...]norum collegi­um, cibos qu [...]d [...] & mores leges (que) fimiles cum pri­oribus habens, distans verò opi­nione de con [...] ­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 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 of any such, neither were they in being whi­lest any of Propheticall spirit was remayning amongst that people. But when men left to bee guided by the law and word of God, and betooke themselues to humane inuenti­ons and traditions, diuers wits drew diuers waies, and they became diuided into sundry sects, in such sort as hath beene said. Sith then those Es [...]ees were no other in the Church of the Iewes but Schismatikes and Heretikes, diuided in opini­on amongst themselues, neuer knowen till there grew a ge­nerall and finall corruption of that slate, and yet no mention of any vowes wont to be made by them, doe we not thinke that M. Bishop hath stoutly carried himselfe in bringing them [Page 142] for an example of vowing their Monkish vowes? As ridicu­lously doth he behaue himselfe in the next point, where I al­leaged of those old Fathers, that they neither sold nor bought Pardons. He answereth, neither they nor we either buy or sell pardons; (yet that the Pope doth so and vsually hath so done, all the world knoweth) but if he would haue spoken to the purpose, he should haue shewed vs that though they neither bought nor sold Pardons, yet they had Pardons accustoma­bly, as they haue beene amongst vs. He should haue made it appeare to vs, if he would haue dealt plainly, that there was then from time to time some Pope or Quasi-Pope, that could giue bils of release from Purgatory paines, for the comfort of the soules, which he saith lie broiling there; or sith he could not so doe, should haue confessed ingenuously that there was no such matter in those times, neither Pope, nor Purgatory, nor Pardons, and so haue left vs to thinke as already we doe, that we may be as well without beleefe of them now, as they were then. As for that which he alleageth of mercy shewed to the children for the fathers sake, and of punishment reserued after the remission of the sinne, what mad man would haue brought the same in the behalfe of the Popes Pardons, but that belike his Reader perforce must take it, that he hath giuen me an answere, because he saith somewhat? But of these two points, Of Merits, sect 7. Consut. of the Answer to M. Perkins Aduert. sect. 23 how God sheweth mercy to the children for the fathers sake, and how vntruly they affirme Of Satisfa­ction, sect 9. 10. &c. the retaining of punishment after forgiuenesse, I haue before declared, and haue answered those texts and examples of the Israelites, and of Moses and Aaron, which here he bringeth for proofe of the latter point. Well though he can say nothing for Pardons, yet for Purgatory whatsoe­uer I say to the contrary, hee will surely speede. Hee leaueth Moses and the Prophets, of whom it was said, Luk. 16. 29. Let them heare them, and commeth downe to the latter times of the Iewes, to Iudas Maccabeus, or rather to that which an vn­certaine story reporteth, concerning Iudas Maccabeus, which yet reporteth not that which he taketh vpon him to [Page 143] report from it. By the fact of Iudas it is manifest, saith he, that the Iewes did make prayers, and offered sacrifice for the soules in Purgatory. But where doe you finde that, M. Bi­shop, which you say; for the soules in Purgatory? What, will you belie your Author, and say of him that which hee saith not? The storie doth not say that any thing was done for the soules in Purgatory; yea it giueth plaine demonstration that nothing was meant to be done in that respect. For hauing set downe that which Maccabeus did, it goeth on thus; 2. Macca. 1 [...]. vers. 43. Doing well and honestly that he thought of the resurrection; for if he had not hoped that they which were slaine should rise a­gaine, it had beene superfluous and vaine to pray for the dead. That then which Iudas did, is said to haue beene done in re­spect of the resurrection from the dead, that the sinne of them which were slaine, might not bee imputed vnto them when they should rise againe. Yea, it is said that that which was done were superfluous and vaine, but only in hope of the resurrection. But though there were no resurrection, yet prayer for the dead should not bee superfluous and vaine if thereby soules were deliuered from Purgatory paines. Therefore, there was no respect of Purgatory in that which Iudas did. Yea what if that which Iudas did were not done for the dead at all, but only for the liuing? Surely for my part I am so perswaded, and I thinke any man that well waigheth the storie, will be of the same minde. Peruse it, gentle Rea­der, and thou shalt see that there is great cause to thinke that all that is spoken there as touching prayer and offering for the dead, is the historians Commentarie, and interpretation of the fact of Iudas, without any occasion of such constructi­on giuen by Iudas himselfe. In a battaile some few of the Iewes were slaine, vnder whose coates when they came to bury them, they found iewels consecrated to Idols, which they were forbidden by the law to meddle with. Then euery man saw, saith he, that this was the cause wherefore they were slaine, and they gaue thanks to the Lord the righteous Iudge, which had opened the things which were hid. This yet was not [Page 144] all, but because they knew what had befallen▪ to the whole Host of Israel for the like sinne of Achan, only they feared least the like now should befall to them. He goeth on there­fore and saith; And they gaue themselues to prayer, and be­sought the Lord that they▪ should not vtterly be destroyed for the fault committed. This being set downe generally concer­ning the people, it followeth particularly concerning Iudas thus; Besides, that noble Iudas exhorted the people to keepe themselues from sinne, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things which came to passe by the sinne of these that were slaine, and hauing made a gathering through the company, sent to Ierusalem about two thousand drachmes of siluer, to offer a sinne offering. Which words containing the narration of the fact of Iudas, who would otherwise vnderstand but accor­ding to that that is gone before, that Iudas▪ hauing the like care as the people had, that the wrath of God might not re­maine against them all for the sinne of these few, not only exhorted the people to beware by their example of commit­ting the like trespasse, but also tooke care that of common charge a sinne offering in common should bee offered, that God might bee appeased towards the whole armie. That Iudas had this regard wee cannot doubt, neither can wee doubt but that he would be carefull to shew it according to L [...]uit 4. 13. compared with Ios. 7. 1. 11. & 22. 20. the law, and as was wont Deut. 21. 1. 2. &c. to be done vpon the like occa­sion. How then shall we interpret that which he did other­wise then of that which by order was to bee done, when as we see nothing else done that should be answerable to that order? To offer a sinne offering for the multitude, it was a­greeable to the law, and therefore we may well presume that he did so, and cannot but take that which he did to be inten­ded so, rather then of that whereof the law commanded nothing, nor example is there found of any that did the like. But the historian not content to set downe the narration of this matter simply, as it seemeth hee found it in the former storie which he followed, taketh vpon him to giue his iudge­ment of it, and maketh thereof construction according to his [Page 145] owne conceipt, as if Iudas had offered for the dead in respect that hee beleeued that they should rise againe, when as in­deede nothing appeared to that effect. And thus hee after­wards giueth his censure of the deede of 2. Macca. 14. 37. &c. Razis in killing himselfe, giuing approofe and commendation thereof; so that by his authority we may as well argue that it is lawfull for a man to kill himselfe, as that it is lawfull to make pray­ers and offerings for the dead. Now M. Bishop knowing well our exception against the bookes of Maccabees, that they are not Canonicall Scripture, and therefore are vnsufficient to giue vs warrant of any point of faith, preoccupateth this ob­iection, and telleth vs that it is needlesse to proue the bookes of the Maccabees to be Canonicall Scripture, and that it serueth this turne that they be taken for a graue history. Very vnlear­nedly and childishly; as though euery graue history were sufficient to giue vs information in points of faith; and as though by the commendation of the fact of Razis, it did not appeare that he did not greatly deserue with vs the com­mendation of a graue historian, who know not so much as a graue Heathen Philosopher did know, Pythagoras by name, from whom Tully learned it, that Tull de Se­nect. Vetat Py­thagora [...] iniussu imperatoris, id est, Dei, de prae­sidio & statione vitae decedere. Et Tuscul. quaest. l. 1. Ve­tat dominans ille in nobis De­us iniussu hinc nos suo demi­grare. it is forbidden vs of God, but only at his call and bidding to goe out of this life, and there­fore that it is not lawfull for a man at his owne will to make away himselfe. As for our allowing of those Apocryphall bookes, to be read for instruction of manners, what is it to the warranting of matters of faith? neither doe we by that allowance giue them such authority, as if euery thing which they say in that behalfe were to be approued, but only ac­knowledge them as contayning for the most part very not a­ble instructions, and very profitable to that end, which yet must all haue authority from those bookes, which by due te­stimony we haue receiued to be the certaine and vndoubted word of God. What the Iewes doe at this day it skilleth not, so long as from their law they haue no rule for that they do. We know they haue now many superstitions amongst them, whereof their example can bee no warrant to vs, that wee [Page 146] should thereupon presume to doe the same. To the eighth point by me alleaged; They made no pilgrimages to Reliques or dead mens bones, he answereth, that the Iewes were bound to goe as it were in pilgrimage at three solemne feasts yearly to one special place, which God should choose for his seruice. Where marke, I pray thee, how when I speake of going in pilgrimage, he answereth me of going as it were in pilgrimage; and where I speake of going to reliques and dead mens bones, he telleth me of going to the Temple of God. What accord haue these one with the other? who would trouble himselfe to giue an­swere to an absurd man, that fooleth and trifleth in this sort? As much is it to the purpose which he alleageth, that 2. Kings 13. vers. 21. a dead man buried in the graue of Elizeus vpon the touching of his bones reuiued and liued againe. Be it so, but doth he reade that hereupon there was euer any pilgrimage vsed to the bones of Elizeus? or doth he finde that they who carryed the body to be buried, did purposely goe on pilgrimage to the sepul­cher of Elizeus, as thinking to receiue any benefit thereby? Surely, they did casually what they did; they saw enimies ap­proching, and for hast they cast the dead man into Elizeus graue. It pleased God to shew that miracle once only for that time, to confirme that which had beene taught by his seruant Elizeus; but neither any before, by any other exam­ple, nor any after by this example, learned to hunt after dead mens bones, to receiue any health or comfort by them. We can finde no pilgrimage, M. Bishop, in this storie, because here was no pilgrimage, nor any was hence learned to the bones of Elizeus. As barely and coldly dealeth he in the last point, where I say, They knew no shrift nor absolution. They were not wholly vnacquainted, saith he, with some kinde of shrift and absolution. Marke how faintly the man speaketh; some kinde of shrift, he saith; and againe, they were not wholly vn­acquainted with it. They were not acquainted with shrift, but yet they were not wholly vnacquainted with some kind of sh [...]ift. But it is Popish shrift and absolution that we re­quire, whereby the penitent is taught to tell in the eare of [Page 147] the Priest all his sinnes particularly, and thereupon to re­ceiue absolution, and iniunction of penance to be performed afterwards. Which if it be of so great vse and necessity as they pretend now, we must thinke it was likewise behouefull and necessary then; or if they could then be well without it, there is no cause to thinke it so religious and necessary now. Speake out, M. Bishop, deale plainly with vs; are yee able to tell vs any tidings of it? No more forsooth but this, they were not wholly vnacquainted with some kinde of shrift and ab­solution. But what was that kinde? They were charged, saith he, to confesse their sinnes which they had committed. And is that all? We acknowledge the same charge to belong to vs; we confesse our sins to God, both publikely and priuately: in publike trespasses we require confession to be made to the Church of God; in priuate griefs of conscience we perswade and commend the disclosing of the wound, for aduice and comfort to the Minister of God; but what is all this to Po­pish shrift? Againe, he saith, they were to bring to the Priest a prescribed sacrifice to be offered for their pardon and absolution. Of the sacrifice we finde somewhat, and we finde Gods pro­mise that Leuit. 4. 20. the sinne should be forgiuen, and we finde the Priest directed to Num. 6. 23. pray for them; but that the Priest gaue absoluti­on vpon auricular confession, or inioyned penance to any party absolued, we can finde nothing. Yea, but the leapers by the law were bound to present themselues to the Priests, and were by them declared such, or purged 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 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. Corpori [...] lepram purgare seu verius dicam haud purgare quidem sed pur­gatos proba [...]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 [Page 148] 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 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 Hieron. in Mat. c. 16. Quo­modo ibi Sacer­do [...] facit lepro­sum mund [...] 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, nō [...]os qui insontes sunt vel n [...]xij, sed pro [...]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 clean [...] 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 p [...]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.

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 Genes. 14. 18. hee brought forth bread and wine, and that as Ambrose and Hie­rome say out of the Hebrew writers, Ambros. ad Hebr. cap. 7. & Hieron. ad E­uagr. Nec mi­rum si Melch [...] ­zedec victori A­braham obuiam processerit & in rese [...]ion em tam ipsius quam pug­natorum eius pa­nes [...] [...]mum (que) pro­tulerit. For the refreshing of him and his souldiers: in which meaning Ioseph. An­ [...]iq Iudaic. l. 1. [...]. 11. Milites Iosephus namely Abrahami hospitalitèr habuit nihil [...]is ad victum decsse passus. [Page 151] doth vnderstand it. And if M. Bishop will needes haue it translated by the word of offering, as his fellowes are wont greatly to wrangle to that intent, yet Ambrose so also ap­plyeth it, that Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. Occurrit illi Mel [...]lnsedec Sa­c [...]rdos & [...]btulit ei pa [...]e & vinii. he offered to Abraham bread and wine, there­by excluding all necessity of construction of sacrifice to God. But if yet we shall perforce take it of offering to God, we con­ceiue of it according to that which Cyprian saith, that [...] Cyprian l. 2. Ep. 3. Domi [...]u [...] noster Iesus Chri­stus Sacrificium D [...]o Patri obtu­lit, & obtulit hoc id [...]m quod Melchisedec ob­tul [...]rat, id est, panem & vinii, su [...] scilicet cor­pus & sanguinē. our Lord Iesus Christ offering a sacrifice to God the Father, offered the very same that Melchisedec had offered, that is, bread and wine, euen his owne body and bloud. If the sacrifice of Christ and Melchisedecke be the very same, and Melchisedecke also offered the body and bloud of Christ, as these words import, then cannot our sacrifice be a true and real sacrifice of Christs body and bloud, because Melchisedecks was not so, Christ as yet not hauing taken his body and bloud; and therefore must both that and this be vnderstood to be only the myste­rie and signification thereof. And this interpretation of the sacrifice on both sides, Hierome confirmeth when of our Sa­uiour Christs institution of the Sacrament he saith; Hieron. in Mat. 26. Assu­mit panem & ad verum Paschae trāsgreditur Sa­cramentum, v [...] quomodo in prae­figuratione eius Melchisedec sū ­mi Dei Sacerdos panem & vinii offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veri­tatem sui corp [...] ­ris & sanguini [...] repraesentaret. Christ taketh bread and goeth to the true Sacrament of the Passeouer, that as Melchisedec the Priest of the high God in prefiguring of him, offering bread and wine had done, so he himselfe also might represent the truth of his body and bloud. There is there­fore both in the one and in the other, not the very truth of the body and bloud of Christ, but only a representation of the truth thereof: euen as Chrysostome on the one side expres­seth, when he saith, that Chrys. Op. imperfec. hom. 11, Haec vasa sactificata inqui­bus non [...]st verii co [...]pus Christi sed mysterium cor­poris eius continetur. in the holy vessels is contained, not the true body of Christ, but the mysterie of his body. And vnlesse it be thus, it cannot stand which Ambrose, concerning this offering of Melchisedec, saith, that Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. Intellige Sacramenta qu [...] accipis anteri [...]ra esse quàm sint Moysi Sacramenta, &c. the Sacraments which we receiue, are more ancient then the Sacraments of Moses; for how can that be, if our Sacraments be truly and really the body and bloud of Christ, which Melchisedecks were not? Againe, where God by Malachy saith; Mat. 1. 11. In euery place in­cense [Page 152] shall be offered vnto me, and a pure offering, whose eyes are so sharpe as that in those words he can discerne the Po­pish sacrifice of the Masse? We reade here of incense and a pure offering, but this roome is too little for the building of so large a house: their Masse cannot stand within the com­passe of this ground. And when we consider how the Fa­thers expound the same, Tertullian one where generally of Tertul. adu. ludaeos. Desa­crisicijs spiritua­libus addit, di­cens. In omni loco sacrificia munda offer [...]tur. spirituall sacrifices; another where of Idem cont. Marc. l. 4. Sa­crificium mun­dum scilicet, simplex oratio de conscientia pura. sincere prayer out of a pure censcience; Hierome of Hieron. in Zacha. c 8. Sa­crificium mun­dum nequaquam in victimis vete­ris Testamenti, sed in sanctuate Euangelica pu­ritatis. the sanctity and holinesse of Euangelicall purity; Eusebius of Euseb. de demonstrat. E­uang. lib. 1. c 6. Sacrificium quod appellaturpurum facimus per pu­ras actiones. pure and godly doings; Au­stin of Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 86. Viuum Sa­crificium de quo dictum est, Im­mola Deo sacri­ficium laudis. the liuely sacrifices of praise and thanks-giuing; Theo­doret of Theodoret. in Mal. c. 1. De­bitum honorem praestabūt & ac­comodatum cul­tum adhibebunt. the due honour and conuenient worship of God, exem­plifying the same by the words of Christ, John 4. 23. The true worship­pers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: and by the words of the Apostle, 1. Tim. 2. 8. Let men pray euery where lifting vp pure hands without wrath or doubting: and Hierome by the words of the Psalme, Psal. 141. 2. Let my prayer be set forth in thy sight as the incense, and the lifting vp of my hands as an euening sa­crifice: these things, I say, considered, may we not be thought to be out of our wits, if we shall beleeue them that the place must needes be vnderstood of their monstrous sacrifice? That Manna was a type of the body of Christ, no Christian man doubteth, but that it was a type of Christs body, as really in the Sacrament, no wise man beleeueth, and the reason wher­by Answere to M. Perkins Aduertise­ment, sect. 56. See the Confutation. elsewhere he goeth about to proue it, is there declared to be vaine. So haue I also Of Traditions, sect. 21. formerly shewed that the ex­ample of the high Priest amongst the Iewes giueth no man­ner warrant to the supreme authority of one head ouer the whole Christian Church; that the high Priest amongst the Iewes had no such supremacy as they claime to the Pope; that reason teacheth such a supremacy to be the manifest and certaine danger of the Church, and experience hath found it to be the very ruine and desolation thereof. As for their according with the Iewish ceremonies in consecrating of [Page 153] Priests, and hallowing of Churches and Altars, and Vest­ments, &c. it is a slender proofe for the finding of their reli­gion amongst the Iewes, because they haue borrowed many ceremonies from the Pagans also, and yet they will not say that their religion was amongst the Pagans. Their emu [...]a [...] ­on of those ceremonies we iustly cry out against as preposte­rous and absurd, because they being, as M. Bishop saith, types and figures of the law of grace, the substance and truth being reueiled, they ought to cease, This was the very rea­son why the Apostles taught the Church Col. 2. 17. 20. to be disburdened of those rites, because they were shadowes of things to come, the body whereof is in Christ. But M. Bishop telleth vs by ano­ther spirit, that therefore the Church of Rome reteineth them, because they were shadowes of things to come; be­cause they were types and figures of the law of grace, and reproueth them of vndiscreet zeale that are minded otherwise. Sith then he can obserue vndiscreet zeale in the Apostles, I may not maruell that he deemeth my sore eyes, darkened with strange defluxion and distillation of corrupt humours; but such indeede is the case of mine eyes, that in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets I cannot see that religion which we call Popery, which standeth in those points of faith whereof the question is betwixt them and vs. The rest of his wordes I passe ouer as idle talke. What hee hath declared, wee see, and we see so much folly in it, and so little weight, as that we cannot but aduise him to take longer time, and goe ouer the same againe.

R. ABBOT.

THe wordes of mine answere are, As they worshipped God, so, sauing ceremoniall obseruations, we also worship him. Consider now I pray thee, gentle Reader, from what braine M. Bishops illation proceedeth, Then should we sacri­fice to him Beefs, Muttons, Calues, Lambs, and our sacrificers should be of Aarons issue and order, and we all circumcised. Why, M. Bishop, are not all these in the number of ceremoni­all obseruations? Forsooth no; I omit all their ceremonies, saith he, because M. Abbot excepteth them. But did not M. Abbot in excepting all their ceremonies, except circumcision and sacrifices, and the whole Priest-hood of the law? What, is M. Bishop ignorant, that circumcision and sacrifices, and the whole rites and rules of the Leuiticall Priest-hood, doe all belong to the ceremoniall law? and that our Sauiour Christ in abrogating the ceremoniall law, is vnderstood to haue abolished all these? Is he to be set to schoole againe, to learne what is meant by the name of ceremonies? It were a shame to send a Doctor of Diuinity to his Catechisme; for his credits sake I will referre him to a greater booke of Tho­mas Aquinas, where he saith, that Tho. Aquin. sum. 12. q. 101. art. 4. Per tot. In veteri lege singula praedicta (Sacrificia, Sa­cramenta, sacra & obseruantiae) ceremoniae vo­cantur. in the old law Sacrifices, Sacraments, sacred vtensils and implements, and obseruances of singular or speciall conuersation, are all called ceremonies, and this I would haue him learne against the next time. His next exception is against that I say, As they prayed, so and in the same wordes we also pray. Then, saith he, they doe sometimes pray vnto God to remember Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob, and for their sakes to take mercy on them, as Moses did. Which [Page 158] in part we acknowledge and professe to doe; to pray God in like manner as Moses did, to remember Abraham, and I­saac, and Iacob, and for their sakes to take mercy vpon the seede of Abraham, but not to take mercy vpon vs. God bound himselfe to the seede of Abraham Genes. 17. 7. by an euerlasting couenant to be their God; by reason whereof we beleeue that in this forlorne estate wherein they now be, God still stan­deth entirely respectiue to the preseruation of that nation: and though Rom. 11. 28. as touching the Gospell, they be enimies for our sakes, yet as touching the election, as the Apostle faith, namely whereby God of old elected them to be his people, they are beloued for their Fathers sakes. Their present infidelity then is an interruption only, not any finall reiection of them, and the time will come when the effect of that loue will appeare▪ by restoring that nation againe to the society and fellowship of the Church of Christ. What hindereth then, but as they are beloued for their Fathers sakes, so we may pray God to re­member their Fathers Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob, and for their sakes to shew his loue, and to returne vnto them in mercy and compassion, 2. Cor. 3. 15 16. To take away the veile that is laid before their hearts, that they may bee turned to the Lord? Which notwithstanding we say not for our selues, because God hath made no promise to vs properly and personally in Abraham, but only Genes. 22. 18. [...]ls 3. 25. in the seede of Abraham, Gal. 3. 16. which is Iesus Christ, by whom and in whom it is, and not by Abra­ham himselfe, that we are become the children of Abraham. As for the text which he alleageth, to proue that it was the expresse order and commandement of the Patriarchs, that their posterity should so pray, hee sheweth his ignorance in the abusing of it, because no otherwise did Iacob say, Genes. 48. 16. Vulg. Innocetur super cos nomen meam. Let my name be named vpon them, and the name of my Fathers Abra­ham and Isaac, then as seuen women in a time of desolation are brought in by the Prophet, saying to one man, Esa. 4 1. Vulg. Innocetur nomen tuum su­per nos. Let thy name be named vpon vs; these women hereby crauing that they might be called the wines of such a man, and the Pa­triarch desiring that Ephraim and Manasses should be seue­rally [Page 159] reckoned for Tribes of the seed of Abraham and Israel, as if they had beene immediately descended from him, euen as Iacob himselfe a litle before expresseth his owne meaning, saying; Genes. 48. 5. Thy two sonnes Manasses and Ephraim, which are borne vnto thee in the land of Aegypt, before I came to thee into the land of Aegypt, shall be mine, as Ruben and Simeon are mine. But now vpon this that hath beene said, that they prayed God for those Fathers sakes, to be mercifull to them. M. Bishop being resolutely impudent to make all good that is starke naught, groundeth a defence of a diuellish and hor­rible blasphemy, which the Church of Rome had brought of old into the seruice of the Church. Concerning Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, in the time of King Hen­ry the second slaine then, without due and lawfull procee­ding, but yet dying no other but an insolent rebell and trai­tour to his Prince, they haue beene wont to pray thus:

In which prayers wee see how by the wounds and bloud of this holy Saint of theirs, they aske at Gods hands remission of sinnes and euerlasting life, which Christian faith abhor­reth to aske by any other, but only the bloud of Iesus Christ. Yea so harshly it soundeth in Christian eares, and so contra­ry is it to the common sense of Christian profession, as that the Rabbines of the Roman Synagogue were content euen for very shame to blot it out of their Portesse, thereby ac­knowledging that it was by apostasie and errour that it came first in. But M. Bishop a man more wise and learned, or ra­ther a man of harder fore-head then they were, taketh vpon him to assure vs that there was nothing amisse in that praier, and that it might very conueniently and lawfully haue beene retayned still. And why? Marry, because of old time they prayed thus, Remember Abraham, and Isaac; and Iacob: and againe, Lord remember Dauid and all his mildnesse. For▪ [Page 160] saith he, if they did then desire God to remember the excellent vertues of his seruants, and for their sakes to shew mercy vpon o­thers, why may not we doe the same now? why may we not as well beseech God to remember the constant fortitude of S ^t. Thomas, as they did the mildnesse of Dauid? But against that if of his I oppose the exposition that Thomas Aquinas maketh of the Apostles wordes concerning the Iewes, that they were belo­ued for their Fathers sakes, vnderstanding the same of the e­lect of that nation. Tho. Aquin. in Rom. c. 11. Lect. 4. Quod non est sic intel­ligendum quasi merita praestita patribus fuerint causa aternae e­lectionis [...] sed qu [...]a Deus ab aterno elegit gra­tis & patres & filios, hoc tamen ordine vt filij propter patres consequerentur salutem, nō quasi merita patrum suffi [...] creat ad si­liorum salutem, sed per quandam abundantiam diuine gratiae & [...] hoc dicit quae in tin­tum patribus est ex [...]bita vt prop ter promissiones eis factas etiam fily saluarentur. Which, saith he, is not to be so taken as if the merits bestowed vpon the Fathers, were the cause of the e­ternall election of the children, but for that God from euerlasting chose freely both the Fathers and the children, in such order notwithstanding as that the children for the Fathers sakes should obtaine saluation, not as if the merits of the Fathers should suf­fice for the saluation of the children, but he speaketh it according to an abundance of Gods grace and mercy, which was so farre yeelded to the Fathers, as that the children should be saued by vertue of the promises, or for the promises sake made vnto their Fathers. Here is then the true reason why they alleaged vn­to God for themselues the names of the Fathers, not for the merits of the Fathers, but because of the promises that God had made vnto them. Whereof we haue this for a certaine demonstration, that wee no where finde any of the Fathers mentioned in that sort, but only such to whom the promises of God haue in speciall manner beene made, neither Abel, nor Enoch, nor Noe, nor Iob, nor Moses, nor Esay, nor any of the rest, but only Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Dauid, to whom God vouchsafed to doe that honour by speciall co­uenants and promises, to tie himselfe both to them and to their seede. Yea, and it is further to be obserued, that this was no ordinary manner of praying amongst them, as wher­by to begge of God remission of sinnes and eternall life, as we see that Popish prayer doth; but when God in anger and displeasure seemed ready Deut. 9. 25. 26. to destroy their nation, and so to forget the promise made vnto their Fathers, or when they would seeke any fauour at Gods hands for the iustification [Page 161] of that promise, then would they alleage to God the names of their Fathers, as it were to put him in minde of those things which he had promised. Thus doth Moses himselfe declare the meaning of that prayer, in another place when he saith; Exod. 32. 13. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob thy ser­uants, to whom thou swarest by thine owne selfe, and saidst vnto them, I will multiply your seede, &c. In which sort the three children in the fiery furnace are brought in, praying vnto God in the Apocryphall additions to Daniel: Song of the three children, Ʋers. 35. 36. Take not a­way thy mercy from vs for thy beloued Abrahams sake, and for thy seruant Isaacs sake, and for thine holy Israels sake, to whom thou hast spoken and promised that thou wouldest multiply their seede, &c. And thus it is said, that 1. Chro. 13. 23 the Lord had mercy on them, and pittyed them, and had respect vnto them, because of his couenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob. So concer­ning Dauid also we reade, that 2. Chro. 21. 7. the Lord (though he were much prouoked) yet would not destroy the house of Dauid, because of the couenant that he had made with Dauid, and be­cause he had promised to giue a light to him and to his sonnes for euer. This couenant and promise Salomon pleadeth in his prayer vnto God, 2. Chro. 6. 16. Lord God of Israel keepe with thy seruant Dauid my father, that which thou hast promised him; and a­gaine, Vers. 17. Let thy word be verified which thou spakest vnto thy seruant Dauid. And thus the Church of the Iewes in time of affliction, remembreth God concerning Dauid, Psal. 89. 49. Lord where are thy old louing kindnesses which thou swarest vnto Dauid in thy truth? By all which we see that it was not vpon the per­sons or vertues of Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Dauid, that those ancient faithfull rested themselues in their prayers, but vpon the word, the couenant, the promise of God, which he in mercy had vouchsafed to make vnto them. And hereby we learne what to conceiue of those latter wordes which M. Bishop al­leageth out of the Psalme, Psal. 132. 11. Lord remember Dauid and all his mildnesse. Where to make the wordes seeme somewhat the more effectuall to his purpose, wee see how hee groundeth himselfe vpon an errour of translation. For the wordes of [Page 162] the Psalme truly translated are not, Remember Dauid and all his mildnesse, but remember Dauid and all his affliction or trou­ble, as not only Hieron. translat Psal. iuxta Hebr. Memento Dauid & omnis afflic­tionis cius. Hierome in his translation opposed to the Septuagint in Greeke, but also their owne interpreters, Pagn. & Ar. Mont. Vniuer­sa afflictionis eius. Pagnine and Arias Montanus haue translated it. Where vnder the name of affliction we vnderstand that feruent bur­ning zeale, and carefull trauell of minde, wherewith Dauid was possessed, and euen perplexed and anguished through desire that he had for the building of the Temple of God, and for the setling of the Kingdome and state, accordingly as God had promised vnto him. With which desire he was so vehemently affected as here it is expressed, as that hee sware and vowed to the Lord, not to enter into his house, nor to climbe vp to his bed; not to suffer his eyes to sleepe, nor his eye lids to slumber, till he found the place for building the Tem­ple of God, the house of God wherin he would rest and dwell amongst them. Salomon the sonne of Dauid whom I doubt not to haue beene the authour of this Psalme, for that Psal. 132. [...]. &c. a part hereof was vsed by him in 2. Chro. 6. 41. the dedication of the Tem­ple, recommendeth herein to God the remembrance of this care, and craueth successe thereto, and that God would ve­rifie in him all that he had thereupon said and promised to Dauid in that behalfe. I haue before shewed how Chryso­stome giueth the effect of this prayer in Salomons name; Chrysost, in Psal. 131. Quo­niam genus ab co duxi & quoniam cum tibi accep­tum suiss [...]t cius stud [...]um & dili­gentia, dixisti te cius genus & regnam erectu­rum, propterea nunc haec pa [...]la conuenta à te ex­ig mus. Idem habet Basil. in Psal. cund. Because I am borne of him, and for that when his study and diligence was acceptable to thee, thou saiedst thou would raise vp his stocke and Kingdome, therefore we now desire of thee the things which thou hast couenanted and promised. Albeit if we grant M. Bishop his owne translation, and that here Salomon mentioneth the mildnesse and goodnesse of his father Dauid, yet shall it auaile him nothing; because God being stiled 1. King [...] 8. 23. the God that keepeth couenant and mercy with his seruants that walke before him with all their heart, the commemorati­on of Dauids vertues shall be but a describing of him, to be one of those seruants to whom God keepeth couenant and mer­cy, not any allegation of his merit whereby he should stand [Page 163] as a Mediatour for them. Therefore the Greeke Fathers who follow the translation of the Septuagint, and doe reade the mildnesse of Dauid, doe notwithstanding make the pro­mise of God the maine ground of all this prayer and request. Thus Theodoret, though misapplying the Psalme to the peo­ple of the captiuity of Babylon, giueth the briefe therof thus, that Theodoret. in Psal. 131. Captiui qui Ba­byloni crant vni­uersorum Deum obsecrant, pro­missiones magno Dauidi ab ipso factas pro preci­bus ass [...]rentes vt veniam conse­quantur precan­tes. they besought God bringing the promises made by him to Dauid, in steede of prayers that they might obtaine pardon. And so Basil and Chrysostome comming to those wordes of the Psalme; The Lord hath sworne vnto Dauid, &c. doe note therein the principall point whereupon Salomon relyed: Basil. in psa [...]. cund. Quonia [...]a Dauidis, virtu­tis (que) ac studij il­lius circa Tem­plum meminit & priscarum nar­racion [...]m menti­onem secit, hoc quod maximum crat huius reica­put, testamētum scilicet Dei rele­gens praetexit. Idem habet Chrysost. ibid. Hauing made mention, say they, of Dauid and his vertue and care concerning the Temple, and of other ancient narrati­ons, he now alleageth that which was the chiefest ground of this matter, rehearsing the testament and couenant of God. In all this, let M. Bishop take it how he will, we see no bloud allea­ged for remission of sinnes, no merit for obtaining the King­dome of heauen, but all is for stablishing a stocke and King­dome, which God had promised vpon the earth. If he can shew vs any promise made to Thomas Becket, concerning forgiuenesse of sinnes and eternall life, to be obtained by his bloud, hee shall say somewhat to the purpose; but sith hee cannot doe so, little reason had he and lesse conscience to alleage the example of that prayer of Salomon, for defence of such a prayer, or rather such a blasphemy, as theirs is, where­of he himselfe is so ashamed as that euen here where he de­fendeth it, he seemeth loth to vtter it, repeating in Latin on­ly the wordes, Tu per Thomae sanguinem, and whereas the prayer is by the bloud of Thomas to be brought to heauen, setting downe in steede thereof, take compassion vpon vs. Now although he haue thus shewed himselfe a monstrous man, in defending this horrible impiety of mingling the pol­luted bloud of a vile traitour, with the sacred and innocent bloud of the vnspotted Lambe of God, yet to make the mat­ter very goodly for himselfe, he passeth from it with a Rhe­toricall extenuation, thus; I will not dwell vpon these imperti­nent [Page 164] and loose follies, which all that be not babes may of them­selues easily descry. Indeede he may well call them on his owne part impertinent and loose follies, which are no otherwise tyed togither but with such slender knots; which are so pal­pably impious, as that there is no babe so simple that hath any common vnderstanding of Christian faith, but seeth the grossenesse and absurdity thereof. But herein he followeth the steps of his companions, whose manner it is where they are most wounded to make shew to laugh most, and namely of M. Harding, who being pressed with this sacrilegious prayer, answered that it was an obiection meete for a Cobler, so very a trifle is it with them to abase the merit of the Sonne of God, by matching with it the demerit of a wicked and wilfull man. Vpon this transition he inferreth out of the pre­misses two cruell conclusions. First, that no religion was to be called Catholike before the Gospell was preached vnto all nati­ons. True, but yet the same faith and religion was before though it were not as yet called Catholike til it were preach­ed vnto all nations. Aug. cont. Faust. l. 16. cap. 28. Non diuer­sa doctrina est, sed diuersum tempus. There was no difference of the doctrine, saith S ^t. Austin, though there were difference of the time. Se­condly, saith he, that the Roman faith and religion is very con­formable to that of the Patriarchs and Prophets, as the verity is to the figure. But we see not the premisses whence this con­clusion should follow, hauing hitherto heard of nothing per­taining to that purpose, but only a ridiculous imitation of old shadowes and figures, which we rather hold for a defor­mity of the Church that is, then any conformity with the Church that was. Our conformity with them must not be in shadowes and figures, which were no longer to continue but Heb. 9. 10. vntill the time of reformation should come; but in the substance and truth which those pictures and shadowes for the time helped them to vnderstand that they might beleeue, and which Christ hath taught vs now to beleeue without any of their helps. To cleaue to the shadow still when the body is in place, what is it but to play with a shadow, and to neglect the body? The figure whereof M. Bishop speaketh is [Page 165] outward and corporall; the verity and truth is inward and spirituall. The resembling then of those outward figures in Popish outward ceremonies, is not a conformity betwixt the verity and the figure, but rather that that is betwixt figure and figure, betwixt one picture and another. As for vs, we hold that due correspondence with that old church which God requireth, who wholly without those figures hold that spi­rituall truth which they beleeued therein. He goeth on and saith, that he hath already confuted my assertion, that Christ at his comming confirmed the faith and religion of the Iewes with­out any additions of his owne, and commended it simply and na­kedly, only stripping it of types and shadowes, to be preached to the nations. Where note, I pray thee, gentle Reader, that whereas I say that Christ confirmed the same faith and reli­gion and no other, he setteth downe of his owne deuice, the same faith and religion without any additions of his owne; which although it be true as touching substance of faith and religion, for therein Christ added nothing, yet it sheweth his lewd minde for that he hath done it to euill purpose, that he might giue way to himselfe with some colour to cauill a­gainst me, as presently after he doth, that Christ added o­ther signes and Sacraments, which the Iewish Church before receiued not. But let him report my wordes as he findeth them, and then they shall stand good, that Christ taught no other but the same faith and religion that was deliuered by Moses and the Prophets to the former Church, which is not hindered by that he instituted new Sacraments, because I haue already shewed that in diuersity of Sacraments there is still the same faith. Which how handsomely he hath con­futed hath before appeared, and I suppose by that time he hath further considered of the matter, he will finde cause to seeke for a better confutation. But yet taking it vpon him that he hath confuted me, he goeth on, saying: And here I adde that then Christians may haue many wiues togither as the Iewes had, and may giue their wiues vpon any displeasure a li­b [...]ll of diuorce. Where we may well thinke that he was scant [Page 166] in the right that tooke the lawfulnesse of many wiues, and the giuing of a bill of diuorce to a wife, to haue beene matters of the Iewes faith and religion towards God. I haue cited Leo Bishop of Rome, saying, that §. 2. of this Chapter. the faith whereby we liue hath neuer differed in any age: and will M. Bishop inferre against him, as he doth against me, that Christians then may haue many wiues, and husbands may vpon euery displeasure giue their wiues a bill of diuorcement, to put them away as it was amongst the Iewes? Did not his discretion serue him to put difference betwixt matters of faith and of manners; betwixt articles of religion and offices of conuersation? Faith and re­ligion import that deuotion & seruice which is immediately performed to God, and what letteth but that in their lawful­nesse of many wiues they might yeeld to God the same de­uotion that we doe, and we in single marriage the same that they? But haply somewhat it was that he aimed at, which his troubled head serued him not to expresse. I said in my answere as touching those Fathers of the old Testament; According to the approued example of their life, we also teach men to liue. Now I imagine hereof it is that he meant to say, that then Christians may haue many wiues, and at their pleasure giue their wiues libels of diuorce. If this were his meaning, he should haue bethought himselfe where their example in these things is found any where to haue beene approued, because I made mention only of approued example. For our parts we hold plurality of wiues in those times to haue beene permit­ted, but not approued; tolerated by dispensation, as Gregor. ex­posit. in 1. Reg. c. 2 l. 2. Quae­dam in sacra Scriptura inue­n [...]untur praecep­ta, quae dispensa­t [...]o [...] q [...]id [...]m D [...] praecepta s [...]nt sed non a­more De [...]. Gre­gory saith, some things were of old, but not warranted by in­stitution. And of that dispensation the same Gregory taketh an example of the Iewes, giuing a bill of diuorce, concerning which we see how the Pharisees alleage in the Gospell not that God ordained it, but only that Moses so commanded or rather suffered, and the reason thereof giuen, Mat. 19 78. because of the hardnesse of their hearts: and therefore we hope M. Bishop vpon better aduice will not of vnity of faith conclude any more, that it should now be lawfull for vs to doe the same. [Page 167] As for the iudiciall law of the Iewes, it is wholly without the occasion and compasse of my speech, and briefly I answere him, that though there be the same faith and the same rules of duty and conuersation, yet it doth not therefore follow that censures and punishments, or trials and legall procee­dings must be the same. In a word, whatsoeuer the Apostles decreed in their Councell at Hierusalem for the abrogating of the law, we acknowledge and obey, and that more faith­fully then the Papists doe, who, as M. Bishop confesseth, doe hold it their grace still to hold a conformity with the cere­monies of the law. Yet againe, if the Apostles, saith he, were simply and nakedly to preach to the Gentiles the law of Moses (he should say without ambiguity, the faith and religion of the Patriarchs and Prophets) stript of types and shadowes, why then were they commanded to preach vnto them the sacraments of Baptisme and of the Supper of the Lord? An idle question, and it is already answered, that in deliuering other Sacra­ments they taught no other but the same doctrine and faith. The Sacraments are water in Baptisme, bread and wine in the Lords Supper, different from those of old. The doctrine of faith is the death of Christ, and shedding of his bloud for the cleansing of our soules and remission of our sinnes, which was the same in all the Sacrifices and Sacraments of the Church since the world beganne. And this one doctrine I said the Apostles by the commandement of Christ so taught, as that they added nothing of their owne. This, saith M. Bishop, is very false; for many things were left by our Sauiour to their disposition. Now thou must vnderstand, gentle Reader, that I vsed not those wordes as mine owne, but did set them downe in a distinct letter, quoting Tertullian in the margent as the authour of them. The whole passage of those words shall giue some light to the matter here in hand. Tertul. de Praescript. No­bis nihil ex no­stro arbitrio in­dulgere licet, sed ne eligere quod aliquis de arbi­trio suo induxe­rit. Apostolos Domini habemu [...] authores qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent clege­runt, sed accep­tam à Christo di­sciplinam fideli­tèr nationibus adsignauerunt. We may not, saith he, giue our selues liberty of any thing at our owne dis­cretion, nor make choise of any thing which any other man hath brought in of his owne minde. We haue the Apostles of the Lord for our leaders, who did not of their owne will or discretion make [Page 168] choise of any thing to bring in, but the doctrine which they re­ceiued of Christ, they faithfully deliuered to the nations. Here then M. Bishop giueth Tertullian the lye, and telleth him that it is false which he saith, dissembling in the meane time the sight of Tertullians name, and making shew as if he spake it to me only. Thou art now at thy choise, gentle Reader, wh [...]ther thou wilt rather beleeue Tertullian or M. Bishop. If thou wilt rather beleeue Tertullian in a worke generally ap­proued, then thou must say as we say, that the Apostles ad­ded nothing of their owne, but taught only what they recei­ued of Christ, according to the commission giuen vnto them; Mat. 28 20. Teaching them to obserue whatsoeuer things I haue comman­ded you. But to shew that our Sauiour left many things to the disposition of the Apostles, he alleageth those wordes of S ^t. Paul; 1. Cor. 11. 34. Other things I will dispose or set in order when I come. Where I would pray him to tell vs in good sadnesse whether the meaning of those wordes be, I will teach you when I come some new doctrine and points of faith which Christ hath not taught or commanded me to teach, but I haue added of mine owne. If he thinke so, let him tell vs that we may won­der at him. If he doe not thinke so, to what end is it that he alleageth those wordes? Surely he who a little before so re­ligiously telleth them, that Vos. 23. he receiued of the Lord that which he deliuered to them, should not seeme likely presently after to say that he would hereafter teach them other mat­ters of his owne, which he had not receiued of the Lord. M. Bishop therefore should haue vsed his discretion to put a difference betwixt matter of order and matter of faith, so to vnderstand that though the Apostles might, as the Church alwaies may, prescribe orders for decency and conueniency in the publike assemblies and gouernement of the Church, yet that in doctrine and faith, neither they then, nor the Church now, may adde any thing to that which Christ our Lord commanded and deliuered both to them and vs. Of the same kinde is his other proofe out of that which the A­postle faith for aduice to the vnmarried so still to abide, con­cerning [Page 169] which he professeth to haue receiued 1. Cor. 7. 12. 25. no comman­dement from the Lord; for what is this to shew that the A­postle hereby added a new point of faith, when as whether the married or the vnmarried, whether they that follow his aduise, or they that follow it not, all are saued by the same faith? Aduise is of things arbitrary to be done; faith is of things necessary to be beleeued. The Apostle therfore might giue wholsome aduise without cōmandement of the Lord, and yet cannot hereupon be said to teach a new article of faith. I said further in my answere, that the Apostles prea­ched only Rom. 1. 2. the Gospell, promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures. M. Bishop telleth me that I belye the A­postle, and corrupt the text by adding the word, only. But I set downe the word only in a letter distinct from the wordes of the text, as appeareth in my booke, though he would not ob­serue it, but hudleth all together, and therefore there was no cause for him to charge me with corrupting the text. And what? will he say notwithstanding that it was not meant that they preached only the Gospell promised in the Scriptures? Surely the Apostle noteth his calling and seruice to haue bin to preach the Gospell of God. This Gospell of God, he saith, God had promised before by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures. Now if M. Bishop will say that though the Gospell were there promised, yet the whole Gospell was not promised; he wrongeth the Apostle by making his wordes partly true and partly false; true in one part of the Gospell, because one part was promised; false in another part, because that other part was not promised. Which to auoide, he must confesse that the whole Gospell was promised in the Scriptures of the Prophets, and because the Apostles preached only the Gospel of God, therefore they preached only the Gospell promised in the Scriptures. And thus in the end of the same Epistle the Apostle speaketh againe to the same effect, that Rom. 16. 26. the mysle­rie of the Gospell was published amongst all nations by the Scrip­tures of the Prophets. We doe not thinke he dallied in so say­ing as to meane, the Gospell is published, that is to say, a part [Page 170] thereof but not the whole, but the Gospell entirely and per­fectly is preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets. There­fore elsewhere he professeth that in preaching the Gospell ^f he said no other things but what the Prophets and Moses did Acts 26. 22. say should come. But here M. Bishop saith, I mangle the text and breake off in the midst of a sentence, that it might seeme ap­pliable to all points of the Apostles preachings which the Apo­stle applieth only to Christs death and resurrection, and the preaching and carrying of light to the Gentiles. But he himselfe rather doth wrong in so abridging the wordes of the Apostle contrary to the practise of the Apostle, who though here he name only a briefe of some principall points as accusloma­bly is done, yet vnder these as the chiefe comprehendeth the whole doctrine which he taught. He vsed the wordes to take away the offence which was generally conceiued a­gainst his preaching, and seeing he did not preach these only particulars which are here set downe, neither were they of­fended only at these, therefore he must be so vnderstood as that the wordes must be applyed to all the rest, and that ta­ken as put in steede of all, whereat they were offended most of all. And if we doe not so take them, we make him subiect to calumniation, because he could not affirme that he said no other things then the Prophets and Moses did say should come, if in any other points he taught any thing that had not the testimony of Moses and the Prophets. Yea when the same Apostle saith generally of Rom. 3. 21. 22 the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ, that it hath the witnesse of the law and the Prophets, how can M. Bishop perswade vs that in the preach­ing of the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ, he should teach any thing but whereof hee had witnesse and warrant of the law and Prophets? especially when wee see him as in other of his Epistles, so specially in the Epistle to the Romans, instifying all points of faith accordingly. And that this is a truth not to be contradicted, we will take wit­nesse of Gregory Bishop of Rome, who saith, that Gregor. in Cant c. 5. Apo­ [...] a Pro [...] [...] ­ru [...]n d [...]ctis vt [...] persisterent fidem integram [...]. the Apo­siles receiued the whole faith from those things that were spo­ken [Page 171] by the Prophets. And againe, Idem in E­zech. hom. 6. Qued praedicat l [...]x, hoc [...]iani Prophete; quod d [...]nuilciant Pro­phatae, [...]o [...] [...] ­b [...]t [...]; quod ex [...]ourt E­uangelium, hoc praedi [...]a [...]erunt Aposto [...] per mun­dum. Looke what the law preacheth, the same also doe the Prophets; and what the Pro­phets teach, the same the Gospell hath exhibited; and what the Gospell exhibited, the Apostles preached through the world. Thus the law and the Prophets and the Gospell, and the preaching of the Apostles, haue all deliuered only one and the same thing. Therefore he saith, that Ibid. V [...]ra (que) Testamenta in nullo a se d [...]scre­pant, &c. In [...]st testamento vete­ri, testamentum no [...]um, &c. Prophetia testa­menti no [...]i, te­stamentum vetus est, & expositio testamenti vete­ris, testamentum nouum. the two Testaments differ not in any thing one from the other; that the new Testa­ment is contained in the old; that the old Testament is a pro­phecio of the now, and the new Testament the exposition of the old. The same had S ^t. Austin said before, that Aug. cont. Faust. Manich. l. 15. c. 2. Vetus testamentum re­cte intell [...]genti­bus prophe [...]a est noui testamenti. the old Te­stament to them that rightly vnderstand it is a prophecie of the new; that Idem de Ca­techiz. rudib. c. 4. In veteri te­stamento est oc­cultatio noui. in neuo testamento est manifestatio veteris. in the old Testament is the hiding of the new, and in the new the manifesting of the old. To be short Leo faith. Leo in Natiuitat. Dom. serm 3. Quod praedicauerunt Apostoli, hoc annuncia­uerunt Proph [...]tae, &c. quod semper est credit [...]m. What the Apostles preached, the same the Prophets haue de­clared, and the same hath alwaies beene beleeued. Now if the Apostles receiued the whole faith of the Prophets, and the same haue alwaies beene beleeued, if the preaching of the Prophets and Apostles be the same; if the two Testaments differ in nothing one from the other, and the new be contai­ned and hidden in the old, then haue I rightly affirmed that the words of S ^t. Paul are generally true, that in preaching the Gospell he said no other things but those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. In the rest of this diuision we may thinke that M. Bishop was scant sober when he wrote it, or else wrote in a dreame when he neither knew what was said to him, nor what he was to say. The Apostle saith not that he taught any one article which the common sort of the Iewes did beleeue. And what then? To what end, M. Bishop, doe you here tell vs a tale of the common sort of the Iewes? Who spake of them or gaue you occasion to make any men­tion of them? The matter is what the Prophets taught, and the elect of God beleeued, not what the common sort of the [Page 172] Iewes beleeued who commonly beleeued not the Prophets but killed and stoned them when they were sent vnto them. How many, saith he, beleeued that their Messias should die so shamefull a death? or that Moses law should be abrogated by the same Messias? or that the Gospell of Christ should be preached vnto all nations? All, say I, that vnderstood and beleeued the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, in which they were forewarned of these things. The vnbeliefe or ignorance of the rest, I trow, hindereth not but that these things were then contained in the faith of the Church, and in the do­ctrine of that time, vnlesse M. Bishop will say, that in Popery those are no articles of faith which the common sort of their Christians doe not conceiue, who haue only the Colliars faith to beleeue iust as the Church beleeueth, when they nei­ther know what the Church beleeueth, nor what they them­selues ought to beleeue. In a word the Prophets then fore­told nothing for matter of faith which was not matter of faith then as well as now.

R. ABBOT.

THe Planets though in respect of other Starres they seeme to wander, because in their orbe they change their place, yet in their wandering and change doe alwaies obserue a certaine and constant course. I seeme to M. Bishop to wander by going from a Prosyllogisme to a Syllogisme, and from a maior to a minor; but yet he seeth to his griefe that I inferre a direct and certaine conclusion, as I haue be­fore briefly declared in the first Chapter. I came by processe of speech to shew that our faith and not Popery is the Apo­stolike faith, To proue this I alleaged that what faith and Gospell the Apostles taught, they committed the same to writing, and because ours accordeth fully with that which they wrote, therefore ours is the Apostolike faith. It offen­deth M. Bishop that it should be said that all which the A­postles taught, they committed to writing. Well, what is his instance to proue the contrary? Forsooth, many of them who neuer ceased to preach left not one sentence in writing behinde them, and he that wrote most, wrote not the hundreth part of that which he taught. Where we see the true picture of a ve­ry wilfull and absurd wra [...]gler, who seeketh by vaine cauil­lation to obscure that which by reason and truth he cannot disproue. What though all the Apostles did not write, when as the writings of some might sufficiently set forth the preaching of all, because they all preached the same thing? [Page 175] And what though none of them wrote particularly all the words which he vttered, when as it sufficeth vs that amongst them they wrote all the points of faith which they vttered in those wordes? If M. Bishop were asked whether they haue not in Scripture and Tradition all which the Apostles taught, would he not say, yea? And can he then tell vs particularly all the speeches and discourses and sermons that they made from day to day, Peter amongst the Iewes, and Paul amongst the Gentils, at Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, in Galatia, and the rest; Iohn in [...] sia, Thomas in India, Matthias and Andrew in Aethiopia, and the other Apostles otherwhere? If he would thinke him a foole that should aske him this question, and doth hold it sufficient that they haue all the points of doctrine though they haue not all the wordes, he must giue vs leaue to thinke him scant wise that when wee say, what the Apostles taught, they committed all to wri­ting, would vnderstand vs otherwise. And this meaning he himselfe, that it may appeare that he doth but famble and palter, presently declareth, when yeelding of his courtesie that the Apostles left the Gospell in writing and many other most diuine and rare instructions in their Epistles (a rare com­mendation of them as if he spake of Granatensis his Dux peccatorum or Parsons Resolution) and therefore that I needed not cite Irenaeus to witnesse that, he addeth his exception, but that they wrote all which they preached or all things necessary to saluation Irenaeus saith not a word. So then he knoweth well enough that when we say that all which the Apostles taught they committed to writing, wee meane thereby all things necessary to saluation, all points of faith and doctrine by them preached, and which it concerneth vs to know and beleeue vnto eternall life. But of this, saith he, Ireneus saith not a word. The wordes of Ireneus which I cited are these: Iren. adu. haer. lib. 3. c. 1. [...]on enim per a­lios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognouimus, quàm per eos per quos I uang [...]lium peruenit ad nos; quod quidem tunc praeconia­uerunt, postea verò per Dei vo­luntatem in scri­ptaris nobis tra­diderunt funda­mentum & co­lumnam sidei no­strae futurum. By no other haue we knowen the order or way of our saluation but by them, by whom the Gospell came to vs, which verily they then preached, and afterwards by the will of God they deliuered the same to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of [Page 176] our faith. Now I hope M. Bishop will not deny but that the gospell which the Apostles preached, contained all points of faith necessary to saluation. If therefore they haue deliue­red vnto vs in writing the gospell which they preached, surely they haue deliuered to vs in writing all points of faith neces­sary to saluation. He playeth vpon a distinction betwixt the Epistles and the Gospell, as if the Epistles were no part of the Gospell which the Apostles preached, but if they be not so, he should tell vs what they be, and how the Apostle profes­seth Phil. 3. 1. to write in his Epistle the same things which he had be­fore preached; and how Christ preached Mat. 4. 23. the Gospell of the Kingdome, and taught men Mar. 1. 15. to beleeue the Gospell before there was any written Gospell, and before the greatest part of the history was in act; and how S ^t. Paul challengeth the Galathians for being Gal. 1. 6. remoued to another Gospell, when yet they receiued no other story concerning Christ, but doctrine contrary to that which is contained in the Epistles? Aug. de Ciu. Dei. l. 17. c. 17. Fatentur ex Sion missam suisse le­gem Christi, quod Euangelium nos vocamus. The Gospell, as S ^t. Austin telleth vs, is the law of Christ, and are the Epistles of the Apostles no part of the law of Christ? The Gospell is called by S ^t. Paul 2. Cor. 5. 19. the word of reconciliation, and is expounded by S ^t. Ambrose to be Ambros. in Rom. c. 1. Euan­gelium Dei est bonum nuncium Dei quo peccato­res ad indulgen­tiā conu [...]cantur. the glad tidings sent from God whereby sinners are called to pardon and forgiuenesse, and doe not the Apostles in their Epistles teach this word of reconciliation and glad tidings from God? If then the Apo­stles left the Gospell in writing, and the Gospell containe all points of faith necessary to saluation, then that which the Apostles left in writing containeth all points of faith neces­sary to saluation. Albeit to follow M. Bishop in his owne distinction, if we take the Gospell as he doth for the writings of the foure Euangelists, S ^t. Austin saith thereof, that August. in Ioan. tract. 49. Ipse sanctus E­uangelista testa­tur multa Domi­num Christum & di [...]isse & socisse qu [...] scripta non sunt. Electa sunt autem quae scri­berentur quae sa­luti credentium sufficere vide­bantur. of those things which our Lord Iesus said and did, choise was made of so much to be written as seemed sufficient for the saluation of them that beleeue. And to the same purpose Cyril also saith; Cyril. in Io­an. lib. 12. c. 68. Non igit [...]r om­nia quae Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed qu [...] scri­ [...]tes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores, q [...]àm [...]d dogma [...]a, vt recta fide & operibus & vir [...] rutil [...]ntes ad regnum coelorum perueniamus. All things which Christ did are not written, but what the writers thought sufficient both for manners and doctrine, that [Page 177] shining with true faith and vertuous workes, we may attaine to the heauenly Kingdome. The Gospels then containe that do­ctrine and faith that is sufficient to saluation, albeit God would prouide for vs not only sufficiently but abundantly, and hath in the Epistles of the Apostles giuen vs large and cleare declaration of the doctrine of Christ that is contained in the Gospels. As for that which M. Bishop alleageth vn­der the name of Ireneus to proue the contrary, it is a most wilfull and impudent falsification. He most sagely counsaileth all men, saith he, when any controuersie in religion ariseth to make their recourse to the most ancient Churches where the A­postles had conuersed, and from them to take their resolution. He citeth for this Euseb. hist. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 19. But that which is of Ireneus is by my Booke Cap. 18. and no matter at all tending to that effect as hee alleageth. Ireneus is there brought in mentioning Euseb. hist. l. 5. cap. 18. Cum puer adhuc in Asia inferiore a­pud Polycarpum essem, &c. Com­memorarequeam quomodo se cum Joanne ac reli­quis qui Dominū viderunt conuer­satum esse dixe­rit & sermones eorum memora­uerit, & quae ex illis de Domino audierit & de virtutibus eius & doctrina tan­quam ex ijs qui ipsi verbum vite viderant percep­ta & cuncta san­ctis Scripturis consona rec [...]n­suerit. that he had beene in his childhood with Polycarpus, and that he had heard him tell how he had beene conuersant with Iohn and the rest that had seen the Lord, and remembred their speeches, and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and his miracles and doctrine, as receiued from them who themselues had seene the word of life, and repor­ted all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures. Here is a com­mendation of the Scripture, and an intimation giuen that tradition ought to be no other but consonant and agreeable to the holy Scripture, but of referring to the Churches in cases of controuersie not so much as one word. But though his head here failed hi [...], yet I know well what the place is that he meant to cite, which followeth in the booke whence I alleaged the sentence to which he answereth. And yet there is nothing in that place fitting to his purpose, Ireneus hauing there to doe with Heretikes, who being reproued by the Scriptures, reiected the triall of the Scriptures vpon the like pretences as the Papists now doe, and therefore being for­ced to vse against them the testimony of the Churches from the time of the Apostles, for proofe of those things which were cleare by the writings of the Apostles, as we now doe [Page 178] against the Papists, but saying nothing at all as to deliuer a rule, that when cases of controuersie doe arise, we should alwaies haue recourse to such testimony of the Church. Of that place of Ireneus I haue spoken sufficiently Answere to Doctor Bishops Epistle to the King, sect. 11. before, and therefore I will not here againe trouble the Reader any further therewith. In what sort also he attributeth principa­lity to the Roman Church, I haue already declared in the §. 2. first Chapter of this booke. Now as he is impudent in ans­wering Ireneus, so in his answere to Tertullian he is much more impudent. The sentences of those two Fathers I cited as depending one vpon another. Ireneus saith, that the Gospell which the Apostles preached, they afterwards deliue­red to vs in the Scriptures. Tertullian saith; Tertul. de Praescript. No­bis non est opus curiositate post Christum nec in­quisitione post E­uangelium. Cum h [...]c credimus, nihil desidera­mus vltrà cre­dere; hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod vl­trà credere debe­mus. Wee neede no curiosity after Christ, nor further enquiry after the Gospell; when we beleeue this, we desire to beleeue nothing further, for this we first beleeue that there is nothing further for vs to be­leeue. Marke well, gentle Reader, the coherence of these wordes. The Apostles committed the Gospell to writing; we neede no further inquiry after the Gospell; we desire to beleeue nothing further; we beleeue that there is nothing else for vs to beleeue. To this what doth M. Bishop say? Beleeuing this? beleeuing what? the written word only? no­thing lesse. The Gospell, M. Bishop, it is the Gospell, you see, of the beleefe whereof he speaketh, and beside which or after which he desireth to beleeue nothing, yea beleeueth that there is nothing further to be beleeued. Seeing then the Gospell is written as Ireneus saith, it followeth by Tertullian that beside the written word there is nothing else to be be­leeued. Nothing lesse, saith M. Bishop. And why? For in that whole Treatise, saith he, his principall drift is to proue that Heretikes cannot be confuted out of the written word, but by ancient customes and traditions which he calleth Prescriptions. Where he most shamefully abuseth that worke of Tertullian, expounding Prescriptions to be meant of old customes and traditions, whereas Tertullian hath nothing to that purpose, but by Prescriptions meaneth grounds of reasons and argu­ments [Page 179] whereby to proceede and deale against Heretikes for the reprouing and conuincing of them. Neither doth he goe about to proue that Heretikes cannot be confuted by the written word, but only sheweth that it was to no purpose to deale with them by the Scriptures or written word, be­cause they receiued and reiected Scriptures as they list, did put in and blot out, alter and chop and change, so that what­soeuer made against them should goe for no Scripture. Yea the matters of their heresies were touching those articles of our faith, which are clearely and manifestly testified by the Scriptures, and therefore M. Bishop dealeth very lewdly with Tertullian, to make him to say that they could not be con­futed thereby. I neede not stand hereupon, hauing Of Traditi­ons, sect. 10. before at large discouered M. Bishops dishonesty herein, and shew­ed out of the matter of the booke how falsly he fathereth that drift vpon Tertullian. Only it is here to be noted what a prety meaning he maketh of those wordes which I cited thence, namely this, When we beleeue the whole doctrine of Christ both written and deliuered by Apostolicall tradition, then we desire to beleeue no more of any vpstart Heretikes new de­uises. Where I pray thee to note how his two answeres agree together. He told vs before to Ireneus that the Apostles left the Gospell in writing. Here to Tertullian speaking of the Gospell, he answereth, that the Gospell signifieth the whole doctrine of Christ both written and vnwritten. So when he list the Gospell is written, and when he list the Gospell is vn­written, and he cannot tell certainly what it is. If the Gos­pell were left in writing, then the Gospell is no doctrine vn­written; or if the Gospell doe signifie also vnwritten do­ctrine, then the Apostles did not leaue the Gospell in wri­ting, but only a part and parcell thereof. But we beleeue that the Apostles left vs a perfect written Gospell, and there­fore we say to M Bishop and his fellowes, as Athanasius said to the Arian Heretikes; Athanas. de Incar. Christi. Si Discipuli estis Euangeliorū ne loquamini contra Deum iniquitatē sed per scripturas cedite. Quòd si diuersa à scriptu­ris fabulari vul­tis, cur nobiscum concertatis qui neque [...]oqui neque audire sustine­mus quod extra­neum sit ab istis, dicente Domino, &c. If yee be Schollers of the Gos­pell, speake not iniquity against God but goe by the Scriptures; but if you will babble things diuerse from the Scriptures, why [Page 108] doe you meddle with vs who endure neither to speake nor heare any thing which is strange from the Scriptures, our Lord Christ telling vs, If yee abide in my word, then shall yee be free indeed. Now to shew that beside the written Gospell and word of God there is nothing else to be receiued, I alleaged a per­emptory sentence of S ^t. Austin; Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 6. Siue de Christo siue de eius Ec­clesia, siue de quacun (que) alia re qu [...] pertinet ad fidem vitam (que) nostram, non di­cam Nos, neq [...]a­quam cōparandi [...]i qui dixit, Li­cetsinos, sed quod secutus adiecit, si Angelus de coe­lo vobis annun­ciauerit praeter­quam quod in Scripturis lega­libus & Euange­licis accepistis, a­nathema sit. If any man, nay if an An­gell from heauen shall preach vnto vs concerning Christ or con­cerning his Church or concerning any thing pertaining to our faith and life, but what we haue receiued in the Scriptures of the law and gospell, accursed be he. Here M. Bishop commeth forth and telleth vs; To S ^t. Austin I answere first, that those are not his formall wordes which he citeth, and that is all his first answere. Wherein he sheweth no other but a perfidi­ous and treacherous purpose, in that he would put a surmise into the Readers minde that I had cited the wordes amisse, when he had nothing to alleage, why he should say that I had done amisse. What ailed him that he did not himselfe set downe the formall wordes that it might be seene what fault I had committed in the citing of them? Thou maiest well be assured, gentle Reader, by the whole course of his writing, that if he had had any thing to say he would not haue omitted so to doe. To let this goe, he taketh vpon him secondly to giue vs a formall answere. Admitting the sense, saith he, if it be rightly taken, I say that the wordes are to be vnderstood, If any shall preach contrary to that that is written. Of this sense he maketh S ^t. Austin himselfe the Author, quo­ting one place in the margent of his booke, as he did before with Ireneus, when as the wordes which he citeth are in an­other, shewing that he tooke them at all aduenture out of their large volumes, and neuer looked into the Author whe­ther he did right or wrong. It is true indeede that in the place quoted, S ^t. Austin applieth the wordes of the Apostle, If any preach beside what yee haue receiued, to condemne Faustus the Here [...]ike Aug. cont. Faust. Mani [...]h. l. 17. c. 3. Qu [...]a de Christo contra Christi Discipulos loquitur & con­tra Euangclium quod ill [...]rum au­thoritate firma­tum est. for that he spake of Christ contrary to the Disciples of Christ, and contrary to the Gospell which by their authority was confirmed. Thus he might very rightly vse [Page 181] the wordes and not beside the meaning of the Apostle, who when he taught the Galathians to reiect whatsoeuer was beside the gospel which he had taught them, doth much more teach them to condemne whatsoeuer should be contrary thereto. But this exposition though it be true yet is not suf­ficient, because it was not enough that the Apostle should condemne only things contrary, but all doctrines beside the Gospell which they had receiued. For we cannot doubt but that the Apostle preached vnto them the whole doctrine of the Gospell, euen as he did to the Ephesians Act. 20. 27. all the coun­sell of God. Now of the whole doctrine of the Gospell it is truly said that not only nothing contrary, but nothing beside it is to be receiued. The Apostle therefore meant so that they were to receiue nothing beside the Gospell which they had receiued. And this Chrysostome very well obserueth; Chrysost. in Gal. c. 1. N [...] (que) dixit, si contraria annuntiauerint, aut totum Euan­gelium [...]ubuerte­rint, verum si vel paululùm euan­gelizauerint prae­ter Euangelium quod accepistis, etiamsi quidvis labefactarint, a­nathema sint. Paul doth not say; if they preach contrary things, or if they subuert the whole Gospell, but if they preach but euen a little be­side the Gospell which yee haue receiued, or if they weaken any thing, accursed be they. This Theophy lact expresseth more plainly, thus; Theophy l. in Gal. c. 1. Ne­que enim fi con­traria solum prae­dicauerint, intu­lit, sed si euange­lizauerint quid prater quod ipsi Euangeliz [...]uimꝰ hoc est, s [...] pluscu­lum quippiam ipsi adi [...]cerint, exe­crationi, [...]ubdan­tur. For he saith not only, if they preach contrary things, but if they preach any thing beside that which we haue preached, that is, if they adde but any little thereto, let them be accursed. As for the wordes of Austin which M. Bishop ci­teth he knoweth not whence, they make nothing against this meaning but wholly for it, saue that he somewhat for­ceth them by false translation, and cutteth off the last part of them. August. in [...]an. tract. 98. Non [...]t, plus quàm accepistis, sed praeter quod accepistis: nam si iltud diceret si­bi ipse praeiudi­c [...]ret qui cupie­bat venire ad Thessalonicenses vt suppler et quae eorum fidei de­ [...]uerunt, sed qui supplet, quod minus erat addit, non quod inerat tollit. Qui autem prae­tergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in via sed re [...]dit de via. The Apostle saith not, more then yee haue receiued, but beside what yee haue receiued: for if he had so said, he should haue preiudiced himselfe, who desired to come to the Thes­salonians, to supply what was wanting to their faith. Now he that supplieth, addeth that which is wanting; and taketh not a­way what was before. But he that goeth beside the rule of faith, goeth not forward in the way, but departeth from the way. Where S ^t. Austin doth not say, otherwise then you haue recei­ued, [Page 182] as M. Bishop translateth, but beside what ye [...] ha [...]e recei­ued, as the Apostle speaketh, calling that which they had re­ceiued the rule of faith, and saying, that he that goeth beside or beyond that rule, as it were to make a larger way, depar­teth out of the way, which M. Bishop thought it safest for him wholly to suppresse. But he noteth withall that the A­postle forbiddeth them not to receiue more then they had re­ceiued, that is, to receiue that more perfectly which they had receiued by growing more and more in the knowledge and vnderstanding thereof, and proceeding therein as it were from milke to strong meate, which is the drift of S ^t. Austins discourse there; only hee willeth them that beside that which they had receiued, they should receiue nothing. In a word to speake as the Schooles speake, in extension they were to receiue no more by adding to the doctrine which they had beene taught; in intension they were to receiue more by increasing and profiting in that which they had re­ceiued. But that we may know that it was S ^t. Austins minde as his words import, that nothing is to be receiued beside what we receiue out of the Scriptures of the law and the gospell, we are to obserue againe that which I before obserued, that he saith that August. de Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. In ijs qu [...] apertè in Scrip­tura posit [...] sunt, in [...]iuntur illa omnia qua conti­nent fidem mo­res (que) viuendi. in those things which are plainly set downe in Scripture, are found all those things which containe faith and conuersation of life. Yea he saith further, that Idem de vti­lit. cred. cap. 6. Planè ita modi­ficata vt nemo inde baurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modò ad bauriendum deuotè ac piè vt vera religio pos­cit accedat. the doctrine of the Scripture is so tempered as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with deuotion and piety as true religion requireth him to doe. Hereto adde how he vseth the wordes of the Apostle, where to he alludeth in the sentence by me cited in his di­sputing against the Donatists: Idem de v­nit. Eccl. c. 11. 12. Quisquis a­liud Euangeliza­uerit, anathem [...] sit: Aliud autem euangelizat qui perijsse dicit de c [...]t [...]ro mudo Ec­clesiam & in parte Donati in sola Asrica re­ [...]nansisse dicit. Ergo anathema sit. Aut legat mi [...]i hoc in scri­pturis sanctis & nō sit anathema. Whosoeuer preacheth any o­ther thing accursed be he; but he preacheth another thing who saith that the Church is perished out of the whole world, and is remaining only in the Donatists; therefore accursed be he; or else let him reade it to me in the holy Scriptures that he may not be accursed. Now then if by S ^t. Austins iudgement there be found in Scripture all things belonging to faith and man­ners [Page 183] and there be no godly man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him; if he be to be holden accursed that preacheth that which he cannot reade to vs out of the holy Scriptures, then it appeareth that M. Bishop dealeth falsly in expounding the wordes of Austin, and that they serue very fully to that purpose and meaning, whereto I al­leaged them, and whereto without any ambiguity at all they most plainly sound. But because we haue here in hand to informe the Roman Catholike, I will conclude this place with the censure of a Roman Bishop, Gregory the first who calleth Gregor. in 1. Reg. l. 2. c. 3. Quid cor & ani­mam Dei [...]si sa­cram eius scrip­turam accipin [...]. the holy Scripture the heart and soule of God, and tel­leth vs that Idem Moral. l. 16. c. 16. Per cam Deus loqui­tur omne quod vult. by it God speaketh all his will or all that he requi­reth, and that so as that Ibid. l. 18. c. 14. Eos ad sa­crae authoritatis paginas vocat vt si vere loqui de­siderent, inde su­mere debeant quid loquantur. Qui ad verae praedicationis verba se praepa­rat, necesse [...]st vt causarum ori­gines à sacris pa­ginis sumat vt omne quod loqui­tur ad diuinae authoritatis sun­damentum reuo­cet atque in c [...] aedificium locuti­onis suae [...]irmet. he that desireth to speake or preach iruly, must take from thence that which he speaketh, and set [...]h the grounds of his matters out of the sacred bookes, that he may bring all that he speaketh to the foundation of diuine authority, and thereupon settle the building of his speech. He saith againe that Idē in Cant. c. 5. Sancti viri se consilijs Scrip­turae ex toto ad­dicunt, vt vide­ [...]icet nihil agant nisi quod ex respons [...] Scripturarum audiunt, &c. Quia de quibuscun (que) scrupuli [...] in Scripturis consilium quaeritur, fine min [...]ratione de omnibus ad plenum inuenitur. holy men doe wholly addict themselues to the counsels or directions of the Scripture, namely so as to doe nothing but what they heare by answere of the Scriptures; because of whatsoeuer doubts, aduise is sought for in the Scriptures (namely concer­ning matters of faith and godlinesse) it is there fully found of all things without exception, and Idem in Ezech. hom. 15. Ʋniuersa nostra munitio in sa [...]ro [...]l [...]qu [...]o cominetur. all our munition or armour (to wit, against our ghostly enemies) yea Ibid. hom. 9. In h [...] volumine cuncta qu [...] [...]dificant, omni [...] qu [...] [...]diunt, scripta conti [...]entur. all things that doe [...]difie, all things that doe instruct are contained therein. In all which speeches if Gregory say truth, then it must stand good which I haue set downe, that all our faith and religion is contained in the Scriptures, and neither may the preacher speake, nor the hearer receiue any thing that hath not con­firmation and proofe out of the booke of God.

R. ABBOT.

I Haue noted §. [...]. before in this Chapter, that S ^t. 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 [Page 187] Austin said to Iulian the Pelagian, August. cō [...]. 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; Rom. 2. 29. He is a Iew which is one within, and 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 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 [Page 188] 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; August. cōt. 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 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 Scotus apud Bellarm. de sa­cra. Eucharist. lib. 3. cap. 23. Dicit nullum ex­tare lo [...]um scrip­turae tam expres­sum vt sine Ec­clesi [...] declarati­one euidentèr c [...] ­gat transubstan­tiationem admit­tere. Atque id non est omnin [...] improbabil [...] &c. an ita sit merit [...] d [...]bitar [...] potest cum homines do­ctiss [...] & acu­tiss [...], qualis in­pr [...]is Scotus fuit, contrarium s [...]tia [...]t. there is no place of Scripture so expresse as that it eui­dently forceth to admit transubstantiation without their Chur­ches declaration. Yea Bellarmine himselfe saith, that this is not improbable, and that it may worthily be doubted whether there be any such, because very learned and acute men, such as Scotus specially was, doe thinke the contrary. Let him first goe and agree with Scotus and Bellarmine, and those other so learned and acute men, and then tell vs what he hath to say [Page 189] and we will answere him, albeit of this matter. I haue Confu [...]a [...]. of the a [...]swere to M. Perkin [...] his Aduertisemēt, sect. 48. 59. al­ready answered him so much as will suffice for the clearing thereof. For his second instance he citeth the wordes of Christ thus, whose sinnes yee shall forgiue on earth, shall be f [...]rgi­uen in heauen, and maketh it here deliuered in expresse termes, that Priests haue power to pardon sinnes. True it is, M. Bishop, accordingly as you cite, on earth, but not in hea­uen; in the Court of the Church, but not in the Court of conscience; for restitution to the outward society of faith­full men, not immediately for reconcilement to God. As for forgiuenesse of sinnes spiritually with God, the Priest hath the ministery only, not the power thereof; by 2. Cor. 5. 18. 19 the word of reconciliation, not by any forme of absolution; neither can he say any further, I forgiue thee, then he saith, I baptise thee▪ who baptiseth not by any inward effect to God (which is only the worke of God) but only by outward Sacrament to the Church of God. Therefore for the Popish challenge of the power of absolution with God, our Sauiour Christ saith nothing; he speaketh only for that power of absolution which professeth only to take away the barre that standeth against reconcilement to God, who in publike sinnes lying vnder publike censure, admitteth of no penitency for for­giuenesse in heauen, that is not testified and declared for ob­tayning forgiuenesse and pardon vpon earth. It needeth not that I speake so much hereof, hauing so largely handled this point Answere to the Epistle to the King, sect. 28. and to the Preface of his second part, sect. 3. before. Thirdly, he alleageth the words, Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rocke will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it; from whence he in­ferreth, that Christ hath built his Church vpon S ^t. Peter. But it was of Petra, the Rocke, that Peter had that name giuen him to be called Peter, and therefore it cannot be that Peter himselfe should be the Rocke. Gregor. in Psal. 5. Poeni­tent. Ipse est Petra à qua Pe­trus nomen acce­pit, & super quā s [...] ad [...]icaturum Ecclesiam d [...]xit. Christ himselfe is the Rocke, as Gregory saith, of which Peter tooke his name, and vpon which he said he would build his Church. Albeit we deny not but that the Church was in some sort built vpon Peter, but vpon Peter as one of many, not vpon Peter alo [...]e, [Page 190] because of the City of God there are Apoc. 21. 14. twelue f [...]undations wherein are the names of the Lambes twelue Apostles, not on­ly Peters name. See hereof also that which hath beene Chap. 1. §. 2. be­fore said. His fourth text is, Call the workemen (that had la­boured in the vineyard) and pay them their hire; which hee bringeth to proue that good workes doe in iustice deserue eter­nall life. But is this in expresse termes deliuered in those wordes? Surely it seemeth to me a very long conclusion to be drawen out of so short a speech. I haue handled this text Of Merits, sect. 14. 17. before, and haue shewed out of the very circumstance of the place, that it is so farre from prouing that which he saith, as that the contrary is very manifestly and infallibly euicted thereby. The briefe is, that if things had beene there mea­sured by desert, then greater worke should haue had greater wages, whereas there all haue alike, that it might be vnder­stood of all, as there I haue cited out of Prosper, that Prosp. de vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 5. Vt intel­ligant d [...]num se grati [...], non operli accepisse merc [...] ­dem. they receiued a gift of grace, not a wages for their workes. For his fift instance he bringeth the wordes of S ^t. Iames; Doe you see that a man is iustified by workes, and not by faith only? Hence he inferreth, that we are iustified not by faith alone but also by work [...]s. And who denyeth but that by workes also we are iustified and must necessarily so be? Wee say with Saint Iames that wee are not iustified by faith only, but also by workes, as Abraham was, but yet we say with S ^t. Paul also, that Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 3 11. before God or in the sight of God we are iustified by faith and not by workes, and Rom. 4. 2. if Abraham were iustified by workes (he denyeth him not so to be) he had to reioyce, but not with God. For the further handling of this point also I referre the Reader to that that I haue said Of Iustifica­tion, sect. 36. before. Againe, to proue that in extremity of sicknesse we must call for the Priest to an­oile vs with holy oile, he citeth S ^t. Iames, Is any man sicke a­mong you? let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray ouer them anoiling them with oile in the name of our Lord. But if their Sacrament of Extreme vnction be here so expresly deliuered, how is it that their owne Cardinall Ca­i [...]tan [...] could not see it, who saith, that Caietan in Iac. cap. 5. Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu verba haec loq [...]untur de sacramentali vn­ctione extrem [...] vnctionis, sed magis de vncti­one quam insti­t [...]t Dominus in e [...]angel [...] ex [...]r­cendam in [...]g [...] ­t [...]s. neither by the wordes [Page 191] nor by the effect doth the Apostle here speake of their sacramen­tall vnction, but rather of that which the Lord instituted in the Gospell, to be vsed by his Disciples to them that were sicke? He iustifieth that which we say, that the annointing whereof S ^t. Iames speaketh, was no other but a ceremony annexed to 1. Cor. 12. 9. the gift of healing, of which we reade in the Gospell spo­ken of Christs disciples; Mar. 6. 13. They annointed many that were sick with oile and healed them, which gift and power of healing being ceased in the Church, the ceremony must be reputed idle, and the vsing thereof in that manner and to that end as the Papists doe, is no other but an imitation of the Valenti­nian Heretikes and Heracleonites, as I haue Answere to the Preface of the second part sect 20. before shewed. S ^t. Iames doth not say, Is any man in extremity of sicknesse, past hope of life, and now departing out of the world, as M. Bishop in part speaketh, and as they wholly vse that new deuised Sacrament, but he saith absolutely, Is any man sicke? Againe, S ^t. Iames maketh the effect of that annointing to be bodily health, saying that the Lord shall raise him vp or giue him ease, which is the sauing or preseruing, of which he spea­keth, namely, from the perill and danger of sicknesse, as Bellarm. de Extr. vnct. c. 8. Incipit à sanitate corporali, cum ait, Oratio fidei saluabit infir [...]. Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth it, whereas the effect of Sacraments is no corporall benefit, but only inward and spi­rituall grace. For albeit the water of Baptisme haue an ef­fect to cleanse the body, and bread and wine in the Lords Supper to nourish and feede the same, yet these are no Sa­cramentall, but only naturall effects belonging to these crea­tures without any Sacrament, whereas the proper effect of that whereof S ^t. Iames speaketh is bodily recouery, and therefore by OEcumen. in Iac. 5. Hoc etiam Domino adhuc inter ho­mines conuersan­te Apostoli sacre­bant vngentes ae­grotos ol [...]o & sanantes. OEcumenius is made all one with that which the Apostles did, as I haue alleaged, whereof health is noted to haue ensued. His last text is to proue, that we must con­fesse our sinnes not to God only but also to men, because the same S ^t. Iames saith; Confesse your sinnes one to another. And who denyeth this? who gainsayeth it, when as our Sauiour Christ so plainly instructeth him that hath Luke 17. 4. sinned against his brother to returne to him and say, It repenteth me, that so there may be [Page 192] reconciliation and peace betwixt them? We make no que­stion of confessing repentantly and charitably one to ano­ther, but we question the necessity of confessing auricularly to the Priest by particular enumeration of all our sinnes: and so farre is the text which M. Bishop citeth from deliuering expresly this, as that his Masters of Rhemes doe plainly tell him, that Rhem. Te­stam. Annotat. Iam. 1. 16. it is not certaine that S ^t. Iames speaketh here of sa­crament all confession, who notwithstanding would haue bin glad if they could haue had any ground wherupon to affirme that he did so. Now, what did he then meane thus to heape together such a number of places, as wherein their Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse termes, when as there is not one of them that doth iustifie their Roman doctrine, and his owne fellowes doe confesse so much of sundry of them? What neede we to ransacke all the corners of our wits to deuise odde shifts to auoide the [...]uidence, as he calleth it, of such places, which without any shifts at all are so easily and plain­ly cleared as these are? Yet according to his wonted and wise manner, he concludeth that the Protestants doe not re­ceiue all the written word, who notwithstanding receiue all these places, reade them, cite them, expound them, ac­quaint the people vsually with them, which they by no meanes dare to doe. Yea but the Scriptures are not in rea­ding but in vnderstanding, and we doe not take them in the right sense. Silly fellow, what hindereth but that we should be thought able to vnderstand the Scriptures as well as he? Forsooth, we receiue not the Scriptures, he saith, according to the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition. But be thou Iudge, gentle Reader, whether in this whole worke, to goe no further, I haue not brought the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition, more frequently and firmely then he hath done. He talketh of the Doctors for shew to blinde simple men, but the true cause of their griefe is, that wee receiue not the Romish exposition, nor bee content to submit the whole Scriptures to the Popes will. But because we finde no such rule amongst the most ancient and best lear­ned [Page 193] Doctors, that the Popes mouth should be any oracle of Scripture-sense, we leaue his babling of the exposition of Scripture as partiall and idle, and doe wish him to learne more wit then to take Scriptures in such sort as they that are at Rome are faine to doe.

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 [Page 196] Donatisticall tricks reproued by S ^t. 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, 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 Tertul. de Praescript. Quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel A­postolicis authorē suum proferāt vt m [...]tò posteriores, quae denique quo­tidiè institui [...]tur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non m [...]us Apo­stolicae dep [...]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 [Page 197] 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 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 any premises, that in the written word there is no mention made of the Pope, of his Supremacy, of [Page 198] 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 S ^t. 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 S ^t. Peter? And if it were said to S ^t. Peter, Mat. 16. 19. Whatsoeuer thou bindest on earth, shall be bound in heauen, was it not also said to all the Apo­stles, Mat. 18. 18. Whatsoeuer yee binde on earth, shall be bound in heauen? What prerogatiue is here to S ^t. Peter more then to all the rest of the Apostles? or if there were any prerogatiue to S ^t. 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 S ^t. Paul saying, Rom. 13. 1. Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers, and S ^t. Peter expounding what is meant by those higher powers; 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; 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 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 [Page 199] 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, 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 [Page 200] hereof, that the person of the Priest was more honourable then the King. In the policy ordered by God himselfe, we finde 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 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 and dignity to the King, and yet preferre the things that are managed by the Priest, before those things that are managed by the [Page 201] King. Albeit I alwaies adde that to the King as without the Church, belongeth the care and ouersight of those things that pertaine to the sauing of soules, and to the furthering of his subiects in the grace of God, and in the way to hea­uen, so as that in this respect there is no cause why the Priest should be accounted superiour to the King. And this our Princes haue done and still doe, and yet the world with vs, thanks be to God, is not turned topsie-turuy, but our state standeth vpright, and prospereth maugre the hearts of all Romish malignant traitours and enemies, that haue sought the ruine and ouerthrow thereof.

R. ABBOT.

PAgans, Idolaters, and Heretikes, and of Heretikes, the Papists namely, are in this pretence of their Fathers and forefathers all alike, and doe alike alleage the example of their fathers, for warrant of irreligion and apostasie from God. M. Bishop to make good their vse of it, taketh vpon him to rectifie the rule, and so to propound it as that it shall serue for a most sound inducement among vs Christians, and to be dearely re­garded of all. And how is that? Marry, to follow the foote­steps of our forefathers in beleeuing, if they before haue not de­generated from their Ancestours. Which if of his breaketh the force of his rule, and is so farre from giuing a carefull man any sound inducement, for setling his conscience in reli­gion, as that it casteth him rather into a further perplexity, whilest he cannot but be in doubt whether those fathers whom he is wished to follow, haue degenerated from their Ancestours, or those Ancestours from other, or those other from other that were before them. In the iudgement and triall whereof, if men haue not some certaine rule to be di­rected by, they are easily blinded and led into errour, whilest all Pagans and Heretikes and Papists pretend each for them­selues, that all their forefathers euen from the beginning were such as they are, and haue their colours and shewes of antiquities, whereby to perswade that they were so. But yet to explicate and strengthen his rule, he layeth this for the ground of it, that as God is more ancient then the Diuell, and Christ Iesus then all Heretikes, so was the true seruice of God and faith of Christ before heresie and Idolatry. Which ground of his we willingly admit, and are most well content to build vpon it. We hold it for certaine and infallible which Ter­tullian prescribeth against Heretikes, that Tertul. de Praescript. Ex ipso ordine ma­ni [...]estatur id esse Dominicum & verum quod sit prius traditum; id autem extra­neum & [...]a [...]sum q [...]od sit posterius immissum. that is of the Lord, and the very truth, which was first deliuered; that strange and false which is afterwards brought it; and [Page 205] Idem cont. Marc. lib. 3. Il­lic pronuncianda est regulae [...]nter­uersio vbi poste­ritas inuenitur. that where any after-faith is found, there is to be pronoun­ced the peruerting of the rule of faith. Now therefore in que­stion of religion, the triall of truth shall be to haue recourse to that which was first deliuered, or as Cyprian expresseth it, Cyp [...]ian. l. 2. Epist. 3. Ad ra­dicem atque o­riginem traditi­onis Dominicae reuertatur. to returne to the roote and originall of the Lords tradition, and thence to secure our selues what we are to beleeue, and what to doe that we may be saued. To the same purpose I alleaged other wordes of Cyprian in the same place, that Ibid. Si solu [...] Christus audi [...]n­dus est, non de­bemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putauerit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christ prior fecerit. Neque enim ho­ [...]nis consuetudi­nem sequioportet sed Dei veritat [...]. sith Christ only is to be heard (according to that which the Father proclaimed from heauen concerning him, This is my beloued sonne, &c. heare him) we are not to regard what any man before vs hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ hath done who is before all▪ for we must not follow the custome of man, but the truth of God. Which wordes, or the most of them as fitted my occasion, being by me set downe in a distinct let­ter, that they might be knowen to be Cyprians wordes, M. Bishop in transcribing my text, hath changed into his com­mon letter, that they might be thought to be but mine owne wordes, knowing well enough that otherwise by the credit of the authour, they would giue the Reader a preiudice a­gainst all that he hath here said. We see that Cyprian teach­eth vs first of all without respect what men haue done, to looke to that which Christ did, and thereby to iudge of all the custome of men. But M. Bishop like the Crabbe that goeth backward, teacheth a man to looke first what his fa­ther did, and then his grandfather, and then his great grand­father, and so the rest, that out of the custome of men he may learne what is the truth of Christ. Those children, saith he, who follow the holy steps of their Catholike Progenitours, as­cending from sonne to father successiuely till they arriue at the first Christians of that Country, are true Christians. But what if the first conuersion of a Country be not aright, as befell to the Abb. Vr­sperg. in Chro­nico. Ʋal [...]ns Ariana persidiae saucius suae par­tis sautores illuc direxit praedica­tores; qui veni­entes rudibus & ignaris illi [...]ò per­fid [...]ae suae viru [...] insundunt. Gothes, whose conuersion was to Arianisme in the time of the Arrian Emperour Ʋalens, how then shall his rule stand good of ascending from sonne to father, till we arriue at the first Christians of that Country? Will he say that such [Page 206] doubtlesse beleeue aright, because they beleeue as they did, who first were conuerted in that Country? If he alleage that he speaketh of following the holy steps of Catholike progenitors, he maketh himselfe ridiculous, because it is the question whether the Progenitours be Catholike, and their steps ho­ly, and to be followed or not, and he for triall hereof refer­reth vs to them that were in that country first conuerted, who haply were corrupted at first by them by whom they were conuerted. This case we put concerning the conuersi­on of our nation, whereat he aimeth, by Austin the Monke, who though he brought hither the Christian religion, yet brought it somewhat blended and sowred with the leauen of humane traditions and inuentions, so that to receiue reli­gion as he brought it, is to receiue the corruption which he also brought; which being growen since, as in corruptions it falleth out, from a little scabbe to a foule leprosie, yet shall the foule leprosie be coloured and defended by the example of the scabbe. This case being put, M. Bishops rule is out of ioynt; because we are come to the first conuerted of our na­tion, and we doubt of some default in their conuerters, which we the more suspect for that we See the An­swere to the E­pistle, sect: 31. finde the Britaines, who had beene formerly and anciently Christians, refusing at that time to meddle with them. Here then we are new to seeke, and are forced to make further enquiry whether the faith of Christ, as it was taught here first by that Romish Monke, were in any such sort defiled or not. But that being granted, that a country is at the first rightly and truly con­uerted to the faith of Christ, how shall the posterity after so many generations haue infallible assurance, that they hold in­uiolably the same doctrine which they embraced, who were first conuerted? What rolles, what records haue we certainly and particularly to informe vs that our fathers, and fathers fa­thers, and their fathers and forefathers, from the beginning, haue without adding or detracting, without change or alte­ration either of phrase or meaning, beleeued and practised thus and thus? Will he send vs to the Chronicles and Stories [Page 207] of our country to be certified hereof? To say nothing that euery one that seeketh assurance of his faith, cannot studie Chronicles for the finding of it, suppose a man hath read them all, what is he the nearer, inasmuch as Bellarmine hath taught vs to say of them all, that Bellarm. de Effect. Sacram. l. 2. c. 25. Quòd historici quidam meminerint &c. non potest parere fidem nisi huma­nam cui potest subesse falsum. they breede but humane be­leefe, wherein there may be falshood. Of the greatest matters many times they say least: they deliuer things many times vnperfectly, and often we may rather gather from them the priuate affection of the authour, then any testimony of pub­like faith. To the deuices of their owne times, they apply the phrases of former times, and corrupt the meaning of former times, by speaking in the language of their owne times. We finde many times differences and disagreements amongst them, and that reproued by one which is approued by another. Sometimes we descry lyes and tales, wilfully deuised, and falsly fathered vpon the times and persons that haue beene before, and guilefully thrust into ancient bookes for the gracing of superstitions that haue growen of latter times, and other writings and stories suppressed and made away, which taxed such superstitions as they did arise. Many vncertainties there are, many difficulties and perplexities in this course, and vnpossible it is for them that are the authors of it, to set downe out of any records any perfect forme of their owne faith, whereof a man can but reasonably satisfie himselfe that it hath beene vniuersally and vniformely recei­ued of all our fathers, and continued wholly the same with­out alteration from the first conuerted till our time. M. Bi­shop therefore by referring men in question of religion to their fathers & forefathers, doth but send them a long iour­ney in the darke, not seeing which way to goe, and vncer­taine where they shall arriue. And this he doth to hide from them the true vse of that ground and foundation, which he himselfe hath layed, from whence it properly and naturally ariseth, that sith that was the certaine truth which was first deliuered and taught, and is to be the measure and rule of the faith and doctrine of all succeeding times, therefore we [Page 208] should first haue recourse to the monuments and records of that that was first taught, thereby to iudge of the faith and religion of our fathers, and to esteeme whether their steps were such as that we may securely follow them. In this be­halfe Christ hath prouided for vs, who Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 13 Ipsa quae dixit, etiam Scripturae tradidit vt poste­ris mand [...]etur. what he spake, saith Gregory, he committed also to writing, that posterity might know the same. August. de consens. Euan­gel. lib. 1. c. 35. Quicquid ille de suis factis & di­ctis nos legere voluit, hoc illis scribendum tan­quam suis mani­bus imperauit. Whatsoeuer he would haue vs to reade, saith Austin, of his doings and sayings, he commanded his Dis­ciples as his hands to write the same. And thus Idem in 1. Epistol. Ioan. tract. 2. Contra insidiosos [...]rrores Deus voluit po­nere firmamen­tum in Scripturis contra qu [...]s nul­lus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum. against de­ceipt [...]ill errours, saith the same S ^t. Austin, God would set vs a fortresse or bulwarke in the holy Scriptures, against which no man dare speake that will in any sort be thought a Christian man. Hauing then certaine records of the truth first deliue­red, such as no man dare contradict, what way can we ima­gine for resolution, either more compendious and short, or more lightsome and comfortable, then to looke to the pat­terne of faith expressed in those records, thence to informe our selues, and thereby to rectifie whatsoeuer we finde to haue swarned or declined from that rule? This M. Bishop cannot abide; this they know to be the gall and bane of Popery; and therefore from this they labour to withdraw men, that what they cannot defend by testimony of truth, they may notwithstanding colour by the example of their fathers. This was the intent of M. Bishops not humble but presumptuous request to his Maiesty, that he would maintaine and set forth that faith wherein all his royall Progenitors liued and dyed; not that he is able to demonstrate in what religi­on all his Maiesties royall Progenitours liued and dyed, but that he may leade him from that rule whereby he should be able to iudge of the faith of his Progenitours, and whether his fathers haue in any sort swarued from that faith, which at the first was deliuered to their forefathers. Albeit if it be true which he saith, that Symmachus the Pagan played the part of a foolish Sophister, when he pleaded so with the Emperor Valentinian▪ We are to follow our fathers, because the Emperors father and nearest Predecessors were no Pagan Idolaters, but [Page 209] prof [...]ssed Christians, then doth himselfe also play the part of a foolish Sophister, in pleading so with King IAMES, that he must follow his fathers, inasmuch as his nearest Predeces­sours, his father and grandfather, were no Popish Idolaters, but professours of the religion of the Protestants, and his mother so well perswaded thereof, as that shee would not goe about to disswade him from it. But against the plea of Symmachus [...]e excepteth further, because his forefathers for whose idolatry he pleadeth, had before forsaken the true wor­ship of one liuing God. Which though it be true, yet I maruell how M. Bishop would make him to beleeue it, inasmuch as he had to alleage that for so many hundred, yea for thou­sands of yeares their Ancestours had continued those deuo­tions, and that it might seeme strange that amongst so many wise Gouernours, so many learned Philosophers, so many vertuous men, there should not be one of so many genera­tions that euer could see that they did amisse. Wee see how he saith not only, Relat. Sym­mach. apud Ambros. Epist. lib 5. Ser­uanda est tot se­culis fides, & se­quendi sunt no­bis parentes qui s [...]cuti sunt felici­tèr suos. Let vs follow our Ancestours, but addeth; who with great felicity followed theirs, being fully resolued that both their Ancestours, and the Ancestours of their An­cestours, had in all times past beene the same as they. M. Bishop by beleefe of holy Scripture knoweth the contrary, because he there vnderstandeth all nations to haue been the posterity of Noah, who was a worshipper of one true liuing God, saued by faith in Christ to come, whose religion set forth in Scripture, being compared to the superstitions of the Pagans, doth clearely conuince that they were farre de­parted from that that he was. Now then, M. Bishop, be content that we returne the same to you. You say that all our Ancestours from the beginning continued in one and the same, euen your religion. Shall we now for triall hereof goe to our Ancestours, and aske them whether it be so or not? No, but we will goe to holy Scripture, and there see what was the faith and religion of them who are our true Ancestours, the first fathers and founders of the Christian Church; the Apostles and Euangelists; and there we finde [Page 210] a farre other manner of faith then Popery doth yeeld, whereby we certainly vnderstand that they haue corrupted the true faith. His exception against the Donatists pleading of their fathers, is the same as against Symmachus, that their fathers were degenerated from the integrity of their grandfa­thers, and therefore were not to be followed. But yet the Do­natists held that all their forefathers were of their minde, e­uen as stifly as the Papists doe. They said that they were not fallen from the Catholike Church, but the Catholike church from them, so as that they affirmed it to haue beene their Church, which was persecuted by Nero and the rest of those Roman Tyrants, as I haue before shewed in the second Chapter. But S ^t. Austin euery where bringeth them to the Scriptures, Collat. Carthag. 1. c. 18. In eis literis Ecclesiam esse quaerendam vbi Christus redemp­tor eius innotuit. Et Collat. 3. c. 101. Nos eam Ecclesiam reti­nemus quam in illis Scripturis inuenim▪, in qui­bus etiam cogno­uimus Christum. there to learne and seeke the Church of Christ, where we learne to know Christ himselfe, and thereby iustifieth that they were fallen away from the Church, and not the Church from them; and therfore that they were to renounce their fathers that had so done, and returne to the Church a­gaine. This M. Bishop cannot pleade against vs, whose pa­rents haue beene Protestants, to moue vs to refuse the reli­gion of our fathers, and to returne to the example of our forefathers: because by the Scriptures we learne that our forefathers did amisse, and therefore that it shall be to vs a iust imputation of apostasie, if to them we shall retire our selues from the religion of our fathers. And see here how M. Bishop goeth a way quite contrary to S ^t. Austin; for S ^t. Austin vsed the Scriptures to draw the Donatists to the example of their former fathers, and M. Bishop vseth the example of our former fathers, to draw vs away from the Scriptures. But against all his vaine motiues we are setled by the charge giuen by God himselfe, Ezech. 20. 18 Walke yee not in the ordinances of your fathers, neither obserue their manners, nor defile your selues with their Idols; I am the Lord your God; Walke in my statutes, and keepe my iudgements, and doe them. Gods statutes are the line and rule whereby he hath appoin­ted vs to goe; we respect not therefore what our fathers [Page 211] haue done, but we looke to the statutes of God in the word of God, to the example and teaching of Christ in the word of Christ, there to learne how farre we may approue the doings of our fathers. To doe otherwise is, as the Prophet speaketh, Ierem. 2. 13. to forsake the fountaine of liuing waters, which God hath shewed, and to digge to our selues broken pits, that will hold no water, at least no other but puddle water. For con­clusion, strange it is to see how impudently he peruerteth the wordes of Cyprian. To returne to the originall of the Lords tradition, is with Cyprian to leaue the example of our fathers, and to looke to the Gospell what the Lord hath there deli­uered; but with M. Bishop it is to returne to our forefathers, and in steede of the Gospell to learne of them, what it is that Christ taught. Cyprian saith; We are not to regard what any man before vs hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ did who was before all. M. Bishop saith, that we are to regard what our fathers before vs haue thought fit to be done, that of them we may learne what Christ did, who is before all. Cyprian saith, We are not to follow the custome of men, but the truth of God. M. Bishop saith, we are to follow the cu­stome of men, that we may thereby come to the knowledge of the truth of God. Thus very directly he crosseth Cyprian, and yet will be very angry if we say that he speaketh any o­therwise then Cyprian doth.

R. ABBOT.

IT hath beene already very gloriously fulfilled, which God promised vnto his Church; Esay 49. 23. Kings shall [...]e thy nursing fa­thers, and Queenes shall be thy nourses, &c. The great states of the world, the Emperours, and Kings, and Princes, Con­stantine, Theodosius, Ʋalentinian, Honorius, Lucius of Bri­taine, Theodebert and Theodelind of France, Reccaredus of Spaine, and infinite other of the same, and other nations held it their greatest honour and felicity to be members of Christs Church, and haue vsed all care and endeauour to ho­nour and aduance the same. The time hath since beene for the fulfilling of the other prophecy, that Apoc. 17. 13. 17. the Kings of the earth should giue their power and Kingdome to the beast, and with the whoore sitting vpon many waters, should bend them­selues Ʋerse 14. to fight against the Lambe. M. Bishop saith, that it is vncertaine what Kings these shall be. But it is certaine by the confession of all parts, that they are See of this whole matter, Part. 2. in the defence of M. Perkins Prolo­gue. Pag. 42. &c. the ten Kings, that is, those many Kings that shall arise of the desolations and ruines of the Roman Empire, and what Kings they are that now possesse the Countries and Kingdomes, that were once the Prouinces of the Roman Empire, Italie, France, Spaine, Germany, England, &c. it is not vncertaine. The euidence and certainty thereof teacheth vs to vnderstand ten Kings, not for ten only particular men, as M. Bishop most impro­bably and absurdly doth, but for the Kings successiuely of so many Kingdomes, the King of England, the King of France, the King of Spaine, &c. vnder euery of which names there is a succession of many persons. Vpon the decay and fall of the Empire, who arose together with these Kings? to whom [Page 215] haue they yeelded their Kingdome and power, but only the Pope, who by little and little thrust out the Emperour, and made himselfe Lord of the Roman territory, and hath set vp himselfe vnder a title of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, to vsurpe a Kingdome aboue them all? They haue acknowledged his iurisdiction; they haue submitted themselues vnto him; they haue beene content to ioyne with him, and to yeeld him all assistance to fight against the Lambe, against the true members of Christ, against all that professed the true faith and Gospell of Christ. But yet it is foretold that there shall be a time, when Vers. 16. these Kings shall hate the wheore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and eate her flesh and burne her with fire. Where because it might be questioned how it should be that they should doe thus, of whom it is said, that they should giue their power to the beast, the holy Ghost to take away that doubt, addeth; Vers. 17. For God hath put into their hearts to fulfill his will, and to consent together, and to giue their Kingdome to the beast▪ vntill the words of God be ful­filled. Whereby he signifieth, that although by the secret hand and counsell of God, those Kings should giue their Kingdome to the beast, yet it should be so but for a time on­ly, vntill the word of God be fulfilled, that is, vntill it be per­formed which God hath foretold of the abhomination of desolation, standing vp in the holy place, in the Temple of God; which being done, they shall hate the whoore, and make her desolate, and burne her with fire, God opening their eyes that they may see the abuses and vsurpations of that wicked strumpet, that they may reward her according­ly. As for M. Bishops construction of the beast and the whoore, as things diuers, and that those Kings though giuing all their power to the beast, yet should withall hate the harlot, and fight against her, as wicked men fall out amongst themselues, and aide one another against as wicked as themselues, I reiect it as his owne ridiculous and fond deuice, the thing being so plaine to the contrary, as that his owne fellowes the Rhe­mish Diuines, as I haue before shewed, doe confesse, that it [Page 216] is Rhem. Te­stam. Annot. Apoc. 13. 1. the beast which is called the whoore of Babylon, and by way of exposition doe name the Whoore, or Beast, or Anti­christ, as appertaining all to one. The giuing therefore of their power to the beast, is the giuing thereof to the harlot; and their hatred towards the harlot, is their hatred towards the beast; they shall first doe the one, and the time of that expired, they shall begin [...]e to shew the other. This in part is already come to passe, and God hath opened the eyes and turned the hearts of sundry Nations and Princes, that they now hate the whoore of Babylon, the Roman Church, whereof before they stood in awe, and the rest in Gods good time shall follow and ioyne together, to the deuouring and consuming of it. I noted our gracious King for one of them, whose eyes God hath enlightened, to see the fornications of that wicked harlot, and to hate the same; but M. Bishop saith, that it cannot be applyed to his Maiesty in our sense, be­cause he was not in his former time any aider of their religion, and now fallen off from that to the Protestants. But though King IAMES haue beene no aider of their religion, yet the King of England hath beene; and the King of England who in other former Kings hath beene a supporter of the King­dome of the beast, is now in King IAMES an impugne [...] thereof, the Kings first supporting, and then [...] not being necessarily in person the same, but in suc [...]essio [...] only as hath beene said. Therefore though they [...] repro­bates and cast▪ a-waies, who gaue their Kingdome to [...] beast, as M. Bishop pronounceth of them (as for vs we iudge the [...] not, let them stand or fall to their owne Lord) yet [...] not which he vainly collecteth, that King IAMES [...]y b [...] ­ing one of them, that shall [...]ate and destroy the who [...] [...] [...]oned amongst reprobates, but he is rather [...] hereby from the number of them. To exclude this he alleageth, that those Kings shall giue their Kingdome to t [...] b [...]ast, till the word of God be consum [...]ate, that is, saith he, till the [...]nd of [...] But the best is, we are not tyed to his Commentarie, and be­cause Apoc. 18. 1. 2. &c. S ^t. Iohn at large declareth, that the Beast and hi [...] [Page 217] Babylon shall be destroyed before the end of all, therefore we vse our liberty to thinke it false which he saith, that they shall giue their Kingdome to the beast, vntill the end of all. They shall so doe vntill it be fulfilled which God hath fore­spoken, concerning the Kingdome of Antichrist; which be­ing done, they shall arme themselues against the said King­dome, and shall helpe to pull it downe. So doth King IAMES, and he will not thinke it worthy of any ha [...]d cen­sure, that we say that he doth so, and as for M. Bishops faire warning, we reiect it with scorne, only telling him that the custome was, that the Tull. Orat. pro Sext. Rosc [...] Can [...]s aluntur in Capitolio, &C. si luce quoque ca­nes lat [...]ent, &c. opinor ijs crura suffringantur. Capitolian dogges, when they gaue warning without cause, should haue their legges broken.

R. ABBOT.

MAster Bishop kindly threapeth vpon me, that I denie not but that Austin the Monke sent hither by Gregory Bishop of Rome, did then teach the same Roman faith, that they now professe; whereas I doe not only deny it to be so, but also [Page 220] doe bring Answ. to the Epistle to the King, sect. 31. diuers instances to proue directly that it is not so. Of those diuers let one only here suffice. The religion brought in by Austin the Monke, continuing here till the time of Charles the Great, though it approued the hauing of Images, yet condemned the second Nicene Councell, for that it approued the worshipping of them. The thing by Roger Houeden is thus reported, that Roger. Ho­ueden. Annal. p. 1. Anno 792. Carolꝰ Rex Frā ­corum misit Sy­n [...]dalem librum ad Britanniam sibi à Constanti­nopoli directum, in quo libro (beu pro [...] dolor) mul­ta inconuenientia & ver [...] fidei cō ­traria reperie­bantur, maximè quòd penè [...]mni­um Orientalium Doctorum, non minus quàm tre­centorum vel [...]o amplius Episco­porum [...]nanima assertione confir­ [...]atum fuerit, I­magines adorari debere, quod om­ninò Ecclesia Dei execratur. Con­tra quod scripsit Albinus Epistolā [...]x authoritate diuinarum Scri­pturarum mira­bilitèr affirmatā illam (que) cum [...]o­d [...]m lib [...]o ex per­son. 1 Episcoporum ac Principli no­stro [...] [...]ran­corum [...]t. in the yeare 792. Charles the King of France sent ouer into Britaine a synodall booke, or booke of a Councell, directed to him from Constanti­nople, in which booke (alas for woe) many things were found in­conuenient and contrary to true faith, specially for that by a­greement of all the Easterne Doctors, no lesse then three hun­dred Bishops and more, it was decreed that Images should be worshipped, which thing the Church of God wholly accurseth. Against which, saith he, Albinus wrote an Epistle wonderful­ly strengthened by authority of holy Scriptures, and brought it together with the booke to the King of France, in the name or behalfe of our Bishops and Peeres. The Roman faith which Austin brought condemned that Nicene Councell. Tho Roman faith which M. Bishop bringeth approueth that Councell, for so hath he done in his Sect. 12. Epistle to the King. Therefore the Roman faith which M. Bishop bringeth is not now the same that Austin brought. He cannot doubt but that Austin being sent hither by Gregory, did teach the same faith here which Gregory himselfe taught at Rome. But the faith which Gregory taught at Rome shall be shew­ed, if God will, in this booke in many particulars, to haue beene contrary to that faith that is now taught from Rome. As for our writers Bale, Iewell, Hollinshead, and such like, I cite them not as sufficient witnesses in matters of controuersie, as he vainly cauilleth, but I name them only as recording mat­ters of history, which they haue taken out of former stories and writers, when mine owne Library doth not furnish me with some bookes which they haue followed, in which case I may as well vse their names, as Papists may vse the names▪ of Baronius, Surius, Genebrard, and other their owne au­thours, [Page 221] as I haue Aduertise­ment concer­ning D. Bishops Reproofe. sect. 6. before shewed more at large. As touch­ing the disagreement betwixt Austin the Monke and the British Bishops, I referred the Reader to Beda as well as to any other, and by him it appeareth that there was variance betwixt them, not only in some few, but in very many things, Beda hist. l. 2. c. 2. Sed & a­lia plurima vni­tati Ecclesiae cō ­traria faciebā [...]. Qui cum longa disputatione ha­bita, neque pre­cibus, neque hor­tamentis, neque increpationibus Augustini ac s [...] ­ciorum eius os­sensum praebere voluissent, &c. Dicibat eis, quòd in multis quidem nostrae consuetu­dini cōtraria g [...] ­ritis, & tamen si in tribus his mihi obseperare vul­tis, &c. caetera aequanimitèr [...]uncta tolera­bimus. wherein he sought by disputing, by intreating, by exhorting, by reprouing, to draw their assent vnto him. Which when hee could not obtaine, he made offer to beare with all other dif­ferences, so that in three things they would yeeld to him; to ob­serue Easter, and to celebrate Baptisme after the manner of the Church of Rome, and to ioyne with them in Preaching to the infidell Saxons. M. Bishop here will giue reason why the Britans should haue yeelded to the Roman manner of Bapti­sing, because forsooth it was likely to be administred more de­cently and deuoutly in the most renowmed city of Rome, then a­mongst the Britans in a corner of the world. But if it must be presumed that at Rome because of the renowme of the place all things were done more decently and deuoutly then other­where, why did Gregory aduise Austin, that Ibid. l. r. c. 27. M [...]bi plac [...]t vt siue in Romana, siue in Gall [...]aru, siue in qualibet Ecclesia, aliquid inuemsti quod plus omnipotenti Deo pos [...]it place­re, so [...]e [...]l [...]ga [...]. custodiamus. consuctudines? commendat. whether in the Church of Rome, or in the Church of France, or in any other Church, he should finde what might better please God, he should make choise of it? Surely it was an absurdity in Austin, that when things might be better, as Ambros. de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Quod alibi rectiùs seruat [...]r, nos rectè Ambrose also saith, in o­ther Churches then in the Church of Rome, he should not­withstanding seeke to force other Churches, to the example of that Church. Yea, and it was a token of his ignorance that he needed to write to Gregory to be resolued, as touch­ing Beda vt supra. Cùm vna sit sides, cur sunt Ecclesiarum diuersae &c. the diuers customes and obseruations of diuers Churches, not knowing that Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 23. Dissonantia ieiuny fidei concordiam difference of ceremonies commendeth the vnity of faith, as Ireneus spake particularly of fasting, and therefore that there was no cause for him so to labour other men to conformity to their rites. Albeit it may be likely that the Sacrament of Baptisme was administred amongst [Page 222] the Britans with greater simplicity and lesse ceremony then at Rome, and that for that cause they made choise, rather to continue their old forme, knowing that abundance of cere­monies, breedeth commonly abundance of superstitions, and Aug. Epist. 119. Quamuis neque hoc inue­niri possit, quo­mod [...] contra fi­dem sint; ipsam tamen religionē, &c. seruilibus o­neribus pre­m [...]nt, &c. though it be not seene how they make against the faith, yet they are, as S ^t. Austin saith, the clogge and burden of religion, oppressing it first, and then eating out the very heart of it. And this we take to be the chiefe cause why they so stifly re­fused Austin, for that albeit they acknowledged that he taught the true Christian faith, yet they saw him ioyne ther­with▪ not in baptisme only, but otherwise also, so many hu­mane traditions and inuentions, which they held to be so many prophanations of the true Christian faith. If some of them acknowledged so much, as M. Bishop vrgeth out of Beda, we will not sticke to acknowledge the same in such sort as they did, neither will we stand to question whether Dulcitius (he would say Dubricius, as I take it) or Dauid principall preachers of the Britans in their times, were brought vp at Rome, though Bale, whom he citeth, in his lesser worke, which only I haue, doe not say so much, or that either of them was Legate to the Bishop of Rome; but be it so, yet it followeth not, that all his Maiesties Aunce­stours both English and Britaines embraced that Roman faith that now is, because it shall appeare as I haue said, that the Roman faith is not the same now that it was then. As touch­ing the obseruation of Easter, what reasons might moue the Britans to continue their former custome, we cannot tell. It may be that they were ignorant of the Nicene decree, and what of that? Surely Hilary a learned and godly Bishop of France protesteth, that he Hilar. de Sy­nod. adu. Ari­an. Fidem Ni­cenam nunquam [...]si exulaturus aud [...]i. neuer heard of the Nicene Coun­cell till the time that he went into banishment, which as appea­reth by Hieromes Chronicle, was about the twentieth yeare of Constantius the Arian Emperour, which was thirty yeares after the time of that Councell. Now if it were so long vn­knowen, or so little knowen in France, no maruell if in Bri­tanny it were lesse knowen; and where it had not caused a [Page 223] change within that time, it was not likely afterwards to pre­uaile much, specially with a nation so much afflicted and troubled with warres and inuasions, as the Britans thence­forth were, in which case no alteration might be likely to take place amongst them. Moreouer, they could remember that in the time of Lucius their King, Eleutherius sent ouer some preachers hither, for the conuerting and instructing of the King and his people, who yet required not to haue Ea­ster obserued after the manner of the Roman Church, but left them to keepe it according to the custome that they had vsed from the time of the Apostles; whereupon they might resolue that there was no cause why Austin comming from Rome, should now goe about to alter that custome more then they had done. In a word the Britans were not too con­tentious in refusing to yeeld to a sodaine alteration of things so long continued, but Austin rather shewed himselfe con­tentious and vndiscreet, in that he did so vnseasonably and without cause, so strongly vrge the same.

R. ABBOT.

Bale. Script. Britānic. Cent. 1. oper. minor. PAlladius and Patritius were sent into Scotland by Celestinus Bishop of Rome, to instruct the Scots a­gainst the doctrine of Pelagius the Heretike, which is a cer­taine argument of the apostasie of the Church of Rome, in­asmuch as the Church of Rome now patronizeth and defen­deth the doctrine of Pelagius, as I haue Of Free will, sect. 5. before shewed. Little doth M. Bishop gaine by all this alleagement of teachers then sent from Rome. We know what was then the religion of the Church of Rome, and we know that the streame the longer it ranne, the more soile it gathered, but yet it was very pure and tollerable then in comparison of that, that now it is. There followeth now an assertion of mine, that it was twelue hundred yeares after the incarnation of Christ, ere the Popes authority could get any acknowledge­ment in Scotland, which he saith I doe most impudently or ig­norantly affirme. But how doth it appeare that I so doe? Forsooth, in the very same hundreth yeare by him named, saith he, they were so farre off from denying the Popes authority ouer them in causes Ecclesiasticall, that they did acknowledge him to be their Protectour in temporall affaires. Marke well, gen­tle Reader, that I name twelue hundred yeares, and he saith, in the very same hundreth yeare, and yet for the thing which he reporteth of the Scots alleaging, that the Pope had their Countrey in protection, he noteth the yeare 1290. which was almost a hundred yeares after the time by me set downe. Be it M. Bishop, that at the end of twelue hundred and ninety yeares, they had receiued the Pope to be the Protectour of their Countrey; that nothing hindereth the truth of my speech, that for twelue hundred yeares they acknowledged [Page 226] not any authority of the Pope amongst them in Church af­faires. You should haue brought vs some records to shew that within the compasse of those twelue hundred yeares, the Pope had without controllement exercised in the Realme of Scotland, Ecclesiasticall and ordinary iurisdiction; which seeing you doe not, you iustifie my assertion, and the impudency whereof you speake, must be the staine of your owne face, who will take vpon you to contradict me with such an impertinent and sleeuelesse tale. To proue that there was no such iurisdiction acknowledged, I referred the Rea­der to the King of Scots owne wordes, who as Matthew Paris reporteth, Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. Anno 1237. Volenti autem Domino Legato intrare regnum Scotiae vt ibi de negotijs Ecclesia­sticis tractaret si­cut in Anglia, re­spondit Rex Sco­tiae; Non memi­ni Legatum in terra mea vidis­se, nec opus esse iquem esse vo­candum, Deo gratias, nec ad­huc opus est, om­nia benè se ha­bent. Nec [...]tiam tempore Patris mei vel alicuius Antecessorū me­orum visus est a­liquis Legatus in­t [...]oitum habuisse, nec ego dum mei compos suero to­lerabo. when the Lord Legate was desirous to enter into the Kingdome of Scotland, there to deale in Ecclesiasticall matters as he had done in England, answered him, I doe not re­member that I haue seene any Legate in my Countrey, nor that there hath beene any neede, thanks be to God, that any should be called, neither is there any neede; all things are well. No, nor in the time of my Father, or of any of my Predecessours hath any Legate beene seene to haue had any entrance there, neither will I suffer any so long as I am in my right wits. This eui­dence is cleare; none had entred in his time, none had en­tred in the time of his Father, or any of his Predecessours, none should enter so long as he could keepe him in his right minde, and though things were amisse, yet none had autho­rity to enter, but as he should be called and warranted by him. The same in effect he alleaged two yeares after, when the Legate againe was attempting to goe into that Coun­trey, and though after much adoe, vpon intercession of the Nobles of England and Scotland, he was content for once to admit him, that he might not haue the disgrace of being repulsed, yet it was with condition as I haue See the Ad­uertisement concerning D. Bishops Re­proofe. sect. 15. formerly de­clared, that the said Legate should put in caution vnder his hand and seale, that his entrance should not be drawen to a matter of example, whereupon to presume the like another time. This matter is more plaine then that M. Bishops paltry shifts can put it off. King Philip and Queene Mary respited [Page 227] the entrance of a Legate for a time, but wholly to deny him entrance for ordering matters Ecclesiasticall as the King of Scots did, he well knoweth they durst not. As for his other tales, that the country was poore and could not spare money for which the Legate came, and that the charges of entertainment of such a state would be ouer great, they are his owne skiruy deuices, the storie mentioneth no such thing, and we know the Popes authority where it is acknowledged, is not wont to be put off with such slender excuses. He then that consi­dereth what I haue alleaged, and what he hath answered, will easily see that I said truly of them, and that there is no cause to returne it vpon me; They care not indeede what they say or write, so that it may carry a magnificall and braue shew, to dazell the eyes of them that are not acquainted with their lewd and naughty dealing.

R. ABBOT.

HOwsoeuer I seeme to M. Bishop to come faire and soft to the matter, I make no doubt but he would haue beene very well contented that I should haue made lesse hast. His vpbraiding me with idle vaunting wordes and vaine repe­titions, with bare wordes and voluntary supp [...] ­sals, seemeth to me no strange thing, because he knoweth it to be for his behoofe, that all that I haue written be so ac­counted. But euery man can conceiue that he is no fit man to be iudge of my writings. He hath a web in his eye that troubleth his sight, so as that nothing seemeth streight to him, but that that is crooked. What reason and proofe I [Page 230] haue brought for that that I say, and whether my censure of him be right or wrong, it resteth with the iudicious and in­different Reader duely to consider, and then to pronounce accordingly. But the lest is in that that followeth. Sure I am, saith he, that some Catholikes hauing read your booke, doe like much the better of mine. And doe they so indeede M. Bishop? Happy man are you then, and neede no longer care where you begge your bread. You are certainly in the right, if some Catholikes like better of your booke then they doe of mine. But take heede, M. Bishop, that you be not decei­ued by them. It may be they doe but flatter you, and to please you, are content to say that which they do not thinke. It may be they too much fauour you, and you may remem­ber what Seneca saith, that Senec. de Tranquill. ani­mi. Semper iu­dicio fauor offi­cit. fauour alwaies hindereth a man from iudging aright. I told you before of the Prouerbe;

As in the body, so in the mind there is a corrupt disposition, which maketh a man to like nothing but that that serueth for the further corrupting of him. Yea, and it may be they are like to children, that thinke the bels sound whatsoeuer they fancy, and therefore doe esteeme mine a very fond peece of worke, full of babble and lyes, and I know not what; but yours on the other side a graue, profound, learned, and su­per-learned booke. But M. Bishop if they were not forestal­led with preiudice, and bewitched thereto with Romish in­chantments, surely they would see that your Epistle to the King is so farre from bringing those vrgent and forcible rea­sons, which you pretend, as that it consisteth wholly of meere cauils and calumniations, such and so apparant as that you haue beene glad to let it goe, because you saw it vnpossible to defend it. Gladly would I know of those iudicious Rea­ders of yours, how well they like of your alleaging against vs the opinion of See the Ad­uertisement concerning D. Bishops Re­proofe, sect. 16. Proclus the Heretike. You haue beene [Page 231] so hot and so confident in it, as that hauing set forth the mat­ter at large, I would willingly heare of them whether they thinke you or me more worthy to be thrust into the Asses skinne. To let passe many other matters, you haue there tendered to the King diuers conclusions, drawen from our doctrine, within the compasse of a few lines. Of that that we say, that it is vnpossible in this state of mortality and cor­ruption, perfectly to fulfill the law, you inferre, Epistle to the King, sect. 19. 20. Therefore it is in vaine to goe about it, therefore it is vnpossible to haue cha­rity, therefore it is vnpossible to haue faith; therefore it is vn­possible for a Protestant cleauing to the grounds of his owne re­ligion, to hope for any saluation. Againe, of that that we say that the best worke of the righteous man, is stained with sinne, you conclude, Therefore as good to leaue all vndone as to doe any; therefore all men are bound vnder paine of damna­tion, neuer to doe any good deede. I doe but only name those worthy disputes of yours, referring the Reader to their pro­per places, to see further the absurd inconsequence and va­nity of them. I might goe along your questions of that part, and put you in minde of a great number of such illations; but I will content my selfe to name an argument or two in the last only. To proue the worshipping of Images Of Images, sect. 16. you alleage out of the Psalme: Cast downe your selues before his foote-stoole, and conclude, that much more Images may be worshipped. Againe, to proue that the Arke was worshipped, you tell vs; First, none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was, and it was carried before the campe with great solemnity; when they were to fight against the Philistines, they had great confidence in the presence of the Arke; the Bethshamites were slaine for looking into it; Oza was smitten of God for touching it. You propound first, that by these things it is euident that the Arke was worshipped, and when you haue set them downe, as it were to make your selfe ridi­culous, you demand; Doth not all this conuince in what re­uerence the Arke was had? Anone Sect. 17. after, for confirmation of the same point, that Images are holy and to be reuerenced, [Page 232] you alleage, that the place where Moses stood was holy ground, that daies were called holy and worshipfull, that the Priests Vestiments were holy▪ from which wee wonder how you should dreame to deriue that conclusion which you intend. Some man will haply excuse the matter, that being towards the end of your booke, you had spent your wits and knew not well what you said; which we would easily admit, but that we see that hauing refreshed your wits againe, your ar­guments in this booke are found to be of the same stampe. I require example out of the old Testament for the worship­ping of Images, and you answere, that Chap. 4. §. 3. the hauing of them in the Tabernacle and the Temple (where it was neuer thought lawfull to set vp the Image of a man, but only the Che [...]ubins, to vs vnknowen what they were, and the pi­ctures of Lyons, and Buls, and Palme trees, and Flowers, for garnishing the house) and the sentence of the Psalmist, Adore yee his foote-stoole, and many such places and resem­blances, doe very strongly argue that Images are to be worship­ped. To proue the profession of Monkery amongst the Iewes, you tell vs out of Iosephus of the Essees that were amongst them, who with the Pharisees and Sadducees, as I haue shewed, were no other but Iewish Heretikes. For example of Pilgrimages to Relikes and dead mens bones, you answer vs, that all the males amongst the Iewes were bound by the law to goe thrise in the yeare to the Temple of God at Ieru­salem. To make good that you may lawfully pray to haue your sinnes forgiuen by the bloud of Thomas Becket, and by the same bloud to be brought to heauen, you alleage that in the Psalme it is said, Ibid. §. 5. Lord remember Dauid and all his trouble. To shew that S ^t. Paul speaketh of the Masse, you tell vs hereafter, that 1. Tim. 2. 1. he desireth that obsecrations, prayers, postulations, thanks-giuings, be made for all men. What, M. Bishop, doe your iudicious Catholikes of whom you speake, tell you that they like well of these proofes of yours? And may not we then thinke that both you and they haue drunke of a spiced or rather an inchanted cup, that will take such [Page 233] wilfull and affected Sophistications, to be very vrgent and forcible reasons? Surely, M. Bishop, with as much wit as you haue told vs here, that some Catholikes like better of your booke then they doe of mine, I might also tell you that ma­ny Protestants hauing seene these your collections, and our solutions, doe pitty your Catholikes, that suffer themselues to be gulled and deluded with such reasonlesse reasons, as be­fore I affirmed them to be. Yea so reasonlesse are they, that when we haue shewed by answere, how little reason there is in them, we neuer doubt to commit them to the sight of all men. And whereas you aske who are more circumspect then we are, to keepe our followers from the reading of your bookes, I aske of you, what cause you your selfe haue to com­plaine in that behalfe? Surely, your bookes haue beene very openly and commonly sold; and whereas you say, that we imprison any that will helpe to print them, you see your owne bookes printed for you, and free for all men to buy that are desirous of them. How many other of your books are there in the same sort common to the view of all men, and by vs made common; our care only being, not to suffer poison to goe freely abroad without a preseruatiue, & therfore hauing ioyned answer to them, we leaue euery one that list to reade at his liberty to iudge of both. It would goe amisse with you, M. Bishop, if our books had that free passage amongst you, that yours haue amongst vs. Your Kingdome would soone goe downe, euen in Italie and Spaine, if your men had liberty to reade our answeres, togither with your books. The last part of this passage concerneth his deliuery of a speech, vttered by his Maiesty at the conference at Hampton Court; That no Church ought further to separate it selfe from the Church of Rome in doctrine and ceremonie, then shee hath departed from her selfe, when shee was in her flourishing and best estate, and from Christ her Lord and head. In the rehearsall whereof I note him, that subtilly he left out the last wordes, And from Christ her Lord and head. He telleth me that I shew no cause why I doe so, and that indeede none can be [Page 234] shewed, because they are needlesse wordes, and comprehended in the former. But we suppose that he needeth more vnder­standing, that conceiueth those wordes to be needlesse, which are no otherwise comprehended in the former, then as the former are expounded by them. For although in right meaning it be true which he saith, that if the Church of Rome be not departed from her selfe when shee was in her flourishing and best estate, shee cannot bee departed from Christ her Lord and head, yet such a meaning he may make of her flourishing and best estate, as that in that estate shee may be found somewhat to haue departed from Christ her Lord and head. His Maiestie therefore to preuent this, with great iudgement added, And from Christ her Lord and head, as to note, that by her departing from Christ her Lord, wee are to take knowledge of her departing from her selfe, when shee was in her flourishing and best estate, because then was her flourishing and best estate, when shee was nearest to Christ her Lord and head, and most entire in the faith and doctrine, which shee had receiued from him. Of this flourishing and best estate, we must consider in the next Chapter, and therefore I cease here to speake any further thereof.

R. ABBOT.

WEe see here what great cause there was that his Maiesty should adde the wordes now spoken off, And from Christ her Lord and head, because it might be doub­ted what construction they or any other might make of the flourishing and best e­state of the Church of Rome. I say that S ^t. Paul wrote his Epistle to that Church, when the faith there­of was most renowmed through the world. This M. Bishop de­nieth, and will not haue that to be taken for the flourishing and best estate of the Roman Church. And why? First, not the ten thousand part of that most populous Citty, was then con­uerted to the faith; and secondly, they who had then receiued the Christian faith, were very nouices in it, and stoode in great neede of the Apostles diuine instructions. So then he will haue vs to vnderstand, that then was the flourishing and best estate▪ of the Church of Rome, when there were in it the greatest number of Christians, and they were so perfect in the faith as that they needed not the Apostles diuine instructions. But when was that? Not before the reigne of Constantine the Great, saith he. Well; and was it then? Nay, he saith not so, and we may well thinke that he knoweth not well when, or what to say. Certaine it is that Paganisme abounded in Rome after the time of Constantine, who indeede for his time by lawes restrained the publike exercise thereof, but yet Relat. Sym­mach. apud Ambros. lib. 5. Epist. 30 Diui Constātij factum diu non sletit. that act of his, saith Symmachus, did not long stand good; the people returning to their old superstitions and sacrifices, vntill that by Theodosius and Gratian the Emperours of Rome, they were repressed againe. Which lawes of theirs Symmachus the Lieutenant of the city, moued the next Em­perour Valentinian in his owne name, and in the name of the City and Senate of Rome, to haue againe repealed; who Symmach. vt supra. Sena­tus me querelarū suarum iussit es­se I egatum, &c. Vt Praefectus v [...] ­ster gesta publica prosequor, & vt Legatus ciuium mandata com­mendo. though he pretended a farre greater number of Senatours [Page 238] to ioyne with him then did, as Ambrose sheweth, yet can­not be doubted to haue had a great number also partakers with him, beside the common multitude of the City, whose affection how it stood we may gather by that that Hierome saith, not much distant from that time, that Hieron. in E­sai lib. 16. c. 57. [...]psa (que) Roma or­bi [...] Domina in singulis insulis domibus (que) Tutela simulachrum ce­reis venerans ac lucernis, quam ad tuitionem ae­dium isto appel­lant nomine. Rome in euery house did with tapers and candles worship the image of Tutela, whom they so called for the tuition and defence of their houses, though elsewhere he testifie, that Idē ad Mar­cel. vt commi­gret Bethle­hem. Est ibi sancta Ecclesia, &c. & gentili­tate calcata in sublime se quoti­diè erigens voca­bulum Christia­num. Paganisme was decaying, and the name of Christians arising, and growing higher and higher from day to day. But if it were yet growing, then it was not at full growth, and therefore when will M. Bishop say was the most flourishing and best time of the Church there? Againe, we desire to know of him when the time was that the Church of Rome stoode in no neede of the Apostles di­uine instructions? May we thinke, M. Bishop, that euer there was any such time? Surely we know now what the cause is, why the Apostles diuine instructions are so little set by at Rome. They serued the Romans forsooth at first, when they were but nouices in the faith, but now they are growen ripe, and haue no neede to be taught by him. May we not thinke him a wise man, that thus telleth vs that the Romans then stoode in neede of the Apostles diuine instructions, as if there were any time since that they had not the like neede? But I would aske him how it appeareth to him, that the Romans were then but nouices in the faith? The reason which his wordes imply is, because the Apostle wrote that Epistle to them. But so did he write two Epistles to the Corinthians, of whom notwithstanding he saith, that 1. Cor. 1. 5. in all things they were made rich in Christ, in all kinde of speech, and in all know­ledge. So did he to the Ephesians, Acts 20. 27. from whom he kept no­thing backe▪ but had shewed them all the counsell of God. Yea and of the Romans, the Apostle in that Epistle saith, Rom. 15. 14. I am perswaded of you that yee are filled with all knowledge, and are able to admonish one another; Neuerthelesse I haue somewhat boldly after a sort written vnto you, as one that putteth you in remembrance. It should seeme then that they were not no­uices [Page 239] in the faith, but fully instructed in all points, and that the end of the Apostles Epistle was only to keepe the re­membrance of those things, which they had beene before taught. Of that time Tertullian saith, that Tertul. de Praescript. Foe­lix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum suo sanguine prosu­derunt. the Apostles Pe­ter and Paul together with their bloud poured forth their whole doctrine, all that they taught, to that Church; and shall wee thinke that when the Apostles deliuered all their doctrine to that Church, that Church did not receiue and learne the same? Of that time we haue a more sure and vndoubted te­stimony, then we can haue of times following, that Rom. 1. 8. their faith was renowmed throughout the whole world. That there­fore doe we hold to be the best state of the Roman Church, and the most flourishing, because we measure not the flourish­ing of it by number of professours, or by glory of outward state, but by integrity of doctrine and truth of faith. Ne­uerthelesse, because flourishing may seeme to import a refe­rence to that outward liberty and exaltation, which that Church as the rest receiued, by the reigne of Constantine, and enioyed vnder other Christian Emperours after him, there­fore his Maiesty with great caution and aduisednesse added the other wordes spoken of before, to signifie that we are so to respect her in that flourishing estate, as that alwaies for more assurance we haue respect to that that shee was at the first, immediately from the Apostles, and from Christ her Lord and head, the liuely picture and description whereof is set forth vnto vs in the Epistle to the Romans. Here M. Bishop though he haue not yet proued any first fault, yet ta­keth vpon him to note a second, that I take an Epistle written to the Romans for their instruction and correction, as if it were a declaration and profession of their faith. Where the Reader seeth, that saue only I say the Apostle in that Epistle wrote at large, I say nothing thereof my selfe, but report only what Theodoret saith, who if he had affirmed that the Apostle in that Epistle did set downe a declaration of the faith, which the Romans then professed, had said nothing amisse; the care of the Apostle therein being both to confirme them in the [Page 240] faith which they had receiued, and to testifie to posterity what that faith was. All men know, saith M. Bishop, that such a letter might containe many things, which they had not heard off before. But we question not what such a letter might con­taine, that is an idle and dreaming supposall of his; but the point is, what we are to thinke that Epistle doth containe? This I declared by the wordes of Theodoret, who giuing a reason why the Epistle to the Romans, though written after diuers other; yet was put in the first place, alleageth this to be it, Theodoret. Praefat. Epist. Pauli. Epistolam ad Romanos prae­posuerunt vt quae in se omnis gene­ris doctrinam & accuratam copi­osam (que) dogma­tum pertractati­onem. for that it containeth doctrine of all sorts, or all kinde of doctrine, and very exact and plentifull handling of the points of faith. This place dazeled his eyes; he stood astonished at it, and knew not which way to shift. He grew therefore to a desperate resolution▪

My wordes in my answere speaking of S ^t. Paul, writing to the Church of Rome, stand thus; He wrote at large compre­hending therein, as Theodoret saith, Omnis generis doctrinam & accuratam copiosam (que) dogmatum pertractationem; Do­ctrine of all sorts, or all kinde of doctrine, and very exact and plentifull handling of the points thereof. He in transcribing my text, setteth it downe thus, comprehending therein, as Theo­doret saith, doctrine of all sorts, or all kinde of doctrine, E [...] ac­curatam copiosam (que) dogmatum pertractationem, An exact and plentifull handling of all points thereof. Where note how he purposely leaueth out the Latin wordes, Omnis generis doctrinam, and whereas in Englishing, Dogmatum pertra­ctationem, I say, the points thereof, he in steede of, the points, saith, all points thereof. From this latter he frameth his mi­serable answere, which is only an accusation of me, for le­gerdemaine in the Englishing of Theodorets words. And why? Dogmatum pertractationem, The handling of opinions, saith [Page 241] he, is by him translated; all points of doctrine, whereas it ra­ther signifieth some then all opinions or lessons. Thus he ouer­slippeth the words that carry weight and force to the point in question, and to colour this that the Reader may not espy it, hee busieth him the while with an opinion of my false translation; whereas the false translation is none of mine, but by himselfe very lewdly foisted in. But the Beare though thus broken loose, must be brought to the stake againe. Re­member, M. Bishop, what I told you, and answere vs direct­ly to it. Theodoret saith, that the Epistle to the Romans con­taineth, Omnis generis doctrinam, All kinde of doctrine, and doth not say it once only, but saith it againe, that Idem Prae­fat. Epist. ad Rom. Variam quidem & om­nis generis do­ctrinam per haec scripta exhibet Apostolus. the Apo­stle therein deliuereth manifold, and not only manifold, but all kinde of doctrine. Now if all kinde of doctrine that concer­neth the Christian faith, be contained in the Epistle to the Romans, then Popery is not the true Christian faith, which teacheth so many points of doctrine, whereof nothing is contained in the Epistle to the Romans. Nay, it doth not only say nothing for Popery, but it also saith against it, and instructeth vs to call that apostasie and heresie, which they falsly call the Catholike faith. Whether any thing be there to be found of moment to that purpose, we shall see in that that followeth.

R. ABBOT.

O Noble disputer, saith hee, and worthy the whippe. Whereby he putteth me in minde, that he hath be­fore returned it vpon me to be one of the Kings horses, and indeede Salomon saith, that Prou. 26. 3. to a horse belongeth a whippe, but he addeth further, that to an Asse belongeth a bridle, and a rodde to the fooles backe. I say in my answere, that the Apo­stle to the Romans, condemneth Rom. 1. 23. the changing of the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and Vers. 25. the worshipping of the creature insteede of the Creatour. I noted that the Apostle herein condem­neth the Church of Rome, which by her schoole-tricks teach­eth men to worship God in the image of a man, and by religious deuotions of prayers and offerings, to worship Saints and Saints images in steede of God. Where thou maiest see, gentle Rea­der, that as I cite the Apostles wordes double, so I make a double application thereof. Where hee condemneth the [Page 243] Heathens for changing the glory of God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, I say, it maketh against the Papists, doing the like, in teaching men to represent and worship God in the similitude and likenesse of a man. Where he noteth it for sinne in the Heathens, that they worshipped the creature in steede of the Creatour, I say, it condemneth the Papists, who worship Saints and Saints Images, in steed of God. But M. Bishop playing the part of Danus to set all out of order, taketh the former part of the Apostles wordes, and putteth them to the latter part of my application, ma­king me to say thus; First, he condemneth the worshipping of Saints and Saints images, in that he reproueth the Heathens for changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man. Thus he slippeth by a maine point of idolatry condemned in the Pagans, and yet defen­ded and practised by the Papists, as if his heart failed him, and he saw no way to salue their abuse against the words of the Apostle. The Apostle giueth to vnderstand, that by the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome, it was accounted an abhominable wickednesse, and an abusing of the Maiesty of God, to transforme him into the image of man. The Church of Rome therefore now transforming God in that sort, and setting him forth to be worshipped in the image of an old man, doth that which was holden abhominable in the ancient Church of Rome. What hath M. Bishop here to answere, or what will he say? Will he tell vs that the Hea­thens were to blame, for that they were false Gods, whom they represented in this sort? But that the Apostle excludeth, in that he noteth this as a dishonour done Rom. 1. 19. 20. 21. 23. to the incorrup­tible God, whom they knew by the creation of the world, whom they should haue glorified: and were punished for that, know­ing God they did not glorifie him as God, but turned the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man; Hieron. in Rom. 1. Dicen­tes se esse sapien­tes quasi qui in­uenissent quomo­do inuisibilis De­us per simula­chrum visibile coleretur. calling themselues wise, as Hierome saith, for that they had deuised how the inuisible God might be wor­shipped by a visible image; euen as M. Bishops wisedome hath [Page 244] done, who though he hold Of Images, sect. 7. that no image is to be made as to represent God to the quicke, and as in himselfe he is, yet resolueth that we may picture God, and resemble him in such image as he hath appeared, or in some similitude repre­sent him by some actions or properties, whereby to leade our vnderstanding to the better knowledge of him; whereas the ancient true religion doth teach vs, that God Origen cōt. Cels. l. 3. Com­munis sensus co­gitare nos iubet non delectari De­um hoc honore i­maginum quae [...]f­figiem eius aut significationé re­praesentent ali­quam. is not pleased with the honour of images, which represent either shape or any signification of him, or Ibid. lib. 7. Quis sanae men­t [...] nō rideat cum qui. &c. Per sta­tuarum contem­plationem tan­quam signi ali­cuius conspicui conatur animu [...]rigere ad ima­ginationem intel­ligibilis numinis. whereby to lift vp our minds to the cogitation of him. Will he say that the errour of the Gen­tils was in this, that they tooke the very images to be Gods? But against this we must obserue, that the Apostle there speaketh of them, who tooke themselues to be wise, euen the Philosophers and learned men, who scorned to be taken for such idiots, as to imagine a dead blocke to bee a God. Origen. cōt. Cels. l. 7. Quis alius nisi sit tot [...]s fat [...]us haec deos credit, non dijs dicatas stat [...]as. Who but very fooles, saith Celsus, take these to be Gods, and not images dedicated to the Gods? August. in Psal. 113. Di­cunt, Nec simu­lacbrum nec d [...] ­monium colo sed per corporale ef­figi [...]m eius rei sig­num intueor quā colere deb [...]o. I neither worship the i­mage nor the diuell, saith another, but by the bodily shape I be­hold the signe or token of that which I ought to worship. They hold them to be as it were Athanas. cōt. Idola. Simulachra pro elem [...]ntis literarum humano generi esse, quae dum legunt, Dei notitian [...] condiscere possiat. Alphabeticall letters, which men might reade, thereby to learne the knowledge of God, and that Arnob. cont. Gentes lib. 5. Dicere quî conuenit ad incutienda [...] for­ [...]idmes vulgo deorum [...] a simulac [...]ra? they were appointed to terrifie the vulgar sort. M. Bishop hath no thing to except against it, but that Pagans and Pa­pists are both alike, and both condemned by the ancient Ro­man Church, for changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man. But now for worshipping of Saints and Saints images, he will finde somewhat to say, though it be starke naught. Because we may not make false Gods, saith he, or giue the glory of God vn­to Idols, may we not therefore yeeld vnto Saints their due wor­ship? Their due worship, saith he, when as the thing affirmed against him is, that no worship is due vnto them; and be­cause there is no worship due, therefore to giue them wor­ship, [Page 245] is of Saints in themselues to make them Idols to vs, and to doe that which in the other part of the wordes by me al­leaged, is forbidden by the Apostle. For the Apostle spea­king Cyril. de rect. side ad Re­gin. De his qui adorant creatu­ram pr [...]ter crea­tor em [...]dicit, &c. of them, as Cyril saith, who beside the Creatour doe wor­ship also the creature; August. cōt. Faust. l. 14. c. 18 Creaturae cultu­ram damnat A­postolus dicēs, Et coluerunt & ser­uierunt creatu­rae, &c. Condemneth, saith Austin, the wor­shipping of the creature, and Ibid. cap. 11. Creaturam Dei laudat, & tamen ci cultum religi­onis exhiberi ve­tat. for biddeth worship of religion to be yeelded vnto it. Neither is M. Bishop helped with that which he saith of the most excellent, spirituall, and religious vertues of the Saints, for worship cannot thereby be due to them, who haue the same only by grace and gift, but belon­geth to him who is the giuer thereof. We cannot doubt but that the Origenists and Arians, when they made Christ a oreated God, did hold him by endowments and gifts, to be farre aboue the condition of all other creatures, and yet be­ing supposed to be a creature, Epiphanius by these wordes of the Apostle, resolueth against Origen that he ought not to be worshipped. Epiphan. hae [...] cs. 64. Quo­modoadhuc ado­randus erit si fa­ctit [...]us est? An­ser enim indig­nationem quae est apud sanctum A­postolum propter cos qui creaturā velut Deum tra­ctant, & tribue mihi Deum qui adoratur creat [...], quae non amplius creaturam ado­rat sed creatore, &c. Omne enim quod creatū est, nō est adorandū. How shall he be worshipped, saith he, if he be created; for take away the wrath which is vttered by the Apostle, as touching such as doe vse the creature like God, and shew me a created God worshipped according to true faith, which no longer worshippeth the creature, but the Creatour; for no­thing that is created is to be worshipped. So doth Athanasius conclude of the Arians, that Athanas. cont. Arian. Orat. 1. Creaturam asserunt esse Dei verbum, & vt Ethnici solent cul [...]um exhibent creaturae, omisso creatore. Cyril de recta fide ad Regin. Oportebit semper & omninò consiteri quòd adhuc pristmi [...]rroris laqueis irretiamur, communi homini sidem exhibentes. affirming the Word to be a crea­ture, they did after the manner of the Heathens worship the creature in steede of the Creatour. In like sort doth Cyril de­termine against Nestorius the Heretike, who though he held the manhood of Christ to be endued with all singular per­fections and graces, yet diuiding it from the God-head, and affirming it notwithstanding to be worshipped and belee­ued in, is therefore accused of the same Heathenish errour. ^s We must then conf [...]sse, saith he, that we are yet intangled in the cords of old errour, yeelding faith to a common or meere [Page 246] man. Yea the second Nicene Councell chargeth the same Nestorius expresly with Concil. Ni­cen. [...]. act. 7. E­pist. ad Con­stant. & Iren. Audemus ana­thematizare &c. Nestorij idolola­triam in homine. idolatry, thus committed in wor­shipping a man. Now if it be idolatry, and the same heathe­nish sacriledge, which the Apostle condemneth. to worship Christ either as a supposed created God, or as a meere man, though of excellent vertue and grace, then surely it is idola­try, and contrary to the Apostles doctrine, to worship the Saints, notwithstanding their most excellent, spirituall, and religious vertues. Of which most excellent, spirituall, and reli­gious vertues, because he giueth vs example in Saint Paul, whiles he liued as all other most godly men, we put him to his choise, either to fall downe before such godly men yet li­uing, and to worship them; to pray and offer to them, as they doe to the Saints, or else to acknowledge his owne ab­surd folly, in alleaging to vs the vertues of liuing men, for warrant of such worship to be done to them, when they are dead. With vs it shall stand good which S ^t. Austin aduiseth; August. de vera relig. cap. 55. Non sit no­ [...]is religio cultus hominum mortu, orum, &c. Hono­randi sunt prop­ter imitationem, non ador [...]ndi propter religione. Let it be no religion with vs to worship dead men; they are to be honoured by way of imitation, not to be worshipped by way of religion. For albeit men for their temporall callings be honou­red, as M. Bishop saith, with temporall worship, without rob­bing God of his honour, yet to religion this is nothing, because Ibid [...]i vni religantes ani­mas nostras vn­de religio dicta creditur. religion tyeth our soules to God only, as Austin saith; Lactant. in­stitut. lib. 1. c. 20. Religio & veneratio nulla alia nisi vnius Dei tenenda est. nei­ther are we to hold or maintaine any other religion or worship, but to God only, saith Lactantius; Origen cōt. Cols. l. 1. Caetera honore tantum digna, non etiam cultu & adorati­one que nulli cre­aturae concedi po­test sine diuinita­tis [...]iuria. neither can worship (in this sense) be yeelded to any creature, saith Origen, without wrong or iniury vnto God. But here M. Bishop demandeth of vs; Is the Lord or Master dishonoured and spoiled of his due reuerence and respect, if his seruants for his sake bee much made of and respected, yet with such due regard only as is meete for their degree? Where wee see, that like will to like, and that a Papist cannot pleade for worshipping of Saints, but euen as the Pagans did for their petite Gods. They pleaded for themselues, as Osorius sheweth, that Oros. hist. l. 6. cap. 1. Non se plures sequi, sed sub vno Deo ma­gno plures mini­stros venerari f [...] ­ [...]entur. they did not follow many, but vnder one great God did worship many, as his officers or seruants. Now [Page 247] Origen. cōt. Cels. l. 8. [...]it [...]um qui plures deos veneretur, hoc ipsorem gra­tam summo D [...]o facere, quòd ne­mini honor con­tingat nisi quem ille honorari vult. Quaprop­ter qui venera­tur eius subditos, non offendere il­lum cuius òmnes sunt. he that thus worshippeth many Gods, saith Celsus, he doth a thing pleasing to the highest God, for that there is hereby honor giuen to none, but whom he will haue to be honoured, and there­fore he that worshippeth his subiects, offendeth not him whose they all are. But M. Bishop by Christian learning should vn­derstand, as hitherto hath beene shewed, that God admit­teth no seruants of his to any such communion or fellow­ship with him, nor can endure that any seruant accept from his fellow seruant any part of religious seruice, which he re­quireth to be proper to himselfe alone. Peter notwithstan­ding all his religious vertues, taketh it not of Cornelius; Acts 10. 26. Stand vp, saith he, fir euen I my selfe also am a man. The Angel though more then a man, admitteth it not to be yeel­ded to him by S ^t. Iohn; Apoc. 19. 10. See thou doe it not; I am thy fel­low seruant, and one of thy brethren; worship God. Cyril cont. Iulian. lib. 4. Hi docent hono­res & adoratio­nem non sibi sed potiùs soli summo Deo debere of­ferri. They teach vs, saith Cyril, that honours and adoration or worship, are not to be offered to them, but only to the highest God. As for M. Bishops addition, as is meete for their degree, it is but a verball couer of the idolaters cup. See of Ima­ges sect. 11. and the answere to the Preface of D. Bishops secōd part, sect. 12. They kneele to Saints to worship them, they pray to them, they offer to them, they giue them the honour of Temples and Altars, they keepe fa­sting daies and holy daies to them, they sweare by them, and what doe they not, and then tell vs that they doe wor­ship them, but as is meete for their degree. I may say here as Ambrose saith; Ambros. in Rom. c. 1. Quasi sit aliquid plus quod reseruetur Deo. As though there were any thing more to be reserued to God. Surely those Christians of whom Leo Bi­shop of Rome speaketh, who retained the superstitious cu­stome of their Paganisme, Leo in Na­tiuit Dom. ser. 7. Nō [...]ulli Chri­stiani, &c. supe­ratis gradibus quibus ad suggestum arae superioris ascenditur, conuerso corpore ad nascentem se solem reflec­tunt, & curuatis ceruicibus in honorem se splendidi orbis inclinant. to worship the Sunne rising, tur­ning themselues backe to it, as they went vp the steps to the high Altar, and bowing their heads, and inclining themselues to the honour of that glorious light, might well haue learned of M. Bishop to excuse and defend this heathenish supersti­on, for that they put a great difference, as no doubt they did, betwixt the light and the Creatour of the light, and in [Page 248] honour of the Creatour, did worship the Sunne, no other­wise then as was meete for his degree, being such a glorious and goodly creature. But Ibid. Etsi qui­dam fortè crea­torem potius pul­chri luminis q [...]ā ipsum lumē quod est creatura ve­nerantur, absli­nendum tamē est ab ipsa buiusmo­di specie officij, &c. Abijciatur à consuetudine fi­delium dānanda peruersitas nec bonor vni D [...] debitus cor [...] ri­tibus qui creatu­ris descruiunt misceatur. D [...]cit enim Scriptura diuina: Dominū Deum tuum a­dorabis, &c. though some of them, saith Leo, doe perhaps worship the creatour of the light, rather then the light it selfe which is a creature; yet the very shew of this deuo­tion is to be forborne; let this damnable peruersity be cast away from the custome of the faithfull, and let not the honour due to God only, be blended with their rites who doe seruice vnto crea­tures; for the holy Scripture saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt serue. He professeth such ho­nour in case of religion, to be due vnto God alone, and ther­fore holdeth it vnlawfull, to giue so much as the shew there­of vnto any creature, and neuer was acquainted with M. Bishops distinction of worshipping creatures, as is meete for their degree. Neither was Hierome acquainted with it; for if he were, he spake fondly when he said; Hieron. ad Ripar. Ne solem quidem & lunā, non Angelos, non Archangelos, non Cherubim, non Seraphim, & omne nomē quod nominatur & in praesenti seculo & in futuro colimus & adoramus, ne seruiamus crea­turae potiùs quàm creatori qui est Deus benedictus in secula. We neither wor­ship Sunne nor Moone, neither Angels nor Archangels, nei­ther Cherubim nor Seraphim, nor any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come, least we serue the creature rather then the Creatour, who is God blessed for euer. Yes, saith M. Bishop, we worship them as is meete for their degree, though not in the highest degree. But either Hierome dis­claimeth this, or else he speaketh very idlely when he thus wholly denyeth to worship them, and yet meaneth to wor­ship them in some degree. For conclusion, I would gladly know how M. Bishop fitteth that last part of his speech to the Images of Saints, because wee haue here to doe with them also. What, must we thinke that as the Saints are ser­uants to God, and therefore to bee worshipped for Gods sake, so the Images of Saints are seruants to them, and to be worshipped for their sakes? Let vs then say also, that the Sexton is seruant to the Image, because he brusheth off the dust and keepeth it cleane, and therefore the Sexton is to be worshipped for the Images sake. And I. S. is seruant to the Sexton and helpeth him so to doe, and therefore I. S. is to be worshipped for the Sextons sake. I haue derided this do­tage [Page 249] of his Of Images, sect. 11. before, and thither I referre the Reader: I only note here how truly the holy Ghost hauing spoken of Idols, said; Psal. 115. 8. They that make them are like vnto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them.

R. ABBOT.

I Am not ignorant that there are many expo­sitions made of those wordes of the Apostle, which all or the most part are to be found in the collections of Oecumen. in Rom. 3. Oecumenius, and in Tho. Aquin. in Rom. 1. Lect. 6. Thomas Aquinas, his Commentary vpon that place; who notwithstanding ( Aquinas I meane) either omitteth that which is most likely and warrantable aboue all the rest, or else expresseth it not in such sort as were con­uenient. M. Bishop telleth vs, that the exposition which he hath brought, is the most common, whereas I am perswaded, [Page 251] that as he hath set it downe, he can bring no authour of it but himselfe only. For although it be true that some con­strue it to be meant, from the faith of the old Testament, to the faith of the new, yet they apply the same to farre other pur­pose then he doth. Some will haue it that the Apostle would signifie that it is faith, that iustifieth and saueth both in the old and new Testament, so that the change from the old to the new, is but from faith to faith, that is, in effect no change. This Thomas Aquinas expresseth thus; Tho. Aquin. vt supra. Ex side in fidem, id est, ex fide veteris testamenti proce­dendo in fidem noui testamenti, quia ab vtroque homines iustifi­cātur & saluan­tur per fidem Christi, quia ca­dem side credi­derunt ventur [...] qua nos venisse credimus. From faith to faith, that is, from faith of the old Testament, proceeding to faith of the new, because on both sides men are iustified, and sa­ued by the faith of Christ, for that by the same faith they belee­ued that Christ should come, whereby we beleeue that he is come. Some other vnderstand it of proceeding from faith, whereby we beleeue the Scriptures of the Prophets and old Testa­ment, to faith, whereby to beleeue the Gospell. For Theodoret. & Oecumen. in Rom. 3. Ex side in fidem; Opor­tet enim credere Prophetis & per illos deduci ad fidem Euangelij. wee must beleeue the Prophets, saith Theodoret, and after him Oecumenius, and by them be brought to the faith of the Gos­pell. This I gh [...]sse it was that M. Bishop aimed at, but hee peruersly applyeth it to light giuen by the new Testament to the old, which was meant by his authours of confirmation giuen by the old Testament to the new. This literall sense therefore of his being neither literall nor sense, but a blinde conceipt of his owne skonce, let vs consider what we may most truly take to be the meaning of that place. The Apostle propounding, that Rom. 1. 16. the Gospell is the power of God vnto sal­uation to euery one that beleeueth, addeth for declaration and proofe thereof, that in it or by it the righteousnesse of God is re­ueiled [...], from faith to faith. M. Bishop to obscure and darken the place, translateth as his Masters of Rhemes haue giuen him example, by faith into faith; to which we may wonder, how he can deuise to fit the exposi­tion which he himselfe hath set downe. But it appeareth by that which I cited out of Thomas Aquinas, that the phrase which the Apostle vseth, importeth a proceeding, and there­fore that by the one preposition must be vnderstood termi­nus [Page 252] à quo, the terme of beginning, and the other must deter­mine the progression and the end, to sound euen as we trans­late, from faith to faith. And this is very expresly and cleare­ly iustified by Oecumenius, out of the Greeke expositours, setting downe the effect of S ^t. Pauls wordes thus; Oecumen. in Rom. 3. Ex fide in fidem, quia & in side incipit & in fidem termi­nari debet. It is to beginne in or with faith, and in faith to be determined. Hereto accord almost all the expositions that are made of that place; which cannot fitly be expressed but by that forme of speech; from the faith of God promising, to the faith of man beleeuing; from the faith of the old Testament, to the faith of the new; from the faith of the Preacher, to the faith of the hearer; from the faith of one article, to the faith of another; from faith present, to faith to come; to all which M. Bishop can as ill fit Clem. Alex­and. strom. l. 5. sub initio. Vi­detur Apost [...]lus duplicem fidem annunciare; po­tiùs verò vnam annunciat quae augmentum sus­c [...]pit & perfecti­onem. by faith into faith, as he can to his owne sense. For further manifestation hereof, we are to note the like phrase in other places of holy Scripture, as where the Prophet Dauid saith; Psal. 84. 7. They shall goe [...], as the Septuagint translate, that is, from strength to strength. So the Apostle speaketh, though by the preposition [...] in steede of [...], yet to the same effect, 2. Cor. 3. 18. We are changed into the same image, [...], from glory to glory: where the Rhemists translating from glory vnto glory, might haue learned to translate here, from faith vnto faith, but that they were per­uersly bent for their owne aduantage, to make the Apostles wordes lesse sensible then in themselues they are. Now therefore as in these places the holy Ghost noteth by that forme of speech, a continuation and increase of strength and glory, so in the other he importeth a continuation of faith, and a proceeding and growing therein, to greater and stron­ger faith. Thus doth Ciemens Alexandrinus construe it, saying; The Apostle seemeth to speake of a double faith, but he speaketh rather of one, receiuing increase and perfection. Theophyl. in Rom. 1. Neque enim sat est prio­res fidem hanc excepisse, sed erit etiam fidei huius ductu ad persec­tiorem creduli­t [...]tem progre [...]i­ [...]dum, ad im­ [...]otu [...] [...] & [...] firma­ment [...], qu [...]nt­a [...] & [...] Dom [...]. For it is not enough, saith Theophylact, to receiue this faith at first, but by the guiding of this faith we are to goe forward to more perf [...]ct beleefe, euen to vnmoueable and firme assurance, to which purpose the Apostles vsed these wordes to the Lord, En­crease [Page 253] our faith. And to this agreeth that which Oecumenius saith, Oecumen. in Rom. 3. Hoc D [...] [...] est [...] n [...]m [...]tate excedentis, ex so­la videlicet fide nos peccatis ianc mortuos viuisi­car [...]a [...] s [...]scitare, &c. Ʋerùm ad quid viuisicatur, inquit, qui credi­dit? Ad perfec­t [...]ssimam fide & immutabi [...]e ha­bitus fortitudi­nem. Nam ex si­de in fidem est viuificatio. This is the property of the iustice of God, exceeding the kindnesse of man, euen by faith only to quicken and raise vs vp that are dead in sinnes. And whereto is he quickened that hath beleeued? To most perfict faith and vnchangeable strength of the habit thereof. For our quickening is from faith to faith. Here is then the iustice of God, that is, the iustification of man before God, described by the Apostle, that it beginneth with faith, and goeth forward by faith, and is more and more to be apprehended by increase and growth of faith. It is be­gunne by faith only, and because the proceeding and perfec­ting thereof is according to the beginning, from faith to faith, therefore it is consummate and perfect in faith only. And this phrase of speech the holy Ghost seemeth to haue directed purposely against the errour of the Papists; who though they acknowledge the beginning of iustification to be by faith, yet determine the processe and perfection there­of to consist in workes, so that our iustification with them is not according to the wordes of the Apostle, from faith to faith, but contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle, from faith to workes. Bellarm. Re­cognit. lib. de Iustificat. Cha­ritas verè & ab­solutè formalis iustitia est, &c. fides propriè & simplicitèr iusti­ficat per modum dispositionis; for [...] malitèr autem simplicitèr & ab­solutè non iusti [...] ficat. Charity, saith Bellarmine, is truly and absolute­ly formall righteousnesse; faith properly and simply iustifieth in manner of a disposition, but simply and absolutely it doth not iu­stifie formally. And againe, Idē Recog. lib. de Grat. & lib. Arbit. Quā ­uis fides & spes necessariò requi­rantur ad iusti­ficationem, tamē id quod verissimè proprijssimè (que) iustificat tanquam vnica formalis causa charitas est. Although faith and hope be ne­cessarily required to iustification, yet charity is it which most truly and properly iustifieth as the only formall cause. So then where the Apostle saith, that Rom. 3. 22. the righteousnesse of God is by the faith of Iesus Christ, and that Vers. 30. God iustifieth by faith, we must thinke that he speaketh vnproperly, he speaketh not formally, neither doth he name that wherein the iustificati­on of man most truly consisteth. Thus doe they take vpon them as the old Heretikes did, to be Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Audent dicere gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum. correctours of the Apo­stles, to reforme their ouersights, and to better their termes [Page 254] and phrases, euen where they speake most vniformely and constantly, to deliuer the doctrine of true faith. But we will not hearken to them, nor be led by them, but rather take that which the Apostle teacheth vs, that the iustification be­fore God which is taught vs by the Gospell, is from faith to faith, that it beginneth in faith, and continueth in faith, and from the beginning to the end, consisteth in faith only. And hereto agreeth that which the Apostle saith elsewhere; Gal 2. 16. We who are Iewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, know­ing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the law, but by the faith of Iesus Christ, euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might (or may) be iustified by the faith of Christ, and not by the workes of the law, because by the workes of the law no flesh shall be iustified. Where wee see the processe of iustifica­tion, plainly described as we haue said, from faith to faith, the Apostle professing to haue beleeued in Christ, not thenceforth to be iustified by workes as Popery teacheth, but to be iustified by faith, because being now beleeuers they knew that by the workes of the law no flesh should be iustified. And this meaning is further confirmed by the proofe which the Apostle bringeth of the wordes, whereof we speake; Habac. 2 4. as it is written, saith he, The iust shall liue by faith. For although those wordes of the Prophet doe seeme to at­tribute iustification and life to faith, yet no otherwise doe they inferre it to be from faith to faith, but in that sort as I haue said. Certaine it is that but by faith no man can at­taine to be called a iust man, and therefore in the very name of the iust, is an implication of faith. The Prophet then teacheth, that a man being by faith become a iust man, is not thenceforth to expect life by his iustice, but to goe on from faith to faith; the iust, saith he, shall liue, not by his iustice, but by his faith. For this cause doth he expresse it, not by the present, The iust doth liue, as the vulgar corruptly readeth, but by the future tense, The iust shall liue by faith, as to note that the iustice of God, that is, the iustice for which God ac­cepteth and iustifieth vs, as it beganne, so proceedeth euen [Page 255] to the attainement of euerlasting life, not by workes, but by faith only. And of all this we haue a notable example in our father Abraham, who is set before vs as the patterne and ex­ample of all the faithfull, of whom after that Gen. 12. 1. 2, &c. Heb. 11. 8. by faith he had obeyed God, to goe out of his owne Countrey, and had wrought many workes of iustice and righteousnesse, yet to shew this continuation of the righteousnesse of God, from faith to faith, it is said; Gen. 15. 6. Abraham beleeued the Lord, and hee counted that to him for righteousnesse. He was not first iusti­fied by faith, to be afterwards iustified by workes, but still his faith was it for which he was reputed righteous in the sight of God. By all this then we see a direct opposition be­twixt the doctrine of the ancient Roman Church, and the doctrine of the Papists. The Papists say that the righteous­nesse of God beginneth with faith, but the perfection there­of is in workes, and that it consisteth most properly and truly in the righteousnesse of works, and that the iust man though he become iust by faith, yet must afterwards with God be iustified, and attaine to life by workes. But the old Church of Rome was farre otherwise minded, that iustification be­fore God beginneth in faith, and is determined in faith, and that the iust man, be he neuer so iust, must liue, not by his iustice, but by his faith; it being true of iust men, as Hierome telleth vs, which is said, Hieron. adu. Pelag. l 2. Pro nihilo, inquit, sal­uos faciet illos: haud dubiū qum iustos, qui nō pro­prio merito sed Dei saluantur clementia. He will saue them for nothing, as who are saued, not by their owne merit, saith he, but by the mercy of God. For Gregor. Mo­ral. l. 8. c 9. Iusti perituros se abs (que) ambiguitate prae­sciunt si remota pietate iudicētur, quia hoc ipsum quoque quòd iustè videmur viu [...]re culpa est si vitā nostram cum iu­dicat, hanc apud se diuina misere­cordia non excu­sat. iust men, saith Gregory, know before­hand that they shall perish without doubt, if God set mercy aside in the iudging of them, because euen that which seemeth our iust life is but sinne, if Gods mercy, when he iudgeth it, doe not ex­cuse the same. Hitherto then it appeareth that I want no ar­mour or weapons to fight against him; yea who seeth not him rather to be a beggarly companion, who taketh vpon him to contradict me vpon no other but only his owne word? As for pouerty of spirit, he sheweth his prophanenesse in iesting at it▪ because Christ hath pronounced a blessing to it; Mat. 5. [...]. Blessed are the poore in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdome [Page 256] of heauen. But now before he giue ouer that text, he will finde a weapon there to fight against me. In the next verse, saith he, it is plainly shewed that God did grieuously punish all them who liued wickedly, notwithstanding they held the right faith. The wordes of that verse are these; Vers. 18: The wrath of God is reueiled from heauen against all vngodlinesse and vn­righteousnesse of men, which with-hold the truth in vnrighte­ousnesse. Where it being manifest that the Apostles wordes haue reference to Gentiles and Heathens, who had no knowledge of God, but only by natures light, the Apostle accusing them for suppressing and drowning euen that which they vnderstood, or might vnderstand, by the creation of the world, I might question with what discretion it is that M. Bishop attributeth vnto them, the holding of the right faith. But not to trouble my selfe or the Reader further then is needfull, I let that passe, and looke to his inferences that he maketh out of those wordes. Whence it followeth first, saith he, that men may haue a true faith without good workes. Which though it haue no manner of sequele from the Apo­stles wordes, there being nothing, as I haue said, which im­porteth the hauing or holding of true faith, yet with great opportunity he mentioneth, because he giueth me occasion to shew that though the righteousnesse of God be only from faith to faith, yet that faith wherein this righteousnesse con­sisteth, neuer is, nor can be without due correspondence of good workes and godly life. And to this belongeth that which the Apostle saith, that Rom. 3. 31. by faith we establish the law; because we doe not by faith establish the law, if we preach such a faith as may stand with the contempt of the law, and wilfull neglect of the commandements of God. Surely if faith may be without charity, and it be by an after-supply of charity, that wee haue the will to keepe Gods commande­ments, then should not the Apostle say that by faith, but ra­ther by charity we establish the law. But because without saith there is no charity, and charity is the necessary sequele of the regeneration of faith, therefore the Apostle rightly [Page 257] saith, that by faith we establish the law, as whereby we Gal. 3. [...]4. Ezech. 36. 26. 27 re­ceiue the promise of the spirit of God, the effect and Gal. 5. 22. fruit whereof is charity, whereby Rom. 7. 22. we delight in the law of God, as touching the inward man, and are grieued at the remainder of carnall concupiscence, whereby we are hindered, that Gal. 5. 17. we cannot doe the things that we would. The faith which the Gospell teacheth is that and no other, wherof we reade, that Acts 15. 9. by faith God purifieth our hearts, which is called, Gal. 5. 6. faith wor­king by loue, of which S ^t. Iohn saith; 1. John 3. 3. Euery one that hath this hope, purgeth himselfe euen as he is pure; Ephes. 3. 17. by which Saint Paul againe saith, that Christ dwelleth in our hearts; and Rom. 8. 10. if Christ be in you, saith he, the body is dead as touching sinne, but the spirit is life for righteousnesse sake. As for that faith which is without workes, it is by equiuocation only called faith, as the picture of a man is called a man; this being yeelded to custome of speech, and to the conceipt of men, who giue names oftentimes for semblance and shew, where there wanteth the substance and truth of them. To which pur­pose the wordes of Leo Bishop of Rome, are very remarke­able; Leode Qua­drages. serm. 7. Charitas robur fidei, fides forti­tudo est charita­tis, & tunc ve­rum nomen, & verus est fructus ambarum cum insolubilis man [...]t vtrius (que) cōnexio. Vbi enim non si­mul fuerint, si­mu desunt, quia in [...]icem sibi & inuam [...]n & lu­men sunt donec desiderium cre­dulitatis impleat remuneratio vi­sionis, & incom­mutabilitèr vi­deatur & ame­tur quod nunc & sine side non dili­g [...]tur, & sine di­lectione non cre­ditur. Charity is the strength of faith, and faith is the strength of charity, and then is there the true name and the true fruit of both, when there abideth an ins [...]parable coniuncti­on of them: for where they are not both together, they are both wanting, because they are the helpe and light each of other; vn­till reward of seeing fulfill the desire of beleeuing, and that be vnchangeably beholden and loued, which now is neither loued without faith, nor beleeued without loue. Where we see a dif­ference signified by Leo, betwixt the true name of faith, and that which is vulgarly termed faith; so that though some­times we speake of faith without workes, applying the name of faith to the outward profession of faith, as he him­selfe also doth, yet Idem de Collect. & ele­emos. serm. 4. Multis quibus auserre non potuit fidem, sustulit charitatem, & agro cordis ipsorum auaritiae r [...]dicibus occupato, spoliauit fructu operum quos non priuauit cons [...]ssione la­biorum. the true name of faith is not appliable, where there is not charity ioyned with it, neither can there [Page 258] be true beleefe where there is no loue. Hereto accordeth Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 22. Fidem, Spem, Charitatem, [...]t (que) operationē quam­diu in hac vita viuimus aequales sibi esse apud nos­metipsos inueni­mus, &c. Nam nunc & quan­tum credimus, tantum amamus, & quātum ama­mus, tantum de spe praesumimus. De fide quo (que) & operatione Ioan­nes Apostolus fa­ [...]etur dicens, Qui se dicit nosse De­um, &c. Notitia quippe Dei ad fi­de pertinet, man­datorum custodia ad operationem. Cùm ergò vi [...]tus, & tempus, & locus operandi suppetit, tantò quis operatur, quātò Deum no­uerat, & tantū se nosse Deum in­dicat, quantum pro Deo bona o­peratur, &c. V­nusquis (que) qui in hoc vitae exercitio versatur tantum credit, quantum sperat & amat: & tantum operatur. quantum credit, amat & sperat. also Gregory Bishop of Rome; We finde, saith he, that faith, hope, charity, and good workes, so long as here we liue are equall in vs. For looke how much we beleeue, so much also we loue; and how much we loue, so much we presume of hope. Of faith and workes also S ^t. Iohn confisseth, saying, He that saith, he knoweth God and keepeth not his Commandements is a lyar. For the knowledge of God appertaineth to faith; the keeping of the Commandements to workes. When therefore power and time and place of working serueth, so much doth a man worke as he knoweth God, and so much doth he shew himselfe to know God, as he worketh good things for Gods sake. To be short, euery one, saith he, that is conuersant in this exercise of life, beleeueth so much as he hopeth and loueth; and looke how much he belee­ueth, hopeth, loueth, so much he worketh. These wordes are plaine enough, and yet the wordes of Sixtus the third, if that bee his which they haue lately published vnder his name, are somewhat more plaine. Sixt. 3. Epist. de malis Doctor. & oper. fi­dei. &c. Biblioth. sanct. Patrum tom. 5. Intelligere no [...] norunt vbicunque fidei fructus non sit, ill [...] quoque nec ipsam fidem esse credendam. Caeterùm quis prudens addubitet, vbi fides sit, ill [...] esse & [...]morem? & vbi timor sit, illic esse & obedientiam, & vbi obedientia sit, illi [...] esse & i [...]stitiam▪ sicut [...] cont [...]ario vbi iustitia non sit, illic nec obedientiam, nec timorem esse nec fi­dem? Ita enim haec sibi inuic [...]m sociata atque connexa sunt, vt diuisa penitus esse non possint. Wheresoeuer is not the fruit of faith, saith he, it is not to be beleeued that there is faith. What wise man doubteth, but that where faith is, there is also feare? and where feare is, there is obedience; and where obedi­ence is, there is righteousnesse? as on the contrary, where righ­teousnesse is not, there is neither obedience, nor feare, nor faith? For so are these coupled and ioyned togither, as that they cannot in any wise be diuided. The collection from these testimonies is very manifest, neither neede I to declare it, but very plain­ly we see the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome accor­ding with ours, and condemning as we doe the Popish se­paration that now is made betwixt faith and workes. Thus then M. Bishops first conclusion is fallen to the ground, and as for the second it deserueth not to be stood vpon, because [Page 259] it is no wonder that faith auailed them nought, nor saued them from the wrath of God, in whom it appeareth by that that hath beene said, that there was no faith.

R. ABBOT.

CVrsed is the glosse, they say, that corrupteth the Text, but more accursed is the glosse, which to corrupt the text dissembleth and concealeth the wordes of it. I set downe the imputation of righteousnesse without works, all in a speciall letter, as the wordes of the Apostle. M. Bishop in that speciall letter setteth downe imputation of righteousnesse, and no more, but without workes, he addeth in the common letter, as if they were mine only, and not the Apostles wordes; knowing that his deuoted Reader, who hee knew would not looke into the Text it selfe, should hereby faile to see both the force of the words, and the simplenesse of his answere. And with the like fraud it is that in the margent of his answere, he setteth downe, see the place, Rom. 4. vers. 6. as to insinuate to his Reader, that if he see the place, he shall there see somewhat for his turne, whereas hee knoweth that his Catacatholikes, for whose sakes hee writeth, to keepe his credit with them, [Page 261] would hold it sacriledge for them, to goe about to see the place, for feare least the handling of the new Testament should make them turne Protestants; neither durst hee set downe the wordes himselfe, least they should euen by this text grow to suspicion of his dealing with them. But I will doe that for him which he himselfe durst not doe, the words of the Apostle being these: Rom. 4. 5. 6. To him that worketh not, (that is, saith Photius, Phot. apud Oecumen. in Rom. 4. Ei qui ab operibus sidu­ciam non habet. to him who hath no confidence by workes) but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is counted for righteousnesse, euen as Dauid pronounceth the bles­sednesse of the man, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes; Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne. In which wordes wee see how the Apostle affirmeth accordingly as I said, an imputation of righteousnesse without workes; which he expresseth to be the reputing of faith for righteousnesse, for that thereby we obtaine remission and forgiuenesse of sinnes. To this M Bishop an­swereth, that they hold with the Apostle, that workes be not the cause of the first iustification, nor doe deserue it, though in­spired with Gods grace, they doe prepare vs and make vs fit to receiue the gift of iustification. Where I wish it first to be no­ted, how he maketh workes before the first iustification, to be inspired with Gods grace, whereas they hold the first iusti­fication to be the first infusion of the grace of God. Now they hold workes before the first iustification, not to be pro­perly meritorious, and yet that workes proceeding from Gods grace, are properly d [...]sertfull and meritorious, so as that we are come to haue grace before grace, and workes meritorious before they be meritorious, and I know not what, for what the painter list, that must stand vpon the wall. But to let this passe, his answere to the place is other­wise, idle and impertinent; for though he See of Iusti­fication, sect. 21. tell vs, which yet he telleth vs falsly and against himselfe, that workes be not the cause of the first iustification, nor doe deserue it, yet he doth not tell vs that either the first or the second iustifica­tion [Page 262] is the imputation of righteousnesse without workes, which is the thing by the Apostle spoken of. For in the imputation of righteousnesse without workes, what is it that is reputed for righteousnesse? Faith, saith the Apostle, is reputed for righ­teousnesse. Tell vs then M. Bishop; is faith with you reputed for righteousnesse without workes? Spit out, man, and tell vs, whether in your first or second iustification you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous without workes? This the Apostle teacheth, and doe you teach the same? No forsooth, saith he, I dare not say so; though the Apostle taught the Romans so, when they were nouices in the faith, yet that now serueth not our turne. Consider it well, gentle Reader, and thou shalt see that his answere is a meere moc­kery, and giueth no satisfaction to the point. And that it may appeare further so to be, it is to be noted how the Apo­stle bringeth Dauid for a witnesse, of that he saith; who ha­uing beene long a faithfull and iustified man (that M. Bishop may haue no shift by his pretense of the first iustification) yet still out of his owne present occasioned experience and fee­ling, pronounceth, as the Apostle saith, the blessednesse of the man, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without works. He was in great distresse and affliction of bodily sicknesse, and in that misery he lay vntill God had throughly humbled him, and brought him to true and faithfull acknowledge­ment and confession of his sinne. Vpon this confession and repentance God remitteth the sinne, and mercifully relea­seth him from the grieuous punishment that had lien vpon him, and hereupon hee breaketh out into those wordes which the Apostle citeth; Psal. 32. 1. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sinne. Now therefore to speake of a man in the state of grace, as Dauid was, this is his blisse, euen the forgiuenesse of his sinnes, which is through faith, the imputation of righteousnesse without workes. And for further confirmation hereof, Dauid hauing so spoken of himselfe, addeth in generall; Ʋers. 6. For this shall euery holy man [Page 263] make his prayer vnto thee. For this, that is, as Austin saith, August▪ in Psal. 31. Pro qua hac? Pro ip­sa vema pecca­torum. for the forgiuenesse of sinnes. And if the forgiuenesse of sinnes be as the Apostle expoundeth it, the imputation of righteous­nesse without workes, then th [...] prayer of euery holy man, of e­uery one that is godly, is this, that not hauing workes where­by to be iustified, he may by faith in Christ be reputed righ­teous, and accepted in the sight of God. Here we haue M. Bishop fast tyed, neither is there any way for him to breake loose, because by comparing the Prophets wordes and the Apostles application thereof, we finde, that the holy or godly man looketh for blisse, by imputation of righteousnesse without workes. Euen the holy man prayeth with Dauid a holy man; Psal. 143. 2. Enter not into iudgement with thy seruant, O Lord; for in thy sight no man liuing shall be found iust; and therefore pray­eth againe as Dauid by the exposition of the Apostle, hath taught the holy man to pray, that faith may be counted to him for righteousnesse; that the Lord will impute to him righteous­nesse without workes. Of this imputation of righteousnesse with­out workes, S ^t. Austin saith; August. Re­tract. l. 1. c. 19. Omnia mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non sit ignosci­tur. All the commandements of God are reputed as done, when that is pardoned which is not done. And againe; Idē in Psal. 118. Conc. 3. In via side [...] pro non peccantibus habentur qu [...]bus peccata non im­putantur. In the way of faith they are reckoned for no sinners (and therefore are reputed iust) who haue not their sinnes imputed vnto them. Thus Bernard saith, that Bernard. in Cant. serm. 22. Iustitia in abso­lutione peccato­rum. Christ is made vnto vs righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, and that Ibid. ser. 23. Hominis iustit [...] indulgent [...]a Dei. Gods pardon is mans righteousnesse. To the like purpose it is that Ambrose saith; Ambros. in Psal. 118. ser. 7. Potest p [...]at [...]r ho [...] ipso iustus esse q [...]a accusator est [...]i. A sinner may euen hereby be iust, for that he is the accuser of himselfe. And so saith Gregory Bishop of Rome; Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 7. Iustus aduocatus noster iust [...]s nos d [...]fendet [...] iudi­cio quia [...] ipsos & cognos [...] ­mus & accusa­mus iniustes; Non ergò in s [...]etibus, non in actibus nostris, sed in aduocati nostri allegatione considamus. Our iust Aduocate will in iudgement defend vs for iust, because we know and accuse our selues to be vniust, and therefore let vs not put confidence in our teares, or in our workes, but in our Aduocates allegation or in­tercession for vs. If as touching workes, we know and con­fesse our selues to be vniust, and yet notwithstanding be de­fended in iudgement to be iust, what can our iustice be, but the imputation of iustice without workes? Against this M. [Page 264] Bishop alleageth, that we doe not wholly exclude workes from iustification, because we require true repentance, which contai­neth many good workes, as necessary thereto. But of this he hath receiued answere Of Iustifi­cation, sect. 25. before, that repentance doth only make the subiect capable of iustification, but is it selfe no part or cause thereof; that it is as the feeling and paine of a wound or sore, which causeth to seeke the medicine for cure and ease, but it selfe healeth not; that it is as hunger and thirst, which feede not the body, but prouoke the see­king of the meate, whereby it is fed. The penitent man touched in conscience with the guilt of sinne, and seeing thereby the misery that lyeth vpon him by Gods anger and indignation, denounced against the same, because he findeth nothing in himselfe or in his owne works to helpe himselfe, doth therefore betake himselfe to Iesus Christ, that through faith he may finde in him that iustification, which is the im­putation of righteousnesse without workes. Thus is Gal. 3. 24. the law our Schoole-master vnto Christ, that we may be iustified by faith. For Rom. 3. 20. by the law is the knowledge of sinne; Rom. 4. 15. the law worketh wrath; the law maketh it to appeare, that Rom. 3. 23. all haue sinned and are depriued of the glory of God. This true repentance be­leeueth and acknowledgeth, and thereupon flyeth to the Sanctuarie, which God hath prouided, Vers. 24. Wee are iustified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus; whom God hath set forth to be an attonement or recon­ciliation through faith in his bloud. As for the good workes which M. Bishop saith, are contained in true repentance, they are the fruits of repentance, not the parts of it; or rather the effects of that faith, whereby repentance becommeth true repentance, August. E­pist. 120. Ex hoc quippe incipiunt opera bona ex quo iustificamur, non quia pr [...]es­serunt iustifica­mur. hauing their beginning then when we are iustified, not going before that we should be iustified thereby. Now what they hold concerning the second iustification, it skilleth not to vs; we know they hold many things which they might very well let goe. He telleth vs that the Apostle speaketh not a word against it, and we tell him that it is a sufficient reason for vs to denie it, because the Apostle treating purposely [Page 265] and at large of iustification, saith not a word for it. Albeit it is vntrue which he saith, that the Apostle saith not a word against it; because he defineth, as I haue shewed, the iustifi­cation of the iust and godly man (to whom they referre their second iustification) to be the imputation of righteousnesse without workes. As for the wordes of the Apostle which he alleageth, Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers of the law are iust with God, but the doers of the law shall be iustified, they are farre from the intendment of their second iustification. The Apostle though he speake not of their first and second iustification, yet spea­keth of two kinds of iustification, the one presumed of man, the other taught and giuen of God; the one pertaining to the Law, the other to the Gospell; the one by workes, the other by faith. The Iewes presumed of iustification by the workes of the law; they greatly gloried in their name and in the law; they attributed much to themselues aboue all o­ther, for hauing the vse and knowledge of it, and thought the Gentiles in that behalfe much inferiour vnto them. But the Apostle telleth them, that Ʋers. 11. there is no respect of persons with God, and therefore if they sinned, no prerogatiues o­therwise could acquit them from his wrath. For as on the one side, Vers. 12. as many as haue sinned without the law, saith he, shall perish also without the law; so on the other side, as many as haue sinned in the law, shall be iudged by the law, that is, shall receiue that iudgement that is pronounced by the law. For confirmation whereof he addeth the words which M. Bishop citeth; Ʋers. 13. For the hearers of the law are not iust before God, but the doers of the law shall be iustified; thereby signifying that to haue the law, or to bee formall and zealous in the hearing of it, is not that that sufficeth to make a man righ­teous with God; and if any man would bee iustified by the law, he must be a doer of it, but if he were a trespasser, and sinned against the law, hee could not bee iustified thereby. For the voice of the law is, Gal. 3. 12. He that doth these things shall line therein, and Rom. 10. 5. Moses thus describeth the righteousnesse of the law, Leuit. 18. 5. that the man that doth these things, shall liue therein. [Page 266] Which doing, to what measure and perfection it must extend is to be knowen by that sentence, which the Apostle reci­teth out of the law; Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them. It is true then, that the doers of the law shall be iustified, who denyeth it? but they only are doers of the law, which con­tinue to doe all things that are written in the law. What is here then to M. Bishops second iustification, when as this iustification by the law requireth the doing of all, and of vs euen the best, it is true, that Jam. 3. 2. in many things we offend all, and that Eccles. 7. 22. there is not a man iust vpon the earth that doth good and sinneth not? Yea how crosly doth he deale, that whereas the Apostle vseth these wordes to conuince Rom. 3. 9. the Iewes of sinne, and to beate downe their pride in opinion of righteous­nesse by the law, he alleageth them to vphold himselfe in the same pride, and to defend thereby iustification by the law? Marke, saith he, how by doing of the law men are iustified with God. It is true, M. Bishop, and be you a doer of the law, and you shall be iustified thereby. But take heede least whi­lest you take vpon you to be a doer of the law, there be found sinne in you. If there be sinne in you, you are not a doer, but a trespasser of the law, and must feare the reward of sinne, and [...]m. 6. 23. the reward of sinne is death. That made the Apo­stle say, that Gal. 3. 10. so many as are of the workes of the law, are vnder the curse; Cap. 5. 4. they being voided from Christ, and fallen from grace, whosoeuer are iustified by the law. Therefore he des [...]red for himselfe, that [...] 3. 9. he might be found in Christ, not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the law, but the righteousnesse which is by the faith of Christ, the righteousnesse which is of God through faith; euen that which he calleth in the place here questioned, the imputation of righteousnesse without workes. But touching imputation of righteousnesse, M. Bishop saith, that the Apostle speaketh not like a Protestant, of the outward imputation of Christs iustice vnto vs, but of inherent iustice. Where it is much to be obserued, to what good is­sue this exposition sorteth, and how reasonably it standeth [Page 267] with the Apostles wordes. For if the imputation of righte­ousnesse be, as he saith, the imputation of inherent righteous­nesse, then surely, because inherent righteousnesse is the righ­teousnesse of workes, it must needes follow, that the Apo­stle by the imputation of righteousnesse without workes, doth meane the imputation of the righteousnesse of workes without workes. Which interpretation, because hee saw it could bee taken for no other, but a madde and frantike dreame, and yet perforce must vse it, because hee knew no better shift, therefore he thought good to colour it the best he could, by curtolling the wordes alleaged, naming only imputation of righteousnesse, whereas the Apostle nameth imputation of righteousnesse without workes. But let him take the wordes as the Apostle setteth them downe, and then giue vs his an­swere, and we shall apparantly see him to be a most impu­dent man, making no conscience of that he saith, but study­ing only to blinde the Reader, from seeing that truth which he himselfe knoweth not how with any probable shew to contradict. Yet he telleth vs for conclusion▪ that there is on­ly a bare sound of wordes for the Protestants, the true substance of the text making wholly for the Papists. So then the sound of the wordes, by his confession is for vs, but inasmuch as the wordes are very plaine and cleare, how may we be informed that the true substance and meaning of them is wholly for the Papists, when as they containe in shew a flat contradi­ction to the doctrine of the Papists? Wee see here the vse of that caueat, which the Rhemists haue giuen to their Reader, aduertising him Rhem. Te­stam. Argumēt of the Epistles in generall. to assure himselfe that if any thing in Pauls Epistles sound to him contrary to the doctrine of their Catholike Church, he faileth of the right sense. By this meanes if Saint Paul say, it is white, yet we must not thinke that he meaneth it to be white, if it please their Church to call it blacke. And therefore though here he speake of imputation of righteous­nesse without works, and bring testimony of ancient Scripture for confirmation thereof, yet he must not be taken to meane that there is any such, or any other, but the imputation of the [Page 268] righteousnesse of workes, because there is no other appro­ued by the Roman Church. Well may we thinke the iudge­ment of God to be fearefull vpon them, who are so blinde as to be led with such fopperies and grosse deceipts.

R. ABBOT.

WHether M. Bishop or I may bee thought more likely to flatter himselfe in an opinion, of hauing made a couenant with hell, I leaue it to be esteemed by the whole processe of this worke, and the God of heauen shall make it one day more fully to appeare. Against his solution of the ob­iection here propounded, he knoweth well that I Of Merits, sect. 8. haue re­turned a replication, which sheweth the same to be infirme and vaine, and seeing he can fortifie it no further, the bare repeating of it is no other but womanish and idle talking. The Apostle telleth vs that Rom. 6. 23. eternall life is [...] the free [Page 270] grace or gift of God through I [...]su Christ our Lord. We teach, saith M. Bishop, that eternall life is the gift of God originally and principally. Thus by his shifting termes of originally and principally, he limiteth the Apostles wordes, and deludeth a maine Theoreme and Canon of Christian faith, leauing it to be vnderstood, that though eternall life be originally and principally the gift of God, yet totally and absolutely it is not so. Which i [...] it be true, it must necessarily follow, that as the Apostle saith truly, that eternall life is the gift of God, because in part it i [...] so, so a man may truly say against the A­postle, that eternall life is not the free gift of God, because in part, and in some sort it is not so. And if no man may dare in this wise to gainsay the Apostle, then wee must ac­knowledge that which Origen saith, that Origen. in Rom. 4. Stipen­dia, inquit, pec­cati mors. Et non addid [...] similitèr vt dic [...] et; st [...]pen­dia a [...] iustitiae vita aterna, sed ait, Gratia au­tem De [...] v [...]a ae­t [...]rna, vt st [...]pen­d [...]m quod vti (que) debi [...]o & merce­di similé est, re­tributionem poe­n [...] esse doc [...]t & mortis; v [...] ­tam ver [...] ater­nam soli gratiae consignare [...]. the Apostle ha­uing said that the stipend of sinne is death, did not adde in the like sort that the stipend of righteousnesse is eternall life, but, e­ternall life is the grace of God, that he might teach, that the retribution of punishment and death is a stipend, which is like to a debt or wages, but might assigne life eternall to grace only. And thus the Apostle himselfe teacheth vs to conceiue, when he saith; Rom. 11. 6. If it be of grace, then it is not of workes; otherwise grace is no grace. For August cōt. Pelag. & Ce­lest. lib. 2. c 24. Gratia Dei non eri [...] grat [...] vll [...] modo nisigrat [...]i­ta fuer [...]t omni modo. grace, saith Austin, shall not be grace in any respect, except it be free in euery respect. Idem Epist. 120. c. 19. Haec est gratia quae gratis datur, non merit [...]s operan­tis sed miseratio­ne donantis. That is grace, saith he, which is freely giuen, not for the merits of the worker, but by the mercy of the giuer. Thus Hierome saith; Hieron. E­pist ad Dem [...] ­tr [...]ad. [...] non op [...]ru [...] retributio sed do­namis est largitas. Where grace is, there is not reward of workes, but the largesse and bounty of the giuer, Leo Epist. 84. Gratia nis [...] gratis d [...]tur, non est gratia, sed mer­ces retrib [...]tion meritorum. Grace, saith Leo, except it be freely gi­u [...]n is no grace, but a reward and recompense of merits, leauing it consequent, that if it be the reward and recompense of me­rits, then it is not grace. Thus they determine grace and merit, to be things incompatible, and of so perfect opposi­tion ea [...]h to other, as that the one cannot stand where place is yeelded to the other. Sith then the Apostle teacheth that [Page 271] eternall life, is a matter of grace and free gift, we must con­ceiue that it is not to be hanged vpon mans merit, or if in any respect it be to be ascribed to the merit of man, it is not grace, because it is not free in euery respect. M. Bishops respects thereof of originally and principally, are to be sent to the Pelagian schoole, where they would be admitted as well as they are amongst the Papists, but in the schoole of Christ they are exploded, as derogatory to the grace of Christ, and yeelding so much glory to man, as is the manifest impeach­ing of the glory of God. And yet so impudent is he, that he would make S ^t. Austin the author of his respects, whom Of Merits, sect. 8. before I haue shewed to be farre off from approuing any such. Originally, forsooth, eternall life is the gift of God, be­cause we must receiue grace by the free gift of God, bef [...]re we can doe any thing that doth deserue the ioyes of heauen. So then eternall life it selfe is not the free gift of God, but only grace which enableth vs to worke by our free will, and so to deserue eternall life. And did S ^t. Austin conceiue this to be the meaning of the Apostle? Surely in the place before mentioned I haue shewed that S ^t. Austin attributeth our good workes, not originally only, but fully and wholly to the gift and worke of God, and thereby disclaimeth the me­rit of man, because what shall man be said to merit by that, that is wholly and only Gods? Therefore he saith that God in rendering eternall life to good workes, doth but giue August. de Grat. & lib. Ar­bit. cap. 8. Gra­tia est pro gratia. grace for grace, one grace after and for another. M. Bi­shop would haue him say, that God rendereth merit for grace, but S ^t. Austin will acknowledge no other but only grace for grace. And the more to beate downe the pride of merit, he saith; Ibid. cap. 7. Si Dei dona sunt bona merita tua non Deus coronat merita tua t [...]n­quam merita tu [...] sed tanquam do­na sua. If thy good workes be the gifts of God, then God crowneth not thy merits as thy merits, but as his owne gifts. Yea he plainly testifieth that therefore the Apostle saith, Ibid. cap. 9. Maluit di [...]re, Gratia Dei vit [...] aeterna vt hin [...] intell [...]g [...]r [...]mus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeter­nam, sed pro [...]i­seratione sua per­ducere. Eternall life is the grace or gift of God, that we should vnderstand that God bringeth vs to eternall life, not for our me­rits, but for his on [...]ne mercies sake, alleaging to that purpose the wordes of the Psalme, Psal. 103. 4. He crowneth thee with mercy [Page 272] and louing kindnesse. As touching his second limitation, that eternall life is principally the gift of God, because the whole vertue and value of our merits proceedeth of the dignity of Gods grace in vs, which doth eleuate and giue such worth to our workes, that they thereby deserue life euerlasting, the nullity of it is plaine by that that hath beene said: because if the whole value of the worke bee to bee assigned to the grace of God, then can no merit bee reputed thereby to man; for what should man merit by that, in the worth whereof hee can chalenge nothing to be his? I haue Of Merits, sect. 3. before shewed that that whereby a man should be said to merit, must be of himselfe. If the value of the thing be of another, let the me­rit be ascribed to him of whom it is; but vainly doth he claime merit, who hath no propriety of that whereby he should merit. As concerning the value of good workes, I shall haue occasion further to speake in the thirteenth chap­ter, and therefore I forbeare to stand vpon it in this place. Only I wish M. Bishop to consider that which S ^t. Austin briefly saith, that August. de Temp. ser. 49. In comparatione resurrectionis il­lius stercus est to­ta vi [...]a quam ge­nimus, & paulò priùs: Vnusquis (que) metiatur se quid est modò & quid erit tunc, & in­ueniet in compa­ratione illi [...]s iu­stiti [...] ista damna esse & stercora. in comparison of the resurrection all the life that here we leade is but dung; let euery man measure himselfe, saith he, what he is now, and what he shall be then, and he shall finde that in comparison of the righteousnesse that shall be then, all now is but drosse and dung. Now tell vs M. Bishop your opinion; may we thinke drosse to be worth gold, or the dung of this earth to deserue that righteousnesse and glory of heauen? What madnesse is it to imagine such a value of desert in that worke, which is but dung in comparison of that that it should deserue? But at once to ouerthrow all that M. Bishop hath here answered, I will set downe what Fulgentius hath deliuered concerning the place here in hand. Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Gratia autem e­tiam ipsa non in­iustè dicitur qui [...] [...]on sol [...] donis s [...]is Deus do [...]a sua reddit, sed quia tantum eti­am [...]bi gratia di­uina retributio­nis exuberat vt incomparabilitèr atque inessabili­tèr omne meri­tum, quamuis bon [...] & [...] D [...]o dat [...] humanae voluntatis atque operationis exce­dat. Therefore is eternall life, saith he, not without cause called grace, not only for that God rendereth his owne gifts to his owne gifts, but also for that the grace of Gods reward doth there so much abound, as that incomparably and vnspeakably it exceedeth all the merit of the will and worke of man, although it be good, and giuen of God himselfe. By which wordes he [Page 273] plainly giueth vs to vnderstand as on the one side, that God in bringing vs to eternall life, doth but proceede in giuing, and consummate thereby the gift of saluation, which from the beginning he freely intended to vs, and by calling and iustifying and glorifying vs, as by degrees, acteth that which he intended, so on the other side, that in the intermediate gifts of God, there is nothing to take away from the finall gift, the name of grace, because there is no comparison be­twixt the one and the other, that the one should be said in any sort to merit and deserue the other. But here it is wor­thy to be noted how M. Bishop trippeth and crosseth him­selfe, who hauing first told vs, that the whole value of our merits whereby we deserue eternall life, proceedeth of the dignity of Gods grace in vs, presently altereth the case and saith, that we must concurre with grace to the effecting of good works, and this our working with the grace of God deserues heauen. Surely if the whole value of our merits doe proceede of the dignity of Gods grace, then the desert of heauen ariseth not of our working with grace; or if the desert of heauen doe arise of our working with grace, then it doth not wholly arise from the dignity of grace. But hereby wee may see that all the wordes which they vse as touching grace, are but hypocrisie and deceipt, and that their true resolution is, that the desert of heauen issueth out of the free will of man, vsing grace as a toole or instrument for the doing of workes, whereby to de­serue the same. Thus of gift they make no gift, and turne all wholly into merit, and by the free will of man doe vtterly o­uerthrow the grace of God, carrying notwithstanding in the meane time a conscience of shame of that they teach, and colouring all with good workes, as Pelagius the Heretike and his followers in the same case were wont to doe. But M. Bishop will proue all that he saith by another sentence of the same Epistle to the Romans, Rom. 2. 6. God will render to euery man according to his workes, &c. where he saith, we may see in expresse termes eternall life to be rendered and repaid for good works. Where wee rather see his pertinacy in errour, who [Page 274] rather chooseth to make the Apostle to contradict himselfe, then to yeeld to the truth plainly deliuered by the Apostle. But nothing can be deuised more fit for answere to him, or more effectuall to stoppe his mouth, then that which Grego­ry Bishop of Rome hath purposely set downe for satisfaction to those wordes. Gregor. in Psalm. Poe [...]i­tent. 7. Quòd si illa Sanctor [...] soe­licitas miserecor­dia est & nö me­ritis acquiritur, vbi erit quod scriptum est; Et tu reddes vni­cui (que) secundum opera sua? si se­cundum opera redditur, quo­modo miserecor­dia a stimabitur? sed aliud est se­cundum opera reddere, & aliud propter ipsa opera reddere. In co enim quod secun­dum opera dici­tur, ipsa operum qualitas intelli­gitur, vt cui [...]s apparuerint bona opera, eius sit & retribut o glorio­sa. Illi namque beatae vitae in qua cum Deo & de Deo viuitur nullus pot [...]st a­quari labor, nulla opera comparari, praesertim cùm Apostolus dicat: Non sunt condig­nae passiones, &c. If the felicity of the Saints bee mercy, saith he, and be not obtained by merits, how shall it stand which is written; Thou shalt render vnto euery man according to his workes? If it be rendered according to workes, how shall it be e­steemed mercy? But it is one thing, saith he, to render accor­ding to workes, and another thing to render for the works them­selues. For in that it is said, according to workes, the very qua­lity of the workes is vnderstood, so as that whose good works shall appeare, his reward shall be glorious. For to that blessed life wherein we shall liue with God and of God, no labour can be e­qualled; no workes can be compared, for that the Apostle tel­leth vs; The sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the glory to come, that shall be reueiled on vs. Where we see how he setteth it downe as a thing without question to be confessed, that eternall life is mercy only, and is not to be purchased or gained by merits, and that the Scripture in say­ing, that God rendereth to euery man according to his workes, doth not import that God in giuing reward vnto good workes doth any thing for the workes sake, as if he regar­ded the merit or value thereof, but respecteth only the qua­lity of our workes, as vsing the same for a marke only, wher­by he will take knowledge of them to whom he intendeth to shew mercy. At these wordes of Gregory, me thinks I see how M. Bishop biteth the lippe, and chafeth in his minde to heare him thus distinguishing like a Protestant, and seriously approuing that which he with scorne hath reiected, being spoken by M. Perkins. Of Merits, sect. 17. O sharpe and ouer-fine wit▪ saith he, doth God render according to the workes, and doth he not ren­der for the workes? What, M. Bishop, will you mocke Gre­gory in the same sort, and twite him with a sharpe and ouer­fine wit? He hath taught vs to distinguish thus; he telleth vs [Page 275] that it is one thing to render for workes, another thing to render according to workes, which sith you admit not, why doe you d [...]ale so impudently, in chalenging to your selues a full and perfect agreement with the ancient Church of Rome? I might further enlarge this matter out of Gregory by sundry speeches, tending to the disabling of all humane works, but that it followeth more properly to speake there­of in the thirteenth Chapter.

R. ABBOT.

EVen so might the adulterer pleade for him­selfe, that as Christ is said to haue been made sinne, and yet is not properly sinne: so adul­tery, though it be called sinne, yet is not so called, because it is indeede and properly sinne, but only because it is an effect of sinne and draweth on to many sinnes. Surely in what manner the Apostle saith that adultery is sinne, in the same manner doth he say that concupiscence is sinne, and very vntowardly and shamefully doth M. Bishop bring that as a speech of the like kinde, whereby it is said, that 2. Cor. 5. 2 [...]. Christ for vs was made sinne. As for that which he citeth out of S ^t. Austin, I haue Of Original sinne after Ba­ptisme, sect▪ 9. else­where before examined the places, and haue shewed at large how falsly and wickedly they abuse him, S ^t. Austin neuer de­nying concupiscence in the regenerate to be sinne, but only as sinne implieth a guilt of punishment, which to the faithfull is remitted, and therefore the condition of sinne in that re­spect abolished. If we consider the nature of sinne in the corruption and vncleannesse of it, S ^t. Austin acknowledgeth concupiscence to be such an euill quality as maketh vs euill, which nothing can doe but sinne, yea he saith that it is August. cōt. Iulian. l. 6. c. 5. Tale ac tamma­gnum malum, tantum quia in­est, quomodo non tener [...]t in morte? &c. so great an euill, as that only for that it is in vs, it should hold vs in death, and bring vs to euerlasting death, but that the bond (that is, the guilt) thereof is loosed in baptisme by the remission of all our sinnes. I note these things but briefly, because I choose rather to referre the Reader to the treaty hereof at large. And thereby he shall perceiue how vntruly M. Bishop here saith, as by the doctrine of S ^t. Austin, that if by the helpe of Gods grace we represse concupiscence, we are deliuered from the infection and guilt of it. Indeede S ^t. Austin saith so much of the guilt, but neuer did he say or thinke, that we are [Page 278] or shal be deliuer [...] from the infection and vncleannesse of it, Aug. Epist. 54. Malos di [...]it propter vitia in­firmitatis huma­nae donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum tran­seat in eam vi­tam vbi nihil omninò peccabi­tur. vntill all whereof we consist, healed from all corruption, shall passe into that life where there shall be no sinne. But if S ^t. Austin will not take his part, he will proue that which he saith by S ^t. Paul himselfe, in the same Chapter. He demandeth, saith he, Who shall deliuer me from this body of death, and answereth presently, The grace of God by Iesus Christ our Lord. Where we see how according to his vsuall manner he setteth downe the wordes, as to haue his Reader thinke, that he tendereth him a proofe of that which he saith, but neuer goeth about to shew how that which he saith is to be deduced therfrom. And here his falshood is the greater, for that hee alleageth the Apostles wordes for that which he saith, whereas that which he saith is vtterly ouerthrowen by the wordes which he alleageth. For let me aske him; doth the Apostle by de­liuerance from this body of death, meane a deliuerance from the infection of originall sinne? He will say, yes, because for proofe thereof he citeth the Apostles wordes. Well, but tell vs then, doe you not beleeue that S ^t. Paul was a partaker of the grace of God, and did thereby represse and resist the mo­tions of concupiscence? Neither will he here dare to say, nay, and if he should, what Christian man would not spit at him? But then we will aske him againe, if the Apostle by the grace of Christ did resist concupiscence, and euery one that so doth, be deliuered from the infection thereof, how stan­deth it that the Apostle did yet remaine in case to be deliue­red from this infection? Marke, I pray thee, gentle Reader, the Apostle saith, who shall deliuer me, giuing thereby to vn­derstand that he was not as yet deliuered. He saith, the grace of God shall deliuer me, but he doth not say, it hath deliuered me from the infection of concupiscence. Here M Bishop is mute; he hath taken a fall in his owne trippe, and knoweth not which way to recouer himselfe. The Apostle S ^t. Paul though by the grace of God he resisted the motions of con­cupiscence, yet was not as yet deliuered from the infection of it. It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith, that if by [Page 279] the helpe of the grace of God we represse it, we are deliuered from the infection of it. I haue Of Original sinne, sect. 4. before shewed that the Apo­stle in naming this body of death, hath reference to this infe­ction, meaning thereby Rom. 6. 6. the body of sinne, as he hath termed it in the former Chapter, August. de Temp. [...]er. 45. Per concupiscen­tiam d [...]ctum est hoc nostrummor­tis corpus. which is to be destroyed, and to which by and for concupiscence belongeth death. It is true then which M. Bishop saith, that the Apostle in desiring to be deliuered from this body of death, did thereby intend a release from the infection of concupiscence; but where was his vnderstanding that could not see that this maketh direct­ly against himselfe, and plainly sheweth that this release and deliuerance is yet to come, and befalleth not vnto vs so long as we continue, clothed with mortality and corruption? But he telleth vs yet further, that S ^t. Austin out of the same sen­tence where concupiscence is called sinne, (Now not I worke it any more, but sinne that dwelleth in me)▪ argueth very soundly that the Apostle could not meane sinne properly, which cannot, saith he, be committed without consent of the minde. He quo­teth for this Lib. 6. cont. Iulian. cap. 23. whereas in that sixt booke there are but thirteene Chapters. But the place which he meaneth I take to be in the eleuenth Chapter of the same booke, where S ^t. Austin hauing mentioned those words of the Apostle, goeth on thus, August. cō [...]. Iulian. l. 6. c. 11. Iam enim motus desideriorū ma­lorum non ipse o­perabatur, quib [...] non consentiebat ad perpetranda peccata. Peccati autem nomine quod in illo habi­tabat, ipsam nū ­cupabat cōcupis­centiam, quia peccato facta est & si consentien­tem traxerit atq, illexerit, con [...]ipit parit (que) pecoutū. For now did not he worke the motions of euill desires, to which he did not consent to commit sinnes. But by the name of sinne dwelling in him, saith he, he meaneth concupiscence, because it was caused by sinne, and if it draw and entice a man to consent, doth conceiue and bring forth sinne. Where we may obserue what a veine M. Bishop hath of racking and stretching, here being no cause for him to say that Austin argueth so soundly, that concupiscence is not pro­perly sinne, and although it be true ( the committing of sinne being alwaies vnderstood of the outward act) that sinne is not committed, but by the consent of the minde, yet neither doth S ^t. Austin here deliuer any such rule; and though he had, yet had it beene nothing to M. Bishops purpose, because here is no question of committing sinne, but of the roote and [Page 280] motions of sinne before it come to be committed. Which distinction he may obserue out of that which the same Saint Austin in the very same booke answereth to Iulian the Pe­lagian, asking August. cōt. Iulian. l. 6. c. 4 Explica, inquis, quomodo peccatii personae illi iustè possit ascribi, quae peccare nec vo­luit nec potuit? Aliud est perpe­tratio propriorū; aliud alienorum contagio peccato­rum. how sinne can iustly be ascribed to that person (namely to the infant) which neither hath will nor power to sinne; The committing of a mans owne sinnes is one thing, saith he, the contagion of the sinnes of others is another thing. Now the sinne whereof we speake here, is the contagion and in­fection of Adams sinne, Rom. 5. 12. in whom all haue sinned, of which S ^t. Austin denyeth not, but rather freely confesseth, that as a punishment, it hangeth vpon vs, and presseth vs downe, not only without our will, but also against our will. And there­fore whereas in one place he had defined August. de duab. animab. cont. Manich. cap. 11. Pecca­tum est voluntas retinendivel cō ­sequ [...]di quod iu­stitia vetat, & vnde liberum est abstinere. sinne to be a will of retaining or obtaining that which iustice forbiddeth, and whence it is in a mans liberty to abstaine, as if there were no sinne but by the will, he limiteth this definition in his Re­tractations to that Idem Re­tract. lib. 1. c. 15 I [...] definitum est quod tantummo­do peccatum est, non quod est eti­am p [...]na peccati. Nam quando ta­le est vt idem sit & p [...]na peccati, quātum est quod valet voluntas sub domināte cu­piditate nisi for­tè si piaest v [...] [...] ­ret auxiliii, &c. which is only sinne, and is not also the pu­nishment of sinne. For in that sinne, saith he, which is also the punishment of sinne, how little can the will doe vnder the domi­nion of concupiscence, saue only if it be godly to pray for helpe. In which words he plainly acknowledgeth that that against which the godly will and minde prayeth for helpe, is not only the punishment of sinne but also sinne, and therefore in the place by M. Bishop cited, must be vnderstood to restraine the name of sinne to actuall and committed sinne, laying guilt vpon him, by whom it is committed, which concupis­cence, as he often teacheth, doth not lay vpon him that fighteth against it, because to him it is already remitted and pardoned, and therefore according to that construction is by the same S ^t. Austin in sundry places exempted from the name of sinne, As for the wordes of the Apostle which M. Bishop vrgeth, Rom. 7. 17. Now it is not I that doe it, but sinne that dwel­leth in me, he might easily conceiue that he saith not so, as to acquit himselfe absolutely from being the doer or worker, but only in some sort. For if he be not the doer, why doth he say, Vers. 14. I am carnall, sold vnder sinne; Vers. 15. I doe that which I [Page 281] hate; Ʋers. 19. The euill which I would not that doe I; and for con­clusion; Vers. 25. [...]; I my selfe, euen very I, in my minde serue the law of God, and in my flesh the law of sinne. And if he be not the doer, who shall it be said to be? He saith in­deede that it is sinne that doth it; but is sinne a doer with­out the man? Can the accident be an agent without the sub­iect? This negation therefore must be vnderstood according to that whereby he would not doe that which he did; accor­ding to the inner man, according to that wherein he was in part renewed, and desired to bee wholly that that hee was thereby. But as touching this also I haue Of Original sinne, sect. 3. before giuen full satisfaction, and M. Bishop might well haue spared himselfe this trouble, to repeate the same againe. His next argument sheweth his learning in diuinity, in that he plainly declareth that he knoweth not what the dominion of sinne meaneth. Sinne; saith he, hath no dominion ouer them that are vnder grace, as the Apostle teacheth. But this were false if concu­piscence were properly sinne. Why so, I pray? Forsooth it hath such dominion ouer euery good body that they cannot auoid the motion and sting of it. This he hath sucked out of his owne fingers ends; who would haue made this argument but he? Let the Apostle himselfe tell vs, what Rom. 6. 12. the dominion of sinne is, who hauing said, Let not sinne reigne in your mor­tall body, addeth for exposition hereof, that yee should obey it in the lusts thereof, as to note that then sinne is said to reigne in vs, when we giue obedience to it, to fulfill the lusts there­of. Hereupon S ^t. Austin obserueth thus; August. in loan. Tract. 41. Non ait, Non fit, sed, Non regnet. Quamdiu viuis, necesse est esse peccatū in mem­brie tuis: salte [...] illi regnum aufe­ratur; non fiat quod iubet. He saith not, Let it not be, but, Let it not reigne. So long as thou liuest, sinne must needes be in thy members; yet let the Kingdome thereof be ta­ken away, let not that be done which it commandeth. Where we see that the dominion of sinne is then vnderstood to be when we obey, and doe that which it commandeth; but the deniall of this obedience and refusall to doe the lust thereof, that is the taking away of the kingdome and domi­nion of it. To the same purpose Gregory Bishop of Rome speaketh of the same wordes, Gregor. Mo­ral. lib. 14. c. 9. Non ait, non sit, sed non regnet; quia non esse non potest, non autem regnare in cordi­bus bonorum po­test. The Apostle saith not, Let it [Page 282] not be, but, Let it not reigne, because it cannot but be, but it may be without a kingdome in the hearts of good men. M. Bishop saith, that because it cannot but be in euery good man, therefore it hath dominion ouer euery good man; but Gre­gory saith, it cannot but be indeede, but yet it may be, and be without dominion in the hearts of good men. But some­what more largely and effectually he speaketh hereof in an­other place; Ibid. l. 21. c. 3. Peccatum in mortali corpore non esse sed reg­nare prohibuit, quia in carne corruptibili non regnare potest, sed von esse non potest. Hoc ipsum nam (que) ei de pec­cato tentari pec­catum est, quo quia quādiu vi­uimus perfectè omnimodo non caremus, sancta pradicatio quoni­am hoc expellere plenè non potuit, ei de nostri cordis habitaculo reg­num tulit, vt ap­petitus illicitus etsi plerun (que) b [...]nis nostris cogitatio­nibus occultè se quasi fur inserit saltem si ingredi­tur, non domine­tur. The Apostle forbiddeth sinne not to be, but to reigne in our mortall body, because it may be without reigning in corruptible flesh, but it cannot but be there. For euen to be tempted of sinne, saith he, is sinne vnto it; which because we cannot be altogether without so long as we liue here, the holy preaching for that it cannot fully expell and driue it out, taketh away from it the kingdome out of the habitation of our hearts, that vnlawfull desire albeit as a theefe, it priuily thrust in it selfe many times amongst our good thoughts, though it enter into vs, yet may not haue dominion ouer vs. In which wordes as we see particularly against that which M. Bishop here saith, that the motion and sting of concupiscence, which Gregory calleth vnlawfull desire or lust, though it cannot be auoided of the faithfull in this life, yet is not therefore said to haue dominion ouer them (the more absurdly doth he make ap­plication of his speech to S ^t. Paul, as though concupiscence, because he could not be deliuered from it, had therefore do­minion ouer him) so we see also as touching the maine que­stion here in hand, that that motion or sting, euen the very temptation of sinne, from which we cannot be freed, so long as we continue in this life, is sinne in vs, though it haue not a­ny kingdome or dominion ouer vs. Which is to be obserued against the collection which he maketh of the wordes of S ^t. Iames, as though there were no sinne vntill concupiscence gaine our liking and consent, which is false if that be true which Gregory saith, that the very temptation of sinne, that is, the first motion of concupiscence is sinne; so well doe Gregory and he accord, as touching the meaning of S ^t. Iames his wordes, which to haue no such meaning as he preten­deth, [Page 283] I haue plentifully shewed Of Original sinne, sect. 6. otherwhere. And that it may be the more fully vnderstood, that Gregory in the point here handled, bare the same minde that we doe, it shall not be amisse to set downe what he hath further said, to declare his iudgement therein. Greg. Mo­ral. lib. 18. c. 5. Sciendū est quòd sunt peccata quae à iustis vitari possunt, & sunt nonnulla quae e­tiam à iustis vi­tari non possunt. Cuius enim cor in hac corruptibili earne consistens in sinistra cogita­tione non labitur, vel si vsque ad consensus foueam non mergatur? Et tamē haec ipsa praua cogitare, peccare est, sed dum cog [...]tationi resistitur, à con­fusione sua ani­mus liberatur. Mens ergò iusto­rum etsi libera est à peruerso o­pere, aliquand [...] tamen corruit in peruersa cogita­tione. Et in pec­catum ergò labi­tur, quia saltem in cogitatione de­clinatur, & ta­men vnde semet­ipsampostmodum flendo reprehendat, non habet, quia antè reparat, quàm per consensum cadat. We are to know, saith he, that there are sinnes which the iust cannot auoide, and there are sinnes which may be auoided by them. For whose heart is there abi­ding in this corruptible flesh that doth not fall by sinister thought, though he be not drowned so farre as to the pit of consent? And yet the very cogitation of euill things is sinne; albeit whilest the cogitation is resisted, the minde is deliuered from it owne confu­sion. The minde therefore of the iust although it be free from e­uill worke, yet sometimes falleth by euill thought. It falleth therefore into sinne, because there is a declining at least in thought, and yet it hath not whence afterwards with teares to reproue it selfe, because it first recouereth it selfe before it fall by consent. There is no obscurity in these wordes; there is here a plaine confession that the euill cogitation before consent and without consent is sinne, that to decline in thought is to fall into sinne, and that this is the sinne which the iust cannot auoide so long as they liue here. And to this purpose it ma­keth much, which elsewhere the same Gregory telleth vs by occasion of those wordes of the Apostle, which M. Bishop before vrged, Idem exposit. in 1. Reg. lib. 6. cap. 2. Propè finem. Peccatum quod se non operari perhibuit, motum carnis intellexit: Peccatum autem in se inhabitans originalem culpam, &c. Ex originali culpa fit peccatum motionis carnis, &c. Manens in nobis illa culpa, nunc doctoris virtute perdi non potest. Now it is not I that doe it, but sinne that dwel­leth in me: By the sinne, saith he, which the Apostle saith he worketh not, he meaneth the motion of the flesh, and by sinne dwelling in him, he meaneth originall sinne, and of originall sinne is caused the sinne of the motion of the flesh: that sinne continuing in vs, cannot now by the power of any teacher be de­stroyed. Here is the roote, originall sinne still dwelling and abiding in vs, and the motion of the flesh the immediate ef­fect [Page 284] thereof it selfe also sinne, the same so abiding as that by no teaching it can be destroyed, and why then doth M. Bi­shop tell vs that originall sinne after baptisme remaineth not, and that that which remaineth is no sinne? Surely the faith­full man will vse Dauids confession with the same mind that Dauid did, Psal. 51. 5. Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sinne hath my mother conceiued me: and Gregory taketh it that Dauid meant thereby, that Idem i [...] E­uangel. hom. 39 Nam cùm Propheta di [...]at, Ecce in iniq [...]ita­tibus, &c. sine culpa in mundo esse non potuit, qui in mundum cum cu [...]pa venit. he could not be without sinne in the world, who came with sinne into the world, and expoundeth his wordes to this effect: Idē in Psal. Poenitent. 4. Opus est Domine vt miserearis quia ab ineunte vitae primordio in peccati fou [...]am i [...]cidi & concu­piscentiae carna­lis sordibus in­quinata natiui­tatis meae initia contraxi. Non in me illa quam no­uitèr admisi sola viget iniquitas; [...]abeo in me eti­am ex veteri quod ignoscas. Lord. I haue neede that thou haue mercy vpon me, because euen from the beginning of my life I am fallen into the pit of sinne and haue drawen my first birth defiled with the vncleannesse of carnall concupiscence. Not only that iniquity which I haue lately committed abideth in me; I haue also in me f [...]r thee to pardon of the iniquity that was of old. Thus he confesseth that we are not in the world without the sinne which we brought into the world; that for originall sinne we still stand in neede of Gods mercy, and haue still thereof remaining in vs that for which we must craue par­don at Gods hands. This he spake according to the ancient doctrine of the Roman Church, and shall we not rather be­leeue him then M. Bishop, who according to the new lear­ning of their new Church telleth vs, Of Original sinne, sect. 10. that in him that is new­ly baptized, there is no more sinne then was in Adam in the state of innocency; and that originall sinne is vtterly extinguished and concupiscence in the regenerate is become no sinne? Yea, shall we not rather beleeue him then the Councell of Trent, telling vs, that Concil. Tri­dent. sess 5. In renatis nihil odit Deus, &c. ita vt nihil prorsus ca [...] ab ingress [...] coeli remoretur. in the regenerate there is nothing that God hateth; nothing to stay them from entring into heauen. These are absurd paradoxes, of new and late deuice; strange to true Christian eares, and abhorred of all true Christian hearts; contrary to the expresse and cleare determination of holy Scripture, and fitting only them who haue learned to say; Psal. 12. 4. With our tongues we will preuaile, we are they that ought to speake, who is Lord ouer vs?

R. ABBOT.

THis answere of M. Bishops is Of the cer­tainty of salua­tion, sect. 17. before exa­mined and exploded, and his new see thing of the same woorts will neuer proue to any good broth. We must beleeue nothing, he saith, by Christian faith, that is not assured and most certaine. Well; and therefore that which the faithfull beleeue, that they are the sonnes of God, is assured and most certaine, because we are taught to beleeue it by Christian faith. For that which the spirit of God testifieth, we are to beleeue by Christian faith. But the spirit of God testifieth to the faithfull, that they are the sonnes of God. Therefore by Christian faith they are to beleeue that they are the sonnes of God. Rom. 8. 15. We haue not receiued the spirit of bondage to feare any more, saith S ^t. Paul, but we haue receiued the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; The same spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit, that we are the sonnes of God. The spirit of adoption is so called, as by the gift whereof God actually adopteth vs to be his children. By this spirit it is that we haue that inward conscience and feeling, whereby we can goe vnto God familiarly and confidently as vnto our Father, and say vnto him, as with the mouth so with the heart; Our Father which art in heauen. Hereby haue we a testimony in our hearts that we are Gods children, because if God be our father, it necessarily followeth that we are the children of God. This comfort then the holy Ghost giueth, not by vocall speech, but by impression of affection, and not as of a thing to come, but as of a thing already acted and done, accordingly to that which the Apostle elsewhere saith; Gal. 4. [...]. Because yee are sonnes, God hath sent forth the spirit of his sonne into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Now hereby we see that M. Bishops answere, that the spirit doth not beare vs witnesse absolutely and assuredly, that we are the sonnes of God, but vnder a condition which is not certaine, is meerely [Page 288] absurd, because the being of that that presently is, cannot be said to depend vpon the being of any thing that is to come. Of that that is, we cannot say that it is not, vnlesse such a condition be made good, but setting aside all respect of the condition, that that is must be acknowledged to be. The Apostle doth not say, yee shall be the sonnes of God vpon such a condition, but he saith, Yee are sonnes, euen as S ^t. Iohn saith: 1. Iohn 3. 2. Now are we the sonnes of God; yea, and be­cause yee are sonnes, saith he, therefore is it that God hath sent the spirit of his sonne into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father, which spirit yee could not be partakers of but that yee are sonnes. This then being already certaine, M. Bishop com­mitteth a manifest errour to tie it to a future condition, which he saith is not certaine. Albeit in annexing this con­dition to the testimony of the spirit, hee doth wilfully and manifestly falsifle the text. For the Apostle doth not say as he pretendeth, that the spirit beareth witnesse, that we are the sonnes of God, if we suffer with him, but saith affirma­tiuely, This spirit beareth witnesse with our spirit that we are the sonnes of God. And hauing so said, he goeth on to shew what dignity we receiue by being the sonnes of God. And if we be sonnes, then are we also heires, euen heires of God, and ioynt-inheritours with Christ. Now to declare how we be conioyned vnto Christ to be inheritours with him, he ad­deth those wordes, if so be we suffer with him that we may al­so be glorified with him, not as to make a doubt of the witnesse of the spirit, but only to signifie what way God hath appoin­ted to bring them to their inheritance, to whom the spirit giueth witnesse, that they are the sonnes of God, namely by the Phil. 3. 10. fellowship of his afflictions, to be made thereby conforma­ble to his death, by 2. Cor. 4. 10. bearing out about in our bodies the dying of the Lord Iesus; by Col. 1. 24. fulfilling in our flesh the remainder of his afflictions. And yet neither is this condition, being taken so to be, any vncertaine thing, because what God hath de­termined and appointed, he himselfe will effect and bring to passe; and therefore the Apostle saying of them, to whom [Page 289] that witnesse of the spirit is giuen, Rom. 8. 29. God hath predestinated vs to be made like vnto the image of his sonne, we cannot in that case doubt, but that the same God Phil. 1. 29. for Christs sake doth giue vnto vs, not only to beleeue in him, but also (if neede be, and when time is) to suffer for his sake. We know not assured­ly, saith M. Bishop, whether we shall suffer with him, and con­stantly to the end beare out all persecutions. But the faithfull doe beleeue and know that 1. Cor. 10. 13. God is faithfull, and will not suf­fer vs to be tempted aboue our strength, but together with the temptation will giue the issue, that we may able to beare it. Greg. Mo­ral. l. 28. cap. 7. Inter h [...]c etiam qui redemit, non relinquit, &c. Nouit enim con­ditor noster quan­do exurgere per­secutionis procel­lam sinat, quan­do exurgentē re­primat. Nouit pro custodia no­stra restringe, e quod contra nos egredi pro nostra excitatione per­mittit, vt saeui­ens nos diluat procella, non mergat. Amidst persecutions, saith Gregory hereupon, he that hath redeemed vs doth not forsake vs; our Creatour knoweth when to suffer the storme to arise, and when to stay it from rising. He knoweth how to restraine that for the custody of vs, which for the exercising of vs he suffereth to goe forth against vs, that the raging storme may wash vs and not drowne vs. And in ano­ther place by occasion of the same wordes, Ibid. lib. 29. c. 12. Etiam ten­tationes aduer­sary dispensando modificat vt aut multae simul non veniant, aut ipsae tatummodo quae ferri possunt il­lustratam tam à Deo anima tan­gant vt cum ta­ctus sui ardore nos cruciant, per­fectionis incendio non exurant. He so dispen­seth and ordereth, saith he, the temptations of the aduersary as that they come not too many at once, or that those only which may be borne, doe touch the soule which God hath enlightened, that albeit by the heate of the touch thereof they torment vs, yet they may not by burning wast and consume vs. Vpon this therefore the children of God build themselues securely, standing alwaies fully perswaded, that Rom. 8. 38. neither life nor death, neither things present, nor things to come, shall separate them from the loue of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord, and bold to say with Dauid, Psal. 118. 6. Heb. 13. 7. The Lord is on my side, I will not feare what man can doe vnto me; and with S ^t. Paul, 2. Tim. 4. 18. The Lord will deliuer me from euery euill worke, and will preserue me vnto his heauenly Kingdome. And of this resolution S ^t. Austin notably instructeth vs, where saying that August. in Psal. 32. Conc. 2. Secura expectans miserecorditèr promitte [...] ­tem, miserecorditer & veracitèr exhibentem. Et donec exhibeat, quid agamus? Anima nostra patiens crit Domino. Sed quid si in ipsa paticntia non durabimus? Immò planè durabi­mus, quoniam adiutor & protector noster est. the soule [Page 290] securely expecteth the Lord, promising in mercy and performing in mercy and truth, he further questioneth and answereth himselfe in this sort: But till he performe his promise what shall we doe? Our soule shall be patient to wait vpon the Lord. But what if we shall not endure or continue in our patience? Yes ve­rily we shall endure, because he is our helper and defender. M. Bishop teacheth the faithfull to say, We cannot tell whether we shall endure or not; but S ^t. Austin instructeth them to another resolution by faith and trust in God, Yes verily we shall endure, because God is our helper and defender. But against this he giueth instance by the wordes of Christ, that there be some that for a time beleeue, and in time of temptation goe away. Concerning which wordes I haue answered him Of the cer­tainty of sal­uation, sect. 8. before, and to answere him againe neede goe no further then to the very text, whence he alleageth them. He char­geth me with a tricke of a false merchant, as if I strooke off the one halfe of the Apostles sentence, that the other might seeme currant for me, (whether I haue so done or not the Reader is to iudge by that that hath beene said) but here is a false tricke indeede committed by him, in leauing out the words by which he saw and was aduertised before, that his excep­tion is made nothing worth. By the seede sowen in stony ground our Sauiour describeth them, Luke 8. 13. who when they heare receiue the word with ioy, but they haue no roote, which for a while be­leeue, and in time of temptation fall away. Where note first that Christ speaketh not this of the good ground, but only of the stony ground, and therefore it cannot be taken to apper­taine to them of whom we speake, to whom the spirit gi­ueth witnesse, that they are the sonnes of God. But we are yet further to note what reason he giueth why those fall a­way, which is namely, because they haue no roote, and there­fore are like vnto the tree which for want of roote fastened in the ground, is by euery blast of wind easily ouerthrowen. Now by saying that they fall away because they haue no roote, he giueth vs to conceiue that they who haue taken roote, or are rooted, doe not fall away. But the faithfull and children [Page 291] of God are rooted in the predestination and grace of God, they are Col. 2. 7. rooted and grounded in Christ, and stablished in the faith; and therefore Psal. 1. 3. their leafe shall neuer fade, because their Prou. 12. 3. roote shall not be moued; God hauing made them a promise which he will not breake, Ierem. 32. 40. I will put my feare into their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. As for them which fall away, though in respect of outward shew and profession, they be said for a time to beleeue, yet because their faith hath no roote, therefore they neuer haue true faith. And thus Gregory Bishop of Rome instructeth vs, that Greg. Mo­ral. lib. 25. c. 8. Propheta intuens tantos hoc Eccle­siae tempore spe­cietenus credere, quantos nimirunt certum est elec­torum numerum summam (que) tran­sire, &c. Etiam hiad fidem spe­cietenus regni veniunt. they who are not of the number of the elect doe beleeue but in shew, that they come to the faith of the Kingdome but in shew: and in an­other place, that Ibid. lib. 34. cap. 13. Aurum quod prauis cius persuasionibus sterni quasi lutū potuerit, aurum ante Dei oculos nunquam suit. Qui enim seduci quande (que) non re­uersuri possunt, quasi habitam sanctitat [...]m ante oculos hominum videntur amitte­re, sed eam ante oculos Dei nun­quam habuer [...]t. the gold which by Satans wicked suggesti­ons, commeth to be troden vnder feete like dirt, was neuer gold in Gods sight; that they who can be seduced neuer to returne a­gaine, seeme to lose holinesse which they had after a sort before the eyes of men, but indeede neuer had it in the sight of God. To be short S ^t. Austin telleth vs, that August. de Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 32. Non re­uerà Domini corpus est quod cum illo non e [...]it in aeternum. it is not indeede and in truth the body of Christ, which shall not be with Christ for e­uer. If they only be the true body of Christ, which shall a­bide with him for euer, they they only haue true faith, where­by we become members of that body; and therefore they that fall away as they are no part of the true body of Christ, so are voide also of true faith in Christ. Now therefore M. Bishop doth amisse in going about to shake the testimony of the spirit to the faithfull, by the examples of them that fall away, because of all such they learne to say with S ^t. Iohn, 1. Iohn 2. 19. They went out from vs, but they were not of vs, for if they had beene of vs they would haue continued with vs. But saith he, no man doth more plainly or roundly beate downe their pre­sumption, who assure themselues of saluation, then S ^t. Paul. It is true indeede that the Apostle beateth downe the presumpti­on of them who assure themselues only by confidence of outward calling, but the assurance which he teacheth, and we from him, ariseth from the effect and testimony of in­ward grace. If any grow secure and proud vpon opinion [Page 292] that they are members of Christs Church, and partakers of his Sacraments, neglecting in the meane time that corres­pondence of duty that belongeth to such profession, them it concerneth which the Apostle saith, 1. Cor. 10. 12. He that thinketh he standeth, let him take heede least he fall. But to true Christi­an soules, humbled in themselues, and reioycing in God only, the Apostle speaketh farre otherwise; 2. Thess. 2. 13. We ought to giue thanks alwaies for you, brethren beloued of the Lord, be­cause that God hath from the beginning chosen you to saluation through sanctification of the spirit and faith of truth, whereunto he hath called you by our Gospell, to obtaine the glory of our Lord Iesus Christ. Now of the first sort it is true that many who haue had the outward state and calling of the Church and members thereof, haue beene cut off from the state wherein carnally they haue gloried and reioyced; but of them who haue stoode indeede by true faith and sanctifica­tion of the holy Ghost, neuer any hath fallen away, as I haue shewed, but as they haue beene partakers of the beginning of the calling of God, so they haue had the end also. The wordes therefore which M. Bishop citeth of S ^t. Paul to the Romans, Rom. 11. 20. Be not high minded but feare; continue in his kind­nesse; else thou also shalt be cut off, are so to be vnderstood, as I haue Of the cer­tainty o [...] salua­tion, sect. 10. before shewed, as to checke the pride and security of carnall Gospellers and hypocrites, but not to impeach the hope and comfort of Gods elect. Albeit they haue their vse in respect of them also, because they serue God for spurres whereby to stirre vp and pricke forward our dulnesse, and to awaken vs from that sleepe which by the drowsinesse of the flesh, is oftentimes stealing vpon vs, thus to continue the standing of them of whom he hath determined that they shall neuer fall. Who because they stand not by their owne strength, being in themselues and of themselues as subiect to fall as any other, are terrified in respect of themselues, by such caueats and admonitions, that they may the more in stantly looke, and so the more constantly cleaue vnto him, by whom only it is that they must stand. And to this effect [Page 293] God turneth also the fals of them that doe fall away, whom when we haue seene as likely to stand as our selues, and yet notwithstanding in the end to forsake Christ and vtterly to perish, we are moued thereby not to trust in our selues, but to depend vpon God only. Gregor. Moral▪ lib. 34. c. 13. Quorum casus vtilitate non mo­dica electorum prosectibus seruit quia illorum lap­sum dum conspi­ciunt de suo statu contremiscunt & ruina quae illos damnat istos hu­miliat. Discunt enim in superni adiutoris prote­ctione considere dum pleros (que) cō ▪ spiciunt de suis viribus [...]ecidisse. Their fall, saith Gregory▪ yeel­deth no small benefit for the f [...]rtherance of the elect, because whilest they see the fall of them they tremble as touching their owne state, and the ruine which condemneth the one is the hum­bling of the other. For they learne to trust in the defence of him who helpeth from aboue, whilest they see others fall by resting on their owne strength. Now therefore be it that some who not are, but see me to be in grace and to stand, doe afterwards fall and be cut off, this maketh nothing against the assurance of them who are indeede in grace, and doe truly beleeue in the name of the sonne of God, who 1. Iohn 5. 11. beleeuing the record that God hath witnessed of his sonne, that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life, and this life is in his sonne, are hereby taught Vers. 13. 15. to know that they haue eternall life, and that they haue the petitions that they desire of him. And thus Gregory saith, as touching the heauenly City, Ierus [...]lem which is aboue, that Gregor. Ex­posit. in 1. Reg. l. 1. c. 1. Moral. Quam familia­riter dil [...]git, suam esse indubitantèr credit. Suam nā ­que hanc ciuita­temesse cognoue­rat qui dicebat, scimꝰ quia si ter­restris nostra do­mus, &c. he that entirely loueth it, doth vndoubtedly beleeue it to be his owne, For, saith he, he knew this City to be his, that said, 2. Cor. 5. 1. We know that if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolued, we haue a buil­ding which is of God, a house not made with hands eternall in heauen. And thus saith Leo, that Leo de Re­surrect. Domi­ni, ser. 2. Quam idcò vsque ad ce­lerrim [...]m resur­rectionem voluit esse mortalem vt credentibus in cum nec persecutio insuperabilis nec mors posset esse terribilis, cùm ita dubitandum non esset de consortio gloriae sicut dubitandum non crat de communione naturae. Si ergò incunctantèr corde credimus quod [...]re profitemur, nos in Christo crucifi [...]i, nos sumus mortui, nos sepulti, nos etiam die tertia suscitati. Christ would haue his flesh to continue in case of mortality vntill his res [...]rrection, that to them that beleeued in him, neither persecution might be vncon­querable, nor death might be terrible, for that they were no more to doubt of being partakers of glory with him, then they were to doubt of his being partaker of the same nature with them. If, saith he, we stedfastly beleeue with the heart that which we pro­fesse with the mouth, we are crucified in Christ, we are dead, we [Page 294] are buried, we are also the third day raised againe from the dead. Ibid. serm. 1. Non haesitamus diffidentia, nec incerta expecta­tione suspendi­mur, sed accept [...] promissionis ex [...]r­di [...] fidei oculis qu [...] sunt futura iam cernimus & natura pronecti­ [...]ne gaudentes quod credimus iam tenemus. We stagger not by distrust, saith he againe, neither doe we hang in vncertaine expectation, but hauing receiued the begin­ning of the promise, we now see with the eyes of faith the things that are to come, and reioycing for the aduancement of our na­ture, we euen now hold that which we beleeue. This is the as­surance of the faithfull, euen an vndoubted beleefe and know­ledge, that the heauenly City is theirs; a certaine and vndoub­ted expectation of the glory of Christ, whereby they reioyce as being in him already raised againe from the dead, and as already holding and possessing that which they doe beleeue. Howsoeuer therefore men are to be shaken out of all carnall security and presumption of their saluation, yet the godly secu­rity and presumption of faith is not to be denyed, and the more we grow in faith, the more doth the soule grow secure and vndoubted of God to be our God; presuming, not of our selues, where indeede we see nothing but cause of feare, but of God only, to say of him; Psal. 71. 14. I will goe forth in the strength of the Lord God, and will make mention of thy righteousnesse only. And againe, Psal. 124. 7. Our helpe standeth in the name of the Lord, which hath made heauen and earth. In a word one truth agreeth with another, and therefore M. Bishop in op­posing some formall speeches of the holy Ghost, against other the like formall speeches, which in their true meaning stand very well and agree together, doth no other but de­forme the truth, and wickedly taketh vpon him the patronage and maintenance of falshood and vn­truth.

R. ABBOT.

HEre is nothing said but what hath beene Of Merits, sect. 10. 19. 20. al­ready so fully and clearely answered, as that M. Bishop may iustly be ashamed, thus alto­gether like a Cuckow to sing ouer the same song againe. I pray thee, gentle Reader, to see the places by me quoted, and take know­ledge how this trifling wrangler laboureth to abuse thee, o­diously and impudently insisting vpon those things which by testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers are made so manifest against him, as that he hath nothing left to say for his owne defence. He chargeth me with false translation, because I say that our sufferings are not worthy of the glory that shall be reueiled, whereas he saith the wordes truly translated are, Our sufferings are not worthy to the glory. And what is that, I pray? Our English phrase is, saith he; they are not to be com­pared to the glory. Well, admit it to be so; but wherein doth he meane they are not to be compared? Forsooth, our la­bours or paines are not either so great and waighty▪ or of so long endurance as be the ioyes of heauen. Thus whereas he acknow­ledgeth that the word signifieth worthy, he notwithstanding quite putteth out worthinesse, and in steede thereof putteth in length and greatnesse. But if where the wordes are, they are not worthy to the glory, he will needes reade, they are not to be compared to the glory, we suppose that his discretion should leade him to vnderstand, that it is as touching worthinesse, that they are not to be compared. And doth not their owne translation instruct him so much, The passions of this time are not condigne to the glory? for what will he make of condigne, but comparable in worth, where there is, as Coster saith, Coster. En­chirid. cap. 7. Est dignitas quae­dam operis ad mercedem. a dignity of the worke to the reward; that is, a worthinesse of the one, to merit and deserue the other? Which condigni­ty being denyed by the Apostle, as by their owne translation is made good, it followeth that the passions of this time are [Page 298] denied to be comparable in worth to the glory to come, and therefore that we truly translate that they are not worthy of it. To adde nothing further to that that formerly hath beene said particularly of the place, I will only note in generall what some writers of the Church of Rome haue iudged, con­cerning the worthinesse of workes, that according to my maine purpose I may make it appeare, that there is great dif­ference betwixt that Roman Church that now is, and that that of old was. Hierome saith, that Hieron. in Esai. lib. 6. c. 13. Cum dies iudicij vel dormitionis aduenerit, omnes manus dissoluen­tur, &c quia nul­lum opus dignum Dei iusti [...]a repe­rietur, & non iu­st [...] abitur in e­ius conspectu om­nis [...]iuens, v [...]de Propheta dic [...] in Psalmo, si [...]ui ta [...]es attend [...]s, Domine, quis [...]bit? when the day of iudge­ment or death shall come; all hands shall be weakened or loosed, because there shall be no worke found worthy of the iustice of God, neither shall any man liuing be iustified or found righteous in his sight; whence the Prophet saith in the Psalme, If thou, O Lord, wilt marke iniquities, who shall endure it? To like pur­pose Leo Bishop of Rome saith; Leo in An­niuers. serm. 1. N [...]que enim de qualitate operum nost [...]orum p [...]nd [...]t coelestium mensu­ra donorum aut in i [...]o seculo in quo tota vita [...]e­tatio est, hoc vm­c [...] (que) retribuitur quod meretur, v­bi si iniquitates Do [...]aus obser­varet nullus iud [...]cium suum su­ [...]t. The measure of heauenly gifts dependeth not vpon the quality of our workes, neither in this world where our whole life is a temptation, is that rendered to euery man which he deserueth, where if the Lord should marke iniquities, none should be able to endure his iudgement. Both which places doe plainly disable the workes of men in the iudgement of God, and doe charge them with insuffici­ency to the meriting of heauenly reward; but the latter so farre depresseth them, as that we cannot be taken thereby to deserue; or to be worthy of the benefits of God in this life, and therefore much lesse the glory of the life to come. But Gregory Bishop of Rome in this point is most cleare, affir­ming that Gregor. Mo­ral. l. 8. c 9. Iusti s [...] pe [...]turos ab [...] (que) [...]tate prae­s [...]int si remo [...]a p [...]etate [...] quia hoc ipsum quod ius [...] vidomur viuere, culpo est si vitam nostram cum i [...] ­dicat, h [...]c apud [...] d [...]ina miser [...]cordia non excusat, &c. Apud eum distric [...]è iudica [...]i, [...]psi quoque m [...]cul [...]s [...]nqu [...]nationis habent qui per munditiam sanctitatis lucent. the iust know before hand that without doubt they shall perish, if they be iudged without mercy, because euen that that we seeme to liue iustly is faulty, if the mercy of God in iudg­ing our life doe not excuse the same, and euen they who shine in purity of holinesse [...]ue also their spots of filthinesse, if they be strictly and narrowly iudged. Ibid. c. 21. Quantalibet i [...]tia polleant, nequaqu [...] sibi ad [...]oc etiam vel electi s [...]fficiu [...]t si in iudicio districte requirātur. The very elect, saith he, how­soeuer. [Page 299] they excell in righteousnesse, haue not sufficient in them for innocency if in iudgement they be strictly dealt withall. Therefore he saith againe, that Ibid. l 9. c. 18. Si r [...]mola pi [...]tate d [...] ­mur opus nostrū p [...]na dignum est quod nos remu­nerar [...] pr [...]stola­mur, &c. R [...]slat vt postquam bo­num opus agitur lach [...]ymae expia­tumis exquiran­tur quatenus ad aeterna praemia meritum rectio­p [...]ris subuchat humilitas pos [...]e lationis. if we be iudged without mer­cy, the worke is worthy to be punished, which we expect to haue rewarded, and therefore that teares of expiation are to be re­quired, that humility of prayer may lift vp the merit of good worke to the obtaining of euerlasting reward. And thus he maketh the holy man Iob to say; Ibid. l. 9. c. 11. Etsi ad opus virtutis ex [...]reue­ro, ad vitam non ex meritis sed ex venia conuales­co. Albeit I grow to the worke of vertue▪ yet I auaile not to li [...]e by merits, but by pardon and fauour. So he bringeth in Dauid also saying, Idē in psalm. Poenitent. 1. Non de meis me­ritis confidens vt me saluum facias supplico, sed de so­la miserecordia tua praesum [...]ns impetrere quod de meis meritis non spero. I pray thee to saue me, not trusting to mine owne merits, but presuming to obtaine that of thy mercy only, which I haue no hope of by mine owne merits. Now if our iust life be faulty, and in our righteousnesse we finde not sufficient to approue our inno­cency in the sight of God; if in our best workes we be wor­thy of punishment, and subiect to perish, if God deale se­uerely and strictly with vs; if holy men acknowledge and confesse according to truth, that they haue nothing to pre­sume of in their owne merits, but that they trust only to Gods mercy; if amidst our good workes it be by humble prayer and request that wee obtaine the eternall reward, where is that worthinesse of workes which M. Bishop plea­deth for, and what cause hath he to be angry that we say by the Apostles wordes, that our good workes are not worthy of the glory that is to come? Or if he will needes be angry, let him be angry with Ambrose, though not a member, yet a neighbour of the Church of Rome, who plainly expoun­deth the Apostles meaning to be this, that Ambros. E­pist. 22. Ʋt hor­tetur ad passionè adiungit, quia omnia quae pati­mur minora sunt & indigna quorum pro laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces benorum, &c. all the things that we suffer are too little and vnworthy, that for the paines and la­bours thereof, so great reward of future good things should be rendered vnto vs. Which being so, we see how vainly M. Bishop dealeth, to tell vs a tale how our workes attaine to so great worthinesse, when as there is no such worthinesse to be found in them. We receiue this dignity, saith he, by being made members of Christ, and by the vertue of Gods grace [Page 300] wherewith our workes are wrought, and by the promise of God. Where it is wholly idle and impertinent, that he mentio­neth the promise of God, for what hath the promise of God to doe with the merit of man? God bindeth himselfe by pro­mise where there is no merit, nor any thing whereof to me­rit, yea where there are demerits, to giue him cause to for­beare from promising. Thus saith S ^t. Austin; August. in Psal. 109. Quic­quid promisit, in­dignis promisit vt nō quasi operibus merces promitte­retur, sed gratia à nomine suo gra­tis daretur, quia hoc ipsum quòd iustè viuit in quā ­tum homo po [...]est iustè viuere, non meriti humani sed beneficij est diuini. Whatsoe­uer God promised, he promised to vs being vnworthy, that it might not be promised as a reward to works, but being by name grace might accordingly be freely giuen, because to liue iustly so farre as man can liue iustly, is not a matter of mans merit, but of the gift of God. And of this promise of God he saith a­gaine, that Idē in psal. 88. Non secundū merita nostra, sed secundum mise­recordiam illius firma est promis­sio. it is sure not according to our merits, but accor­ding to his owne mercy. Why then doth M. Bishop goe about to build the merit of man vpon the promise of God, which is only his free and voluntary mercy? As for the grace of God giuen vnto vs by being members of Christ, true it is, that all our vertue and goodnesse proceedeth therefrom; but to say nothing that man cannot be said to merit by that that is the worke of God, so farre are we from hauing the iustice of God, hereby bound vnto vs in respect of our worthinesse, as that God hath rather hereby occasion of quarrell against vs, for disgracing those gifts whereby he hath graced vs, and for blemishing and staining with our corruptions those good workes, which he hath vouchsafed to doe by vs. For as the clearest water hauing a troublesome passage through a mud­dy and vnwholsome ground, contracteth and gathereth the corruption and filth thereof, euen so the grace of God ha­uing a troubled passage through the corrupt nature of man, which is continually casting vp the mire and dirt of noisome and sinnefull motions and desires, gathereth thereof a soile and filth, by reason whereof there proceedeth nothing from man that is not corrupted and defiled. Thus Hilary teach­eth, and is therein approued by Austin, that Hilar. apud August. cont. Iulian. lib. 2. Memores & cō ­scij corpora nostra vitiorū omnium esse materiē, pro qua nihil in nobis mundum, nihil innocens obtine­mus. we are to re­member that our bodies are the matter of all vices, by meanes whereof wee haue nothing in vs innocent, nothing cleane. [Page 301] Greg. Mor. l. 1. c. 17. Quid est quod in hac vita sine quauis tenuissimi conta­gij inquinatione peragatur. What is there, saith Gregory, that can be done in this life without some defilement of secret contagion? And againe, Ibid. l. 31. c. 5 El [...]cti qu [...]mdiu in hac vita sunt sine quātulocun­ (que) culpae contagio esse non possunt. The elect so long as they are in this life cannot be without some conta­gion of sinne. Yea, Ibid. l. 32. c. 4 Nullus in hac vi­ta ita perfectus est vt quamlibet Deo deuotus sit, inter ipsa quan­tumcun (que) pia vo­ta non peccet. there is none so perfect in this life, saith he, howsoeuer deuoted vnto God, as that he sinneth not amidst his most holy and religious desires. To be short, Ibid. l. 35. c. 16. Si de his di­uinitùs districtè discutimur, quis inter is [...]a rema­net salutis locus quando & mala nostra pura mal [...] sunt, & bona quae nos [...]abere cre­dimus pura bona esse nequaquam possunt? if God doe narrowly sift our doings, what place is there left for saluation, when as our euill doings are meerely euill, but the good things, which we beleeue we haue, cannot be purely good? If our good workes cannot be purely good, if all that we doe, be pollu­ted and defiled with the contagion of sinne, and in all that proceedeth from vs, there be found vncleannesse, if God by the eye of his seuere iudgement doe strictly view and behold the same, then cannot any good workes of ours be truly said to be worthy of the heauenly glory, yea they make vs rather obnoxious to censure and punishment, if God doe not mercifully remit the defaults of them. Neither doe the places by M. Bishop alleaged proue any thing contrary to that we say. The first saith only, 2. Thess. 1. 5. That yee may be counted worthy of the Kingdome of God, and it is one thing to be wor­thy in Gods account and acceptation, which all the faithfull are in Christ; another thing to be worthy by merit and per­fection, which no man can be. Of the former S ^t. Bernard saith: Bernard. in dedicat. Eccles. ser. 5 Nos sumus sed ipsius digna­tione, non digni­tale nostra, &c. Nec dignatio locum habet vbi [...]rit praesumpti [...] dignitatis. We are, but it is by Gods dignation or vouchsafing vs a [...] worthy, not by our dignity or worthinesse; Yea, dignation or vouchsafing hath no place, saith he, where there is a presumpti­on of dignity or worth. Of the latter Chrysostome saith; Chrysost. ad Coloss. homil 2. Nemo talem vitae conuersationem ostendit vt regno dignus esse possit, sed totum do­num est ipsius Dei. No man sheweth such conuersation of life, as that he can be worthy of the Kingdome, but this is wholly the gift of God. His second proofe is out of those wordes, 2. Cor. 4. 17. This momentany and light affliction worketh vnto vs beyond measure an excellent and an eternall weight of glory. But here we finde nothing of our being worthy of that glory which our affliction doth worke [Page 302] vnto vs, and so farre is it from prouing our merit and worth, as that Fulgentius vseth it directly to proue the contrary. For hauing said, that Fulgent. vt supra. cap. 10. in eternall life the grace of Gods reward doth incomparably and vnspeakably exceede all the merit of the will and worke of man, though being good and giuen of God, as I haue before alleaged; he bringeth for confirmation hereof both the wordes here capitally handled, The sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come, and also these wordes which M. Bishop here further citeth: This momentany and light affliction worketh vnto vs aboue measure an excellent and an eternall weight of glory. And very plainly doth it follow hereof; for how can the one bee deemed to bee worthy of the other, when as there is no measure of proportion, be­twixt the one and the other? And may we not then thinke M. Bishop well wrought, to bring vs a text for proofe of a point, the contrary whereof hath beene anciently deemed to be proued thereby? His third proofe is out of those wordes of the same Apostle; 2. Tim. 4. 8. Henceforth is laid vp for me a crowne of iustice, which God that iust Iudge will render vnto me at that day. Hereof he collecteth thus; If God as a iust Iudge ren­der the ioyes of heauen as a crowne of iustice, then were they be­fore iustly deserued, and the sufferings of them that deserued them, were in iust proportion worthy of them. But thou seest, gentle Reader, that the point that tyeth this sequele togi­ther, is his owne word only; doe thou denie it, and he hath no meanes to make it good. Let him lay his ground where he will; he shall finde nothing whence to build that which he concludeth. If he alleage that it is called a crowne of iu­stice, let him take his answere from S ^t. Bernard; Bernard. de Grat. & lib. Ar­bit. Est ergò quam Paulus ex­pectat corona iu­stitiae, sed iustitia Dei, non suae. Iustum est quippe vt reddat quod debet. Debet au­tem quod pollici­tus est. Et haec est iustitia de qua praesumit Aposto­lus, promissio Dei. It is a crowne of iustice which Paul expecteth, but of Gods iustice, not his owne. For it is iust that God pay that which he oweth; and he oweth that which he hath promised. And this is the iustice whereof the Apostle presumeth, euen the promise of God. And to this purpose Ambrose saith, that Ambros. in Rom. 3. Iustitia Dei dicta est quae videtur esse mi­serecordia quia de promissione o­rigi [...]em habet & cùm promissum Dei redditur, iu­stitia Dei dicitur. Iustitia enim Dei est quia redditū est quod promis­sum est. it is called the iustice of God, which seemeth to be mercy, because it hath his originall from promise, and when the promise of God is performed, it is [Page 303] called the iustice of God; for it is the iustice of God that that be performed which is promised. The crowne of iustice then is that which God in iustice yeeldeth, not because we haue de­serued it, but because he himselfe hath promised it, and ther­fore M. Bishop here can haue no proofe to serue his turne. Neither doth hee gaine any thing by it, though wee vnder­stand it to be the crowne of our iustice, or wherewith our iu­stice is crowned ( Greg. Mor. l 24. c. 5. Iustitia nostra dicitur nō quae ex nostro no­stra est, sed quae diuina largitate sit nostra. it being called our iustice, as Gregory saith, not which is ours as of our owne, but which by the gift of God becommeth ours) because in crowning our iustice, it is verified which the Scripture saith; Psal. 103. 4. Hee crowneth thee in mercy and louing kindnesse. Doth it follow which he conclu­deth, that because God vouchsafeth to honour our seruice with reward, therefore the seruice which we doe is in iust proportion worthy of the same reward? Surely of them which receiue this crowne of iustice it is said, Psal. 55. 7. Vulgat. Latin. Thou wilt saue them for nothing: Hieron. adu. Pelag. l. 2. Pro nihilo, inquit, sal­uos faciet illos: haud dubium quin iustos qui nō proprio merito sed Dei saluatur clementia. He meaneth vndoubtedly the iust, saith Hie­rome, who are not saued by their owne merit, but by the mercy of God. If the iust be saued by mercy, then cannot the crowne of iustice argue any thing for worth by merit and desert. And for this cause Apoc. 4. 10. the foure and twenty elders, representing the whole company of Gods elect, doe cast downe their crownes before the throne of God, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receiue glory and honour and power; thereby disclaiming and renouncing all worthinesse in themselues, that they may yeeld the acknowledgement thereof as due vnto God only. Another argument M. Bishop seemeth to take of that that is said, that God rendereth the crowne of iustice, as if it could not be said that God doth render, but only to the worth and merit of man. But thereto I answere with the wordes of Basil; Basil. in psal. 114. Manet re­quies sempiterna illos qui in hac vita legitimècer. tauerint, nō tan­quam debitum o­peribus redditū, sed ob munificen­tissimi Dei gra­tiam in quo spe­rauerunt exhi­bita. See of Merits, sect. 13. There is eternall rest laid vp for all them that lawful­ly fight the fight of this life, not to be rendered according to the merit of workes (or by way of debt vnto works) but by the grace of our bountifull God, prepared for all them that trust in him. S ^t. Austin saith, that August. in Psal. 32. cap. 1. Nō dicimus Deo; Domine, Redde quod accepis [...]i, sed Redde quod promisisti. we doe not say vnto God, O Lord, render that which thou hast receiued, but, render that which thou hast [Page 304] promised. God rendereth then for his promise sake; he ren­dereth of grace and fauour, and therefore fondly doth M. Bishop hereof goe about to frame an argument for merit and desert. And as little helpe hath he by that he further vrgeth that God doth this as a iust Iudge; for will he say that a iust Iudge is alwaies tyed to render according to desert? A male­factour hath deserued to die, but the law hath confirmed and published a pardon, or else hath yeelded him this benefit that if he can reade Clerklike, he shall thereby saue his life; and shall not a iust Iudge frame his sentence accordingly? Will M. Bishop say that he is no iust Iudge in such a case, that dismisseth him with life that hath iustly deserued death? If he will not say so, then let him be so wise here as to vnder­stand that iust iudgment proceedeth not alwaies by deserts, but it is the part of a iust Iudge to iudge by lawes. Now we know that as with men, so with God there are lawes of ri­gour and extremity, and there are lawes also of fauour and mercy. The law of workes is a law of rigour, Rom. 4 15. a law which causeth wrath, because Gal. 3. 22. it concludeth all vnder sinne, by rea­son whereof Ʋers. 10. so many as are of the workes of the law, are vn­der the curse; for it is written, Deut. 27. 26. Cursed is euery man that con­tinueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them, and there is no man that continueth to doe all, because Iam. 3. 2. in many things we offend all. Therefore the ministe­ry of this law is called 2. Cor. 3. 7. 9. the ministery of death, the ministery of condemnation; and the iudgement which proceedeth accor­ding to this law, is called by S ^t. Austin August. in Ioan. tract. 22. Judicium dam­nationis. the iudgement of damnation, because no man escapeth damnation that vnder­goeth this iudgement. Against this iudgement Dauid pray­eth, when he saith: Psal. 143. 2. Enter not into iudgement with thy ser­uant, O Lord, &c. that is, as S ^t. Austin expoundeth it; August. de Temp. ser. 49. Ne st [...] mecum in iudicio e [...]gendo à me omnia quae praecepisti & om­nia quae iussist [...]. Nam me inuenies reum si in iudi­cium intraue [...]is mecum. Opus est ergò mihi mi [...]r [...] ­c [...]rdia tua potiùs quàm liquidissi­mo i [...]dici [...] tuo. Stand not with me in iudgement to require of me all that thou hast willed and commanded; for thou wilt finde me guilty, if thou enter into iudgment with me; I haue need therefore of thy mercy rather then of thy meere iudgment. The Apostle S ^t. Paul bearing the same minde, and dreading the same iudgement, [Page 305] desireth at that day Phil. 3. 9. to be found in Christ, not hauing, saith he, mine owne righteousnesse which is by the law, but the righte­ousnesse which is by the faith of Christ, euen the righteousnesse which is of God through faith. And hereby he leadeth vs to the consideration of another law, which hee calleth else­where Rom. 3. 27. the law of faith, the tenour whereof is expressed by the wordes of our Sauiour, Iohn 6. 40. This is the will of him that sent me, that euery one which seeth the sonne and beleeueth in him, should haue euerlasting life, and I will raise him vp at the last day. This is a law of mitigation and mercy, whereby is ad­ministred grace and righteousnesse and life, which could not be obtayned by the former law. To this law are annexed, and thereupon depend many fauours and gracious promises which God hath made vnto the faithfull, grounded vpon Ie­sus Christ the Mediatour of the new Testament, in 2. Cor. 1. 20. whom they are all Yea, and in him Amen, first granted for his sake, and for his sake faithfully performed. Now these things be­ing thus decreed and established by law, God as a iust Iudge dispenseth these fauours and graces accordingly, euen by iust iudgment, consisting here not in examination of merits, but in discerning the markes and qualities, whereby God will haue them knowen, to whom by law the couenant of this grace and mercy doth appertaine. This iudgement S ^t. Austin calleth August. in Ioan▪ tract. 22. Iudicium discri­minationis. a iudgement of distinction, whereby God putteth a difference betwixt the good and the euill, accor­dingly as the same S ^t. Austin expoundeth those wordes of Dauid, Psal. 43. Vulg. 42. 1. Iudge me O God, &c. August. in Psal. 42. Distet intereum qui in te cred [...]t & eum qui non credit. Par infirmitas, sed dispar con­scientia. Par la­bor. sed dispar desiderium. Let there be difference be­twixt him which beleeueth in thee, and him which beleeueth not. There is infirmity alike, but the conscience is vnlike. They are equall in trauell and labour, but they differ in desire. And by this iudgement God maintaineth the cause of the righteous against the wicked, their cause being iust howsoeuer their merit be nothing, and therefore yeeldeth that to the iustifi­cation of their cause, which yet they cannot claime by de­sert of workes. And thus the Apostle in respect of the faith­full calleth 2. Thess. 1. 5. it the iust iudgement of God, whereby he vouch­safith [Page 306] them the Kingdome of God; for it is iust with God, saith he, to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you which are troubled rest with vs. It is iust with God and iust iudgement▪ because it is so ordered and decreed in the law of faith, that they shall be reckoned worthy of the Kingdome of God, that doe suffer affliction for the testimony thereof. And so the same Apostle being himselfe to receiue sentence of death as a malefactour, at the hands of an vniust Iudge, com­forteth himselfe in the goodnesse of his cause and the testi­mony of his conscience, that hauing fought a good fight and finished his course and kept the faith, he should of a iust Iudge at that day receiue a crowne, whereby against that vniust sen­tence his iustice and vprightnesse in that behalfe, should be made apparant and manifest to the whole world. This iudge­ment then proceeding by the law of faith, is tempered and mingled with mercy, as I haue Of Merits, sect. 19. elsewhere shewed, God ac­cepting what wee haue done, but not requiring what wee haue not done, testifying our righteousnesse, such as it is, but neuer questioning our sinnes. For Aug. Epist. 29. Cum Rex iustus sederit in thron [...], quis glo­riabitur se castū habere cor? aut quis gloriabitur se esse immunem à peccato? Quae igitur spes est nisi miserecordia su­perexultet iudi­cium? when the iust King shall sit vpon his throne, saith Austin, who shall glory that he hath a cleane heart, or that he is free from sinne? and therefore what hope is there vnlesse mercy surmount iudgement? And so in an­other place; Idem in psal. 129. Apud te propitiatio est. Nam si non esset apud te propitia­tio, si iudex solū esse velles & mi­serecors esse nol­les, obseruares omnes iniquita­tes nost [...]as & qu [...]reres [...]as, quis sustineret? quis ante te sta­ret & d [...]ceret, Innocens sum? quis staret in iu­dicio tuo? spes ergo vna est quo­niam apud te propitiatio est. There is mercy with thee; for if there were not mercy with thee; if thou wouldest be a iudge only and wouldest not be mercifull, but wouldest marke all our iniquities and seeke after them, who could endure it? who could stand before thee and say, I am innocent? who should stand in thy iudgement? Our only hope therefore is for that with thee there is mercy. If then with the iust iudge there be no hope without mercy, then surely it is not for merit, that the iust Iudge rendereth vnto vs the crowne of iustice, but according to the law of faith he crowneth his owne gifts in vs, and vs in them, euen for his owne mercies sake. M. Bishops arguments therefore are all vanished into winde, and the indifferent Reader may well perceiue that the Protestants cause is better strengthe­ned by S ^t. Paul, then that it neede to stand in feare of such [Page 307] Popish deluding sophismes. A blinde shift he hath vnder pretence of 2. Pet. 3. 16. some things in S ^t. Pauls Epistles hard to be vnder­stood, to colour his cauilling at those things which are pro­fessedly disputed and most plainly and clearely spoken. In all his Epistles, saith he, being vnderstood as he meant them, there is not one word or syllable that maketh for the Protestants. But how I maruell should wee attaine to vnderstand them as he meant them? May we learne it of M. Bishop, or are we to goe to the Pope to know it of him? Surely a mad meaning shall we haue of S ^t. Pauls Epistles, if we will yeeld to take them after their meaning. What way hath M. Bishop or the Pope to vnderstand S ^t. Pauls meaning, that we should not vnder­stand it as well as they? or what reason can they giue vs why we should not by S ^t. Pauls wordes vnderstand his meaning, as well as by their words we vnderstand theirs? Was S ^t. Paul so hard of speech, as that he wanted wordes to declare his meaning? or was he so desirous to conceale his meaning, as that he would speake one thing and meane another, yea the contrary to that hee spake? Would hee bee a Protestant in wordes, when in meaning he intended to be a Papist? They bewray hereby what they are; be thou out of doubt, gentle Reader, that they are no welwillers to the Apostles mea­ning, that teach so many things contrary to the Apostles wordes. We see how perspicuously, frequently, constantly, hee teacheth the same that wee teach▪ where to giue a mea­ning different from that which he saith, is no other but mali­ciously to peruert his meaning. Neither doe we affirme any thing by his wordes, wherein we haue not the certaine te­stimony of the ancient Church concurring with vs, as M. Bishop in all these points seeth to his owne confusion; when as in the meane time it is enough with him to cite texts, but whether they make any thing for proofe of that, for which he citeth them, it skilleth not. And this we shall see in that plenty of plaine texts, which he saith he hath to produce for their vncatholike faith, which when I shall haue examined, it will easily appeare to the Reader, whether his discourse or [Page 308] mine bee the more idle. If the tast that hee will giue vs bee no better then that which vvee haue already tasted, it will vtterly distast the Reader, vnlesse hee bee such a one as hath lost his tast.