The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.

A confutation to D. BISHOPS answer to Master PERKINS his Aduertisement.

W. PERKINS.

An aduertisement to all fauourers of the Roman re∣ligion, shewing (as he weeneth) that the said Re∣ligion is against the Catholike principles of the Catechisme, that hath beene agreed vpon euer since the daies of the Apostles, by all Churches: Which principles be foure. The Apostles Creed: the tenne Commandements: the Lords praier: the institution of two Sacraments, Baptisme and the Lords Supper. 1. COR. 11. v. 23.

1. W. BISHOP.

I Had once determined to haue wholly omit∣ted this goodly post-script, because it con∣taineth (in manner) nothing else, but an irkesome repetition of that, which hath beene (I will not say twice before, but more than twenty times) handled ouer and ouer, in this former small treatise: notwithstan∣ding, considering both how ready many are, when they see any thing omitted, to say that it could not be answered; and also for that these pointes heere reiterated, are the most odious that he

could cull out of all the rest to vrge against vs: I finally resolued to giue them a short answer; And further, also by prouing their new religion, to be very opposite vnto those old grounds of the true religion, to requite him with the like, that I die not in his debt. Thus he beginneth.

The Roman religion established by the Councell of Trent, is in the principall points thereof, against the very grounds of the Catechisme: the Creede: the tenne Commandements: the Lords praier: the two Sacraments.

THe Catholike religion embraced and defended by the Church of Rome, was planted and established there by the Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, fifteene hundred yeeres before the Councell of Trent, and hath been euer sithence, by the Bishops of Rome their lawfull successours, constantly retai∣ned, and most sincerely obserued and maintained: some articles thereof, called into question by the Heretikes of this latter age, were in that most learned generall Councell of Trent, declared and defined. And great meruaile it were, if the principall points thereof, should be against the grounds of the Catechisme, which is in euery point most substantially expounded by the decree and order of the very same Councell. Or is it credible, that the Church of Rome (with which all other ancient Churches and holy Fathers, did desire to agree; and which hath beene euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolicall traditions) should in the principall points of faith, crosse and destroy the very principles of that religion, that hath been agreed vpon by all Churches euer since the Apostle daies, as he saith? Is it not much more likely and probable, that the Protestants, who slander all Churches, euer since the time of the Apostles, with some kinde of corrupti∣on or other, and who hold no kinde of Apostolicall tradition to be necessary: is not not (I say) more credible, that they should shake those grounds of faith, which come by tradition from the Apostles, and haue beene euer since by all Churches agreed vp∣on? I suppose that few men of any indifferent iudgement, can thinke the contrary.

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishop is desirous to seeme to haue omitted nothing, because many, saith he, are ready when they see any thing omit∣ted to say, that it could not be answered; and yet he hath cun∣ningly omitted the handling of twelue questions, as I haue already noted, which are more than the third part of the booke which he vndertooke to answer. In that which here he hath sent vs, he taketh vpon him, as to answer M. * 1.1 Per∣kins, so by way of requitall, to prooue that our new religion, (as he calleth it) is very opposite vnto the old grounds of the true religion. But if his eies were open, he would easily see that that new religion, and the true religion are all one; our new religon, as to him it seemeth, being indeed no other but that onely true religion whereby all the faithfull haue been saued from the beginning, and so shal be to the worlds end. And if he will haue our religion to be taken for a new religi∣on, he must first impeach those grounds of antiquitie wher∣by we haue hitherto iustified the same against his vaine and wilfull cauilations. As for that which he saith, that the religion now defended by the Church of Rome was planted and established there by the Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul: it is the begging of the question, a fond presumption, an idle headed dreame: who but fooles and madde men be∣leeue it, when they see the writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and therein finde no mention of the religion that is now at Rome, neither of the Pope, nor of Purgatorie, nor Pardons, nor Iubilies, nor Masse, nor Images, nor any other of that filth? If the successors of that See had constant∣ly reteined the faith that by the Apostles was deliuered, we should now haue that religion at Rome which is taught in the Epistle to the Romanes, which now is our religion, and was then the religion of the church of Rome. Of that reli∣gion those heretikes (whom no otherwise he so nameth, but according to the a 1.2 Iewish phrase) called nothing into question; they only questioned & impugned those additions and al∣terations

wherewith the church of Rome hath defiled and disgraced that religion. * 1.3 The Councell of Trent, which de∣clared and defined against them, was neither learned nor ge∣nerall. It was a base and a vile collusion, and meere mocke∣rie of the world, partially assembled by the Pope, guileful∣ly managed by his Agents, directed wholly by his intelli∣gence, nothing there to bee concluded, but what hee first approued, & yet all in sine left at his will, by that damna∣ble clause neuer heard of in any former Councel; b 1.4 Sauing alwaies and in all things the authoritie of the See Apostolike. Some Diuines there were of qualitie and worth, who gaue their assistance in that businesse: but as for the Bishops, of which the greatest number were Italians, they deserued for the most part rather to bee accounted a heard of swine, than a Councell of learned men. His reason that the prin∣cipall points of Poperie cannot bee against the grounds of the Catechisme, because the same is expounded by the decree and order of that Councell, maketh as much for vs as it doth for them. For the Catechisme is by order expounded and taught by vs: wee open to the people the Creed, the ten Commandements, the Lords Praier, the doctrine of Sa∣craments. M. Bishop therefore doth amisse to say that our religion is opposite to those old grounds of true religion. If this argument auaile not for vs, then neither shall it auaile for him, but wee are still at libertie to conceiue, that not∣withstanding their expounding of those grounds, they teach points of doctrine contrary thereunto. And indeed that expounding of theirs was no otherwise begun but in emulation of our doings in that kinde: for vntill it pleased God to stirre vp the spirits of some of our men to ende∣uour the reformation of the Church, and to that end to bring the people, so much as in them lay, out of the thral∣dome of blindnesse and ignorance, wherein they were then holden, the vse of Catechisme was quite abolished out of the Church; the people knew neither the Creed nor the Lords praier, but onely that they spake them like

a charme in a strange and vnknowen tongue. But when they saw vs recalling them to the ancient order of Catechi∣sing, and thereby training them to the knowledge of God, and of faith towards him, they held it necessarie for the sa∣tisfaction of the world, that they themselues should make some shew of doing the like, and thereupon in the Coun∣cell of Trent, tooke order for a Catechisme to bee publi∣shed, though they neuer meant to make any great vse of it, but onely where necessitie should enforce them for the countermining of our labours, and the staying of manie, whom otherwise the desire of learning and of the know∣ledge of God, would haue caried away from them. Into that Catechisme and the rest of theirs, how they haue foi∣sted in matters of faith and doctrine, which the old expo∣sitours of the Catechisme neuer knew nor haue deliuered, wee shall somewhat perceiue by examining the processe and particulars of this booke. In the meane time we answer M. Bishop, that it is verie credible, and ready enough to be beleeued of them that are carefull to vnderstand it. that the church of Rome, albeit while it continued sound in the faith, all ancient Churches and holy Fathers, did desire to agree with it; yet since, being gon out of her * 1.5 ancient way, doth indeed crosse and destroy those principles of religion, which formerly haue beene agreed vpon by all Churches. For whereas hee saith, that that church hath been euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolical traditions, it is a stale iest, & Bellarmine him∣selfe perforce acknowledgeth it to bee a lie. For it being manifest by the testimonie of Anacletus an ancient Bishop of Rome, that c 1.6 the Apostles decreed and the church of Rome then obserued, that they should be excommunicate whosoeuer were present after consecration, and did not receiue the Com∣munion; Bellarmine in the behalfe of the now-church of Rome, reiecteth the same as a thing d 1.7 in processe of time abro∣gated by the church, & being but a matter of humane only con∣stitutiō & decree. So likewise we see in the Councel of Cō∣stance

acknowledging that e 1.8 Christ administred the holy Sa∣crament to his disciples vnder both kindes, and that in the Pri∣mitiue Church it was so receiued of the faithfull; and yet this notwithstanding they decree it for a law, that lay men shall re∣ceiuc only in one kinde. Now when thus with our eies we see, and they themselues tell vs the contrary, will M. Bishop notwithstanding tell vs that the Church of Rome hath been euer most diligent to obserue all Apostolicall traditions? Surely if they had failed but in these two, they had not obserued al; but now how many other things are there, wherein they haue apparantly swarued from the example of the Apo∣stles! How then can we beleeue M. Bishop any further, who doubteth not heere to affirme so grosse and manifest vntruth? And to this vntruth he addeth another, when hee saith, that we slander all churches since the time of the Apostles with some corruption or other. It is true, that we note the cor∣ruptions of some churches, and of some men, accordingly as the history of the Church and the monuments of anti∣quity doe lay the same foorth vnto vs: but wee cannot say that al Churches, or al the Fathers of those times were guil∣tie of those corruptions. For many Churches were there, and many Bishops and Pastours of Churches, of whom no memoriall is come vnto vs; many whom we finde other∣wise reported of than was true, by the corrupting of those writings which they left vnto the Church, and suborning other counterfets in their stead; many, who haue deliuered some exorbitant opinions, of which notwithstanding it ap∣peareth not that they had publike approbation in the Church; many, who haue left so little in record as touching points of faith, as that it is hard by them to esteeme what the doctrine of the Church was. As for the corruptions whereof we speake, there are many of them such, as that I doe not thinke M. Bishop to be so impudent but that hee will acknowledge the same as well as we; there are none of them, but that either by the word of God, or by like war∣rant

of antiquity we prooue them to be such as we report them. His other tale, that we hold no kinde of Apostolicall traditions to be necessary, he himselfe knoweth to be vntrue, because he knoweth that we receiue the Creede as necessa∣rie, which he saith came by tradition from the Apostles. It hath beene also f 1.9 before giuen him to vnderstand, that we reiect not Apostolical traditions, which appeare certainely so to be; and yet woorthily we reiect those vnwritten do∣ctrines and counterfet traditions of the Papists, which are falsely fathered vpon the Apostles. It is by these vnwritten doctrines and counterfet traditions, that the grounds of our faith are impeached and shaken. We therefore cannot be said to shake the grounds of faith, who retaine the meere simplicity of those grounds, and refuse all other strange and bastard stuffe: but they shake the grounds of faith, who be∣come patrons of such tradition, coloured with the names of the Apostles, when notwithstanding they plainely crosse the written doctrine of the Apostles.

2. W. BISHOP.

But let vs descend to the particulars, wherein the truth will appeare more plainely. Thus beginneth Master PERKINS with the Creede.

First of all it must be considered, that some of the princi∣pall doctrines beleeued in the Church of Rome, are, that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, and head of the Catholike Church: that there is a fire of Purgatory: that Images of God and Saints, are to be placed in the Church, and worshipped: that Praier is to be made to Saints depar∣ted: that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the Masse, for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead. These points are of that moment, that without them the Roman religion cannot stand, &c. And yet marke the Apostles Creed, which hath beene thought to containe all necessary points of religion to be beleeued, and hath therefore beene called the key and rule of faith: This Creede (I say) hath

not any of these points, nor the expositions made thereof by the ancient Fathers, nor any other Creed or confession of faith made by any Councell or Church, for the space of many hundred yeeres. This is a plaine proofe to any in∣different man, that these bee new articles of faith, neuer knowen in the Apostolike Church: and that the Fathers and Councels could not finde any such articles of faith in the bookes of the old and new Testament. Answer is made, that all these points of doctrine are beleeued vnder the ar∣ticle, (I beleeue the Catholike Church:) the meaning whereof they will haue to be this, I beleeue all things which the Catholike Church holdeth and teacheth to be beleeued. If this bee as they say, wee must beleeue in the Church: that is, put our confidence in the Church, for the manifestation and the certainety of all doctrine neces∣sary to saluation. And thus the eternall truth of God the Creatour, shall depend vpon the determination of the crea∣ture: And the written word of God in this respect is made insufficient, as though it had not plainely reuealed all points of doctrine pertaining to saluation. And the ancient Churches haue beene farre ouer-secene, that did not pro∣pound the former points to be beleeued as articles of faith, but left them to these latter times. Thus farre Master PER∣KINS: Wherein are hudled vp many things confusedly: I will answere briefly and distinctly to euery point.

The first is, that in the Apostles Creede are contained all points of religion necessary to be beleeued: which is most ap∣parantly false, as the Protestants themselues must needes con∣fesse; or else grant, that it is not necessary to beleeue the King to be Supreame-head of the Church: or that the Church is to be gouerned by Bishops: or that we are iustified by Christs iustice imputed to vs: or that there be but two Sacraments: or that the Church seruice must be said in the vulgar tongue: or that all things necessary to be beleeued to saluation, are contai∣ned in the Scriptures. To be short, not one article of their religi∣on (which is contrary to ours) is conteined in this Creede, of

the Apostles: therefore to affirme as he doth, all necessary points of religion to be contained in this Creede, is to cast their owne religion flat to the ground: and to teach, that not one point of it is to be beleeued: this Creede may neuerthelesse be called the key and rule of faith, because it containeth the principall points of the Christian religion, and doth open (as it were) the doore vnto all the rest, and guide a man certainely vnto the knowledge of them, by teaching vs to beleeue the Catholike Church, which being the pillar and ground of truth, * 1.10 directed and gui∣ded by the spirit of truth, will alwaies instruct her obedient children, in all truth necessary to saluation.

Then, saith M. PERKINS: The eternall truth of God, the Creatour, shall depend on the determination of the creature.

Nothing lesse: for Gods truth is most sincere and certaine in it selfe, before any declaration of the church: but we poore creatures that are subiect to mistaking and error, should not so certainely vnderstand and know that truth of God, vnlesse hee had ordained and appointed such a skilfull and faithfull Mistris and interpreter, to assure vs, both what is his word, and what is the true meaning of it. Like as pure gold is not made perfect in it self by the Gold-smithes touch-stone; but other men are thereby assured, that it is true and pure gold: euen so the word of God doth not borrow his truth from the Church; but the true children of God are by the holy Church assured, which is the same his word. If we did hold (as we do not) that the writ∣ten word containeth all points of doctrine necessary to saluation: yet were it most necessary to relie vpō the Catholike churches declaration, both to be assured which books of scriptures be Ca∣nonicall, which not; (whereupon Saint Augustine (a man of far better iudgement than any of these daies) said, * 1.11 that he would not beleeue the Gospel, vnlesse the authority of the church mooued him therunto:) as also to vnderstand them truly; because the words of holy Scripture, without the true meaning and sense of them, do but deceiue men and lead them into error; and to that end haue alwaies beene, and yet are, by Heretikes

abused, to draw others after them into destruction.

The like may be said of other ancient Creeds, and confes∣sions of faith, which holding the Apostles Creed, did adde some few points vnto it; namely, such as were in those daies called in∣to question by Heretikes of greater fame, and who were followed of many, not touching in particular diuers other articles gene∣rally beleeued of all true Christians, or else by so••e fewe and obscure men onely questioned. Wherefore, to argue that no other points of faith are to be beleeued, but such as are expres∣sed in ancient Creeds, is to cut off a great part of our faith.

Lastly, it is most vntrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Councels knew not of these articles of faith by him men∣tioned: for they haue most plainely taught them in their wri∣tings: yea, and expresly condemned of heresie, most of the con∣trary positions, now againe reuiued and holden by the Prote∣stants; as in those seuerall questions I haue before prooued.

R. ABBOT.

How M. Pirkins vnderstood that all necessary points in religion to be beleeued are contained in the Creede, I doe not well conceiue: for my part I rather admit, that the Creed is therefore called the key and rule of faith, * 1.12 for that it is a sum∣mary Briefe, containing the principall and fundamentall points of Christian faith, which doe as it weere open the doore to all the rest, and by which all preaching and do∣ctrine of faith is to be esteemed, so as nothing may be ad∣mitted but what holdeth correspondence with this rule, ac∣cording to those vses which the Scripture teacheth vs to make of euery part therof. Which the scripture, I say, teach∣eth vs to make; for if we draw any article of our faith to the maintenance of any doctrine which hath no warrant or te∣stimony of the Scripture, we are corrupters of the faith, and doe but abuse the name thereof to the cloaking of our owne deuice. Thus M. Bishop and his fellowes corrupt the faith as touching the holy catholike church, first in wresting the name of the catholike church to the particular church of

Rome: and secondly, in challenging a certain and vndoub∣ted credit to be yeelded to that church for the infallible re∣solution of all points of faith. For as touching the first, where hath the Scripture giuen vs any inckling, that the name of the Catholike Church should in any peculiar man∣ner be vnderstood of the Church of Rome? We regard not their claime; we know they haue tongue at will to speake for thēselues; but let them giue vs one word of God, whereby it may appeare that by the name of the Church, we are directed in special maner to that church. We are not ignorant that amongst most ancient writers the name of Catholike church is sometimes giuen to the church of Rome: but we know withall, that it was no otherwise giuen to the church of Rome, than to any other church, euery Church being called a Catholike church, as hath been a 1.13 before shew∣ed, that communicated in true faith with the church disper∣sed thorow the whole world. And therefore, as Leo wrote himselfe b 1.14 Bishop of the catholike church of the citie of Rome; so doth Constantine the Emperour write, c 1.15 to the catholike church of Alexandria; and Athanasius accordingly is entitu∣led by his Clergy, d 1.16 Bishop of the catholike church of Alexan∣dria; and Austin nameth e 1.17 the catholike church of Africa; and Aurelius writeth himselfe f 1.18 Bishop of the catholike church of Carthage; and another Aurelius, g 1.19 Bishop of the catholike church of Macomodia and; Nouatus, Bishop of the catholike church of Sitif. So in the fift councell at Constantinople we reade, the holy h 1.20 catholike church of Antioch; and in the sub∣scriptions of the Councell, i 1.21 Sextilianus Bishop of the catho∣like church of Tunis; & Megethius Bishop of the holy catholike church of the city of Heracela; and Pompeianus Bishop of the holy catholike church of the city of Ʋictoria, and sundry other the like. By all which and many other examples it may ap∣peare

with how little discretion Dureus the Iesuit hath af∣firmed that k 1.22 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 church of Rome. And with this madde and witlesse fancy they are all caried away, so that there can bee no naming of the church or catholike church, but it soundeth in their eares vndoubtedly to haue refe∣rence to the Church of Rome. According to this fancy it is that M. Bishop heere would haue his Reader to imagine, that by the beleefe of the Catholik church he is taught to beleeue the church of Rome. And by the same illusion hee wresteth to his purpose the words of the Apostle, that the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and the promise that Christ maketh vnto his, of his spirit to direct and guide them into all truth, as if therein were some speciall priuiledge meant to the Roman church. * 1.23 But for the first place, if any one church might challenge a prerogatiue therby, it should be the church of Ephesus. For Timothie was Bishop of Ephesus, wished by the Apostle l 1.24 to abide still there, as speci∣ally to take vpon him the charge of that place. He writeth to him purposely to instruct him how to carry himselfe in that charge; m 1.25 That thou maist know, saith hee, how thou oughtest to behaue thy selfe in the house of God, which is the church of the liuing God, the pillar & groūd of truth. The house of God then, wherin Timothie was to conuerse, & which he was to gouern, was the church of Ephesus; & as the church in general, so this church for it own part in particular is cal∣led the church of the liuing God, the pillar and ground of truth. Yea these two goe hand in hand, to be the house of God, the church of the liuing God, and, to be the pillar and ground of truth. Now of euery church of the faithfull it is said, n 1.26 Yee as liuely stones are made a spirituall house; o 1.27 yee are the Tem∣ple of the liuing God, p 1.28 yee are built together in Christ to be Gods habitation. Which way then, I maruell, is it now brought about, that to be the pillar & ground of truth should be a peculiar dignity of the church of Rome more than of

the church of Ephesus, or of any other particular church? To be the pillar and ground of truth importeth the office and duty of the whole church and euery part thereof, and not a speciall prerogatiue of any one church, as to bee alwaies found so in act and execution. The church is the pillar and ground of truth, as the Priest is q 1.29 the messenger of the Lord of hosts. The Priest, though he be by calling the messenger of the Lord, yet sometimes neglecteth his calling, and forbea∣reth to doe the message wherewith hee is sent: and so the church, though by duty it be the pillar and ground of truth, appointed to vphold and maintaine the same; yet some∣times forgetteth this duery and followeth lies in stead of truth. For as the church is now, so hath it euer beene from the beginning, the pillar and ground of truth; and yet we finde that very often the church of the Iewes, in the time of the Iudges, and vnder the wicked Kings of Iudah and Israel, did forsake t 1.30 the law of truth, which God had giuen vnto them, went a whooring after strange and false gods, and many waies prouoked him by their abominations. For no longer doth the church continue to be as it ought to be, the pillar and ground of truth, than it continueth built vpon the foundations of truth, s 1.31 vpon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, as Saint Paul speaketh, t 1.32 that is, vpon the new and old Testament, as Ambrose expoundeth it. If it once go awry from those foundations, truth falleth to the ground, and it becommeth a pillar and fortresse of errour and vn∣truth. Thus hath it come to passe in M. Bishops church of Rome, which in her pride hath cast off the yoke which she at first tooke vpon her, and hath magnified herselfe to be a Queene to giue lawes of her owne in stead of the lawes of Iesus Christ. Shee is indeede by duety, as all other churches are, a pillar and ground of truth; but being become the minion of Antichrist, and prostituted to his adulterous desires, shee hath learned for his sake and for her owne sake by him u 1.33 to speake lies in hypocrisie, and x 1.34 through coue∣tousnesse with feined words to make merchandise of y 1.35 the

soules of men. All which hypocrisie and feined words shee fairly gloseth and cōmendeth to men with this perswasion, that she can not erre, because she hath a promise of Christ to be alwaies directed and guided by his spirit into all trueth. But where hath Christ made any such promise to the Church of Rome? * 1.36 Wee read that Christ said to his Apo∣stles, z 1.37 When he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all trueth: and wee beleeue, that what hee spake to his Apostles, he intended to the whole Church, and to all the faithfull: but neither doe we reade, nor haue any cause to beleeue, that Christ therein intended any thing in speci∣all to the church of Rome, neither did euer any ancient Fa∣ther or Councell gather any such thing out of those words. And surely no otherwise doe they alleage this Scripture for themselues, than the Manichees did for themselues, and the Montanists for themselues. For as the Manichees allea∣ging these words to colour their heresies against the Scrip∣ture, appropriated the spirit of truth here spoken of, to their Patriarch a 1.38 Manicheus; and the Montanistes in like sort to b 1.39 Montanus, as if in them, and by them the spirit should direct the Church into all truth: Euen so the Pa∣pists, howsoeuer they talke of the Church directed by the spirit, yet doe indeed put ouer the Church to the Pope, placing the residence of the spirit in him, that he may bee to the Church the infallible oracle of all truth. In which fancie, if they will expect to haue more credit than those heretikes had, they must bring better warrant for them∣selues than those heretikes did. But because they can bring vs none, therefore we reiect them all alike, as coseners and deceiuers of the Church, pretending the spirit of truth, for the maintenance of lies; and claiming that credit to be gi∣uen to an vsurping wretch, which our Sauiour reserueth as proper to the holy Ghost. The promise of the spirit, as I said before, belongeth to all the faithfull; and of them all, S. Iohn saith, c 1.40 The anointing which yee haue receiued of him; that is, saith Austin, d 1.41 the spirit of the Lord, teacheth you of

all things. Albeit when it is said, all things, and all truth, we are not to vnderstand absolutely all: for the spirit doth not teach vs to know e 1.42 how many starres there be, as Austin op∣poseth to Felix the Manichee, but he teacheth all things be∣longing to the doctrine of Christ, as the same Austin there ex∣poundeth. Yea, and yet further he excepteth by the words of the Apostle, f 1.43 We know in part, and we prophecie in part, that whilest a man is in this life, he cannot attaine to all things, but attaineth onely in part; but the holy Ghost, saith he, which in this life teacheth in part, shall after this life bring vs into all truth. Hee therefore giueth vs to vnderstand, that not∣withstanding this promise of the spirit of truth, it is inci∣dent to them to whom the same appertaineth, to be igno∣rant in this life of many truthes, to be subiect to mistaking and errour, albeit the same spirit faileth not to enlighten them to that necessary truth which serueth for introducti∣on finally to all truth. And heerein the Apostle comfort∣eth vs, that g 1.44 that if any man be otherwise minded (than is right) God will reueale the same to him, so long as in that whereunto we are come, we proceed by one rule, that we may minde one thing. But wee are specially to note the reason which our Sauiour addeth to the words alleaged; When he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will leade you into all truth; for he shall not speake of himselfe, but whatsoeuer he shall beare, shall he speake: meaning thereby the same that he hath before said; h 1.45 He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance that I haue told you: and which he saith presently after; i 1.46 He shall glorifie me; for he shall receiue of mine, and shall shew it vnto you. For hereby it is manifest, that the holy Ghost which shall leade vs into all truth, because he shall speake nothing of himselfe, shall therefore k 1.47 speake nothing but what Christ hath before spoken. As therefore when Christ saith of himselfe, l 1.48 I speake not of my selfe, hee would import that he spake nothing but what the father had before spoken in the Scriptures of the Law and the

Prophets, as m 1.49 Chrysostome expoundeth it, euen so when he saith of the holy Ghost, that he shall speake nothing of him∣selfe, we are likewise to conceiue, that the holy Ghost shall teach nothing but what Christ himselfe hath first taught in the Scriptures of the Euangelists and Apostles. Whereup∣on we conclude as Chrysostome doth, n 1.50 If yee see a man say∣ing, I haue the holy. Ghost, and not speaking the things of the Gospell, but matters of his owne, he speaketh of himselfe, and the holy Ghost is not in him. If any of them who are said to haue the holy Ghost do speake any thing of himselfe, and not out of the Gospell, beleeue him not. For that he readeth not those things which he saith in the Scriptures, it is manifest that he hath not the holy Ghost. Now therefore seeing M. Bishops church, contrary to the ordinance of God, seuereth o 1.51 the spirit of truth from p 1.52 the word of truth, and speaketh many things of her-felfe, whereof Christ hath said nothing, whereof wee reade nothing in the Scriptures, it is manifest that they play the Sycophants as other heretikes haue done, pretending to speake by the spirit of Christ, when they speake wholly either by their owne or by a woorse spirit. But M. Bishop not content with one corruption, in substituting his church of Rome in the place of the Catholike Church of Christ, addeth another, in saying, that that article of our Creede doth teach vs to beleeue the Catholike church. Which words, although being truely meant, they expresse the same in English, which wee say in Greeke and Latin, yet being by the drift of his speech caried to a verie partiall and false construction, doe shew him to be a leaud peruer∣ter of our Christian faith. For whereas we saie, Credo san∣ctam ecclesiam Catholicam, in the accusatiue case, the mea∣ning is, I beleeue that there is a holy Catholike church; name∣ly, that God the Father in all ages and at all times, and a∣midst all the defections and corruptions of the world hath still had and shall haue his number of elect and chosen peo∣ple, to whom the benefite of Christs death and resurrecti∣on

on standeth effectuall and good by the sanctification of the holy Ghost, and the same now not of one nation or people onely, but of all nations and peoples thorowout the whole world. But M. Bishop by the currant of his speech turneth the accusatiue case into the datiue, as if it were said in our Creed, Credo ecclesiae sanctae Catholicae; I giue credit to the holy Catholike church; I beleeue it to be true whatsoeuer is taught me by the holy Catholike church, that so his Reader thinkeing himselfe bound to beleeue the Catholike church, and taking this Catholike church to be meant of the church of Rome, may hold himselfe bound by the articles of his Creed in all things to beleeue the church of Rome. Thus he and his fellowes most treacherously and leaudly a∣gainst their owne knowledge and conscience delude simple and ignorant soules, and make them slaues to their impious and wicked deuices, by bearing them in hand that they are bound thus to obey the Catholike church. Now heereof Master PERKINS iustly inferreth, that the eternall truth of God the Creatour is heereby made to depend vpon the deter∣mination of the creature. For let God say what he will, wee shall not stand bound to take it for truth if the church shall say the contrary, or vnlesse that which he saith be approo∣ned by the Church. Verily as Tertullian vpbraided of old the Senate of Rome, that q 1.53 with them Godhead stood at the discretion of men, and vnlesse God did please man, he should be no God; so may it well be said now of the church of Rome, that with them the religion of God standeth at their discre∣tion, and that onely shall be religion that pleaseth them. For the Bishop of Rome whilest hee taketh vpon him to make declaration of Christian faith, maketh what he list of Christian faith, and hath verified of himselfe that which Hierome said of Antichrist, that r 1.54 he should subiect all religi∣on to his owne power. For the colouring of which iniquity, M. Bishop according to their maner vseth guilefull words of notable hypocrisie, and with a faire tale gloseth a grosse indignity and damnable presumption against God. He tel∣leth

vs that Gods truth is sincere and certaine in it selfe before any declaration of the Church. Well, and what hath the church then to doe with this sincere and certaine truth? Forsooth, we poore creatures are subiect to mistaking and er∣rour, and doe not so certainly vnderstand that truth of God. But who are those poore creatures, of whom he speaketh? Mar∣ry M. Bishop, and such other petites, who are but dij mino∣rum gentium, they are poore creatures; but the Pope and his Cardinals, and the Bishops that comply to him, they are rich creatures, they are the Church, they are exempted from mistaking and errour; we must thinke all perfection of wit to be lodged in their braines; and that they certaine∣ly vnderstand and know the truth of God. But what assu∣rance can they giue vs in this behalfe? Surely, the Scribes and Pharisees, the high Priests and Elders of the lewes had as much to say for themselues, and a great deale more than they. They could plead for themselues: s 1.55 We are the seede of Abraham; t 1.56 We be Moses disciples; u 1.57 We see; x 1.58 We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with vs; y 1.59 The law shall not pe∣rish from the Priest, nor counsell from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet; and yet they persecuted Christ the sonne of God, who only is the Truth. How then may we now be assured that the Church of Rome is not the same to the church of Christ, as they then were to Christ himselfe? How may we poore creatures certainely vnderstand, that those rich creatures are not subiect to error and mistaking as well as we? Well, if we will not beleeue it, we may chuse; but assurance M. Bishop can yeeld none. He can tell vs a discourse what Christ said to Peter: but that Christ euer spake either of Pope or Cardinall, he can shew vs no∣thing. And yet as if this matter were cleere, he telleth vs of this church of theirs, that whereas we are subiect to mista∣king and errour, God hath ordained and appointed the same to be a skilfull and faithfull mistresse and interpreter, to assure vs both what is his word, and what is the true meaning of it. But againe we aske him, where hath God so ordained and ap∣pointed?

in what Scripture hath he written it, or by what words hath he expressed it, that the church which he mea∣neth should bee our mistresse to tell vs what is Gods word, & what is the true meaning of it? If he haue euidence & au∣thority for it, let him shew it; if he haue not, what shall we thinke of him that dareth thus to bely the maiesty of God? But if he considered the matter aright, he would conceiue, that those rich creatures of his, haue no other or better meanes to assure what is Gods word, and what is the meaning of it, than other poore creatures haue. By what touchstone they can make triall thereof, by the same can we also as well as they. Which comparison of the gold-smith and the touch∣stone, which he himselfe vseth, if it be rightly explicated, serueth notably to set foorth the fraud and falshood of that church, for which he pleadeth. True it is, that the church in this behalfe may rightly bee compared to the Gold∣smith. Now the Gold-smith for the discerning of true and perfect gold, doth not take his owne fingers ends, but go∣eth to the touch-stone, and no otherwise can hee either make triall himselfe, or giue assurance thereof to other men. In like sort therefore the church, which is the Gold-smith, must vse a touch-stone, for the assuring of that which it propoundeth to bee receiued and beleeued. Now then whereas M. Bishop saith, that we must rely vpon the churches declaration, to be assured which bookes of Scripture be Canoni∣call; I answer him, that we cannot be assured thereof by the churches declaration, vnlesse the church declare it and ma∣nifest it by the touch-stone. The touch-stone whereby we are to take assurance heereof, is the constant and perpetuall tradition and testimony of the former church. And this te∣stimony we first deriue from the church of the Iewes, z 1.60 to whom the words of God were committed, and to whose Scrip∣tures, a 1.61 the law, and the Prophets, and the Psalmes (and to no other) b 1.62 Christ himselfe hath giuen testimony as witnesses of himselfe, reckoning them for c 1.63 all the Scriptures, and wher∣of the Iewes in their dispersion giue acknowledgment vn∣till

this day; God so prouiding, that d 1.64 Christian faith should be prooued out of those bookes which are acknowledged for true by them that are enemies thereto. This testimony the Chri∣stian church receiued of the Apostles, and hath continued the same, together with the acknowledgment of those other bookes of the new testament, which by the Apostles and Euangelists were added to the former. What bookes then haue had this generall and vndoubted auerment and witnesse of the church continued from time to time, those and no other are to be holden for Canonicall bookes, and this is the true touch-stone for trial of certaine and vndoub∣ted scriptures. By which touchstone the church of Rome is found to bee not a faithfull Mistresse but a false harlot bringing her bastards into the Church, and forcing men to take them for lawfully begotten. And whereas it is the tra∣dition and declaration of the former church which hath beene from the beginning, by which both they and we are to be instructed as touching the true bookes of Canonicall Scripture, they force vpon vs the tradition of their owne church now deliuered vpon their owne word, howsoeuer contrary to that which the church formerly hath declared. If we follow the declaration of the ancient church, then are no other bookes to be taken for Canonicall, but what are now accknowledged and approoued in our Church, the same onely being testified concerning the old testament by the Church of the Iewes, concerning both new and old by the whole Christian church, both the Greeke and Latine, the Easterne and Westerne churches, as e 1.65 before hath been declared. But the church of Rome, perceiuing the authori∣sing of some other writings to be likely to gaine credit to some broken wares whence her thrift and gaine ariseth, hath taken vpon her very presumptuously, as a Mistresse or rather a goddesse, to giue diuine authority to those bookes, reiecting the testimony of that church, which in this be∣halfe should bee mistresse both to her and vs. In a word, whatsoeuer is to be attributed to the church in this respect,

it is idlely by M. Bishop referred to the church of Rome, as if all other churches must rely vpon her declaration, we our selues being able by the touchstone to make triall of true Scriptures, as well as the church of Rome, and therefore there being no cause why we should rely vpon them more than they vpon vs. And as vainely doth he apply to his purpose the saying of Saint Austin, that he should not beleeue the Gospell except the authority of the church mooued him thereunto; there being nothing therein meant but what may bee applied to the church England as well as to the church of Rome; Saint Austin speaking generally of the vniuersall church thorowout the world, without any ma∣ner speciall intendment of the church of Rome. But how leudly they abuse those words of Austin wholly against his meaning and purpose, I haue f 1.66 before sufficiently declared and neede not heere to repeat againe. As for the churches declaration for vnderstanding the Scripture, that is also to be tried and made good by the touchstone, because no ex∣position or sense of Scripture is to be admitted, the doctrine whereof is not to be iustified by other Scripture; and they that bring other senses and meanings do but deceiue men and leade them into errour, as other heretikes formerly haue done, and as the Papists now doe, abusing the Scriptures to draw others after them into destruction. Heereof also enough hath beene said g 1.67 before, whereof I wish the Reader duely to consider for his satisfaction in this point. That which he saith of other ancient Creeds and Confessions of faith, that they containe not all points of Christian doctrine, I ea∣ily admit: but yet let him vnderstand, that it is a maine pre∣iudice against them, that neither any ancient Creed, nor any exposition of the Creed, or confession of faith conteineth sundry pointes, which they now make to be matters of the meaning of the Creede. Let him shew that euer any ancient Creed or expositour of the Creed did vnder∣stand or deliuer, that the name of the Catholike church in the Creed hath any speciall reference to the Church of

Rome; that the Catholike church is to be defined as they now define it, by being subiect to the bishop of Rome; that the certaine declaration of the Canonicall bookes, and of the true sense of Scripture, is alwaies infallibly to be ex∣pected from the sentence of that Church; that all Christi∣ans are fully to beleeue and wholly to relie vpon that Church for resolution of all points of faith necessarie to sal∣uation. Which, and such other points, made by them mat∣ters of the Creed, because neuer any ancient writer hath found to be conteined or intended in the Creed, therefore we iustly affirme them to be new Creed-makers, coiners of new articles of faith, and thereby peruerters and corrup∣ters of the true Christian faith. As concerning the Articles mentioned by M. Perkins now holden by the Romish Church, that the Pope is Christs Vicar and head of the Catho∣like Church; that there is a purgatorie fire after this life, that images of God and of Saints are to be worshipped; that praier is to be made to Saints departed, and their intercession to bee required; that there is a propitiatorie sacrifice daily offered in the Masse for the sinnes of quicke and dead; M. Bi∣shop answereth, that the Fathers haue most plainly taught them in their writings, and expresly condemned of heresie most of the contrary positions. But what Fathers are they, and in what writings haue they so done? Surely, if the Bishop of Rome in the ancient Church had beene taken to bee the Vicar of Christ, and head of the Catholike church, it can∣not be but that we should haue very currant and frequent and memorable testimonie thereof, as a matter vniuersally receiued, and euery where practised. But now let M. Bi∣shop shew vs one; let him shew so much as one that for diuers hundreds of yeeres after Christ, did euer dreame of any such thing. Which though indeed he cannot doe, yet hee telleth vs of that and the rest, that in those seuerall questions he hath before prooued what he saith; whereas hee hath not spoken of any more of these points, saue onely one, and in that one point, cannot be said to haue prooued

any thing, because whatsoeuer hee hath said, standeth hi∣therto reprooued. And surely if he haue no better proofes than hitherto he hath brought in all the questions that hee hath handled, the Protestants will but scorne him as a ve∣ry vnproouing disputer, and aduise him to bestow his time a while longer in the Schooles, to know what it is to prooue.

3. W. BISHOP.

Touching beleeuing in the Church, which he thrusteth in by the way, we vse not that phrase, as the very Creed sheweth; following therein S. Augustine with others, who hold, that to beleeue in a thing, is to make it our Creatour, by giuing our whole heart vnto it; in which sense we beleeue not in Saints, nor in the Church: albeit some other ancient Doctors, take the words to beleeue in, not so precisely, but say that we may be∣leeue in the Church and in Saints: that is, beleeue certainly that the Catholike church is the onely true company of Chri∣stians; and that to the lawfull gouernours thereof, it appe••tai∣neth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall, and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them: so we beleeue the Saints in heauen to heare our prayers, to be carefull to pray for vs, and to bee able to obtaine by intreaty much at Gods hands, in whose high fauour they liue. Thus much in answer vnto that which M. PERKINS obiecteth in generall. Now to that he saith in particular.

R. ABBOT.

a 1.68 It is one thing, saith Gregory Nazianzene, to beleeue in any one, another to beleeue of or concerning him; the one be∣longeth to the Godhead, the other is vsed of euery thing. And heereby hee prooueth that the holy Ghost is God because wee beleeue in the holy Ghost. By which argument our Sauiour Christ also teacheth vs to acknowledge him to be God, when he saith; b 1.69 Yee beleeue in God, beleeue also in me; where c 1.70 vniting himselfe to the beleefe of God, saith Hilarie, he vniteth himselfe also to his nature; thereby teaching, that he

himselfe is God for that they who beleeue in God must be∣leeue in him. I might further enlarge this point by the testimonies and expositions of d 1.71 Austin, Eusebius, Emissenus, Ruffinus, Venantius, and others, who all acknowledge, that that phrase belongeth to God, and is not to bee applied to any creature. But it shall not neede, because the Elucidatour of the Romane Cate∣chisme, according to the doctrine of the Catechisme it self, as he pretendeth, though quite contrary both to their do∣ctrine and practise otherwise, doth tell vs, that e 1.72 when wee say wee beleeue in God the Father, in the Sonne, in the ho∣ly Ghost, this phrase of speaking doth signifie that wee so be∣leeue God the Father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost, as that also we place all our confidence in them, which we are to put in God onely, and not increatures, of which notwithstanding the Church consisteth. Which exposition wee acknowledge conteineth the very trueth, agreeable to Gods word, and doe wish that they would alwaies continue constant there∣in. But they doe heerein as their vsuall maner is, what by euidence of truth they are forced to say in one place, for the maintenance of their owne traditions and superstiti∣ons, they vnsay it or qualifie it in another. And in this sort M. Bishop heere dealeth, who first inclining somewhat to that construction alreadie mentioned, and telling vs that to beleeue in a thing, is to make it our Creatour, by giuing our whole heart vnto it, alleageth notwithstanding, that some ancient Doctours take the words (to beleeue in) not so precisely, but say that wee may beleeue in the church and in Saints; heereby to make way to his absurd conceits, which none of the ancient Doctours dreamed of. it is true indeed that Epiphanius and Cyril haue vsed that maner of speech, by adding the preposition, in, to the rest of the articles; I beleeue in one holy Catholike church, in one Baptisme, in the re∣mission of sinnes, in the resurrection of the body, in the life eternal; but yet making thereof no other construction than we do, as if the article were away. To beleeue in the church,

was with them, as M. Bishop saith, to beleeue certainly in the Catholike church, to be the onely true company of Christi∣ans, and thereof we contend not; wee beleeue the same as well as they, though not in M. Bishops meaning, which neuer was any part of their meaning, that the Catholike church should be meant in any speciall maner of the church of Rome. But whereas he addeth, it is another part of their construction, that to the lawfull gouernours thereof, that is, as he intendeth, to the Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops, it appertaineth to declare both which bookes be Canonicall, and what is the true meaning of all doubtfull places in them; he ve∣rie shamefully abuseth the ancient Doctours, of whom there is not one that hath noted any such matter to be con∣teined in the Creed. If hee know any, let him acquaint vs therewith; if hee know none, let him confesse to his Rea∣der, as he must, that he hath sought to deceiue him with a lie. The same I say of beleeuing in Saints; for which of the ancient Doctours hath taught vs out of our Creed, that we are to beleeue in them? He telleth vs what they meant by it, that wee beleeue the Saints in heauen to heare our praiers, to be carefull to pray for vs, and to be able to obteine by intreatie much at Gods hands. But what a strange man is he that will tell vs what men meant by words which they neuer spake? Surely, to beleeue in Saints is no antiquitie, but nouelty, and the deuice of him, who by beleeuing in Saints seeketh to draw men away from beleefe in God. The Apo∣stle telleth vs, that f 1.73 Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Thereupon Basil gathereth thus: g 1.74 If whatso∣euer is not of faith bee sinne, and faith commeth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, surely whatsoeuer is beside the Scripture of God, because it is not of faith, is sinne. Let M. Bishop then shew vs some word of God, some warrant of Scripture, that it is one point of faith to beleeue in Saints; or if hee cannot so doe, we must rest perswaded as we are, that to beleeue in Saints is to sinne against God.

And if we may not beleeue in Saints, then neither may we pray vnto them, for h 1.75 how shall they call vpon him, saith the Apostle, in whom they haue not beleeued? And seeing praier is i 1.76 not a matter of the lippes, but of the heart, how can wee beleeue that the Saints in heauen heare our praiers, when as the word of God telleth vs, that k 1.77 it is God only which know∣eth the hearts of all the children of men? Againe, seeing God hath himselfe named vnto vs the Mediator by whose intre∣ty, & l 1.78 for whose sake he wil accept vs, and in whom he will be m 1.79 glorified for the granting of our requests, who n 1.80 sitteth at the right hand of God, and o 1.81 euer liueth to make intercession for vs; how can we call it faith, and not rather impudent presumption, that we of our owne heads should set vp eue∣ry Saint in heauen to be a Master of requests, and disturbe that order which God himselfe hath appointed for our ac∣cesse to him? Admit that in generality they pray for the consummation of their brethren; they pray in fellowship of loue, not by authority of mediation; as ioined in affecti∣on with vs, not as by specialtie of fauour appointed to be patrons for vs; for in that respect it is true which Saint Au∣stin telleth vs, that p 1.82 of all that haue beene partakers of flesh, it is Christ onely in heauen that maketh intercession for vs. To conclude, we haue heard before out of the Catechisme, that our beleeuing in God requireth all our confidence and trust to be placed in God onely. Accordingly Cyprian saith, that q 1.83 he beleeueth not in God that placeth not the confidence of all his happinesse in God onely. But beleeuing in Saints cannot be vn∣derstood but to import putting of trust and confidence in them. Therefore we cannot beleeue in Saints, but with the ouerthrow of our beleefe and trust in God. And that the Popish beleeuing in Saints, importeth the putting of their trust and confidence in them, it plainly appeareth as by o∣ther their offices of deuotion, so specially by their Ladies Psalter wherein they blasphemously vse to the Virgin Ma∣rie those words whereby Dauid professed his trust in God:

r 1.84 O Lady, in thee haue I hoped, deliuer my soule from mine ene∣mies; I trust in our Lady for the sweetnesse of the mercy of her name; Because I haue trusted in thy grace, thou hast taken a∣way from me euerlasting reproch: O our Lady, thou art our refuge in all our necessity; O Lady saue mee by thy name. And whereas M. Bishop saith, that our beleeuing in God is the gi∣uing of our whole heart vnto him, they yeeld the same to our Lady, also saying; I confesse vnto thee s 1.85 O Lady, with my whole heart, let all my hartstrings glorifiy her name. By these and infinite other such speeches it appeareth that by their belee∣uing in Saints they commit idolatry, and doe giue that ho∣nour to the Saints which belongeth to God onely.

4. W. BISHOP.

He chargeth vs first, with the breach of the third article, Conceiued by the holy Ghost: Which (saith he) is ouerturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Masse, into the body and blood of Christ: for heere wee are taught to confesse the true and perpetuall incarnation of Christ, beginning in his conception, and neuer ending af∣terward.

Answ. Heere is a strange exposition of the Creed. Is Christs incarnation perpetuall, and not yet ended? then it is true to say, that Christ is not yet incarnate; as we may say truely, that a man is not borne, vntill his birth be accomplished and ended. But to the present purpose: because Christs incarnation began at his conception, cannot bread be turned afterward into his bo∣dy? how hangeth this together? Belike he meanes that Christs body was but once conceiued, and that was by the holy Ghost in his mothers wombe: therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing. This to be his meaning, he declares in the question of the Sacrament; but it is too too simple and childish. For we hold him not to be so conceiued by bread, as he was by the holy Ghost, who was the efficient cause of his concep∣tion: but that the same body that was conceiued by the holy Ghost, is made really present in the Sacrament, by transubstanti∣ation

of bread into it, which hath no opposition at all with this article, as I haue more largely prooued in the for said question. And whereas he saith farther, cleane besides the purpose of this article, that Christs body hath the essentiall properties of a true body, standing of flesh and bone: we grant the same; but when he addeth, that locall circumscription cannot be se∣uered from a body, he is deceiued: for the greatest body of all others, (which is the highest heauen) is not circumscribed by any place; because there is no other body without it, whose ex∣tremities might compasse in, and circumscribe that body of the highest heauen. And when he saith, that to be circumscribed in place, is an essential property of euery quantity; and that quantity is the common essence of euery body: he makes himselfe but a common mocking-stocke vnto euery simple Legi∣cian, who knoweth that no accident (such as euery quantity is) can be of the essence and nature of a substance, such as Christs body is. Neither would any man say, (that cared what he said) that to be circumscribed in a place is essential to euery quantity, when all numbers that be quantities, haue no relation vnto any place: neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place; but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kinde of quantitie, to be apt, and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place. And natu∣rally all bodies (except the highest heauen) haue one place, out of which they passe (as Saint Austin said) when they come into another: but by the omnipotent power of God, any body may be separated from his place, or be in as many places at once, as it shall please God to seate it: because to be circumscribed with a place actually, is a meere accident vnto a substantiall body, and without the nature of quantity; and God may not without blasphemy be disabled to separate a substance from an acci∣dent.

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishop, saue that he was disposed to cauill, knew well enough what M. PERKINS meant by the perpetuall in∣carnation

of Christ; * 1.86 that whereby he tooke flesh once for all and to continue man for eu••r. Now it is true, that because Christ hath but one only body, and that body was perfect by that incarnation, therefore bread, which hath his being after, cannot be said to be turned into the body which was before. For when one thing is turned into another, the lat∣ter is not, till it be produced of the former, neither hath the one beginning, but by the ending of the other. Aarons rod was turned into a serpent, but the serpent was not till of the rod there became a serpent. Our Sauiour Christ turned water into wine, but the wine was not till of water there be∣came wine. And absurd it is, that one and the same thing being fully and perfectly made already, should yet be said to be made of any other thing. As for M. Bishops exception, it is childish and impertinent, because we doe not charge them to hold, that the body of Christ is so conceiued by bread as it was conceiued by the holy Ghost, who was the efficient cause of his conception: but we say, that sith the body of Christ by the power of the holy Ghost was conceiued and made of the substance of the Virgin Mary, and thereby became a consummate and perfect body, it is therefore absurd to af∣firme that the same body is now to be made of any other thing. But this is not the thing that M. PER. aimed at; it is the condition and nature of a true body whereof he argu∣eth, which we professe to beleeue that Christ tooke in his conception and incarnation, but is ouerthrowen by Popish transubstantiation. He saith, that Christs body hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a body, which hee namely specifieth in local circumscription, which he saith, can no way be seuered from a body, it remaining a body; implying, that the Papists affirming the body of Christ without locall circumscription, doe thereby destro•• the truth of his body. M. Bishop answereth, that M. PER. heerein is deceiued; For, saith he, the greatest body of all other, which is the highest hea∣uen, is not circumscribed by any place, because there is no body without it to circumscribe it. Well, but yet it hath dimensi∣on

and position and distance of parts, and motion accor∣dingly; and therefore quantum inse, it is locally circumscri∣bed; the only defect is, that it hath not a body without it to be circumscribed thereby. Yea we may truely say, that it hath a kinde of locall circumscription by the superficiall clausure and determination of it owne substance. In as much therefore as in it selfe it hath euery way the condition of lo∣call circumscription, it is no instance against M. PER. rule, that locall circumscription cannot be seuered from a true body. But because he taketh locall circumscription so nicely as we see he doth, I would gladly haue him to resolue vs one question thereof, and his answer shall shew the nullity of his owne exception. He hath told vs a 1.87 before that the body of Christ is in one place circumscribed, and in another vn∣circumscribed: circumscribed in heauen, and in the Sacra∣ment vncircumscribed. Now let him tell vs how the body of Christ in heauen hath locall circumscription? To speake of Physicall and material heauens, it is true of Christ which the Apostle saith, b 1.88 He is ascended far aboue all heauens, and therefore aboue that highest heauen, which M. Bishop na∣meth to vs, beyond which there is neither vacuum nor locus properly so called, but the incomprehensible habitation of diuine light, which our thoughts are in no sortable to con∣ceiue. How then is the body of Christ locally circumscribed, where yet there is no Physicall or naturall place? Let him giue vs answer heereof, and then we will answer him, that looke what giueth locall circumscription to the body of Christ in heauen, the same also giueth locall circumscription to the highest heauen. Vnderstand the highest heauen, gen∣tle Reader, as M. Bishop doth, for the vttermost sphere of the materiall globe of this visible world, beyond which is that heauen into which we beleeue our Lord Iesus to haue ascended, and where we hope to dwell with him. This ex∣ception being frustrate, let vs see the rest, where M. Bishop standing nicely and precisely vpon termes of schooles, tel∣leth vs, that M. PERKINS makes himselfe a common mock∣ing-stocke

to euery simple Logician, of whom notwithstand∣ing I dare boldly say, that hee was as good a Logician as Doctour Bishop is, though writing to the people he vsed his words accordingly. He saith that quantity is the common essence of euery body, and who knoweth not, saith M. Bishop, that no accident, as euery quantity is, can be of the essence of a substance as Christs body is. Well Sir, but yet quantity gi∣ueth existence to euery body, which is enough to M. PER. purpose, and to be the subiect of quantity, or indued with quan∣tity, is the common and true essence of a body. If he will say, nay; we desire him of his courtesie to take the paines to send vs without quantity the true definition of a body. Albeit his reading might serue him to vnderstand, that there are few learned men, or none at all, so strict in termes, but that they call by the name of essentiall properties whatsoeuer doth immediately and necessarily issue from the essence of a thing, though according to Logicke rules it be no part of the essence thereof. And thus M. PERK. saith againe, that to be circumscribed in place is an essentiall property of euery quantity: which saith M. Bishop, no man would say that cared what hee said. And why? Because all numbers, saith hee, which be quantities, haue no relation vnto any place. But hee might easily haue conceiued that M. PER. as I said before, spake according to vulgar vse, which for the most part vnderstandeth quantity of the magnitude and great∣nesse of bodies, in which meaning it is a property flowing out of the essence of euery quantity, not onely to be apt to be circumscribed with a place, but to be circumscribed and determined locally according to that meaning of locall cir∣cumscription which I haue before expressed. Therefore in this sort it is not a meere accident to a substantiall body to be circumscribed, but it is proprium quarto modo, agreeing al∣waies to euery body, and to nothing but a body, necessarily arising of the dimensions of the length, breadth and thick∣nesse of a body, and the deniall whereof is the taking away of the nature of a body. As for his allegation of the almigh∣tie

power of God how idle it is, it hath beene c 1.89 before de∣clared. For God doth not by his omnipotency contradict himselfe, neither doth his power serue to make good the fantasticall dreames of giddy headed men to be said to de∣stroy the nature of a thing, and yet to leaue it still continu∣ing the selfe-same thing. But it is woorth the noting how M. Bishop heere plaieth the micher and stealeth by two al∣legations vsed by M. Perkins, very pertinent to the matter heere in hand. It is for the illocality of the body of Christ that M. Bishop pleadeth the omnipotency of God: but M. Perkins bringeth in Leo Bishop of Rome, saying that d 1.90 the body of Christ is in no sort without the truth of our body. This he passeth by without any mention of it, as if he had not seene any such thing. The words of Saint Austin he vouch∣safed to take some knowledge of, but applieth them gene∣rally to all bodies, whereas Saint Austin also spake of the body of Christ; making a difference betwixt Christ, as God and man. e 1.91 Christ, saith he, spake vpon earth, and yet said he was in heauen; the sonne of man which is in heauen. He so came, as that he departed not from thence; he so returned, as that he did not forsake vs. Why do ye wonder heereat, saith he? God doth this. For man according to his body is in a place, and departeth from the place, and when he is come into another place, is not in that place from whence hee came: but God filleth all things, and is whole euery where, and is not conteined in ••ace of place. Thus doth Saint Austin distinguish the God-head and man-hood of Christ, making the body of Christ of the same condition with our bodies, so as that it leaueth one place whensoeuer it commeth to another. The church of Rome therefore affirming a body of Christ without exten∣tion or space of place, that is, a ghost in stead of a body, im∣pugneth the article of our faith, whereby we beleeue that he was conceiued and borne of the substance of the Virgin Mary according to the truth and condition of our bodies.

5. W. BISHOP.

By this is confuted also his second instance: Christ is ascen∣ded into heauen, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, therefore his body is not really and locally in the Sacrament. This followeth not, * 1.92 because it is in both places at once, as Saint Chrysostome in expresse tearmes teacheth. O miracle! O goodnesse of God! he that sitteth aboue with his Father, at the very same instant is touched with the handes of all men, * 1.93 and giueth himselfe to them that will re∣ceiue and embrace him! See more of this in the question of the blessed Sacrament, where M. PER. citeth the very same authorities, which he heere repeateth; see my answer to to them there.

R. ABBOT.

It is a true argument and very consequent, Christ is as∣cended into heauen, and there sitteth at the right hand of God the father: therefore hee is not really and locally in the sacrament. The connexion is Saint Austins: a 1.94 He is ascended into heauen, and is not heere, as touching the presence of his body. Saint Austin saith, that because he is ascended, therefore as touching his body he is not heere. M. Bishop saith, that notwithstanding his ascension he is still heere ac∣cording to his body. Whether now may we thinke is more likely of these two to bee beleeued? But M. Bishop to saue himselfe, will set Chrysostome and Austin together by the eares. Forsooth, Chrysostome reporteth it as a miracle, that he who sitteth aboue with his father, at the very same instant is touched with the hands of all men, and giueth himselfe to them that will receiue and embrace him. What Chrysostomes minde was in this behalfe, appeareth by that which other∣where he saith, that b 1.95 in the holy vessels, not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of his body is contained. And by this mystery of his body, Saint Austin saith, that e 1.96 after a cer∣taine maner it is the body of Christ; and Cyprian saith, that

d 1.97 in name and power it is accounted the body of Christ. As therefore Saint Austin saith, that e 1.98 Christ did in some sort beare himselfe in his owne hands, when he said, This is my body, in some sort, he saith, or after a sort, not verily and indeed: so Chrysostome intendeth, that he who sitteth at the right hand of God is after a sort touched in the Sacrament, with the hands of all the partakers thereof; not as touching the reality, but as touching the mysterie of his body, yet so (wherein consisteth the miracle which Chrysostome mentioneth) as that he indeed giueth himselfe spiritually and by faith to all them that are truely willing to receiue him. And in what meaning Chrysostme spake those words, we may easily conceiue by other words which he vseth in the very same place: f 1.99 When thou seest the Lord offered, the Priest leaning to the Sacrifice and powring foorth praier, and the people round about died and made red with that pretious blood, doest thou thinke that thou art amongst mortall men, or standing vpon the earth? Art thou not foorthwith lift vp to heauen? Doest thou not cast away all carnall cogitation, and with pure minde behold those things which are in heauen aboue? Then vsing the words which M. Bishop hath alleaged he addeth: And this is done, not by collusion, but so as that the standers by with open eies behold all that is done. Let M. Bishop now tell vs: doe the standers by with open eies see Christ offered? Are they made red with the bloud of Christ? Must they thinke that they are indeed carried vp to heauen, and are not vpon the earth? If he cannot deny, but that these words are vsed by excesse and vehemencie of speech, to drawe the mindes of his hearers, to diuine and heauenly meditation of the my∣steries then in hand: can hee deny but that wee haue iust cause to vnderstand the other words in the very same sort? The other testimonies cited by M. PER. out of Vigilius, Fulgentius, Austin, doe make the same good, because they

shew, that Christ according to his manhood, is not really vpon the earth. M. Bishop biddeth vs see his answeres to those authorities: but as yet we doe not see them; and if euer we do see them, we shall see him as wise, or rather as wilfull, in them as he hath beene in all the rest.

6. W. BISHOP.

Thirdly, he reasoneth thus: * 1.100 In that we beleeue the Catho∣like Church, it followeth that it is inuisible, because things seene, are not beleeued.

We answer: that the persons in the Catholike Church are and euer were visible, euen to Iewes and Heathens who perse∣cuted them; but the inward indowments of those persons: that is, their faith, hope, and charity: their assistance by Gods spirit, and such like Christian qualities, are inuisible & to be beleeued. And euen as a man is truely said to be visible, though he con∣sist aswell of an inuisible soule, as of a visible body: so the Church is visible, for the vsible persons, visible teaching and administring of Sacraments in it: albeit the inward qualities of it be not visible.

R. ABBOT.

a 1.101 The holy Chatholike church is the company of Gods saints, whom he hath elected in Christ before the foundations of the world, and b 1.102 whom he hath by the grace of his foreknowledge appointed to continue with him for euer. It is c 1.103 the body and d 1.104 Spouse of Christ: e 1.105 redeemed and f 1.106 sprinkled with his bloud, g 1.107 quickened by his spirit, h 1.108 iustified by his obedience, i 1.109 sealed to the remssion of sinnes and euerlasting life. That God hath such a people, we beleeue it, we see it not, neither can our eies discerne who they are that appertaine to this number, it being one of the proper emblemes of Gods honour, ^j The Lord knoweth who are his. In this sort doe we in the articles of our Creede professe to beleeue the holy Catholike church. That there is a church also visible no man denieth, no man doubteth: nay we affirme, that it is amidst that

church which wee see that God gathereth vnto himselfe that church which we cannot see. And to speake of this vi∣sible church also, we cannot see it to be Gods church, or that it is Gods word that there is preached, or that they are the Sacraments of Christ which are there administred, or that there is any fruit or benefite to be reaped thereby. We see these things done, but the estimation of them is a matter of faith and not of fight: we see the persons, but we do not by our eies perceiue them to be that that they take vpon them to be. But being by faith instructed that these things are of God, or professing so to be beleeue, we discerue by hea∣ring and seeing who they are to whom we are to adioine our selues for the exercise of our faith. So then the church is both visible and inuisible: visible as touching the per∣sons, visible as touching open assemblies and exercises; but not visible to bee the church of God: for then Iewes and heathens would see so much, and would leaue to persecute, which now they doe not, because they haue no faith, and the church is no otherwise knowen so to be, but onely by faith. Now what saith M. Bishop to hurt any thing that we say? The persons, saith he, in the Catholike church are visi∣ble, but their indowments are inuisible. Well, and men are not true members of the true church by being such and such persons: but by hauing such and such inward indow∣ments: and therfore though they bee visible as touching their persons, yet they are not visible as true members of the church. The church therefore which wee professe to beleeue, which consisteth in them that are the true mem∣bers of the visible church, must needs be granted to be in∣uisible. Yea I say further, that men are not at all members of the visible church by being such and such persons, but by profession of the faith and name of Christ and participa∣tion of his Sacraments. And therfore M. Bishop doth much amisse to compare visible persons and inward qualities with the body & the soule, because to be a visible person is not to be in part a member of the church, as the body is part

of a man, for then euery Turke and Infidell might be said to be in part a member of the church, because he is a man: but outward acceptance of the faith and visible communi∣on with the church, maketh a man outwardly a member thereof, and is as it were the body: the life and soule wher∣of is the inward grace of the spirit: whereby he is indeed to the eies of God, that which outwarly he seemeth to bee to the eies of men. But a further difference also there is, for that the soule though in it selfe it be inuisible, yet is certain∣ly perceiued and discerned by the actions and motions of the body, and therefore well may a man be said to be visi∣ble as a man, though as touching the soule it selfe he be inui∣sible; whereas there are no such actions or motions of a member of the visible church whereby the eie of man can certainely see that hee hath life within, or is spiritually the same to God, that outwardly he giueth semblance to men to be. Because therefore the true members of the church are not to be discerned with the eie, it followeth that the church properly so called, consisting of those true members is visible to God onely.

7. W. BISHOP.

His last obiection against vs out of the Creed, is: That the articles of remission of sinnes: resurrection of the body: and life euerlasting, containe a confession of speciall faith. For the meaning of them is thus much: I beleeue the re∣mission of mine owne sinnes, and the resurrectition of mine owne body to life euerlasting.

Answer. That is not the meaning, vnlesse you adde some conditions: to wit, I beleeue the remission of my sinnes, if I haue duly vsed the meanes ordained by our Sauiour for the re∣mission of them; which is after Baptisme, the Sacrament of Pe∣nance. Item, I beleeue I shall haue life euerlasting, if I keepe (as Christ willed the yong-man to keepe) Gods commande∣ments, or (at the least) if I doe die with true repentance. Now whether I haue done or shall doe these things required of me, I

am not so well assured, as that I can beleue it: for I may be de∣ceiued therein; but I haue or may haue a very goood hope, by the grace of God to performe them. Neither is there any more to be gathered out of Saint Augustine, as some of the words by himselfe heere alleaged doe conuince. For he requireth besides faith, that we turne from our sinnes, conforme our will to Gods will, and abide in the lap of the Catholike church; and so at length we shall be healed. See the question of certainty of saluation. Note also by the way, the vncertainty of of M. PER. doctrine, concerning this point: for he holdeth that it is not necessary to haue a certaine perswasion of our owne sal∣uation, * 1.110 but that it is sufficient to haue a desire to haue it: and that doctrine he putteth there (as he saith himselfe) to ex∣pound the Chatechismes, that propound faith at so high: reach, as few can attaine vnto: yet heere and elsewhere, the goodman forgetting himselfe, chargeth vs to crosse the Creed, because we doe not wrest faith vp to so high a straine: and so in heate of quarelling, often expoundeth this contrary to his owne rule. Now for proofe of S. Augustines opinion heerein (whom he onely citeth) take these two sentences for the two points be speaketh of. For the first, that we be certaine by ordinary faith of our saluation, let this serue. Of life euerlasting, which God (that cannot lie) hath promised to his children, * 1.111 no man can be secure (and out of danger) before his life be en∣ded, which is a tentation vpon earth. Secondly, that a man once truely iustified may afterward fall: We must beleeue (saith this holy father) that certaine of the children of per∣dition doe liue in faith, that worketh by charity, and so doe for a time liue faithfully and iustly (they were then truly iusti∣fied) and yet afterward doe fall, and that finally; because be calleth them the children of perdition. Thus much in answere vnto that, which M. PER. obiecteth against our religion out of the Creed, which (as you haue seene) consisteth wholly vpon his owne forced exposition, and vaine illations.

R. ABBOT.

That our profession of saith in the Creed, importeth a particular application of those things which we beleeue, * 1.112 hath beene sufficiently declared a 1.113 before in the question of the certainty of saluation. M. Bishop referreth his Reader to that question, as hauing there iustified what he saith heere: but with what face can he so doe, before he hath made it appeare that he is able to defend what he hath said there? What exceptions he hath vsed there, the same he vseth heere; he giueth them no further strength, he cleereth them not from those answers whereby hath beene shewed the inualidity of them; but goeth on with his cuckowes note, saying ouer and ouer still one and the same thing. But his adding of conditions is the destroying of the nature of true faith, which when it professeth to beleeue the remission of sinnes doth therby disclaime the working of it, resting vp∣on Gods promise, b 1.114 which as S. Austin saith, is sure, not ac∣cording to our merits, but according to his owne mercy; c 1.115 I will forgiue their iniquities, and their sinnes wil I remember no more. His sacrament of penance we know not, because Christ hath not taught it; but the true Sacraments which Christ hath ordained are to the faithfull repentant, not workes of merit whereby they purchase, but seales and confirmations of Gods gift, whereby hee freely bestoweth the remission of sinnes. As for the keeping of Gods commandements, we say with S. Iohn; He that saith he knoweth him, that is, as Gre∣gory Bishop of Rome expoundeth it, d 1.116 he that saith he be∣leeueth in him, & keepeth not his commandements, is a liar, and there is no truth in him. e 1.117 The commandement is holy and iust and good, and f 1.118 without holinesse no man shall see God. But the keeping of Gods commandements is one thing accor∣ding to the condition of the law, another according to the precept and exhortation of the Gospell. The Gospell fa∣uourably commendeth vnto vs the keeping thereof as a fruit of faith; the law strictly requireth it as the condition

of eternall life. The Gospell admitteth forgiuenesse of that that by humane frailty is left vndone: the law is neuer satis∣fied vnlesse g 1.119 all be done. Therefore if the beleefe of out obteining eternall life must rest vpon our workes according to the law, we can neuer haue assurance of faith, because we can neuer finde sufficiency and contentment in our owne works. It followeth therefore, that to build the faith of the Gospell vpon the workes of the Law, is to confound the Law and the Gospell, and to destroy the truth of faith. h 1.120 If they which are of the law be heires, saith the Apostle, then faith is made voide, and the promise is made of none effect. But i 1.121 therefore it is of faith, that it may be of grace (and therefore k 1.122 not of workes) and the promise may be sure to all the seed, that is, to all that beleeue according to the example of Abra∣hams faith. Now then whereas M. Bishop saith, that he be∣leeueth to haue life euerlasting if hee keepe the commande∣ments, that is no beleefe at all, because he cannot keepe the commandements, as is required for couenant of eternal life. Whereas he telleth vs, that he may haue a very good hope by Gods grace to performe them, his owne heart telleth him that he saith vntruely, because he knoweth himselfe debarred from that hope by God himselfe, by whose words we are taught, that l 1.123 there is not a man iust in the earth, that doth good and sinneth not, and that m 1.124 in many things we offend all, and that n 1.125 in Gods sight no man liuing shall bee found righteous. Therefore amidst all our keeping of Gods commande∣ments, amidst all our fightings and wrastlings against sinne, we stil hold fast that confession, that the iust (euen the iust) shall liue by faith; because all our iustice in this life is maimed and halting, and o 1.126 consisteth rather in forgiuenesse of sinnes than in perfection of vertues. It remaineth therefore, that true faith is the apprehension and particular application of the promise of God, expecting the effect and participation thereof, not for any workes of ours, but for his owne mer∣cies sake. Of which faith it followeth indeed, that we turne from our sinnes, and conforme our will to Gods will, and abide in

the lap of the Catholike church, but these are effects and not causes of that state of saluation which we attaine by faith onely. Saint Austin therefore requiring these things, doth not shake his owne assertion of particular faith, whereby he teacheth a man, as M. Perkins sheweth, to beleeue as touching himselfe, the remission of sinnes, the resurrection of the body, and euerlasting life. As for the contradiction which M. Bishop noteth in M. PER. words, it is more in his conceit than it is indeed. He saith heere, that the act of faith is particularly to apply: he saith elsewhere, that faith notwithstanding doth not alwaies attaine to a distinct ap∣plication by formall proposition, but that it is sometimes inuolued and inlapped in sighes and grones, in desires and praiers to God, which cannot be without an expectance of Gods goodnesse and mercy, and yet a perplexed and trou∣led minde by questioning it selfe cannot see so much in it selfe. He saith againe, that some define faith generally to be a certaine and full perswasion, which he calleth, so high a reach as few can attaine vnto, because as there is strong faith to perswade certainely and fully, so there is also weake faith which apprehendeth and perswadeth comfortably, but yet not with fulnesse and vndoubted certainty. He saith nothing heere contrary to this, because whether it be strong faith to apply strongly, or weake faith to apply weakely, yet both serue in their degree particularly to ap∣ply. It is then M. Bishops want of vnderstanding heere that maketh him to mistake, not M. PER. heate of quar∣relling that maketh him to forget. But now to shew what Saint Austins opiniō is concerning these matters of beleefe, he bringeth vs two sentences, the one to shew that by ordi∣nary faith a man cannot bee certaine of his saluation; the other, that a man once truely iustified may afterwards final∣ly fal away; both tending to this, that a man cannot be said by the articles of the Creed, to beleeue the remission of his owne sinnes vnto euerlasting life. The first, as he alleageth, is thus: p 1.127 Of life euerlasting, which God that cannot lie hath

from euerlasting promised to the children of promise, no man can be secure before his life be ended, which is a temptation vpon earth. But what, M. Bishop; did your breath faile you that you could goe no further? did you not thinke the end of the sentence as woorthy to be repeated as the beginning? Goe on man, tell out your tale; for Saint Austin addeth further: But he wil make vs to perseuere in him vnto the end of this life; to whom we daily say, Lead vs not into temptation. What could Saint Austin deuise to speake more agreable to our asserti∣on, than this is? We say, that respecting our selues we haue no security; wee are continually beset with danger and feare; many occasions we haue of distrust and despaire; and with these temptations we haue to wrastle the whole course of this life; but amidst all our distractions and feares this is stil the support of our faith, that he wil make vs to per∣seuere in him to the end of our life, to whom we daily say, Lead vs not into temptation. q 1.128 Faithfull is he, saith the Apostle, who hath called you, who will also doe it. In the other place Saint Austin saith, that r 1.129 we are to beleeue, that some of the children of perdition, not hauing receiued the gift of perseuering to the end, doe begin to liue in faith, that worketh by loue, and for a while doe liue faithfully and iustly, and afterwards doefall away. But this Saint Austin speaketh according to men, and as seemeth to the eies of men, and of that profession of faith, which by outward fruits carieth for the time the semblance of true faith. For to the eies of God, I haue s 1.130 before shewed out of Austin, that reprobates are neuer effectually called, neuer iustified, neuer partakers of that healthfull and spiri∣tuall repentance, whereby man in Christ is reconciled vnto God. Therefore Gregory Bishop of Rome faith, that t 1.131 they who are not of the number of the elect, doe beleeue but only in shew; do in shew onely come to the faith of the kingdome; u 1.132 that 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 the holinesse which they had after a sort before the eies of men, but indeed they neuer had it in the sight of God. Behold heere M. Bishop, one of your owne Bishops of Rome, ei∣ther a correctour, if you will so haue it, or as we will rather say, an expounder of Saint Austins words, but wholly ad∣uerse and contrary to you, denying vnto reprobates that faith and holinesse which you so confidently attribute vnto them. So that in fine we see, that M. PERK, not by forced exposition or vaine illations, but directly and according to truth hath charged you with impious violation of the first principles of the faith.

8. W. BISHOP.

Hence he proceedeth to the tenne Commandements. But be∣fore I follow him thither, I may not omit heere to declare how the Protestant Doctors doe foully mangle, and in manner ouer∣turne the greatest part of the Creed. Obserue first, that accor∣ding to their common doctrine, it is not necessary to beleeue this Creed at all, because it is no part of the written word: secondly, that Caluin doubteth whether it were made by the Apostles or no; being then no part of the written word, * 1.133 not made by the Apostles, it must by their doctrine be wholly reiected. Now to the particulars.

1. Concerning the first article, I beleeue in God the Fa∣ther almighty, maker of heauen and earth; they doe erre many waies. First, they doe destroy the most simple vnity of the God-head, * 1.134 by teaching the diuine essence to be really distin∣guished into three persons. If the diuine nature be really distinguished into three, there must needes be three diuine essen∣ces or natures: ergo, three Gods. Caluin also saith, * 1.135 that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from his Father. Melancthon, that there be aswell three diuine natures, as three persons, in locis de Christo.

Secondly, they ouerthrow the Father in the God-head, by denying the Sonne of God, to haue receiued the diuine nature

from his Father: as Caluin, Beza, and Whitakers doe, See the Preface.

Thirdly, how is God almighty, if he cannot do all things that haue no manifest repugnance in them? But he cannot after the opinion of diuers of them, make a body to be without locall cir∣cumscription, or to bee in two places at once; which notwith∣standing some others of them hold to be possible, * 1.136 as Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Andreas Volanus, &c.

Fourthly, though we beleeue God to be maker of heauen and earth; yet neuer none but blasphemous Heretikes, held him to be true authour and proper worker of all euill done vpon earth by men. Such neuerthelesse bee Bucer, Zwinglius, Caluin, and others of greatest estimation among the Protestants. See the Preface.

2. And in IESVS Christ his onely Sonne our Lord. They must needes hold Christ not to be Gods true naturall Son, which denie him to haue receiued the diuine nature from the Father: againe, thy make him according to his God-head infe∣riour to his Father. See the Preface.

3. Borne of the Virgin MARY. Many of them teach, that Christ was borne as other children are, with breach of his Mothers virginity, as Bucer, and Molineus in Vnione Euangelij part. 3. and Caluin signifieth no lesse in harmo. sup. 2. Math. vers. 13.

4. Suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and buried. Friar Luther (with a great band of his followers) doth toughly defend, that the God-head it selfe suffered; which to be blasphemy, Musculus doth prooue in his booke of the er∣rours of Luthers Schollers: yet Beza with all them that hold Christ to haue beene our Mediatour, according to his diuine nature, can hardly saue themselues from the same blasphemy. For the chiefest ast of Christs mediation consisteth in his death: if then the God-head did not suffer that death, it had no part in the principal point of Christs mediation. Hither also appertaine all these their blasphemies, to wit: that Christ was so frighted with the apprehension of death, that he forgot himselfe to

be our Mediatour, yea refused (as much as in him lay) to be our redeemer: Item, that he thought himselfe forsaken of God, and finally despaired. Se the Preface. * 1.137

R. ABBOT.

Whether M. Bishop deale honestly with Caluin as touching his opinion of the Creed, let it appeare by the ve∣ry words of Caluin in the very place alleaged. Where ha∣uing named it, the Apostles Creed, he taketh occasion ther∣upon thus to say: a 1.138 I call it Apostolike, not making any great scruple who was the authour of it. Surely by the generall con∣sent of the ancient writers it is ascribed to the Apostles, either for that they thought it in common written, and set foorth by them, or for that they thought good by such a title to confirme this Briefe, which is faithfully gathered out of the doctrine deli∣uered by their hands. Neither doe I doubt whencesoeuer it first began, but that from the first originall of the Christian Church and from the very time of the Apostles it tooke place, as a publicke and generally approoued confession. Neither is it likely to haue beene written in priuate by any one, because it is certaine that from the very beginning it hath beene of sacred authority amongst all godly men. That which we are entirely to regard, is without all controuersie or doubt, that the whole story of our faith is therein briefely and distinctly set downe, and nothing contained in it but what is confirmed by sound testimo∣nies of the Scripture. Which vnderstood and knowen, it is boot∣lesse for a man either much to trouble himselfe, or to contend with any other concerning the authour of it. Which words of Caluin conteining both his owne iudgement and ours con∣cerning the authority of the Creed, doe sufficiently refell

the malicious cauils of this vaine and absurd wrangler. By our doctrine, he saith, it is not necessary to beleeue the Creed, yea it is wholly to be reiected, because it is no part of the written word. Indeed formally it is no part of the written word, be∣cause it is not a part of the very text of Scripture there set downe in that frame of words wherein we vse it: but doe we any where say, that whatsoeuer is not so a part of the written word is wholly to be reiected, or not necessary to be beleeued? Nay we are so farre from saying or thinking so, as that we hold many things in M. Bishops bookes ne∣cessary to be beleeued, which notwithstanding are so farre from being a part of the written word, as that for the mani∣fold vaine cauillations and impudent falsehoods therein contained they deserue rather to goe for wall paper, than to be read for learned bookes. As touching the matter and doctrine of the Creed, Caluin affirmeth that it is taken out of the doctrine of the Apostles, set downe in the written word, and therefore it is no more to be reiected than the word it selfe from whence it is taken. He denieth not but that the Apostles might be and were the authours of it, though he cannot certainly affirme that they were so. Hee acknowledgeth the consent of ancient writers that it was composed by the Apostles. He confesseth the antiquity thereof euen from their very time. He holdeth it vnlikely to haue beene published by any priuate man, and therefore leaueth it most likely to be done by them. By whomsoe∣uer it was done, because it is consonant to the Apostolike spirit and doctrine, he acknowledgeth all sacreed authori∣tie and opinion as heeretofore, so now to be attributed vnto it. What is there heere that malice it selfe could blame, but that Popish malice aboue other is blinde and cannot see it owne shame? Let vs now goe along with him to the parti∣culars, and see what wise worke he maketh to prooue that which he saith, the Protestant Doctours doe foully mangle and in manner ouerturne the greatest part of the Creed. Con∣cerning the first article he saith, we erre many waies. But

how I pray you? first, saith he, they doe destroy the most sim∣ple vnity of the Godhead, by teaching the diuine essence to be re∣ally distinguished into three persons. But how doth that fol∣low? * 1.139 for if vnity of essence in this distinction bee terminus a quo; and triality of persons, be terminus ad quem; and the re∣ality of distinction be vnderstood not in the essence for it selfe but onely in the persons, how shall it destroy the simple v∣nity of the God head, to say that one diuine essence is real∣ly distinguished into three persons. What, will M. Bishop say that the distinction of the persons is intellectuall only and not reall? Let him then set vp a schoole for Sabellius and Praxeas, the heretickes, and teach as they did, that b 1.140 the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost, are but one and the same person, onely termed diuersly. But if for auoiding thereof he will say, as all learned diuines say, that the per∣sons of the Trinity are really distinguished, then let him vn∣derstand that hee saith no more than we say, nor knoweth more than wee know, who know how to speake as well as he. Our Diuines doe sometimes indeed say, that the one essence of God is distinguished really into three persons, but meaning it no otherwise than according to the definiti∣on of Thomas Aquinas, that c 1.141 there is in God a reall distincti∣on, not according to that that is absolute, which is the essence, but according to that that is relatiue, which is the diuers subsistence of the persons. Or rather they meane it accor∣ding to that which Saint Austin saith: d 1.142 There is one essence of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghost, wherein the Father is not one thing, the Sonne another thing, and the holy Ghost another thing: and yet personally the Father is one, the Sonne another, and the holy Ghost another. What is it but the same to say, either, that in one essence there are (really) three persons, or that one essence is really distinguished into three persons? He saith, that if the diuine nature bee really distinguished into three, there must needs be three diuine esser∣ces or natures. If, saith he, it be distinguished into three: but three what? for if he had added as he should, into three per∣sons,

then his folly had appeared to argue in that sort, * 1.143 that if one essence be really distinguished into three persons, there must needs be three essences. That which he addeth out of Caluin, that the Sonne of God hath a distinct substance from the Father, Caluin speaketh not of himselfe, but of Tertulli∣an; nor by his owne phrase, but by Tertullians phrase, who though he differ from latter times in manner of speech, yet defendeth the truth of the Godhead in three persons as o∣ther godly Fathers haue alwaies done. Praxeas the here∣tike denied the Trinity, affirming that the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, were but onely names giuen in diuers respects to one and the same person. Tertullian writeth a∣gainst him, and comming to the word, the second person in Trinity, he disputeth that the same is, e 1.144 not an empty or idle name, but importeth some substantiall thing by propriety of sub∣stance; that it cannot bee without substance that proceeded from such a substance, and was sent of the substance of the Fa∣ther. But yet he presently expoundeth himselfe; Whatsoe∣uer the substance of the word is, that I call the person, and chal∣lenge to it the name of the Sonne; and whilest I acknowledge him the Sonne, I defend him to be a second to the Father. By sub∣stance therefore with Tertullian, is not meant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the essence, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the personall and indiuiduall ex∣istence, wherein each person distinctly hath the one true and perfect substance, that is, essence of one Godhead, the word being purposely intended to crosse the hereticall conceit of Praxeas, of voide and empty tearmes. Euen as Hilary re∣porteth, that a Councell of Antioch against the same here∣sie, challengeth to euery person f 1.145 his proper substance, and saith, that they are three in substance, but in accord one, g 1.146 mea∣ning, saith he, by substances the persons subsistent, not separating

the substance of the Father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost, by diuersity of vnlike essence. The blasphemy of Praxeas and of the Sabellians was in these latter times reuiued by Serue∣tus. Against him Caluin disputeth, and bringeth in Tertul∣lian in his owne language oppugning that damnable fancy, and in that whole discourse with all integrity hee maintai∣neth our beleefe of one substance in three persons: and is not M. Bishop ashamed thus by aduantage of anothers words onely by him alleaged, and in the authours meaning vsed, so ill to requite him, and to charge him with that whereto he purposely defendeth the contrary in the same place? But why doe I speake of shame; for what are those men ashamed of? And therfore he sticketh not heere againe very grosly to belie Melancthon also, charging him to say, that there be as well three diuine natures as there be three per∣sons, whereas neither in the place by him quoted nor any otherwhere euer any such matter proceeded from Melan∣cthon. Vpon his second point I will not stand, because it is before handled in the sixt section of the Preface. So is the third point handled there also in the eight section, and the fourth in the tenth, and that which he saith as touching the second article, in the sixt and seuen. His obiection as touch∣ing the third article is a very leaud and vnhonest slander. None of vs affirmeth that Christ was borne with the breach of his Mothers virginity, * 1.147 because her virginity stood in being free from the company of man, not in that shee had not her wombe opened when she bare Christ. For if the opening of her wombe in her childbirth were the breach of her vir∣ginity, then the Euangelist shall be said to impeach her vir∣ginity in applying to the birth of Christ that saying of the law: h 1.148 Euery man-child that first openeth the wombe shall be called holy to the Lord. Which words diuers of the ancient fathers, i 1.149 Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Hierome, hold to be most properly verified in the birth of Christ, who ope∣ned the wombe that was not opened before, whereas for all other the wombe is first opened by carnall copulation.

Heereupon Tertullian saith, that k 1.150 the virgin Mary was both a virgin, and not a virgin: a virgin as touching man, not a vir∣gin as touching child-bearing; that is, a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by man; not a virgin as free from hauing the wombe opened by birth of childe. So Saint Au∣stin saith, that l 1.151 shee may not vnfitly be called a woman in re∣spect of her child-birth, and a virgin for that she know not the company of man, neither was her virginity corrupted by bearing child. What, will M. Bishop now say that all these were he∣retikes, and did deny that the mother of Christ continued a virgin? Let him say what he will, but we will hold him for a sorry fellow that concludeth breach of virginity of that opening of the wombe. As touching the fourth article, that Luther affirmed the Godhead it selfe to suffer, it is a lie. These are but deuices of Gifford, and Knogler and such other base hungry staruelings, who to gaine fauour make collections and conclusions of their owne, and then affirme them of our men. That Christ according to his diuine nature also is our Mediatour, euen whole Christ both God and man, hath beene before iustified in answer to the seuenth section of his preface to the Reader. But to inferre, that therefore the Godhead it selfe suffereth, is as good a reason as to say, that because the man dieth, therefore the soule is mortall. But saith M. Bishop, the chiefest act of Christs mediation consist∣eth in his death. True, and what then? If then, saith hee, the Godhead of Christ doe not suffer that death, it hath no part in the principall act of Christs mediation. As if he should say; the chiefest act of a faithfull and good subiect is to die for his Prince and country: if then the soule it selfe doe not suffer that death, it hath no part in the chiefest act of a faith∣full and good subiect. Would he take it patiently to heare another man to reason in this sort? If he would not, why doth he himselfe thus play the wiseman, and mocke simple men that are not able to perceiue his fraude? It is the man that dieth, though he die not in the soule, but in the body; and it is Christ God and man, that suffereth, though he suf∣fer

not in the God head but in the manhood. m 1.152 God suffe∣red by vnion of person, saith Vigilius, but in propriety of nature he suffered not; the Godhead did beare the iniuries of the passi∣on, but the flesh onely did feele the same. Though the soule it selfe die not, yet it is the soule that exposeth the body vnto death; and though the Godhead suffered not, yet it was the Godhead that yeelded the manhood to suffering and death, n 1.153 offering himselfe without spot vnto God by his eternall spirit; as the Apostle speaketh. The rest of his quarrels be∣ing most impudent and shamelesse fictions, are already handled in the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the an∣swer to the preface.

9. W. BISHOP.

5. Descended into hell, the third day hee arose againe from the dead. It is worth a mans labour, to behold their good∣ly variety of expositions about Christs descending into hell. Beza followed of Corliel our Country-man, * 1.154 thinkes this to haue crept into the Creed by negligence; and so the French Hugonots, and Flemish Gues haue cast it cleane out of their Creed: but they are misliked of many others, who had rather admit the words, because they be found in Athanasius Creed, and also in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus: but they doe most peruersly expound them. Caluin saith, that Christs suffering of the paines of hell on the Crosse, is signified by these words: but he pleaseth not some others of them; because Christs suffering and death also, goeth before his descending in∣to hell, and the words must be taken orderly as they lie. Third∣ly, diuers of them will haue it to signifie, the laying of Christs body in the graue; but that is signified plainely by the word, buried. Wherefore some others of them expound it to signifie, the lying of his body in the graue three daies, which M. PER. approueth as the best; but it is as wide from the proper and li∣terall signification of the words, as can be. For what likenesse is there betweene lying in the graue, and descending into hell? Be∣sides, Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition, as

much as any of the rest, * 1.155 and calleth it an Idle fancy. Fourthly, Luther, Smideline, and others cited by Beza, art. 2. doe say, that Christs soule after his death went to hell, where the Diuels are, there to be punished for our sinnes, thereby to purchase vs a fuller redemption; which is so blasphemous that it needes not a∣ny refutation. As ridiculous is another, receiued of most Pro∣testants; that Christs soule went into Paradise, which well vn∣derstood is true. For his soule in hell, had the ioyes of Paradise; but to make that an exposition of Christs descending into hell, is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it. All these and some other expositions also, the Protestants haue deuised, to leads their followers from the ancient, and only true interpretation of it: to wit, that Christ in soule descended vnto those lower parts of the earth, where all the soules departed from the beginning of the world, were detained by the iust iudgement of God, till Christ had paied their ransome; and were not admitted into the king∣dome of heauen, before Christ had opened them the way thi∣ther.

R. ABBOT.

We hold, * 1.156 that all the articles of our Creed are so to be vn∣derstood, as that our faith may make vse thereof concer∣ning our selues, and not onely concerning others. It is a ve∣ry barren and cold construction which M. Bishop maketh of the descending of Christ into hell; that his soule descen∣ded into the lowest parts of the earth, to bring from thence the soules that were detained there by the iust iudgement of God till Christ had paid their ransome. But marke how wisely he setteth downe the matter. All the soules, saith he, departed from the beginning of the world. What; all the soules without exception? the soule of Cain, of Esau, of Ismael, and of other such infidels and reprobates? Well, though he write he knoweth not what; we must take his meaning by that that his fellowes say, a 1.157 that the Patriarchs and o∣ther iust men of the old Testament, were in some third place of rest, called Abrahams bosome, or Limbus patrum till our Sa∣uiour

Christ descended thither & deliuered them from thence. So then, not all soules, but the soules of the iust were deliue∣red by Christs descending into hell. But what? is it the meaning of Christs descending into hell, that he descended into a place of rest? Surely M. Bishop will haue but very bad rest, if he haue no better then is any where to be found in hell. He vpbraideth vs with the improbability of diuers expositions made of this article; but surely this is aboue all other a madde exposition, to say that Christ descended into hell, that is, into Abrahams bosome, into a place of rest. Let him not presse vs with the authority of mens names for the iustification of it; Saint Austin knew their names as well as he, and they could not so much preuaile with him, but that he freely professed, that b 1.158 he could no where in Scrip∣ture finde hell spoken of or named in good part; and saith, that because it is not so read in any diuine authority, therefore Abra∣hams bosome, which is an habitation of quiet rest, is not to be be∣leeued to be any part of hell. And if the Scripture had said that Christ being dead went into Abrahams bosome, not mentioning bell or the sorowes thereof, I woonder if any man would dare thereupon to say that hee descended into hell. So in another place he saith; c 1.159 I doe not finde it any where called hell, where the soules of iust men doe rest; and I doe not see how we may be∣leeue that Abrahams bosome is in hell. And this he obserueth out of the story of the Gospell, where it is that we read of Abrahams bosome; d 1.160 We see that there is no mention made of hell in the rest of the poore man, but in the punishment of the rich. Thus strange it seemed to Saint Austin and vnprobable, which now forsooth wee must take to be a very Catholike construction, that Christ descended into hell, that is to say, into a place of rest. But this placing of Abrahams bosome to be a part of hel, was the deuice of Marcion the hereticke, who borrowed it from the Poets dreame of the Elysian fields;

Tertullian therewith vpbraiding him, that e 1.161 their Christ promised to the Iewes after life ended, rest in hell, in Abrahams bosome; and did determine a reward of rest in hell for them that obeied the law and the Prophets. So doth Origen bring in the Marcionite heretike alleaging, that f 1.162 Abraham was in hell, not in the kingdome of heauen; For by that they talked one to the other, it is vnderstood, saith he, that they were together. But Origen answereth him, that g 1.163 he listeneth not to the great gulfe that is there said to be betwixt them; which he expoun∣deth to be the middle space betwixt heauen and earth, as im∣porting that Abraham was in heauen. Hee obserueth also, that the rich man is said, h 1.164 to lift vp his eies: and men vse, saith he, to lift vp their eies to heauen. The very same reasons Ter∣tullian also vseth to shew, that i 1.165 Hell is one thing, and Abra∣hams bosome is another, because it is said, that a great depthis betwixt those places, and no passage betwixt the one and the e∣ther, and the rich man would not haue lifted vp his eies, being far off, but to a higher place. He expoundeth it therefore to be the receptacle of the soules of the faithfull now depar∣ting, where they enioy rest and peace till the time of the re∣surrection; not in heauen as hee thinketh, but yet higher than to be any part of hell. Amisse indeed in that he exclu∣deth it from being a part of heauen, but yet destroying that Popish fancy whereby it is made a part of hell. For we be∣leeue that the soules of the faithfull goe immediately to heauen; and because in their departure they are said to goe to Abrahams bosome, therefore we beleeue that Abrahams bosome is in heauen, nothing being thereby imported, but what Christ saith in the Gospell, k 1.166 They shall come from the East, and from the West, and from the North, and from the South, and shall sit downe with Abraham, and Isaac, and Iacob, in the kingdome of God. So saith Origen, that l 1.167 all the Saints

which come from the foure parts of the world, are caried by the Angels into Abrahams bosome. In like sort Saint Austin saith of Nebridius, a faithfull man deceased; m 1.168 He now liueth in Abrahams bosome. Now then we are come to this, that be∣cause Abrahams bosome is in heauen, and Christs descen∣ding to hell was no other but his going to Abrahams bo∣some; therefore the meaning of Christs descending into hell is, that hee ascended vp to heauen. It were well that they should first cleere these matters for themselues and make good their owne assertion, before they should take in hand to question ours. Whatsoeuer the meaning bee of Christs desecending into hell, we are sure that that which they bring is vaine and false. Now the article of Christs de∣scending into hell, being according to their exposition im∣pertinent and idle, and no vse to bee made thereof in the Creede, some in respect thereof haue thought the same to haue crept into it of latter time, and not to haue beene there from the beginning; and some, it may be (for I know it not, neither dare I take M. Bishops word for it) haue quite omit∣ted it in the Creed. Neither doe they want inducements heereunto from the ancient church, in which there are ma∣ny Creedes and confessions of faith, in which there is no mention of Christs descending into hell. And heerein we are to note Doct. Bishop to be a man singularly impudent, who alleageth the article to be in the old Roman Creed ex∣pounded by Ruffinus, whereas the words of Ruffinus him∣selfe doe expressely affirme the contrary. n 1.169 We are to know, saith he, that in the Creed of the Roman church it is not added that he descended into hell, neither are those words vsed by the Easterne churches. The Nicene Creed saith nothing of it, which in likelihood would not haue omitted it if it had beene found in the ancienter Creed of the Apostles. Saint Austin hath o 1.170 foure expositions of the Creed in one place, and p 1.171 one in another, and in none of these expositions is it found that Christ descended into hell. Tertullian hath q 1.172 three declarations of the rule of faith, and this point is not

found in any of them. Neither doth Ireneus mention it, where r 1.173 twice he expresseth the Apostolike faith. There is a confession of faith set downe by s 1.174 a Synod at Rome in the time of Iulius the first, another in the t 1.175 first Councel of Con∣stantinople, another in a Councell at u 1.176 Alexandria, confir∣med by the Councel of Ephesus, and many other moe, wherein there is nothing said of Christs descending into hell. Thus from many examples and authorities of the an∣cient church, those men parhaps thinke that they haue warrant to leaue out that article without being culpable of any violation of Christian faith. And although Athanasius and sundry other in their writings haue deliuered this as a point of faith, yet they hold that those acts and instruments of publicke recognition, which are very frequent to this purpose, do ouerwaigh priuate iudgements, and are suffi∣cient to excuse or defend that that is done by them. But for our parts wee see no sufficient reason to moue vs to fol∣low them herein. We see diuers phrases of Scripture ten∣ding to the assertion of this article of our beleefe. We read our Sauiour Christ professing his reioycing to his Father, x 1.177 for that he would not leaue his soule in hell, which is vainely spoken if the soule of Christ were not at all in hell. There∣fore we admit the article, and in the confession of our faith we alwaies recite it, neither doth any man make question to doe otherwise. But M. Bishop excepteth against the va∣riety of expositions that are found amongst vs concerning the same. And what; is there no variety of expositions there∣of to be found amongst them? Doe they all so accord in one, as that we can obserue no difference of one from ano∣ther? first, that learned deuout Authour Durand, as M. Bi∣shop y 1.178 before hath stiled him, doth hold that z 1.179 Christ des∣cended not into hell at all by reall presence, but only by ef∣fect and power. a 1.180 Thomas Aquinas determineth, that by reall presence he went onely to Limbus Patrum, but to the other parts of hell he descended by vertue and power. Bel¦larmine setteth it down for b 1.181 probable, that the soule of Christ

did verily descend to all the places of hell. Thomas Aquinas resolueth, that c 1.182 the soule of Christ was so long in hell as his body was in the graue; and so they commonly hold, as did Vigi∣lius of old, d 1.183 that for those three daies space, the soule of Christ was in hell. But S. Austin holdeth it, a thing impious to be affir∣med, e 1.184 that the soule of the theefe being foorthwith called to Pa∣radise, the soule of our Sauiour should for the three daies space of his bodily death be in custody in hell. Thomas Aquinas is of opinion, that f 1.185 it behooued that Christ should goe to hell, because he came to beare our punishments, so to deliuer vs from the same; and we by sinne had incurred, not onely bodily death, but also going to hell. But Bonauenture saith, and to him Bel∣larmine inclineth, that g 1.186 the soule of Christ when it was in hell was in a place of punishment, but yet without punishment. It should seeme then by these, that there is not so great agree∣ment amongst them concerning this article, as that M. Bi∣shop should haue any great heart to obiect disagreement a∣mongst vs. As for the expositions which he citeth on our part, setting aside the fourth, they all containe truth accor∣ding to the Scripture, though happily they doe not fitly expresse the meaning of this article; yea they all are a∣nouched by some of his owne side. That Christ endured the agonies and anguishes of soule, that belong to our damnation in hell, Caluin affirmeth to bee the meaning of this article. The thing it selfe is affirmed for a truth by their owne Cardinall Cusanus, that h 1.187 the passion and suffe∣ring of Christ, than which none can be greater, was the like as of the damned, which cannot be more condemned, euen vnto the paines of hell; and that Christ would suffer that paine of sense and feeling, correspondent to the damned in hell, to the glory of

his father. The like in effect doth their Friar i 1.188 Ferus dis∣course at large, writing vpon those words of Christ vpon the crosse, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? That this, taken in no other meaning than they speake it is a truth, I haue before shewed in k 1.189 answer to the Preface: but that it must necessarily be taken to be the meaning of this article, I will not contend, because it may be conteined in the other article of the crosse and suffering of Christ. So neither will I say, that it is the intent of this article, that Christ was bu∣ried in the graue, albeit that he was so, is a truth of Scripture; and they that affirme that there is nothing else meant by his descending into hell, may so much the more be confirmed therein, for that Andradius, one of their owne greatest Scho∣lars, and a chosen defender of the Councell of Trent resol∣ueth, that in l 1.190 some of the chiefe places, whereby Christs descent to hell is prooued, there is nothing meant by hell but death and the graue onely. The third exposition ad∣deth nothing to the second, but only a circumstance of con∣tinuance and abiding in the state of death and of the graue; which in like sort is true, though we may well refuse it, as touching the meaning of this article. The fourth expositi∣on which he alleageth out of Luther, Smideline and others, whether truely or not I cannot tell, namely, that Christ af∣ter death went to hell, in soule there to be punished for our sinnes, swarueth indeed from the truth; but yet Suarez the Iesuit out of Medina confesseth, that m 1.191 some Catholikes, as hee calleth them, haue thought the same, namely, that Christ suffered some extrinsecall paines of the damned in hell: and how neerely Thomas Aquinas commeth thereto, we haue seene before. The last construction, which aboue all other he nameth ridiculous, is their very owne, & he leaud∣ly belieth the Protestants, in that hee attributeth it to the most of them, namely, that Christs going to Paradise, is meant by his descending into hell. They say, that the soule of Christ went immediatly to Abrahams bosome, as being a part of hell, there to continue till his resurrection. But yet

he saith to the theefe, n 1.192 This day shalt thou be with me in Para∣dise. It must needs bee therefore by their opinion, that A∣brahams bosome must be Paradise, and so that Christs de∣scending into hell importeth, that hee went to Paradise, which if it be to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it, let him thanke his owne for the folly of it: as for vs we haue no∣thing to doe with it. There remaineth after all these the common receiued opinion of our church, that the soule of Christ being departed from the body, as the letter of the text importeth, went to hell, as a King into the prison, not to be holden in it, but to declare his power and command ouer it; to bid Satan defiance in his owne kingdome, and vpon his owne ground, and in himselfe to carry away, by way of spoile, all them whose person and cause he had vn∣dertaken, and whom he had, by the grace of his foreknow∣ledge and election, made members of himselfe.

10. W. BISHOP.

6. Concerning Christs resurrection, they doe also erre. For whereas a resurrection is the rising vp of the very same body that died, with all his naturall parts: they denie Christ to haue taken againe the same bloud, which he shed in his passion; * 1.193 and yet is the bloud one notable part of the body. Caluin also affir∣meth it to be an old wiues dreame, to thinke that in Christs hands and feete there remaine the print of nailes, and the wound in his side, notwithstanding that Christ shewed them to his Disciples, and offered them to bee touched of Saint Tho∣mas.

7. About Christs ascension into heauen, they doe some∣what dissent from the truth. For some of them say, that Christs body did not pearce through the heauens by vertue of a glorious body (lest they should thereby be compelled to grant, that two naturall bodies may be together in one place, and therefore as well one true body in two places at once) but that broad gappes were made in the lower heauens, to make him way to the highest, which is very ridiculous, and more against true Philosophy:

they say also, * 1.194 that he was not the first man that entred into the possession of heauen; which is flat against the Scriptures, that call Christ the first fruits and first begotten of the dead. Thirdly, they locke Christ so closely vp in heauen, that they hold it impos∣sible for him to remooue thence at any time before the last iudge∣ment (for feare they should otherwise be inforced to confesse, that his body may be in two places at once) which is to make him not Lord of the place, but some poore prisoner therein. And as for Christs sitting one the right hand of his Father, they are not yet agreed what it signifieth. See Conrad. * 1.195 Caluin plainely saith, that after the latter iudgement hee shall sit there no longer. That God shall then render to euery man accor∣ding to his workes (as holy Scripture very often doth testifie) all the packe of them doth vtterly denie.

R. ABBOT.

I doe not know any of our writers that denieth, * 1.196 but that Christ in his resurrection by his almighty power, resumed his bloud againe. He quoteth M. Caluin and M. Perkins, affirming the contrary, but I could not finde that which he mentioneth of them. For my part I resolue; that if any of them, or any other haue said so, they haue erred therein, because I beleeue that it is true, both of the whole and eue∣ry part of the body of Christ, which Dauid saith; a 1.197 Thou wilt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Saint Austin re∣solueth, that b 1.198 of our bodies there shall nothing perish that is na∣turally belonging thereto, and groundeth vpon the words of Christ, that c 1.199 not a haire of our head shall perish. If then it be so in our bodies, much more are wee so to conceiue of the body of Christ, that nothing at all perished, that did belong to the substance of it. As for the now remaining of the print of the nailes, in the hands & feete of Christ, & of the wound in his side, M. Bishop can giue no reason why Caluin might not well account it an old wiues dreame. For whereas he al∣leageth, that Christ after his resurrection did shew the same to his Disciples, it may well be answered, that so Christ af∣ter

his resurrection, did eate and drinke with his Disciples, and yet it doth not follow, that therefore now Christ doth eate and drinke. Both these Saint Austin holdeth to be of like vse, to giue to his Disciples assurance of his resurrecti∣on; whereas now there is no such vse, and therefore no rea∣son of the remaining of them. d 1.200 He was so to be seene of them, saith he, as that he might be knowen. Thereto it serued, that to them handling him, he shewed the skarres of his wounds, as also, that he did eate and drinke, not for want of food, but by that power whereby he could so doe at his owne pleasure. But of Christ ascending he saith; e 1.201 Handle his skarres, and thou shalt perceiue them to be repaired, and that humane infirmity is re∣stored to immortality. That in the ascension of Christ, the heauens opened way and passage to his body we beleeue, and that necessarily it was so, because Christ had a true bo∣dy, which was glorified in taking possession of heauen, where is the place of glory; albeit in the glorifying of it, f 1.202 he gaue it immortality, but tooke not from it the nature of a body, so that, g 1.203 it is in some certaine place of heauen, because of the condition of a true body. Thus Saint Austin saith that he ascended, h 1.204 the heauens being made open for him. So where the Psalme saith, Lift vp your heads, O yee gates; Saint Hie∣rome saith, that i 1.205 therby is set foorth Christ ascending to heauen and expoundeth the words thus; Open yee the entrances of heauen, let the euerlasting entry be set open. As for M. Bishops foolish Philosophy we regard it not in this case; we would know of him by his Philosophy how Saint Steuen said, k 1.206 Behold I see the heauens open, and the Sonne of man slanding at the right hand of God. We wish him to remember, that in the measuring of matters of faith by rules of Philosophy, Tertullian saith, that l 1.207 Philosophers were the Patriarchs of heretikes; the Apostle therefore giuing warning, m 1.208 Beware

lest any man spoile you through Philosophy and vaine deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ. We aske him againe, how it standeth with his Philosophy, that n 1.209 Elias in a whirlewind ascended into heauen. We beleeue that the heauens yeelded him way to goe thorow; and M. Bishop will not say that he had as yet a glorified body to goe otherwise. What he will affirme otherwise, * 1.210 let him prooue it, or else he shall not finde vs very hasty to beleeue it. Now that Elias ascended into heauen, the text plainly affirmeth, as I haue alleaged, and therefore we beleeue vndoubtedly that he did so. The same Elias with Moses, o 1.211 appeared vnto Christ in glory, and to his Disciples, which glory they could not bring with them from the Popish Limbus patrum, and therefore wee cannot doubt but they brought it with them from hea∣uen. We cannot doubt therefore, but that the soules of the faithfull that died before the incarnation of Christ were re∣ceiued into heauen. For as by the faith of Christs death and resurrection, they were acquitted from hel, euen so doe we beleeue, that by the faith of Christs ascension, they were re∣ceiued to heauen. And of faith the Apostle telleth vs, that p 1.212 it is the subsistence of things hoped for, the demonstration or euidence of things which are not seene, to which in effect and after a sort, the things are, which yet indeed are not. By faith Abraham so long before q 1.213 saw the day of Christ, and was glad thereof. To faith Christ was r 1.214 the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world. To faith therefore Christ from the beginning of the world was ascended into heauen, because they so beleeued in him as if he were already ascended. In effect then, Christ was the first that ascended into heauen, because no other ascended, but by the faith of his ascension. As for the places cited by M. Bishop, they make nothing to the contrary, as which belong properly to the question of the resurrection of the dead, to signifie, that Christ is the first that s 1.215 rose from death, to die no more, and in whom all the rest shal so rise againe: but as touching the state of the soules

departed, it prooueth nothing. As touching the being of Christ in heauen, * 1.216 we teach nothing but what hee himselfe hath taught. If M. Bishop will call it, a locking of him in heauen, it is not we that locke him, but he himselfe hath locked himselfe, who hath told vs, that t 1.217 we shall not haue him alwaies with vs; that u 1.218 heauen must containe him vntill the time that all things bee fulfilled, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his Prophets since the world began; x 1.219 that he is at the right hand of God, hencefoorth expecting or waiting till his foes be made his footestoole. To affirme then, that Christ is in heauen only, and not vpon the earth; and that he so abideth vntill the time that he shall come againe to iudge the quicke and the dead, is not to locke vp Christ in heauen, but to iustifie the words of Christ. They may rather be said to locke vp Christ, who of their owne heads, so tie him by the words of the Priest, as it were by a charme, to their conse∣crated hoast, as that y 1.220 so long as the forme of bread conti∣nueth, he may by no meanes be released, though he passe by the stomacke into the draught, though he be eaten by mice, or dogges, or swine, though he be cast into the dirt, and teach it to be heresie to affirme the contrary. Of the meaning of Christs sitting at the right hand of his father, I know no difference at all, but that all acknowledge it to import the exaltation of the humane nature of Christ to the communion and fellowship of the maiesty and glory of God, so as that all creatures both in heauen and earth are made subiect vnto him. He referreth vs to Conrad, some wizard or other; but if that which Conrad saith, be not woorth his reporting, we hold it not woorth our seeking, nor list to looke after euery foole which will sucke fancies out of his fingers ends, and then make vs the authours of them. As for that which Caluin saith, * 1.221 that after the last iudgement, Christ shall no longer sit at the right hand of God, in that meaning wherein he speaketh it, it is very true, not for that there shalbe absolutely any end of his kingdome, which the Angell saith z 1.222 shall continue for euer, and shall haue

no end, but he shall thenceforth reigne only in personall vni∣on with the Godhead, who now raigneth by delegated office, a 1.223 hauing all iudgement committed vnto him, in that he is the Sonne of man. For wee must vnderstand, that God who ruleth and gouerneth the world, yet doth it not now immediately by himselfe, but vseth thereto the ministery and seruice of men and Angels, and performeth all things by meanes. But for the execution of this gouernement, he hath specially exalted his sonne, euen the man Iesus Christ, in whose obedience and humbling of himselfe, hee tooke that delight, as that as it were in hew thereof, he would set him vp, according to his humane nature, b 1.224 farre aboue all Principalities, and Powers, and Might, and Dominion, and aboue euery name that is named, not onely in this world, but in that that is to come, c 1.225 giuing vnto him, in special manner, all power both in heauen & in earth; that as he had purchased the church with his pretious blood, so for the behoofe of the church, hee might haue a soueraignty and dominion ouer all creatures to limit their power, to determine their cour∣ses, to command, or compell their seruice, to doe by them and with them, whatsoeuer is to be done, till he fully and for euer accomplish the perfection thereof. Which being done, and the end come, and all rule and authority and power abolished, there shall be a cessation of that commission, be∣cause there shal be no further vse therof; d 1.226 he shal deliuer vp the kingdome to God the father, and with vs according to his manhood, shall bee subiect vnto him, that put all things vn∣der him, that God may be all in all. Not for that he is not now according to his manhood subiect to the father, but he is now in such sort subiect, as that for the father in his man∣hood, he exerciseth a kingdome of power for the confusi∣on of his enemies, and preseruing of his from the force of them. Not for that hee shall not then also raigne for euer God and man, but hee shall not raigne in that sort as man, because all aduersary power being vtterly abolished and for euer, there shall bee no neede of such a kingdome, his

reigning being thencefoorth the enioying of them, whom he hath redeemed & purchased; not the rescuing or defend∣ing of them. And thus doth Saint Austin set downe from some ancients, a stinting of the kingdome of Christ as now he raigneth; e 1.227 He must raigne till he put all his enemies vnder his feet, because there shall bee no cause of such a kingdome, as haue Princes or Captaines of armed men, when the enemy shall be so subdued as that he cannot rebell; for it is said indeed in the Gospell, Of his kingdome there shall be no end, according to that he raigneth for euer; but according to that we warre vn∣der him against the diuell, so long shall this warfare be, till he put all his enemies vnder his feete; afterwards it shall not be, when as we shall enioy euerlasting peace. Thus and no other∣wise doth Caluin say, that Christs sitting at the right hand of God is but for a time, because the end of his sitting is for the subduing of his enemies, which thencefoorth shall be none; and for the bringing of vs to God, who then shal per∣fectly and immediately be ioyned vnto God, f 1.228 to see face to face, and to know euen as we are knowen, g 1.229 so as that our Mediatour and Priest, the sonne of God, and the sonne of man, shall no further make intercession for vs, saith S. Austin, but he also as our Priest, hauing taken for vs the forme of a seruant, shall be subiect to him, who hath subdued to him all things, that as he is God, he may haue vs subiect together with himselfe (as man,) and as our Priest, may with vs be subiect to himselfe (as God;) the kingdome thencefoorth to abide, not in the manhood of Christ, as now it doth, but in the Godhead, that God, as the Apostle saith, may be all in all. For conclu∣sion of this section, M. Bishop addeth; That God shall then render vnto euery man according to his workes, all the packe of them doth vtterly deny. But M. Bishop, you should for ex∣ample haue named one; you should haue quoted some place, where either in common or priuate iudgement this

deniall is set downe. * 1.230 If you can bring none, what a shame is it, for a man of your degree and profession, thus wilfully to lie, and to wrong them that haue done no wrong to you? The Scripture indeed hath taught it, as he alleageth, and we beleeue, and so preach to all men, that h 1.231 God shall render vnto euery man according to his workes. We giue warning with the Apostle, i 1.232 that no man deceiue himselfe; for whatso∣euer a man soweth, the same shall he reape. He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reape corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit re••pe euerlasting life. We teach by the word of Christ, that k 1.233 the houre shall come when all that are in their graues shall heare his voice, and shall come foorth; they that haue done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that haue done euill, to the resurrection of condemnation. And yet we teach withall, that we are l 1.234 iustified freely by the grace of God, throuh faith in the blood of Christ; and that God doth saue vs, not for any merits of ours, but onely for his mercies sake. Can he not tel how these two may stand to gether? Let him learne then of Gregory Bishop of Rome, who propoundeth the question, and answereth it; m 1.235 If the blisse of the Saints be mercy, and be not purchased or gotten by merits, how shall that stand which is written; Thou shalt render vnto euery one according to his workes? If it be rendred accor∣ding to workes, how shall it be esteemed mercy? But it is one thing, saith he, to render according to workes; another thing to render for the workes sake. For when it is said, according to workes, the quality it selfe of the works is considered, that whose workes appeare good, his reward may be glorious. For to that blessed life where we are to liue with God, and of God himselfe, no labour or paines can be equalled, no workes may be compared, for that the Apostle saith, that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory that shall be reuealed vpon vs. Notwith∣standing then that God doe render to euery many cccor∣ding to his workes, yet the doctrine of merits, which M.

Bishop would build thereupon is excluded; because our good workes, though they be sufficient as markes to distin∣guish vs from others, yet they are not sufficient to obtaine saluation for vs; yea, as n 1.236 elsewhere hath beene declared out of Gregory, if God should in strict iudgement examine the defects and blemishes of them, they should therein be suf∣ficient to condemne vs. Whatsoeuer they are, they are not our owne but Gods workes in vs, and o 1.237 when he shall crowne them, he shall crowne them, not as our merits, but as his owne gifts, as S. Austin saith.

11. W. BISHOP.

8. I beleeue in the holy Ghost. First, Caluin and his fol∣lowers (who hold the holy Ghost to haue the God-head of himselfe, and not to haue receiued it from the Father and the Sonne) must consequently deny the holy Ghost to proceede from the Father and the Sonne, * 1.238 as hath beene elsewhere proo∣ued. Secondly, they make him much inferiour vnto the other persons: for they teach in their French Catechismes, that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Sonne. And Caluin against Gentil saith, that the title of creatour belong∣eth onely to the Father: and elsewhere, that the Father is the first degree and cause of life, and the Sonne the second. And that the * 1.239 Father holdeth the first rancke of honour and gouernement, and the Sonne the second; where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Sonne, or at most, must be content with the third degree of honour.

R. ABBOT.

As touching the Frst point, he referreth his Reader to the Preface, and there it is already answered. That which Cal∣uin saith, is namely concerning the second person in Trini∣ty, the Sonne of God. M. Bishop by consequence draweth it to the third person, the holy Ghost. The obiection then, or rather the slander, being cleered, as touching the Sonne,

is consequently cleered concerning the holy Ghost. His second cauill is, * 1.240 that we make the holy Ghost much inferiour to the other persons. And how may that appeare? Marry in their French Catechismes they teach, saith he, that the Fa∣ther alone is to bee adored in the name of his sonne. But what? because they say, the Father alone, must they needes be ta∣ken to exclude the holy Ghost? Hath he not so much diui∣nity as to know that the name of the Father, is sometimes vsed for distinction of persons, sometimes indefinitely of God, without any such distinction? When our Sauiour saith, a 1.241 One is your Father, who is in heauen, doth not the name of Father there, extend to God the Father, the Sonne and the holy Ghost? Doth it not so also, where the Apo∣stel saith, b 1.242 There is one God and Father of all, who is aboue all, and through all, and in you all. Doth M. Bishop other∣wise vnderstand it, when he saith, Our Father which art in heauen? Surely the French Catechisme may say as he re∣reporteth, (who yet seldome reporteth truth) & yet import nothing therby, but what Origen saith Christiās of old did, namely c 1.243 to offer praiers to God only by Iesus, or in the name of Iesus. The next cauil against Calum is of the same kind, that the title of Creatour belongeth only to the Father. Which M. Bishop might well haue vnderstood, in the distinctiō of the persōs by their seueral attributes, as d 1.244 Caluin setteth it down to be very true; and the rather, for that in the very articles of the Creed he findeth it so applied; I beleeue in God, the Father almighty, maker of heauen and earth. For although it be true, which S. Austin oftentimes deliuereth, that e 1.245 the workes of the Trinity are inseparable, and in the act of any of the persons is the concurrence of all; yet they so concurre, as that they retaine therein their seuerall proprieties, so as that of seuerall actions arise seuerall denominations; which in common phrase of speech are vsed as in some specialty belonging to one person rather than another. As therefore we attribute it to the sonne alone to haue redeemed vs, and to the holy Ghost alone to sanctifie vs, albeit both the Fa∣ther

and the holy Ghost, had their worke in our redempti∣on; and the Father and the Sonne haue their worke also in sanctifying vs; euen so to the Father alone, the title of Cre∣atour is applied, not but that the Sonne and the holy Ghost haue their worke in the creation, but because, f 1.246 the Father is the primary or principall worker, as Origen saith, at whose commandement the world was created by the Sonne, and g 1.247 wherein, as the Syrmian Councel saith, and Hilary ap∣prooueth, the Sonne did obedience to the Father. As for the rest that he heere quarelleth at, that the Father is called the first degree and cause of life, and the Sonne the second; and a∣gaine, that the father holdeth the first ranke of honour and go∣uernment, and the sonne the second; not to question the truth of his allegations, I would in a word aske his wisdome, doth he that saith, that the Father is the first person in Trinity, and the Sonne the second, deny thereby the holy Ghost to be the third? or doth hee hereby exclude the holy Ghost from hauing part with the Father and the Sonne? Doth the Apostle when in his epistles he saith, h 1.248 Grace and peace from God our Father, and from our Lord Iesus Christ; doth he, I say, exclude heereby the holy Ghost from being the authour of grace and peace, or from hauing part with the Father and the Sonne? Or when he saith; i 1.249 Blessed be God, euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ, doth he deny the Sonne and the holy Ghost to be blessed and praised toge∣ther with the Father? If he doe not, why then doth this idle headed Sophister thus take exception, where there is nothing for him iustly to except against? Forsooth at most, saith he, the holy Ghost must be content with the third degree of honour. But what, M. Bishop; doe not you also place the holy Ghost in the third degree, when you name him the third person? Doth not your head serue you to vnderstand degree of order only, without imparity or minority, as all Diuines in this case are woont to do? But why doe I thus contend with a blinde buzzard, a wilfull and ignorant wrangler, and not rather reiect him as a man worthy to be

altogether contemned and derided? He hath k 1.250 before cited the latter of these words, to shew that Caluin made the Sonne of God inferiour to the Father, but how leaudly he dealeth in the alleaging of it, and to how small purpose, it is there declared, & there is no cause here to speake thereof.

12. W. BISHOP.

9. * 1.251 I beleeue the holy Catholike Church, the communion of Saints. First, where as there is but on Catholike church, as the Councel of Nice expresly defineth following sundry texts of the word of God; they commonly teach that there be two churches: one inuisible of the elect; another visible of both good and bad. * 1.252 Secondly, they imagine it to be holy, by the im∣putation of Christs holinesse to the elected Bretheren, and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faith∣full. * 1.253 Thirdly, they cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sense of it: that is, they will not beleeue the true Church, to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the Apostles time, and to haue beene generally spread into all countries; otherwise they must needes forsake their owne church, which began with Friar Luther, and is not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world. Finally, they beleeue no Church, no not their owne in all points of faith: but hold that the true Church may erre in some principall points of faith. How then can any man safely relie his saluation, vpon the credite of such an vncertaine ground and erring guide? may they not then as well say that they do not beleeue the one Catholike Church: because they doe as well not beleeue it, as beleeue it? And as for the communion of Saints, their learned Masters doe commonly cassier it out of the Creed, and that not without cause. For by the Saints vnderstanding (as the Apostles did) all good Christans whether aliue or departed this world, they that deny praier to Saints, and for the soules in Purgatory, haue reason to reiect the com∣mon society and enter course that is betweene the Saints, and the mutuall honour and help which such good Christian soules doe yeeld and afford one to another.

R. ABBOT.

The holy Catholike church which wee beleeue in the Creed, being the communion of Saints, is onely one, * 1.254 which is the body of Christ, whereof all the faithfull are members, being ioyned into this society by one spirit. Visible and In∣uisible, being but circumstances, cannot argue any multipli∣cation of the church, because the inuisible church importeth all them, and them only, who are the true members in their time of the visible church. For in the visible church, the name of the church properly belongeth to them onely, who liue by faith and by the spirit of Christ; the rest are not members, but a 1.255 as euill humours in the body, which wait their time to be purged out. In the meane time, because all professe to seeke Christ and to serue him, and our eies can∣not distinguish betwixt them that truely doe so, and them that doe not, therefore visibly and to vs all goe together vnder the name of the church, though many there be hy∣pocrites and time seruers, who with God and to his sight are no part thereof. So then the church visible and inuisible, in substance are the same, they differ only in respect; and M. Bishop knoweth that respects change not the natures of things; and therefore those different respects doe nothing hinder, but that the church in nature is alwaies one. As touching the holinesse of the church, M. Bishop. in the de∣liuering of our opinion keepeth his woont. He saith, * 1.256 that we imagine it to be holy, by the imputation of Christs holinesse to the elected brethren, and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faithful: Whereas we doe not imagine only, but by the word of God beleeue and know, that the church, and all the members thereof are holy, not onely iudicially, by the imputation of Christs holines, but also really by the infusion of the holy Ghost, begun in this life by b 1.257 the first fruits of the spirit, and fully to be perefected when the promise of Christ shall be fullfilled; c 1.258 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousnesse; for they shal be

satisfied. Againe, he excepteth against vs, that we cannot abide the name Catholike in the true sense of it. * 1.259 But what is that true sense? That is, saith hee, they will not beleeue the true church to haue beene alwaies visibly extant since the time of the Apostles. But what ancient father did euer set this downe for the true sense of the name Catholike? If any, let him be brought foorth. If none, why doth he contrary to his owne prescription introduce a new exposition of an ar∣ticle of our beleefe? Cyril in his Catechisme, bringeth in all the meanings of the name Catholike that he could learne, that the church is so called, for that d 1.260 it is vniuersally spread thorow the whole world; for that it teacheth vniuersally all doctrines that are to be known; for that it subiecteth to it alkinde of men for that it healeth all kinde of sinnes; for that it hath in it all kind of vertues: but of M. Bishops meaning, that it should be alwaies visibly extant, he had learned nothing. Surely S. Ambrose saith, e 1.261 The church hath her times of persecution and peace, it seemeth as the Moone to faile, but it faileth not; it may be ouershadowed, but vtterly faile it cannot. If the church may be as the Moone, so ouershadowed by persecution, as not to be seene, then it is not necessary to be alwaies visibly extant; and if that be not necessary, then M. Bishop hath plaied heere the false merchant to tell vs, that the church is therefore called Catholike, because it is alwaies visibly ex∣tant. Albeit there is somewhat also to be obserued concer∣ning the name of the true church, that we may speake to that time of the visibility of the church which M. Bishop specially intendeth. For if wee call that the true Church which truely hath the outward vocation and calling of the church, then we deny not but that the church, in the time of Antichrist must bee and hath beene alwaies visibly ex∣tant, because Antichrist was to possesse and hath possessed the visible state of the church. But if by the true church, we meane those members of the church which are truely cor∣respondent to the vocation and calling of the church in faith and obedience vnto God, then the true church is not

alwaies visible, because the greater part being the woorse doth many times oppresse the better and weaker part, and proudly carrying it selfe in the opinion and confidence of it selfe, persecuteth and driueth into corners all them that gainesay their traditions and wilworships, which by their owne authority they establish to delude thereby and fru∣strate the word of God. And thus we say, that the true church, in the time of the exaltation of Antichrist was in a sort inuisible, the publike state of the church yeelding it selfe in thraldome to his tyranny, and persecuting the true members of the church, who disclaiming his obedience sought to keepe themselues entire, and faithfull vnto God. Whereas hee further addeth for the notation of the name Catholike, that the church was so called as being generally spred into all countries, we willingly acknowledge the same, as being before acknowledged by the ancient church, and defended against the Donatists, who by other expositions sought to draw the name vnto themselues, as the Papists now doe. Onely wee adde that caution which Bellarmine himselfe hath deliuered, as necessary for himselfe, that f 1.262 if one only countrey should retaine the true faith, yet the same should truly and properly be called the Catholike church, so that it might cleerely be shewed to be one and the same, with that which hath been at any time or times ouer the whole world. For by this rule nothing hindreth but that our church, though now it be not receiued generally in the greatest part of the Christian world, yea if it were but in one onely country, yet may truely and properly be called the Catholike church, if it be prooued to be one and the same with the church, which at any time heeretofore was spred ouer all the world. But that our church is the same with that, which at the first was spred thorowout the world, it is very euident, as Tertulli∣an teacheth vs to prescribe g 1.263 by consanguinity or agreement of our doctrine, with the doctrine of that church. For by the Gospell which the Apostles preached, the church was founded thorowout the whole world. h 1.264 The gospell which

the Apostles preached they afterwards by the will of God deli∣uered to vs in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. The same Gospel deliuered to vs in the Scrip∣tures we receiue; we adde nothing to it, we take nothing from it; as we finde it, so we teach it. Our faith therefore is the same with the faith of that church, which at the first was planted thorowout the whole world. There is no cause then for vs to forsake our owne church, or to thinke that the same began with Friar Luther, as this dreamer imagineth, which by so plaine deduction is approoued to be the same with the first church, and consequently to be truely and properly the Catholike Church. Finally, saith he, they beleeue no church in all points of faith. But doth his wisedome finde it in the articles of the Creed that we are to beleeue any church in all points of faith? * 1.265 We are taught there to beleeue that there is a holy catholike Church, which is the communion of Saints: but nothing doe we finde there of be∣leeuing any Church in all points of faith. We beleeue the Church in points of faith, so farre as she yeeldeth her∣selfe like a faithfull and obedient spouse to be guided by the voice of her Lord and husband Iesus Christ. But if the Church preferre her owne will before the word of Christ, as the proud harlot of Rome doth, it should be a wrong to Christ to beleeue the Church, and a way to set vp humane errour in stead of diuine truth. It is not the voice of the Church, but the word of the written Gospell which God hath appointed, as Irenaeus euen now hath told vs, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For the words of the Church are many times the words of errour and vntruth; and therefore if we should relie our saluation vpon the cre∣dit thereof, wee should indeed relie vpon an vncertaine ground and erring guide; but the word of the Gospell is al∣waies one and the same, without any variablenesse or vn∣certainty, and therefore safely may wee relie our saluation thereupon. Now therefore it cannot be said, but that wee alwaies beleeue one holy catholike Church, according to the

profession of faith specified in the Creed, though some∣times and in some things we doe not beleeue, that is, credit the visible Church as touching points of faith, because the Church sometimes teacheth vs to beleeue otherwise than God hath taught. Which though it seeme strange to M. Bishop in that language which he hath learned to speake, yet to vs it is not strange, who in the Canonicall histories of the Churches both of the old and new Testament do so often see them diuerting and turning from the right way. As for that hee saith, that our learned masters doe commonly cashiere out of the Creed the addition of the cōmunion of saints, it is but a fruit of the harnessing of his face, and he is there∣fore bold to say it, because he hath learned not to be asha∣med of any thing that he list to say. That by the Saints are there meant al good Christians, all the faithful, whether a∣liue or dead, we will not denie; * 1.266 but that either praier to saints, or praier for soules in purgatorie, belong to this com∣munion of Saints, we neuer yet learned, and are too old to learne it now. For as for the Saints in heauen i 1.267 We honour them with loue, as Austin saith, but not with seruice; to follow them by imitation, not to adore them by religion, and there∣fore not to pray vnto them. Further entercourse as yet there is none betwixt them and vs, because k 1.268 they know vs not, nor are acquainted with vs, nor can we any way ac∣quaint them what wee say vnto them. Now beside the Saints triumphant in heauen, wee acknowledge none but those that are militant vpon the earth, because the holie Ghost diuideth the whole body of the Church into l 1.269 those that are in heauen, and those that are in earth, and pro∣nounceth them all m 1.270 blessed that are dead in Christ, as who rest from labours and sorrowes, and thereby are discharged from all Purgatorie paines. But if there be any soules in Purgatorie, to which all good Christian soules should yeeld and affoord their helpe to doe them ease, and this be one matter of the entercourse and communion of Gods Saints, why doth the Pope violate the communion of

Saints, by withholding from those tormented soules that helpe and ease which he is able to affoord them. Surely, if he cannot doe them ease, then is he an impudent liar, and a notable impostour and cozener of the world. If he can do it, then is he a cruell wretch that without compassion suf∣fereth poore souls to lie broiling in those fierie flames. But we rather approoue the former member of this diuision, and take him for a liar, both for that without warrant hee thrusteth in Purgatorie into the articles of our faith, and with lesse warrant challengeth the same for a iurisdiction to himselfe.

13. W. BISHOP.

10 The forgiuenesse of sinnes. It is not easie to finde what is their setled opinion, touching theforgiuenesse of origi∣nall sinne in Infants. Some attribute it to Baptisme; but that cannot stand with their common doctrine, that Sacraments haue no vertue in them to remit sinnes, or to giue grace. Others say, that God without any meanes doth then, when they be baptised, of himselfe immediately iustifie them. But that cannot stand in their owne doctrine, because Infants want the instrument of faith to lay hold on that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then offered by God, and therefore cannot, being so young, take it vnto them. Others will haue Infants sanctified in their mothers wombe, by vertue of a couenant, which they suppose God to haue made with old father Abraham, and all his faithfull seruants, that (forsooth) their seed shall bee holy. But this is most phanta∣sticall, and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience: for Isaac was the sonne of promise, and yet Esau his sonne was are∣probate; Dauids father was a godly Israelite, and yet Dauid affirmeth, * 1.271 that he himselfe was conceiued in iniquities; and we may see whole Countries now turned Turkes, whose ance∣stors were good Christians: therefore not all the soules of the faithfull are sanctified in their mothers wombes. Secondly, how euill soeuer they agree about the remission of sinne; yet there is a perfect consent among them, that such relikes of ori∣ginall

sin remaine in euery man baptised and sanctified, that it infecteth all and euery worke he doth, with deadly sin: yea that which remaineth is properly sinne in it selfe, though it be not imputed to the partie; so that sinne is alwaies in them, though their sinnes be neuer so well forgiuen. And as for the Sacrament of Penance, by which we hold all sinnes committed after Bap∣tisme to be forgiuen; they doe renounce the benefit of it, and are at vtter defiance with it.

R. ABBOT.

If wee were as full of differences in our doctrine as M. Bishops head is full of idle fancies, it should be hard indeed to finde any setled opinion amongst vs, whereas now our opinion being setled, he out of sundry termes and words that are vsed in the expressing thereof, dreameth of great difference and vncertainty amongst vs. * 1.272 The matter is concerning the forgiuenesse of originall sinne in Infants. Some, saith he, attribute it to baptisme. And whom, I mar∣uell, doth he know that doth otherwise? Who of vs doth not acknowledge baptisme to be Gods instrument for the actuall application of that grace which hee hath intended towards vs in Iesus Christ, before the foundation of the world? which notwithstanding hath his effect, not by the very worke wrought, or by any vertue infused into the water, or by any power giuen to the very words and syl∣lables that are pronounced, but by the assisting power of the holy Ghost, accompanying the outward Sacrament to giue grace and forgiuenesse of sinnes, not indifferently or generally, but a 1.273 according to the purpose of the grace of God. Now of this that wee say, that it is the holy Ghost which in baptisme worketh the effect of grace, hee out of the abundance of his wit frameth another opinion, which with vs is no other but onely the explication of the for∣mer. As for his exception, that children haue not the in∣strument of faith to lay hold on the grace of God which is offered in baptisme, it auaileth nothing, because children

are brought to baptisme, though not in their owne faith, whereof they are vncapable; yet in the faith of their pa∣rents, who apprehending the promise of God according to the tenour thereof, both for b 1.274 themselues and for their children, doe thereby deriue and transport vnto them an interest in the grace of God, whereby they are sacred and holy vnto God, and are therefore by baptisme to be recei∣ued to be made partakers of that grace. Heere againe M. Bishop imagineth a third opinion, whereas still there is nothing said but what is dependant vpon the first. And this third opinion he deliuereth according to his owne ab∣surd conceit thereof, and not according to that that by vs is intended. We say nothing but what the Scripture hath taught vs, that c 1.275 the children of faithfull parents are holie. Hee betwixt his pride and ignorance, will take no know∣ledge that the Scripture so speaketh, thereby to giue a true sense and meaning of that it saith, but scornefully derideth it, and out of his owne distempered braines bringeth a foolish reason to dispute against it. This is most phantasti∣call, saith he, and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experi∣ence. And how so? Forsooth Isaac was the sonne of promise, and yet Esau his sonne was a reprobate, and many children of Christians afterwards become Turkes: Therefore the children of the faithfull are not sanctified in their mothers wombe. But did not his eies see that out of his owne doctrine a man might by the same argument ouerthrow the sanctificati∣on of baptisme also? for in like sort a man may say; The children of many faithfull become reprobates and cast∣waies; therefore the children of the faithfull are not sancti∣fied in baptisme, which I suppose he will not admit. Surely he knoweth that by the doctrine of their schooles sancti∣fication once had may afterwards be lost, and that many reprobates are for the time partakers thereof. It is then no argument to say, that because many children of the faithfull are reprobates, therefore they were not sanctified in their mothers wombe, because, as hee will say of them,

who are sanctified in baptisme; so it may be answered him of them who are sanctified in their mothers wombe, that by apostasie they forgoe that which by grace they had re∣ceiued. I speake not this to affirme that sanctification which he imagineth, but onely to shew him the sillinesse of his argument whereby he impugneth it. His other in∣stance as he setteth it downe, is as weake as that; Dauids father was a godly Israelite, and yet Dauid affirmeth that hee himselfe was conceiued in iniquities. For though Dauid were conceiued in iniquities, yet that letteth not but that after his conception hee might be sanctified in his mothers wombe. But we doe not onely make him say that he was conceiued in iniquitie, but also that hee was d 1.276 borne in sinne, euen as we confesse generally of all, that e 1.277 wee are borne guilty of the wrath of God, f 1.278 the children of wrath; and that vnlesse the grace of Christ doe thencefoorth releeue vs, g 1.279 the wrath of God abideth vpon vs. When therefore the A∣postle saith, that the children of beleeuing parents are ho∣ly, we doe not thereby vnderstand any inward indowment or gift of holinesse, but onely that they are with vs to bee holden and accounted as belonging vnto God, and com∣prehended within his couenant, that therefore we may not doubt but that the fellowship of the grace of God, as God himselfe hath ordeined, is to be imparted vnto them. We know that many things by the law were called holy, which yet were not capable of inward and spirituall holinesse; and therefore albeit wee say by the Apostles phrase, that the children of the faithful are holy vnto God, euen from their mothers wombe; yet is there no necessitie to vnderstand this holinesse of any grace of inward regeneration, as they wilfully vnderstand it; it being sufficient both to the Apo∣stles words, and to our meaning, that they be reckoned as belonging to Gods houshold, partakers of his vocation and calling, designed to his vse, and in case to be made par∣takers of his holinesse. That the remainder of originall sin is properly sinne in the regenerate, and that it infecteth

and staineth all our good works, so as that it should pre∣uaile against vs to condemnation, saue onely that God im∣puteth not the same vnto vs, it hath beene at large before declared, and M. Bishop for shame should no more gaine∣say it, till he haue made good that, that there he hath said against it. As for his Sacrament of penance, we know it not. Repentance Christ hath taught vs, but Sacrament of pe∣nance he hath taught none, and therefore iustly may wee leaue it to them that haue beene the deuisers of it. For re∣mission of sinnes, which wee commit after baptisme, wee looke backe alwaies in our repentance to baptisme it selfe, where it was sealed vnto vs, not for the present onely, but for euer, that h 1.280 if any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust, and he is the propitiation for our sinnes.

14. W. BISHOP.

11 The resurrection of the bodies. Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Geneuian Gospel doubted thereof or no, let his successor Caluin tell you, who answereth Farels letter thus: * 1.281 That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seeme to thee incredible, no maruell, &c. Againe, many of them teach that Christ tooke not his bloud againe, which he shed vp∣on the crosse: yea, some of them are so gracelesse, as to say; that his pretious bloud wherewith wee were redeemed, * 1.282 rotted away on the earth 1600. yeeres agoe. If then it bee not necessarie to a true resurrection, to rise againe with the same bloud; why is it necessarie to rise againe with the same bones and flesh, the one being as perfect a part of a mans body as the other?

R. ABBOT.

The epistle wherein are the words mentioned by M. Bishop, importing a doubt of the resurrection of the bo∣die, was not written to Farel, as he falsely quoteth, but to one a 1.283 Lelius Zozimus an Italian, who seemeth to haue

beene but meanely perswaded of some other points of Christian doctrine. After two epistles to this Zozinus, in the former whereof these words are, there follow two epi∣stles to Farell. But what drowsie fit was M. Bishop in to take Farels name from an epistle that followed after, and by forgery to adde it to the epistle that went before? But this is one of the Romish holy fraudes; whether true or false it skilleth not, so that it be fit to serue the turne. What wee thinke of Christs resuming his bloud againe, I haue b 1.284 be∣fore shewed. As for Conrades reports of the opinions of some of our men concerning the same, they little mooue vs without better testimonie, because wee know what the guise of Romish Sycophants in that case is wont to be.

15. W. BISHOP.

12 Life euerlasting. First, Captaine Caluin holdeth it for very certaine, that no soule doth enter into the ioyes of hea∣uen (wherin consisteth life euerlasting) vntill the day of doome. These be his words: * 1.285 The soules of the godly hauing ended the labour of this war-fare, doe goe into a blessed rest, where they expect the enioying of the promised glorie: And that all things are holden in suspence vntill Christ the redeemer appeare. Whose opinion is yet better than was his predecessor Luthers. For he teacheth in many places, * 1.286 that the soules of the godly departing from their bodies, haue no sense at all, but doe lie fast asleepe vntill the latter day: Take this one for a taste. Another place to prooue, that the dead feele, or vnderstand nothing: wherefore Salomon thought the dead to be wholy asleepe, and to perceiue no∣thing at all. And again, The sleepe of the soule in the life to come, is more profound than in this life. And Luther with this one position of his (as that famous historiographer Iohn Sleidan recordeth) ouerthrew two points of Popery: to wit, * 1.287 praying to Saints: for they are so fast asleepe, that they can∣not heare vs: and praying for the dead; For they in Purga∣torie slept also so soundly, that they felt no paines. A meet foun∣dation

surely to build such false doctrine vpon. * 1.288 But Brentius is most plaine in this matter, who ingeniously confesseth; that, albeit there were not many among them, that did professe publikely the soules to die with the bodie; yet the most vn∣cleane life, which the greatest part of their followers did lead, doth clearely shew, that in their hearts they thinke no life to be after this: yea, that many such speeches doe sometimes proceed from them. Finally, it is a grosse errour of theirs, to thinke that euery meane godly man, shall be then made equall in glory with the Apostles, which Luther teacheth; whereas cleane contrary S. Paul declareth, * 1.289 that as one starre differeth from another in glory: so also shall be the resur∣rection of the dead.

I omit heere many other particularities, that I be not ouer tedious: For these their bickerings against the very principles of our Christian faith, (not leauing any one article of our Creed vnskirmished with all) will serue any indifferent man for a warning, to beware of their prophane doctrine, that lead∣eth the high way to Infidelitie. They vse to crie out much a∣gainst the Antichrist of Rome, for corrupting the puritie of the Gospell, as the wicked Elders did against the adulterie of Susanna: but the iudicious Christian may easily espie, them themselues to be the true fore-runners of Antichrist indeed, by their so generall hacking and hewing at euery point of the ancient Christian faith. Thus much concerning the Creede: now let vs passe to the Commandements.

R. ABBOT.

Note well, * 1.290 gentle Reader, the wilfull impudencie and malice of this man. He saith that Caluin denieth to soules departed the ioyes of heauen, vntill the day of doome; and yet in the words by him cited, hee seeth that hee affirmeth them, hauing ended this warfare to goe into blessed rest; and in his other words in the same very place might haue seene, and in likelihood did see it, that he placeth this bles∣sed rest no otherwhere but with Christ in heauen. Hee ap∣plieth

generally a 1.291 to the faithfull the words of the Apostle, that b 1.292 when this earthly house shall be dissolued, wee haue a house or building in heauen. Hee saith that c 1.293 the soule sepa∣rated from the body hath the presence of God; that vnlesse the soules seuered from their bodies did still retaine their being, and were capable of blissefull glorie, Christ would not haue said to the theefe, This day shalt thou be with me inparadise. Here∣upon he taxeth, as well he might, the infinite curiosities of the schoole-men, in inquiring and disputing of the place and state, the maner and degrees of heauenly glory as now it is, and heereafter shall be, and condemneth it as a point of rashnesse and folly, further to search concerning things vn∣knowen to vs than God permiteth vs to know. d 1.294 The Scripture, saith he, haning said that Christ is present with them (mean∣ing the faithfull soules before spoken of) and doth receiue them into Paradise to receiue comfort, and that the soules of the reprobate doe suffer the torments which they haue deser∣ued, goeth no further. For conclusion he saith by and by af∣ter: e 1.295 Seeing the Scripture euery where biddeth vs to depend vpon the expectation of Christs comming, and thither doth de∣ferre the crowne of glory, let vs conteine our selues within these bounds which God hath prescribed vnto vs, that the soules of the godly hauing ended the labour of this warfare doe goe into blessed rest, where with happy ioy they expect the fruition of the promised glory, and so all things are holden in suspense vntill Christ our redeemer shall appeare. By all which words it appeareth, that although Caluin according * 1.296 to the scrip∣tures doe referre the full reuealing of the glory of the faith∣full vnto the comming of Christ, when the same both in soule and bodie shall be made manifest to the whole world; yet that in the meane time hee denieth not but that their soules departed, are receiued into Paradise, into heauen, and

doe enioy blissefull glory, blessed rest, the presence of God, the presence of Christ, and therefore doth not exclude them from the ioies of heauen, vnlesse Christ himselfe, whose presence they enioy, be excluded from heauen. And wher∣as M. Bishop maketh him absolutely to say that all things are holden in suspence vntill the comming of Christ, he leaudly falsifieth his words by leauing out the terme of limitation, the same being thus set downe as hath beene said, And that so all things are holden in suspence vntill Christs comming, im∣porting that these things acknowledged before expressed, all things further are to vs holden in suspence vntill Christ shall come, are therefore God not hauing reuealed the same, and not to be curiously enquired of. The summe of all which beleefe, Caluin himselfe in another place hath briefely comprised thus; that g 1.297 albeit the soules of the faith∣full so soone as they are separated from their bodies do liue with God, and doe obteine the blessed ioy of the heauenly kingdome, yet the perfect happinesse of all the children of God is deferred vntill the second comming of Christ. Now what is there heere for blinde Bishop to dislike in captain Caluin, but that his malice ouerruleth his wit, and carrieth him as it were with a violent streame to condemne that which notwithstand∣ing his owne iudgement and conscience doth approoue? And if Caluin had beene of that minde, yet M. Bishop might with the more fauour haue excused it, for that Bel∣larmine driuen thereto by the testimonie of Pope Adrian, doth confesse that Pope Iohn the two and twentieth was of that minde, h 1.298 that the soules of the faithfull shall not see God till after the resurrection. But as he dealeth with Caluin, so doth he also with Luther, most maliciously and leaudly. It is true that Luther writing vpon Ecclesiastes, reteining as yet somewhat too much of the dregs of Popery, speak∣eth heereof somewhat obscurely, though not to that mean∣ing as M. Bishop citeth him. Vpon the words of the Prea∣cher, i 1.299 Whatsoeuer thy hand can doe, doe it instantly; for there is neither worke nor inuention, nor knowledge, nor wisedome in

hell, as he readeth, whither thou goest; he commenteth thus, that k 1.300 the place sheweth that the dead perceiue nothing; for there is there no cogitation, arte, knowledge, wisedome. Solo∣mon therefore thought, saith he, that the dead doe sleepe, and haue no sense of any thing. The dead lie there, not reckoning daies or yeeres, but being raised vp, they shall seeme to haue slept a verie little while. Now in these words there is no am∣biguitie, as shall appeere by the other place, because that which he saieth of sleeping and not perceiuing any thing, hath reference onely to the affaires and doings of this life. Onely his errour is, that he construeth hell (for which wee rather choose to reade the graue) to be the place where the soules thus sleepe, expounding it l 1.301 to be that secret with∣drawing place where the soules are conteined, and which is as it were the graue of the soule, without the compasse of this corporall world, as the earth is of the body: but what this is, saith he, it is vnknowen to vs. This conceit it seemeth hee drew, either from the errour of Pope Iohn aforesaid, or from the Popish fable of Limbus patrum, reteining as yet some taste of that corruption which had beene long grow∣ing in him, nad in respect whereof, hee somewhere be∣seecheth his Reader to reade many of his works with compassion, remembring that hee was sometimes a Monke, as acknowledging that from his Cloister hee drew many things that were vnsound, and in his wri∣tings might escape him vnawares. But whatsoeuer his fancie were when hee wrote that Commentarie vpon Ecclesiastes, hee was afterwards in expounding Gene∣sis so farre from that opinion wherewith M. Bishop chargeth him, as that most comfortablie hee setteth foorth the hope of the faithfull in their death, yea e∣uen in that very place whence M. Bishop cireth him: the greater is his sinne, that by dismembring a sentence would make him say that that is directly contrarie to the drift and purpose of that whole discourse. He taketh occasion of his speech by the storie of Abrahams death, and there∣upon

saith: m 1.302 We haue a grace & gift, euen a manifest and ma∣nifold knowledge concerning death and life: for we are sure that our Sauiour Iesus Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, and expecteth vs when we depart out of this life. Whensoeuer therefore we die, we goe to the bishop of our soules, who receiueth vs into his hands. He is our Abraham, whose bosome or embracing we enioy: he liueth and reigneth for euer. Againe he saith; n 1.303 Death in Christ is not bitter as it is to the wicked, but it is the changing of this wretched and miserable life into a quiet and blessed life. Many places of Scripture, saith he, doe prooue that after death wee die no more, but doe simply or perfectly liue. And alledging the words of Esay, o 1.304 Peace commeth; he shall rest in his bed, whosoeuer walketh before him, he inferreth; They enter not into death, into pur∣gatorie or hell, but into peace. Heereupon hee mooueth a question, p 1.305 seeing it is certaine that the soules liue and are in peace, what maner of life or rest that is. This, saith hee, is a higher and harder question than can be decided by vs; for God would not haue vs to know it in this life. It sufficeth vs to know that our soules depart not from our bodies to danger of the tor∣ments or paines of hell, but that there is a chamber prouided for them where they may sleepe in peace. But yet, saith he, there is difference betwixt the sleepe or rest of this life and of the life to come. For man in this life being wearied with the daies la∣bour, at night entreth into his chamber as in peace, that there

he may sleepe, and so in the night he enioyeth rest, and knoweth nothing of any euill either of fire or of sword. But the soule sleepeth not so, but waketh and enioyeth the sight, and heareth the speeches of the Angels and of God. Therefore the sleepe in the life to come is more profound than in this life, and yet the soule liueth in the presence of God. Out of these last words M. Bishop taketh the occasion of his quarrell, expounding sleepe as wee commonly take it, as if Luther meant that the soule in death became wholly deuoid of all sense, know∣ledge and vnderstanding, and were as it were dead vntill the last day. But what truth or conscience may we thinke is in this man, who thus obiecteth the words as if Luther had put the soule in case of death, when notwithstanding in the end of the same sentence he addeth, that it liueth in the presence of God, and in the whole circumstance of the place, testifieth by the Scripture, that it enioieth the bo∣some of Iesus Christ, the sight and speech of God and his Angels, a most peacefull and blessed life, and that this sleepe is not such, but that the soule waketh alwaies. The mean∣ing of Luther is plaine, who finding the rest of the soules of the faithfull termed in Scripture a sleepe, would signifie that this sleepe is a more sound and perfect rest than any is in this life, voide of trouble and feare, free from all know∣ledge of miserie and sorrow, not distracted or interrupted with the cares or cogitations of our state, not reckoning number of daies, or length of yeeres, all time seeming short for that blissefull and happie pleasure and conten••ment that is yeelded to the soule thereby. For further declaring heereof, he addeth anon after: q 1.306 He that sleepeth a naturall sleepe, knoweth nothing of those things that are done in his neighbours house, and yet he liueth, though contrarie to the na∣ture of life he perceiue nothing in his sleepe. The same shall come to passe in that life to come, but in other and better sort. As therfore the mother bringeth the childe into the chamber, put∣teth it into the swadling clouts, not to die, but sweetly to sleepe and rest: so before Christ, and much more since Christ, all the

soules of the faithful did and do enter into the bosome of Christ. The sleepe then wherof Luther speaketh is in the bosome of Christ, where faithfull soules are sequestred from the af∣faires and troubles of this world, and liue with him in per∣fect blisse, and therefore is no such sleepe as M. Bishop dreameth, or rather leaudly deuiseth by wilfully miscon∣struing Luthers words. And this is that position of Luther whereof Sleidan speaketh, who mentioning that ghosts and apparitions of spirits were very common in Popery, and that the soules of the dead, as they were thought to bee, did make much stirre and trouble after buriall, and tell why either they were condemned, or for the time tormented in Purgatory fire; and heereupon solicited their neighbours, kinsfolke, and friends to helpe them in that miserie, and that the vsuall maner was, that they requested either some vowes to be paid which they had made to the Saints, or that Masses and sacrifices to such a number might be performed for them, whereby the opinion of Purgatorie and of the Masse woonderfully increased, to the great aduantage and gaine of the Priests; telleth consequent∣ly, as indeed the euent euery where hath prooued, that r 1.307 when Luthers doctrine began to be knowen, and had gathered some strength, these ghosts and apparitions by little and little vanished away. For Luther teacheth, saith he, out of the holy Scriptures, that the soules of the dead are at rest, and do wait for the last day of iudgement (meaning that where they are at rest, there they abide vntill the day of iudgement, with∣out that wandring and walking which was commonly fancied of them) and that those stirres and fearefull noises and sighes were caused by Satan, who omitteth no occasion to confirme in mens mindes vngodly deuotions and false opinions, and to extinguish the benefit of Christ our Sauiour. Now hee that waigheth these words, may easily see how M. Bishop plaieth the Skoggin in the application of them, there being heere nothing at all directed against praier to Saints, and that that is intended against Purgatory, not being for that the soules are so soundly asleepe, as he obiecteth, but for

that they are at rest & in peace with Christ if they belong to him, not subiect to any torments, nor hauing any cause of those complaints which Satan cunningly pretended vn∣der their names. As for the complaint of Brentius, we doe not doubt but that he might finde cause of it in manie, who notwithstanding did liue vnder the name of Christians, of the professours of the faith and Gospel of Christ. The Prophets, the Apostles complained of such, and yet the pearles then were not the woorse esteemed, for that swine trode them vnder their feete. The Pagans of old saw many taking vpon them to be Christians, who yet were men of most wicked and damnable conuersation, and they tooke occasion hereby to condemne all Christians and Christian religion; and will M. Bishop say that they did well in so doing? s 1.308 How many thinke you would willingly be Christians, saith S. Austin, but doe stumble and are offended at the euill behauiour of them that are Christians? And what? will M. Bishop say that there are no such amongst them? yea a∣mongst their Popes, their Cardinals, their Bishops, are there not that liue as if there were no God, no hell, no re∣surrection, no iudgement to come? yea that sticke not sometimes to professe that they thinke so? If hee will de∣nie it, their owne stories shall reprooue him. If hee must needs confesse it, then must he needs confesse also, that he hath very idlely brought in this speech of Brentius against vs. That euery meane godly man shall at the last day bee made equall in glory with the Apostles, is not Luthers assertion, but M. Bishops calumniation. Hee affirmeth a paritie of Christians as they are Christians, as touching mutuall rec∣koning ech of other in this life, but no paritie or equalitie of reward or glory in the life to come. By occasion of the name of brethren, hee saith that t 1.309 brotherhood is for that Christians ought to be one amongst another as brethren, and not make any difference at all; for we all in common haue one

Christ, one baptisme, one faith, one treasure. I cannot bee of more woorth than thou, and what thou hast, I haue the same also. Christ is mine as well as S. Bernards; and S. Frances hath no more right to Christ than thou. All we that are Christians haue one brotherhood which wee haue atteined in baptisme, whereof no Saint hath more than thou and I. For with what price he was redeemed, with the same was I redeemed. It cost God no lesse for me than for the greatest Saint; onely hee hath perhaps better laid hold of this treasure, that is, hath stronger faith than I. Now what is heere as touching equalitie of glory in the world to come? Heere is a common brother∣hood in this life, wherein none can challenge more than o∣ther; but this hindreth not but that who in this brother∣hood doth the greater worke, shall heereafter receiue the greater reward. Albeit if Luther doe affirme equalitie of glorie, what is that to the impeachment of the article of life euerlasting, when as by the common iudgement of the fathers, life euerlasting is that u 1.310 penny mentioned in the Gos∣pell, which in howsoeuer great difference of worke and labour, yet is indeed equall and alike to all? Now albeit M. Bishop haue heere said whatsoeuer his malice could deuise, and more than truth and honesty would haue said, yet he would make his Reader beleeue, that he hath omit∣ted many other particularities, that he might not be ouer tedi∣ous: but what his other particularities are, may be esteemed by those that he hath heere set downe, consisting more in lies and cauils than in any matters of moment and trueth. Nothing hath he said whereby it may in any sort be con∣ceiued, that either our doctrine tendeth to infidelitie, or that it is without cause that we cry out against the Anti∣christ of Rome for corrupting the puritie of the Gospel.

16. W. BISHOP.

First (saith Master PER.) it is a rule in expounding the seuerall Commandements, that all vertues of the same kind are reduced to that Commandement: Hence it followeth,

that counsels of perfection are inioined in the law, and therfore prescribe no state of perfection beyond the scope of the Law.

Answ. None of the counsels of perfection are enioyned in the tenne Commandements, though for some affinitie they may be reduced to some of them. For example: It is commanded that I shall not steale, that is, to take any of my neighbours goods against his will; but to giue away all my own to the poore, is beyond the compasse of the law: so likewise it is comman∣ded not to commit adulterie, but wee are not commanded to vow perpetuall chastitie and obedience. Such offices only that are necessarily required to the performance of any Commande∣ment, are comprehended within the same, but no others; though some men take occasion of the Commandement, to treat of the counsels of perfection.

R. ABBOT.

a 1.311 The law of the Lord is a perfect law, * 1.312 and therefore pre∣scribeth whatsoeuer is necessary to perfection. It requireth b 1.313 all the heart, all the minde, all the soule, all the strength, and because beyond all there can bee nothing more, therefore there is no vertue, no righteousnesse, no perfection that is not commanded therby. It is commanded, saith M. Bishop, that I shall not steale, but to giue all mine owne to the poore is beyond the compasse of the law. But I answer him, that where it is beyond the compasse of the law, there it is not a work of perfection, but an act of superstition. If God command it, then not to do it, is sin: if God cōmand it not, there is no piety but folly in the doing of it, because God casteth it off with that reprofe, c 1.314 Who required these things at your hands? Let M. Bishop tell vs, when Christ said to the rich man in the Gospell, d 1.315 Goe, sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen, & come and follow me; did hee sinne or not in refusing to doe as Christ aduised him? If not, why doth our Sauiour except against his en∣tring into the kingdome of heauen? If he did sinne, then he

brake the law; for e 1.316 where there is no law, there is no sinne, and therefore the giuing of all his goods to the poore, was within the compasse of the law. Hee boasted that hee had kept the law, but our Sauiour Christ would discouer how farre he was from louing the Lord with all his hart, which the law requireth, who had so tied his heart to his worldly wealth, as that hee could not finde in his heart, God so requiring, for the reliefe of his neighbour, whom hee should loue as himselfe, to void himselfe of the possession thereof. To giue all that a man hath to the poore is then a worke of righteousnesse, when the calling of God and the following of Christ requireth it, and then it is commanded by the law. To doe it when dutie to God requireth it not, may wel be called a worke of supererogation, but work of perfection it is none. We are not commanded, saith he again, to vow pertuall chastitie and obedience. It is true, and there∣fore those vowes are no matters of true deuotion and reli∣gion, but of rash errour and presumption. Such offices onely, saith he, as are necessarily required to the performance of any commandement, are comprehended within the same; and I an∣swer him, that no offices are at all required, but what are necessarie to the performance of some commandement. For notwithstanding all that can be said or alleaged for ad∣uices and counsels, and howsoeuer it may be pleaded, that they may seeme in some particulars rightly so called, yet circumstance and occasion alwaies maketh them necessary duties, and the omitting of them is either the violation of the briefe of the first table, Thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. or of the second, Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe, there being reason of the doing of them, either for the glory of God, or for the edification of our brethren, of which neither can be neglected without trespasse of the law.

17. W. BISHOP.

Secondly (saith M. PER.) the Commandement, Thou

shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image, &c. hath two seuerall parts: the first forbiddeth the making of Images: the second the adoration of them. Hee concludeth out of Deuteronomy, that the Images of the true Iehoua are for∣bidden in the Commandement, and consequently the ado∣ration of such Images. Hence he will haue it to follow, that to worship God in or at Images with religious worship, is abominable Idolatrie.

Answ. First if the Images of God onely be there prohi∣bited, and then worship done to them according to his owne exposition, then it followeth most cleerely, that there is no pro∣bibition for either making or worshipping the Images of any Saints; and therefore with a very euill conscience doth he wrest the commandement against them. Secondly I say, though God had forbidden vs to worship Images, yet doth it not follow ther∣of, that we must not worship God in, or at Images. For as God is euery where; so may he be worshipped in all places, and as wel at or before an Image, as in the Church, and before the com∣munion table. Thirdly, we make no Images to expresse the na∣ture of God, which is a spirit, and cannot be represented by lines and colours, but onely allow of some such pictures, as set out some apparitions of God, recorded in the Bible; not doubting but that such workes of God, may aswell be expressed in colours to our eies, as they are by words to our eares and vnderstanding. Lastly, touching religious worship to bee done to Saints or pi∣ctures, * 1.317 the Heretikes cauilling consisteth principally in the di∣uers taking of the word religious. For it is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the worship onely due to God; in which sense to giue it to any creature were Idolatrie: but it is also with the best authors taken some other time, to signifie a worship due to creatures, for some supernaturall vertue or quality in them; and in this sense to tearme it detestable Idolatry, is either detestable malice, or damnable ignorance. And whereas (he saith) that common reason teacheth, that they who adore God in Images, do binde God & his hearing of vs, to certaine things and places: I say the contrarie, that God may be worshipped in

all places; but we rather chuse to worship him in Churches and before Images, than in other places, because the sight of such holy things, doe breed more reuerence and deuotion in vs, and better keepe our mindes from wandring vpon vaine matters. If we taught that God could bee worshipped no where els, or by no other meanes, then he had not lied so loudly.

R. ABBOT.

M. * 1.318 Perkins concludeth indeed, that the images of God are forbidden in the commandement, but neither saith nor meaneth that only the Images of God are there forbidden, and therefore hee vseth no euill conscience in vrging the commandement against the images of Saints; but M. Bi∣shop with euill conscience defendeth the images of Saints against the commandement. And whereas hee saith, that thogh God do forbid to worship images, yet he doth not therfore forbid vs to worship God in or at Images, hee doth but frame himselfe to the guise and woont of all the masters of idola∣try, it being the common pretence of them al, as hath been a 1.319 before shewed, that they doe not worship the Image it selfe, which they know to be but mettall, or wood, or stone, but that in the Image or at the Image they worship the diuine essence, which they beleeue to bee immateriall and immortall. Yea, and by what reason M. Bishop heere defendeth the worshipping of God in or at Images, for at God is euery where, so may he be worshipped in all places, and as well at or before an Image, as in the Church or before the communion table, by the same did Ieroboam perswade the Israelites to worship God at or before, or in his golden Calues at Dan and Bethel, b 1.320 because no place is void of God, neither is he included any where, and therefore they might as wel worship him neerer hand before those calues as in the temple and before the sanctuary at Ierusalem. But as Ieroboam committed damnable idolatrie, in worshipping God be∣fore the Calues, so doth M. Bishop also in worshipping God in or before an image commit idolatry against God,

who will not be mocked, nor can abide to haue honour done to an idoll by pretence of his name. His third excep∣tion, that they make no Images to expresse the nature of God, but onely to set foorth some apparitions of God recorded in the Bible; how vaine it is, hath beene also fully declared in c 1.321 the handling of that question. And very strange it is that M. Bishop should make those apparitions a colour for their idoll-images of God, when God himselfe affirmeth that therefore hee did forbeare in the day when hee gaue the Law, d 1.322 to appeere in any image or likenesse, be∣cause he would not haue them to make any image of him. Whereas he saith, that such works of God may aswell be ex∣pressed in colours to our eies, as they are by words to our eares and vnderstanding, he should vnderstand that it is one thing to speake of the works of God, another thing to speake of the person of God. Wee question not the expressing of the workes of God, but wee condemne the expressing of the person of God. And if the expressing of those apparitions by words to our eares and vnderstanding, be a reason why we may expresse the same by pictures to our eies, then no∣thing hindereth but that the nature of God also may bee expressed by colours and pictures to our eies, because the same is by words according to our capacitie expressed to our eares and vnderstanding. But God hath commanded himselfe to be preached to the eare and vnderstanding; he hath not commanded, nay hee hath forbidden himselfe to be painted to the eie; and therefore the one is lawfull and godly, the other wicked and vnlawfull. His distinction of religious worship is most ridiculous and absurd. The verie name of religion, as Austin and Lactantius do deriue it, im∣potteth the e 1.323 obliging and tying of our soules to God onely; and if to God onely, then it cannot be truely called religion, that is performed to any other. Therefore Lactantius saith a∣gaine, that f 1.324 there is no other religion to be holden but towards God onely. So saith Austin, that g 1.325 Christians are with dutie of religion to serue God only; and that h 1.326 the Apostle forbiddeth

worship of religion to be giuen to any creature. Hee telleth vs, that l 1.327 seruice of religion is that which the Greekes call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which true piety yeeldeth to God onely. Therefore hee saith, that k 1.328 we are not to make a religion of the worship of dead men, and that wee are to honour them for imitation, not to worship them for religion. Now all these so expresse and perempto∣rie resolutions, M. Bishop at once ouerthroweth with a di∣stinction, taken, as he saith, from the best authours: but hee saith it very falsly and vnhonestly, not being able to bring one good authour for the approouing of it. The word reli∣gious, saith he, is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the wor∣ship onely due to God; but it is taken some other time to signifie a worship due to creatures. And as well he may say, that the word mariage is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the bond that is betwixt the husband and the wife, but yet is with the best authours taken some other time for that affi∣ance that is betwixt the fornicatour and the harlot, so that lawfully may the one enioy the other, because there is betwixt them a bond of mariage. We are told that religion in Ecclesiasticall vse belongeth onely to God, and that no seruice of religion is to be done to creatures; and he telleth vs that religion belongeth principally to God, but that there is religion also belonging to creatures: yea euen to vile and abominable idols. And what maruell is this, when∣as wee see the Valentian Iesuit distinguish in like sort of idolatry, that because S. Peter nameth l 1.329 abominable idola∣tries, therefore we should vnderstand that there are ido∣latries which are not abominable, and that m 1.330 some ido∣latrie is lawfull? Surely religious worship giuen to crea∣tures, is no other but idolatrie; but yet forsooth wee must not condemne it, because all kinde of idolatrie is not to bee thought vnlawfull. These are men of sharpe wits, and can, if yee will put them to it, distinguish God out of heauen, and Christ out of the Creed, or by a distin∣ction can bring a great number of gods into heauen, and a great many Christs into the Creed. As for vs, wee take

the fathers before alleaged to be herein ingenuous and ho∣nest as we are, and that they did not intend with one breath to appropriate religion vnto God, and to blow it from him with another. Albeit not onely vnder the name of religion, but vnder the name of worship also they haue affirmed the same to belong to God onely, as namely, u 1.331 that God onely is to bee worshipped, o 1.332 that worship and adoration can bee giuen to no creature without iniurie and wrong to God; p 1.333 that we worship neither Sunne nor Moone, neither Angels, nor Archangels, neither Cherubim, nor Seraphim, nor a∣ny other name (of any creature) that is named either in this world, or in the world to come. Therefore of the Virgin Ma∣rie Epiphanius saith: q 1.334 Let Mary be in in honour; elt the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost bee worshipped, but her let no man worship; and Ambrose, r 1.335 Marie was the temple of God, but not God of the temple; and therefore he onely is to be wor∣shipped who wrought in the temple. Thus the fathers knew no religion, they knew in religion no worship, but what belongeth to God alone; and M. Bishops distinction both in the one and in the other, was wholly vnknowen vnto them. But it is woorth the while to note, how the said distinction, such as it is, is applied by him to pictures and images. Religious worship, saith he, doth sometimes signifie a worship due to creatures for some supernaturall vertue or qua∣litie in them. But good Sir tell vs, what supernaturall ver∣tue or qualitie is there in your images and pictures? If any religious worship be due vnto them, you tell vs that it must befor some supernaturall vertue or qualitie in them. If there bee no such, then how shall religious worship bee due vnto them? May we not thinke that you haue sent vs a very na∣turall distinction, that giueth supernaturall vertue and qualitie to stocks and stones? But if supernaturall vertue & qualitie doe yeeld a title of religious worship, how is it that s 1.336 the Angell refused to be worshipped of S. Iohn, and t 1.337 the Apostle Peter of Cornelius, seeing it cannot bee doubted but that there was a supernaturall vertue and qualitie in

them? Well, hee will tell vs that the next time; in the meane while he giueth vs leaue to thinke their Romish fa∣uorites to be very naturally affected, that conceiue so su∣pernaturally of the deuisers of such blinde and witlesse tales. As for that he saith, that they doe not binde God and his hearing of vs to certaine things and places, because they hold that God may be worshipped in all places, hee saith no more than Ieroboam hath in effect said before for the setting vp of his idols; no more than the Pagans and Heathens con∣ceiued, that their gods were in heauen; and therefore that in all places they might pray and sacrifice vnto them. Not∣withstanding as they thought, that to pray before their Images, was a more speciall and solemne deuotion, and they had there the heauenly powers more neerely present vnto them, so haue they beene affected in Poperie, and haue thought those praiers to bee most effectuall which they haue made in the presence of filthy idols, and to that end haue taken great paines to goe long iourneies and pil∣grimages vnto them. But saith M. Bishop, the sight of such holy things doth breed more reuerence and deuotion in vs, and better keepe our mindes from wandering vpon vaine matters. He should haue said if hee would haue spoken as the truth is, that they breed superstition and errour, rather than re∣uerence and deuotion, that they cause God and his Saints to bee contemned in that stoliditie and blockishnesse of dumbe idols, or at leastwise doe hold the minde so intang∣led heere vpon the earth, as that it hath not power and li∣bertie of affection to ascend to heauen, as hath beene u 1.338 be∣fore sufficiently declared, and needeth not heere to bee re∣peated. His coupling of Churches and Images is like x 1.339 the yoaking of an oxe and an asse; because Churches haue their vse for yeelding conueniencie of place and assemblie for praier, for hearing of Gods word and ministration of his Sacraments, for which vses onely it is that they are holie; but Images haue no vse at all to these purposes or any o∣ther, yea they serue to set the minde a wandring, and to

withdraw it from that stedfastnesse and deuotion which these spirituall offices and exercises doe require of vs. In a word, Lactantius maketh it y 1.340 a thing vndoubted, that where Images are, there is no religion, and therefore very iustly do we affirme, that the Popish vse and defence of Images is no furtherance as M. Bishop would perswade, but the very bane and ouerthrow of all true religion.

18. W. BISHOP.

But let vs heare the end of his discourse: thus he argueth: They that worship, they know not what, worship an Idol. This exposition is false, vnlesse they worship it with diuine ho∣nor. But goe on: the Papists worship they know not what. I prooue it thus: To the consecration of the Host, there is required the intention of the Priest: but they cannot haue any certainty of the Priests intention: wherfore they are not certaine whether it be bread, or the body of Christ. ergo, worshipping of it, they worship they know not what.

Answ. First, heere is leaping from the Commandements to the Sacraments, which is out of order: secondly, I returne his argument vpon himselfe. To their seruice and in the admini∣stration of the Lords Supper, the Ministers intention is requi∣red: for if he intend to serue the Diuell, and by giuing them the cōmunion to binde them the faster to him; then do they (in say∣ing Amen to his praiers, and receiuing the communion at his hands) ioine with him in the Diuels seruice. Now they haue no more certaintie of their Ministers meaning, than wee haue of our Priests intention: yea much lesse of many of them, who are mad-merry fellowes, and care not greatly whereabout they go, nor what they intend: must they therefore flie from their di∣uince seruice and holy communion, because they be not certaine of their Ministers intention therein? Surely they should, if his reason were ought woorth. But in such cases we must perswade our selues that Gods Ministers doe their dutie, vnlesse we see great cause to the contrarie; and thereupon are we bold to doe our dutie to the blessed Sacrament: If he should faile in his,

yet our intention being pure to adore Christs holy bodie onely, and nothing else there, we should formally be the true worship∣pers of Christ, though materially we were mistaken in that host; which to tearme Idolatrie, is to stile our Sauiour Iesus Christ an Idoll, and therefore blasphemy in the highest degree.

R. ABBOT.

They that worship they know not what, * 1.341 saith M. Perkins, do worship an idoll. M. Bishop saith that this is false, vnlesse they worship it with diuine honor. But that worship wherof M. Perkins speaketh, is no other but diuine honour; and in the subiect whereto he maketh application of this rule, which is the Sacrament, M. Bishop himselfe doth no otherwise vnderstand it, and therefore his exception is verie idle. Neither is there heere any vnorderly leaping, as he speak∣eth, from the Commandements to the Sacraments, but ve∣rie orderly and direct proceeding, when as hauing in hand to set foorth their breaches of the Commandement, he exemplifieth the same by their idolatrie committed in the Sacrament. For proofe whereof M. Perkins vseth this argument; They that worship they know not what, doe wor∣ship an idoll. This M. Bishop acknowledgeth, if they wor∣ship it with diuine honor. But the Papists in worshipping the Sacrament doe worship with diuine honour they know not what: Therefore they worship an idoll. That they know not what they worship, it is euident and plaine, because they can∣not know whether it be bread or the bodie of Christ. For they confesse that it is not the body of Christ, a 1.342 without the Priests intention in consecration to doe that which the Church doth. But how can any man tell whether the Priest haue this intention or not? who can looke into his heart to be as∣sured of his meaning, when as it is God onely that know∣eth the heart? If no man can search into the Priests heart to know his intention, then can no man know whether the Sacrament be the body of Christ or not, and therefore in the worshipping of it, they worship they know not what,

which is no other but idolatrie. With this argument M. Bishop is cruelly pinched, and knoweth not which way to auoid the absurditie that is thereby cast vpon them; and yet somewhat hee must say, howsoeuer little helpe hee re∣ceiue by it. First hee would returne the argument against vs, as touching the intention of our Ministers, but dealeth therein childishly and vainly, because hee knoweth well that we hang not the Sacrament or any power thereof vp∣on the intention of the Minister, but wholly vpon the word of Christ. It may be that some Ministers be as the greatest number of their Priests haue beene woont to bee, madde merry-fellowes that care not greatly whereabout they goe; but this hindreth vs nothing, who by the words of Christ him∣selfe, by them deliuered, do firmely apprehend that which Christ hath promised. But to salue the matter the best he can, he telleth vs, that we must perswade our selues that Gods Ministers doe their dutie, vnlesse wee see great cause to the contrarie. Where hee should remember, that the matter heere vrged is not determined by our perswasion, but by the Priests intention. We may be in charitie well perswa∣ded, but in our being well perswaded, wee may be decei∣ued, and therefore doe not yet know but that we commit idolatrie in that which M. Bishop calleth duty to the blessed Sacrament; and the rather for that he himselfe b 1.343 afterwards confesseth, that it is idolatrie in the Sacrament to worship for Christ, that which is not Christ. But now welfare a di∣stinction to helpe at a pinch: for if the Priest in his intenti∣on faile, yet our intention being pure, saith he, to adore Christs holy body onely, and nothing else, we shall be formally the true worshippers of Christ, though materially we be mistaken in that host. Let him speake plaine English, and tell vs, that for∣mally we shall be true worshippers of Christ, but materially we shall be idolaters, and then let him resolue vs how in one and the same act it may be iustified that wee are both true wor∣shippers and idolaters, & what shal become of the formal∣ly true worshipper, when for being materially an idolater he

shal be adiudged to hel. I haue wondered at a saying which I haue read, cited out of the great Schooleman Robert Hol∣cot, thinking it to be more absurd than that any Christian man would vtter it, namely, c 1.344 that the faith of a lay man wor∣shipping an Host that is not consecrated; though it be an erro∣neous faith, yet sufficeth to saluation; and that a man by an erroneous faith may merit, although it fall out that he worship the diuell. This speech is strange, but yet M. Bishop now by his distinction teacheth vs, how it may very wel stand, because though a man materially worship the diuell, yet by his intention hee doth formally worship God. Now what ill happe had Ieroboam, that he was not acquainted with these Romish schoole-trickes; for he might well haue answered both for himself and for the people, that though materially they errēd in the Calues, yet their intention was pure and holy, to worship the true God, and therefore for∣mally they were true worshippers. Yea this distinction wil serue to cleere a great part of the idolatries of the Gentiles and Pagans, because albeit the diuels did present them∣selues at their idols and images, to receiue the sacrifices & deuotions that were there performed, as in Popery they haue also done, yet this hindred not, but that formally they were true worshippers, because though they were materially mistaken, as before was said, in taking the diuell for God, yet their formall meaning and intention was to doe seruice to the onely true and immortall God. Thus shall they be excused of whom Christ saith, d 1.345 The time will come, that whosoeuer killeth you, will thinke that he doth God seruice. Which many vndoubtedly thought in the cruci∣fying of Christ, being (formally) e 1.346 zealous towards God, but f 1.347 not knowing (materially) what they did. So S. Austin saith of the Donatists: g 1.348 Whatsoeuer they did in their turbulent rashnesse and furie, they thought they did it in behalfe of the Church of God. The same we say of all schismes and here∣sies, that the followers thereof, at least many of them, are formally true worshippers of Christ, because they haue an

vnfained intention and purpose to serue the Lord Iesus Christ, howsoeuer materially they be mistaken in some things. Thus doth M. Bishop make a hotch-potch and mixture of all religions, and by his distinction of ma∣terialitèr and formalitèr a man may in any religion bee a true worshipper of God, because hee may haue a zealous intention to serue God. But if his learning and vnderstan∣ding did not faile him, he would remember that h 1.349 the true worshippers doe worship God, not onely formally in spirit, but also materially in truth. It was the religion of the Samari∣tanes i 1.350 to worship they knew not what; but the religion of the true Iewes, of whom was saluation, was to know what they did worship. Our Sauiour would thereby instruct vs that there is no saluation where men worship they know not what. God hath reueiled vnto vs the knowledge of himselfe and of his will, that thereby we may be directed to serue him. In this k 1.351 knowledge is eternall life, but l 1.352 in the want of know∣ledge is perdition and destruction. Intention & zeale is good, and in the seruice of God necessarily required, but yet our intention and zeale is no other but furie and madnesse, and fighting against God, if it haue not knowledge to guide it (materially) in the way of God. Now if it be idolatrie to worship that for God which is no God, and yet it follow∣eth not that God is heereby stiled an Idoll, then surely it is likewise Idolatrie to worship the Sacrament vnder the name of the body of Christ, when it is not the bodie of Christ, and yet we doe not thereby stile our Sauiour Iesus Christ an idoll, as hee fondly obiecteth against vs for blas∣phemie in the highest degree.

19. W. BISHOP.

His third obiection is out of the fourth Commandement, which (as he saith) giueth a libertie to worke six daies in the ordinarie affaires of our calling, which libertie (saith be) cannot bee repealed by any creature: the Church of Rome therefore erreth, in that it prescribeth other set and

ordinary festiuall daies, to be obserued as straightly, and with as much solemnitie as the Sabbath of the Lord.

Answ. Doth not the Church of England also prescribe the Natiuitie of our Sauiour, and of S. Iohn Baptist, the feasts of the Apostles, and many others to be kept holy, and com∣mand that no man worke in the affaires of their calling those daies? doth their owne church also erre therein? How say you then to the church of the Israelites, which kept the feasts of Ea∣ster, Whitsontide, and of the Tabernacles, as straightly and with as much solemnitie, as they kept the Lords Sabbath? was it also mis-led to the breach of Gods commandements? or must we not rather thereby learne, that six daies in the weeke, were at the first left vs free to labour in; but yet so, that by the decree and commandement of our spirituall Gouernours, any of them might (vpon iust occasion) be made festiuall, and there∣upon euery good christian bound to keepe them, by their obedi∣ence vnto their Gouernours? to thinke the contrarie is a high point of Puritanisme.

R. ABBOT.

M. * 1.353 Perkins intendeth nothing against the authoritie of the Church, for the prescribing of some solemne and festi∣uall daies, but condemneth the church of Rome iustly for prescribing such daies to be obserued, as straitly and with as much solemntie, he should haue said more straitly, and with much more conscience and solemnitie, than the Lords Sabbath day. Yea it is a thing impious in the Bishop of Rome, that hee taketh vpon him to make such daies, in themselues a 1.354 more sacred and holy than other daies, and a part of the very true worship and seruice of God. Whereas M. Perkins saith, that it is not in the power of any creature to repeale the liberty of working six daies, he saith rightly, if we vnderstand it of the libertie of conscience; for no creature may binde the conscience from the acknowledgement of a lawfulnesse with God, to worke all and euery of the six daies in the af∣faires of our callings, but yet in charitie and obedience we

yeeld to our gouernours, and to our brethren somewhat vpon occasion to refraine our libertie, and to forbeare the doing of those things, of which notwithstanding we know and are perswaded that in conscience and with God, they are free and lawfull to be done.

20. W. BISHOP.

Fourthly (saith M. PER.) the fift Commandement enioineth children to obey father and mother in all things, specially in matters of moment; as in their Marriages and choice of their calling, and that euen to death: and yet the Church of Rome against the intent of this Commande∣ment, alloweth that clandestine Marriages and the vowe of religion shall be in force, though they bee without and against the consent of wise and carefull parents.

Answ. It is very false to say that children must obey their parents in all things: for if parents command them any thing either against Gods law or the Princes, they must not obey them therein. And touching clandestine and priuie Marria∣ges, they are of force aswell in the Church of England, as in the Church of Rome: yea more too. For by the Church of Rome alwaies they haue beene forbidden verie seuerely; and since the Councell of Trent, are made voide and of no force, where the Councell can be published. Concerning entring into religion, childrens vowes (during their minoritie) may be an∣nullated and made of no force by their parents: marry, when they come to riper daies, if their father stand not in necessitie of their helpe, they may forsake him to follow Christ in a more perfect kinde of life: as S. Iames and S. * 1.355 Iohn forsooke their fa∣ther Zebedee, and followed Christ.

R. ABBOT.

There is little discretion in M. Bishops first exception, because M. Perkins did vse no other but the Apostles words; a 1.356 Children, obey your parents in all things, for that is well pleasing vnto the Lord. When the Apostle saith, in all

things, M. Bishop should not be so rude as to say, It is ve∣rie false to say, in all things; howsoeuer wee denie not but that the words haue their limitation and restraint to those things wherein they command in right of parents. * 1.357 As touching marriages without consent of parents, M. Bishop misreporteth the Councell of Trent, which though it doe detest and prohibit the contracts of such marriages, yet doth also b 1.358 condemne them who say that such marriages when they are contracted are void, and that it is in the power of the parents either to ratifie or disanull them. The Church of England not meditating contradiction but truth, ap∣prooueth so farre the sentence of the Councell, and al∣beit it endeuoureth with all good care and circumspection to preuent and to exclude such wilfull and vngodly cour∣ses of marriage, yet it acknowledgeth that marriages being so acted and done, cannot be reuoked; lamented they may be, and greened at, but voided they cannot be. M. Perkins seemeth to be of other minde, and hee followeth therein the iudgement of sundry late Diuines; whom though o∣therwise we greatly esteeme and honour, yet wee cannot subscribe that which they determine in this point. Con∣sent of parents belongeth to the honest and orderly pro∣ceeding of marriage, and it is true that children sinne a∣gainst the fift Commandement, in neglecting their con∣sent, but this consent is no part of the essence and being of marriage, which therefore being complet and perfect without it, must necessarily stand good, albeit the parents giue no consent vnto it. The very essence of contract and marriage, consisteth in the parties actuall giuing of them∣selues mutually ech to other, according to the forme and maner of the countrey and place wherein they liue, which being done, the want of parents consent cannot vndoe it, neither may they be sundred in two, who by Gods ordi∣nance, though vnlawfully abused, are become one. By Gods ordinance, I say, because albeit they haue not vsed that maner of proceeding which God hath ordeined to

the fastening of this bond, yet the bond it selfe wherewith they are fastened, is the ordinance of God to remaine inui∣olable betwixt them that are once bound thereby. Neither doth it make against this which is obiected, that God ioineth not such together, that they marry not in the Lord; for so may it be said of them that marry only for carnal & worldly respects, of the beleeuer that matcheth him or her-selfe with an vnbeleeuer, that they are not ioined by God, nor married in the Lord, because God hath forbid∣den such kinde of marriages to be made. But yet as the bond of marriage though vnlawfully entred into holdeth these together, and may not bee broken, euen so though children may not lawfully marry without consent of pa∣rents, yet being married, they are tied by the couenant of God ech to other, as husband and wife, and may not shake off the yoke which they haue taken vpon them∣selues. As for those phrases of Scripture which are vrged in this behalfe of parents, c 1.359 taking wiues for their sonnes, or husbands for their daughters, and giuing their sonnes and daughters in marriage, they imply indeed the parents right and power for the bestowing of their children; but yet we cannot from thence argue, that if the children preuent their parents, and doe giue and bestow themselues, their gift should bee void, and their marriage a meere nullitie, as if it had not beene. For as wee reade of parents taking wiues for their sonnes, so we reade of sonnes also without consent of parents, taking wiues for themselues, when yet the want of such consent hath been no disanulling of their marriage. Esau d 1.360 tooke him two wiues of the daughters of Heth or Canaan e 1.361 contrarie to the liking of his father and mother, and yet when he had taken them hey held it not in their power to frustrate his taking of them, but with griefe were forced to endure them. And if the sonnes taking of a wife be of no force without the parents consent, then Rebecca had no such cause of feare f 1.362 lest Iacob also should take a wife of the daughters of Heth, because his

taking had been nothing, so long as his father and mother should giue no consent vnto it. So is it said of g 1.363 Iudah, that he tooke him to wife a daughter of a Canaanite, which wee cannot doubt but that it was as offensiue to his father Ia∣cob, as it had beene before to Isaac, and yet his marriage was not taken to be of no effect. To be short, as the one phrase of Scripture may be deemed to import a right in the father to bestow the children, so the other may bee thought to import a validitie of that which the childrē do, though vnlawfully, without the father. It is here, I know, commonly obiected, that God by his law prouided, that h 1.364 the vow of the daughter should not stand that was dis∣auowed by the father, and thereof is inferred, that the daughters bestowing of her selfe in marriage cannot stand good without the father. But that law if it be duly weigh∣ed, maketh as little to that purpose as any thing else that is alleaged. For the vowes and bonds there spoken of, are of things futurely to be done; but heere the question is of a thing already done. If the daughter made a vow of an of∣fering to the Lord, it was in the fathers power to disanull her vow; but if she had alreadie offered any thing to the Lord, it was not then in the fathers power to reuoke her offering. Euen so if the daughter make a vow or giue a promise that she will marry thus or thus, it is in the hand of the parents to resist and frustrate her vow; but if by contract and marriage she haue effected her vow and pro∣mise, it is then past the parents hands to vndoe what shee hath done, and it is not lawfull marriage but adulterie to bestow her otherwise. To conclude this point, it is a true rule in law; Multa fieri non possunt, quae tamen facta valent: Many things may not be done, which yet stand good when they are done. i 1.365 Zipporah might not haue circumcised her sonne, but yet when she had done it, there was no reuer∣sing of it. Corah, Dathan and Abiram, might not haue presumed to offer incense to the Lord, and yet when they had so done k 1.366 their censers were holy vnto him. It is not law∣full

for children rashly and head-strongly to bestow them∣selues at their own will; God hath forbidden it, there is no blessing to bee expected in it; but yet when it is done, it cannot be auoided. It is not without cause, that I say rash∣ly and head-strongly, because the necessitie of parents con∣sents is not alwaies absolutely to be vnderstood, there be∣ing sometimes cases of conscience by the iniquitie of pa∣rents that doe necessarily enforce a mitigation of this law, and rules of this nature are commonly taken to hold onely ordinarily and for the most part. * 1.367 Concerning childrens vowes for entring into religion, as they fondly terme it, M. Bishop speaketh more honestly and handsomely than they practise in that behalfe. It is neither minoritie of yeeres, nor necessitie of parents that can redeeme the chil∣dren out of the hands of these Wolues and Beares, if once they haue found meanes to make a pray of them. Yet well it is that he will confesse what ought to be respected, how∣soeuer amongst them it bee not so. His words of following Christ in a more perfect kinde of life, are ill applied to their Moonkerie, and so is the example of the Apostle Iames and Iohn, forsaking their father Zebedee to follow him. Iames and Iohn were called by Christ to doe that which they did, and where God calleth, no respect of man must preuaile to hold vs backe; but they of whom M. Bishop speaketh, haue no calling of God, neither hath Christ pre∣scribed any such kinde of life for them to bee called vnto. But against all their hypocrisie in this behalfe, wee oppose the ancient Canon of the Councell of Gangra; If any chil∣dren by pretence of seruing God, doe forsake their faithfull pa∣rents, thinking it iust so to doe, and shall not rather yeeld due honour vnto them, to reuerence it in them that they are faith∣full, accursed be he.

21. W. BISHOP.

Fiftly, The last Commandement (saith M. PER.) for∣biddeth the first motions to sinne, that are before consent. l 1.368

He prooueth it thus: Lusting with consent is forbidden in the former Commandements: Thou shalt not commit adulterie, and thou shalt not steale: therefore if the last forbid no more, it is confounded with the former. Againe, the Philosophers knew that lust with consent was euill, e∣uen by the light of nature; but Paul a learned Pharisee, knew not lust to be sinne, that is forbid in the Comman∣dement. * 1.369 Lust therefore that is forbidden heere, is without consent. Wicked then is the doctrine of Rome, that re∣quireth our consent to euery mortall sinne.

Answ. Their doctrine is most reasonable and godly: For the first motions to sinne, are rather the actions of the euill spi∣rit, tempting vs to euill; than of a man, in whose minde they are before he is aware of them; and who assoone as he beginneth to marke them, disliketh them and chaseth them thence: and how can he carrie a right opinion of the milde goodnesse of God, that thinketh him so hastie with his fraile creature man, as to punish him eternally for such a thought, as is thrust into his minde at vnawares, and may come vpon him in his sleepe, went he neuer so well disposed to bed? See more of this in the question of originall sinne. To his reasons to the contrarie, I answer to the first, that lust with consent is not expresly forbid in the for∣mer Commandements, but the act of adulterie and stealing: yet, it might well haue beene reduced vnto them, as it is in the other Commandements. Neucrthelesse, because our frailty is more prone to the wicked lust of concupiscence, and desire of our neighbours goods; it pleased God for the better bridling of of them, to giue vs particular precepts against them; specially considering, that it was also very hard, by the dimme light of our darkned reason, to discerne them to be such capitall sinnes. And whereas he saith, that the Philosophers knew the inward consent of our minde, without any exteriour acts to be mortall sinne: I take him to speake at randome, and more than he can prooue. Sure it is, that many learned Iewes, who should know more than Philosophers, * 1.370 knew not so much: as may be gathered out of S. Matthew, and out of Iosephus, lib. 12. Antiq. c. 13.

and Dauid Kimhy vpon the 66. Psalme verse 17. And S. * 1.371 Pauls owne confession rightly vnderstood witnesseth the same: For (saith hee) I had not knowne concupiscence to haue beene sinne, vnlesse the law had taught it to be sin. Where∣fore it was verie expedient, after the inhibition of the acts of adulterie and theft, to forbid in plaine and expresse termes, the lusts and desires of them.

R. ABBOT.

I referre thee heere, gentle Reader, as M. Bishop doth, to the question of Originall sin, * 1.372 where it hath been already fully declared that the Romish doctrine is neither reaso∣nable nor godly which denieth the first motions of concu∣piscence to be sinne. In the sixt and eleuenth section of that question, those particulars are answered, which heere hee fetteth downe in the first part of this section. I only note therein further, that he maketh the first motions to sinne, the actions of the euill spirit, contrary to the expresse testimo∣nie of S. Iames, that a 1.373 euery man is tempted of his owne lust. If it be his owne lust wherewith he is tempted, then is it not the action of the euill spirit: and that it is the action of the person, is shewed in the third section of the aforesaid que∣stion. His answers to M. Perkins are vnsufficient. The question is, whether consents to wicked lusts be forbidden by the seuerall commandements to which the acts of them doe belong. Our Sauiour Christ briefly decideth it, that b 1.374 to looke vpon a woman to lust after her, is the breach of the seuenth commandement, Thou shalt not commit adulterie. Now if the lust of adulterie with consent be forbidden by the seuench commandement, then that which is forbidden by the tenth is lust without consent. Now such lusts with consent M. Bishop confesseth are forbidden in the other Commandements; onely they belong not to the comman∣dements against adulterie and stealing. And why? Because our frailtie, saith he, is more prone to the wicked lust of con∣cupiscence, and desire of other mens goods, it pleased God to

giue particular precepts of them. But that is not true, speci∣ally in the one of these, that wee are more prone to these than to other lusts; for wee are as prone to selfe-loue and pride, and wilfulnesse, to hypocrisie and lying, to malice and enuy, and wrathfulnesse, and sundry other like sinnes, to say nothing of the lusts that tend to the breach of the first table of the law. The cause why God would exem∣plifie lust by those particulars, is because those are most familiar and sensible, and of them groweth the most ••••all and common breach of the societie of men. But distrusting that reason, he addeth another of more specialtie, which maketh specially against himselfe. Specially considering, saith he, that it is very hard by the dimme light of our darke∣ned reason, to discerne them to be such capitall sinnes. But by what reason I maruell doth hee make these more capitall sinnes than all the rest? Is not the lust of murther as capitall as the lust of adulterie? Is not the motion and will of disho∣noring parents, and rebelling against Princes as hainous as the desire of other mens goods? And doth not he him∣selfe presently signifie that it is as hard by the dimme light of our darkened reason to discerne them also to bee such capitall sinnes; inasmuch as the Philosophers, as he saith, in whom was the greatest light of reason, did not see so much con∣cerning any consent of minde without the exteriour act. If it be not as hard to discerne the one as the other, let him giue vs reason of the difference. If it be as hard, and there be in that respect no difference, then let him acknowledge that there was as great reason of giuing particular precepts against the lusts of other sinnes, as of adulterie and theft; which being not done, let him acknowledge as the truth is, that the lusts of adulterie and theft, where consent is yeelded to them, are as in the heart reputed for the acts themselues, as by the former words of Christ is testified, and therefore are forbidden by the seuenth and eighth commandements; and therefore that it is very lust it selfe, without consent that is forbidden by the tenth comman∣dement.

He maketh M. Perkins to say, that the Philosophers knew the inward consent of our minde without any exteriour acts to be mortall sinne: but M. Perkins saith nothing of mor∣tall sinne, knowing well that the Philosophers had no such knowledge of sin, or of the death that is effected spiritual∣ly therby; but affirmeth only that they knew the same to be euill; and it is M. Bishop indeed that roueth at randome in the deniall of it. Tully saith, that c 1.375 nature and reason (right∣ly informed) shunneth to do or to thinke any thinke libidinous∣ly or licentiously. He affirmeth them d 1.376 to be leaud men that with eger minds couet after venereous pleasures; and that set∣ting aside fornications, deflowrings, adulteries, incests, the fil∣thinesse whereof is subiect to accusation, euen the perturbati∣on of the minde in wanton loue, is by it selfe a filthy thing. In the same place he setteth it downe for a rule, that e 1.377 what things are pernicious in their increase (namely when they come to exteriour acts) the same are vitious in their begin∣ning; that is, in the thoughts and cogitations of the minde. But M. Bishop saith, that some learned Iewes knew not so much. And I answer him, that some vnlearned Iewes did know so much. They knew it that did obediently submit themselues to the law and word of God; they knew it not, as also many other things, who made the law of God sub∣iect to themselues. It is many times so, that men who are, with the world, of reputation, for wisedome and learning, yet doe not see those things which children see, and there was a time and occasion for God to complaine, not of the vnlearned only, but also of the learned amongst the Iewes; f 1.378 Who is blinde but my seruant, or deafe as my messenger that Isent? Who is blinde as the perfect, and blinde as the Lords seruant? Albeit it may perhaps be rather said, that they would not know this than that they did not, because out of the first common principles of moral discipline, they could not but vnderstand, that a man is euill and wicked, not onely for his outward actions, but also for his inward ha∣bite and qualitie, howsoeuer the same by occasion bee re∣strained

from breaking foorth into outward acts. There∣fore the constructions which they are reported by the E∣uangelist to make of the commandements, as M. Bishop heere alleageth, may seeme rather to haue beene partiall and wilfull deprauations of the law of God, than matters of meere ignorance, as not to know that God condemned the wickednesse and euill imaginations and intentions of the heart. Againe, hee citeth Iosephus, who mentioning that Polybius said, g 1.379 that Antiochus perished for that he went about to make spoile of the treasures & offerings of the temple of Diana, excepteth against him with these words, Only to will or intend sacriledge, and not to doe it, seemeth not a thing woorthy of punishment. Which testimonie of Iosephus, M. Bishop hath quoted onely, and that vpon the credit of his Master Bellarmine, who reporteth the words as if Iosephus had said, h 1.380 that the inward motion is no sinne, vnlesse it do out∣wardly shew or bewray it selfe. Wherein he dealeth very vn∣honestly, to make his Reader beleeue that he fetteth down the authors words, when he setteth downe onely what hee himselfe list to collect and gather of them. The words of Iosephus, considering the occasion are very vnfitting and absurd, and so contrarie to common sense, as that we may woonder they should come from so wife a man. Antiochus brought his army against the citie of Elymais, as Iosephus there declareth, where the temple of Diana was: hee as∣saulted it with all his might, hee left nothing vndone that he could doe for the atchieuing of his purpose, though by the valour of the Citizens he was resisted and frustrate of his desire. Now was it for Iosephus heere to say, that to intend a mischiefe, and not to act it, seemeth not worthy of punishment, when notwithstanding hee himselfe con∣fesseth that th••••e wanted no endeuour or attempt for the effect 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it? It seemed strange to Tully, that i 1.381 a thing should 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be punished vnless•• it were effected; as though, saith he, the issues of things onely were punished by lawes, and not mens counsels and purposes of them. And doe not humane

lawes euery where take hold of attempts and practises of murther, of treason, and other villanies, albeit they atteine not their intended end? And if by the lawes of men such intents and purposes are thought woorthy of punishment, would not, or might not Iosephus thinke that much more they are so adiudged by the law of God? But taking the words as they are, yet that followeth not which Bellar∣mine reporteth, that the inward motion is no sinne, because Iosephus might thinke the same a sinne, and yet not such a sinne as that a man therefore should be punished. And so it seemeth the Rabbine conceiued therof, whom M. Bishop further citeth out of Bellarmine, who where Dauid saith, k 1.382 If I haue locked vnto or regarded iniquitie in my heart, the Lord will not heare, maketh this exposition and meaning of it, l 1.383 The Lord will not impute an vniust desire for sinne if it be onely in the heart. Where he doth not say, that it is no sin if it be onely in the heart, but onely that the Lord will not impute it or punish it for sinne. For that it is sinne hee ac∣knowledgeth, in that hee calleth it vniust; but hee ac∣quitteth it from punishment so long as it is restrained and kept in. But S. Pauls owne confession, saith M. Bishop, right∣ly vnderstood witnesseth the same. And what is that? for m 1.384 saith hee, I had not knowen concupiscence to haue been sinne, vnlesse the law had taught it to be sinne. But what hindreth this, but that as he knew by the law concupiscence to be sinne, where it hath consent, so by the law he knew it to be sin also, though it haue no consent? It is true, that n 1.385 where no law is, there is no transgression; and without the law ei∣ther written in our hearts, or written in our bookes, wee know nothing to bee sinne. But what hindereth this con∣fession, I say, but that as by the law he know the one, so he knew the other also? Doth not M. Bishop himselfe see how idlely he hath brought this in? And in truth the Apo∣stle spake those words of concupiscence it selfe by it selfe, where it hath no consent. For of the same concupiscence he saith soone after, o 1.386 I allow not that which I doe; for what

I would, that doe I not; but what I hate, that do I. All which cōplaint being made in the person of p 1.387 the regenerate man, who hateth the euill concupiscences of his owne heart, and therefore giueth no consent vnto them, doth plain∣ly euict, that of concupiscence without consent the A∣postle saith, that by the law hee knew it to bee sinne, as hath beene q 1.388 otherwhere declared more at large. But howsoeuer M. Bishop will cauill concerning some learned Iewes, the Romane Catechisme it selfe will iustifie that which M. Perkins saith, that r 1.389 by light of nature it was vn∣derstood, that in the forbidding of adulterie, was forbidden the lust of hauing or enioying another mans wife, because it should be lawfull to haue her, if it should be lawfull to desire her. Now if by light of nature it be discerned, that in the forbidding of adulterie, the will and desire of another mans wife bee also forbidden, and therefore that the for∣bidding heereof belongeth to the seuenth Commande∣ment, then M. Perkins concludeth very rightly, that the tenth Commandement goeth further, to condemne euen the first motions of concupiscence and lust, though they proceed not so farre as to gaine the will. We may hold no∣thing heere superfluous: God would not adde a latter commandement to forbid that which was already forbid∣den by a former.

22. W. BISHOP.

Lastly (saith M. PER.) the words of the second Com∣mandement (and shew mercy vnto thousands on them that loue me, and keepe my commandements) ouer throw∣eth all humane merits. For if the reward be giuen of mer∣cy to them that keepe the law, it is not giuen for the merit of the worke done.

Answ. Either simple was this mans iudgement sometimes, or else most peruersly bent to deceiue the simple. For God speaketh there, neither of the reward that is rendred in heauen for good works; neither of any reward at all, that is rendred

vnto the person himselfe that keepeth Gods commandements: but of a superaboundant fauour, that God of his bountie will shew vnto thousands of others, for one mans sake that loueth him and keepeth his commandements: therefore very peeuish∣ly doth he draw hence any thing against merits.

R. ABBOT.

I haue before declared, * 1.390 that this promise of mercy ma∣keth plainly against merit, that it concerneth not the chil∣dren onely, but the fathers themselues; and that if it bee mercy, by which God bestoweth the things of this life, which are the lesser, then that it cannot be merit for which he bestoweth eternall life, which is the greater. See the se∣uenth section of the question of Merits before handled.

23. W. BISHOP.

And to begin heere where M. PER. leaueth, to shew how their new doctrine and inuentions, doth crosse and make void the commandements of God. First in that, that he promiseth mercy and fauour vnto thousands for ones sake, that keep∣eth his Commandements, we gather: that God in regard of his Saints (who so holily obserued his Commandements) doth grant vnto vs many fauours and graces: also, that the satis∣faction of one may serue for another; for else God would not punish children vnto the third and fourth generation, for the of∣fence of their great grand-father, vnlesse their punishment serued to satisfie for their ancestors offence: hence also we ga∣ther, that some men do keepe Gods cōmandements, other∣wise God did in vaine promise to fauour thousands for their sakes that keepe the Commandements, if he knew well that there should be none such. Therefore most vngodly is that posi∣tion of the Protestants, that it is impossible to keepe the Commandements: and which alone ouerthroweth all the ten Commandements. For as all men skilfull in the true nature of lawes doe hold: there can bee no iust law, that is impossible to be kept, by the greater part of them to whom the law is

giuen; because lawes are both to direct our actions, and do al∣so binde euery man to obserue them. Now what reasonable law-maker will beat his braine to direct a man to do that, which he knoweth before hand, not to lie in the mans power to doe? and as tyrannicall should he be esteemed, that would binde a man vnder a great penaltie, to doe that which he know to be impossi∣ble for him to doe. Which two points, S. Augustine doth in one sentence confirme, * 1.391 saying; Who doth not crie out that it is folly to giue him Commandements, in whose power it is not to performe them? & who doth not say that it is vn∣iust, to condemne him for not doing iust things, when hee could not doe them? The Protestants therefore affirming the Commandements not to be possible to be performed, doe make them no lawes at all; and so they at one blow, do beate down all the ten Commandements. But let vs come to the particulars.

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishops head is old, and therefore hee thinketh our doctrine to be new. If his head and heart were renued a 1.392 to the obedience of faith, hee would easily see our doctrine to be old, euen that b 1.393 old way which is the good way, wherein they that walke shall finde rest for their soules. Sure wee are that Poperie is not the old way, because they haue taught vs nothing of it, who of old declared the right way. But yet he heere taketh vpon him to shew that our doctrine cros∣seth and maketh void the Commandements of God. And how, I pray? First, in that he promiseth mercy and fauour to thou∣sands for ones sake that keepeth his Commandements, we ga∣gather, saith he, that God in regard of his Saints, who so ho∣lily obserued his Commandements, doth grant vnto vs manie fauours and graces. But what Saints doth he meane? for shall we say, or doth the Commandement say, that to eue∣ry man God sheweth mercy for euery mans sake that keepeth his Commandements? If so, then wee must also say, that God to the third and fourth generation punisheth euery man for euery mans sake that hateth him. If hee had

spoken more distinctly wee could easily haue told in what sort to answer him. But because he speaketh at randon, I answer him in generall, that God indeed sheweth fauour to one man for anothers sake, but so, as that the Comman∣dement saith, he sheweth mercy on both sides: and therfore that it is his mercy that taketh occasion, and not mans me∣••t that giueth cause of doing whatsoeuer hee doth. His se∣cond collection is most ridiculous and absurd, * 1.394 that the sa∣tisfaction of one may serue for another. For how come wee heere to satisfaction? Marry God would not punish children to the third and fourth generation, for the offence of their great grandfather, vnlesse their punishment serued to satisfie for their ancestours offence. O admirable deuice! But yet tell vs, M. Bishop; what if neither the fathers nor the chil∣dren be in the state of grace, for then c 1.395 by your owne do∣ctrine neither are the fathers capable of satisfaction to bee done for thē, neither are the children capable of the doing of it. And such it seemeth the Commandement intendeth, because it nameth them that hate God. Yea and of the Ba∣bylonians God saith; d 1.396 Prepare a slaughter for the chil∣dren for the iniquitie of their fathers, where both the fa∣thers and the children were infidels and idolaters, and wholly estranged from the grace of God. How then shall we vnderstand that any satisfaction is heere intended? or how may wee not thinke this man to be drunke and sense∣lesse that setteth foorth such paradoxes that can no way stand with their owne grounds? God teacheth no satisfa∣ction there, but proclaimeth the terrour of his iudgement & wrath, which being once kindled, is not easily quenched that both the parents may dread to offend God for the safegard of their children, and the children may beware of following the euill example of their fathers, * 1.397 knowing that how much they ad to their fathers sins, so much they adde to their owne plagues. Thirdly, he gathereth from hence, that some men doe keepe Gods commandements: And we also gather the same, and doe say further with S. Iohn: e 1.398 He that

saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandements, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Therefore wee doe not say, that it is impossible to keepe Gods Commandements, but that it is impossible in this mortalitie and frailtie to keepe Gods Commandements perfectly, so as to bee iustified thereby. But the residue of this tale I leaue, as being but babling of course, whereof he hath sundry times receiued ample and full answer, which he cannot gainsay; only like the cariers horse he is acquainted with a way, and out of that he will not goe. I referre him to that that hath beene said heereof before, both in the former parts of this worke, and in the answer to his Preface of this booke; and further vouchsafe him no answer, but with that dictate of Solo∣mon; f 1.399 Though thou shouldest bray a foole in a morter, as wheat is braied with a pestell, yet will not his foolishnesse depart from him.

24. W. BISHOP.

1 The first Commandement, as it forbiddeth vs to wor∣ship false Gods: so doth it also include a commandement to wor∣ship aright the onely true God, which is done principally by Faith, Hope, Charitie and Religion. The Protestants by their peruerting of many articles of our beliefe (as hath beene shewed) haue lost the true Faith, and by their new certaintie of Faith, leaue no place for Hope: for they are past hope of saluation, * 1.400 that make themselues so assured of it as they doe. And as for Charitie, which S. Iohn defineth to bee the keep∣ing of Gods Commandements, they must needs confesse themselues to be farre from it, which hold that to be impossi∣ble: and with the principall part of true religion (which con∣sisteth in offering a true, reall, and externall sacrifice vnto God, as in that question hath beene prooued) they are at vt∣ter defiance.

R. ABBOT.

You haue shewed your owne folly M. Bishop, and dis∣honestly,

* 1.401 but for the peruerting of any articles of faith on our side, you haue shewed nothing. We teach faith, hope, and charitie as God hath taught them, not as your schoole hath newly framed them. We teach faith wherby a 1.402 to be∣leeue the record that God witnesseth of his Sonne, that God hath giuen vnto vs eternall life, and this life is in his Sonne. We teach hope whereby b 1.403 to wait with patience for the reueil∣ling of that which God hath giuen vs. Wee teach charitie, whereby to performe c 1.404 those good works which God hath prepared for vs, as the way wherein to walke to the receiuing of it. True, reall and externall sacrifice for propitiation of sin we teach none but the sacrifice of the passion of Christ, because by d 1.405 being once offered, he hath taken away our sinnes, and made perfect for euer them that are sanctified. Therefore the sacrifice which he intendeth, is no other but sacriledge and idolatrie, and because God hath condemned it, there∣fore are we iustly at defiance with it. I may not omit how he heere bobbeth his Reader with, as in that question hath beene prooued, whereas of that question hee hath said iust neuer a word.

25. W. BISHOP.

2 Touching the second Commandement after our account; as God is honoured by swearing in iustice, iudgement, and truth; so he is also by vowes made vnto him of godly and religi∣ous duties, which the Prophet Dauid signifieth, when he saith: vow yee, * 1.406 and render your vowes vnto the Lord your God. Heereupon many Catholikes haue, and doe continual∣ly vow perpetuall pouertie, chastirie, and obedience, the more fully and freely to serue God: which holy vowes the Pro∣testants disallow wholly: neither doe they allow of any other vowes, for ought I haue heard: they doe therefore diminish the seruice of God, and pare away a part of that which is reduced to the second Commandement.

R. ABBOT.

We diminish not the seruice of God, because we teach al

that the word of God hath taught, and with mens deuises God will not be serued. * 1.407 The true spirituall vowes where∣by we consecrate our selues to God we duly approoue, but Popish vowes we reiect and detest, not onely as superstiti∣ous, but also as they teach them with opinion of merit and purchase of remission of sinnes for themselues and o∣thers, most wicked and damnable. There needeth heere∣of nothing more to be said, then hath beene before deliue∣red in the handling of that question.

26. W. BISHOP.

3. And whereas in the third wee are commanded to keepe holy the Sabaoth day, which is principally performed by hear∣ing (attentiuely and deuoutly) that diuine seruice, which was instituted by Christ, and deliuered by his Apostles, which is the holy Masse: they may not abide it, but serue God after the in∣uention of their owne braines, with a mingle-mangle of some old, some new, odly patched together.

R. ABBOT.

What Christ instituted, appeareth in the Gospell: what the Apostles practised and deliuered, appeareth by S. Paul, holding himselfe entirely to that a 1.408 which he had recei∣ued of the Lord. What doe wee finde there that doth in any sort resemble the ougly monster of the Popish Masse? Gregory Bishop of Rome saith, that b 1.409 the Apostles were woont with the Lords praier only to consecrate the sacred host, and shall we then thinke the Apostles to haue been the au∣thours of those gew-gawes and fooleries, those turnings and windings, and crossings & blessings, and murmurations and eleuations, that are vsed in the Masse? Iulius Bishop of Rome the first, condemned the dipping of the Sacrament of Christs body in the cup of the bloud of Christ, c 1.410 because no witnesse heereof is brought out of the Gospell. If nothing be to be done in the celebration of the Sacrament, but whereof there is witnesse in the Gospel, and d 1.411 none, as Cy∣prian

saith, be to be followed therein but only Christ, we haue iust cause to reiect the Masse, which hath so little of that that Christ did, and so much that he did not. The Masse therefore is no sanctifying, but a prophaning of the Lords Sabaoth: but the true sanctifying of the Sabaoth is in our diuine seruice, wherein Gods word is read and taught, praier is made to God in the name of Iesus Christ, and the Sacraments are administred accordingly as Christ him∣selfe hath left the same vnto vs. Wherein we haue reteined whatsoeuer the abomination of desolation had left remaining of the ancient seruice of the Church; and whatsoeuer was wanting, we haue supplied agreeably thereto, and to the word of God; and no man will account it odly patched to∣gether, but such odde fellowes as M. Bishop is, who are so farre in loue with the Romish harlot, as that they like to eat no bread but what is moulded with her vncleane and filthie hands.

27. W. BISHOP.

In the fourth we are commanded to obey our Princes, as well as our parents, and all other our Gouernours in all lawfull matters: yet the Protestants hold, that our Princes lawes doe not binde vs in conscience.

R. ABBOT.

What; Is Saul also amongst the Prophets? * 1.412 Is M. Bishop now come to speake of obedience to Princes; by the pro∣blemes of whose religion no Prince shall be obeied, if the Pope list by any pretense of religion to picke a quarrell a∣gainst him; nor any matters shall be lawfull for him to com∣mand, but what must stand with the Popes law? Doth he speake of obedience to Princes, who because his Prince liketh not to follow his course, hath before threatned him, a 1.413 God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessitie will driue men vnto at length? When the Fox preacheth, beware the Geese. To the point, I answer him briefely, we teach that

Princes lawes in things subiect to their command do binde the conscience to externall obedience, though not to any spirituall opinion of the things wherein we doe obey. And that we doe not denie this, he himselfe b 1.414 before hath testi∣fied for vs, so that we shall see that hee had need of one to remember him, that a liar must beare a braine. See further what hath beene said heereof to the first section of his an∣swer to M. Perkins his Dedicatorie Epistle.

28. W. BISHOP.

5. The fift Commandement, teacheth that no man be kil∣led by priuate authoritie: yet Protestantes hold it lawfull to take armes, euen against their lawfull Princes for the aduance∣ment of their Gospell; and haue••n th•••• quarrell killed, and cau∣sed to be killed millions in Ger••anie, ••rance, Flanders, and Scotland.

R. ABBOT.

This is a meere slander leudly deuised b•• some Papists, to take from themselues the enuie and iust reproch of that sauage and barbarous crueltie which they haue practised in Germany, * 1.415 France, Flanders, in shedding the bloud of so many thousands of innocent persons without respect of time, place, sex, age or degree. They haue beene in their Churches togither to pray to God, and to heare his word, suspecting no harm, when these Tygers and Wooles haue come armed vpon them, and there slaine them without a∣ny difference, both man, woman and childe. It were too long to set foorth the tragedie of those but cheries that haue beene committed in such like sort by the meanes of the Guises in France, of the duke of Alba, and others in Flanders, and in Germany by the impetuous & headlong tyrannie of Charles the fift. The Protestants armes in this case haue beene onely defensiue, when as contrary to pub∣like edicts and proclamations, contrarie to lawes & rights, and priuiledges, and without legall course of proceeding,

they haue beene thus barbarously destroied. Neither haue they then taken armes by priuate authoritie, but by law, and by the publicke direction of them to whom the main∣tenance and defence of those rights and liberties did be∣long. Now that Papists for the aduancement of their ido∣latries and superstitions doe hold it lawfull and by their Confessours haue beene resolued that it is lawfull not onely to take armes against their Princes, but by secret practise to murther them, and by gun-powder to blow vp a whole Parliament house, to the vtter confusion and subuersion of a whole state, our experience from time to time hath suffi∣ciently made knowen to vs. But a 1.416 that Protestants hold it lawfull as he obiecteth to take armes against their lawfull Princes for the aduancement of the Gospell, it is a lie, and contrary to the doctrine and profession of al our Churches.

29. W. BISHOP.

6 The sixt forbiddeth adulterie, which is allowed of by Protestants in some case. For they permit one party after di∣norcement to marrie againe, the other yet liuing; whereas our Sauiour saith: Whosoeuer dimisseth his wife and marri∣eth another, committeth adulterie vpon her. And if the wife dimisse her husband and marrie another, she commit∣eth adulterie. Moreouer, incest is also forbidden in this Com∣mandement: now by the Canons of the Catholike Church, and the authoritie of the ancient Fathers, it is incest for one Cosen germaine to marry with another: yet is it not seldome practised; yea, it is generally allowed of in the church of Englād.

R. ABBOT. * 1.417

The limitation of diuorce which our Sauiour Christ hath set down ( a 1.418 except it be for fornication) maketh it law∣full for the party innocent to marry againe, the delinquent being left to the censure of the Church vntill satisfaction shall be giuen of true repentance for so hainous sinne. The Church of England notwithstanding for the preuenting of

some mischiefes that by the wickednesse of men doe arise by abusing the liberty of mariage vpon diuorce, vseth a re∣straint of that liberty, that the parties diuorced shall put in caution not to marry againe so long as they both liue. But the Church of Rome doth openly admit adultery in this behalfe, making it free to the Pope to pronounce of a so∣lemne mariage a nullity, and to giue liberty to the husband to marry againe, the former wife being neither deceased nor diuorced. As for incest (so determined by the law of God) the Pope hath giuen allowance to it in giuing dispen∣sation to the king of Spaine last deceased, to marry his own sisters daughter, as also to King Henry the eight of England to marry his own brothers wife. But that whereof M. Bi∣shop speaketh, for one cousin germain to marry with another, is no incest by Gods law, nor there determined to be vn∣lawfull. Yet thereof we commend that conceit which of old was had of it as S. Austen noteth; b 1.419 that that which was law∣full to be done, yet was abhorred, for that it is so neere to that that is vnlawfull. Therefore albeit by law we prescribe no other bounds than God hath set, yet we disswade such ma∣riages rather than approoue them, lest men by taking the vttermost of that that is lawfull, should thereby the rather presume to that that is altogether vnlawfull. As for the Ca∣nons of the Church of Rome we little respect them, because we know they make no conscience to permit or prohibit as they themselues list, who haue brought in a new deuise of spirituall kindred vnknown to ancient times whereby it is vnlawfull for them to marry ech to other, who haue been godfathers and god mothers tog••ther at the baptisme of a child. Let them make Canons for themselues, but for vs by the grace of God they shall make none.

30. W. BISHOP.

7. The seuenth Commandement, condemneth with theft, vsury, and all withholding of our neighbours goods, which was gotten vnlawfully: yet Protestants commonly make no consci∣ence

to take ten in the hundreth, which is plaine vsury; and as for restitution of euill gotten goods, it is cleane out of fashion among them.

R. ABBOT.

Hypocrite, * 1.420 as though it were not common amongst Pa∣pists also to take ten in the hundred. Yet our law alloweth not this, but punisheth it, if it be informed, with the losse of the increase. If M. Bishop will say that because there is no execution of this punishment, therefore it must be taken to be permitted. I answer him, that it is permitted as Mo∣ses permitted the bill of diuorce only a 1.421 for the hardnesse of mens hearts, who cannot be induced to lend to supply the occasions and necessities of their brethren, vnlesse they may be suffered to make benefit of their lending. As for restitu∣tion of euill gotten goods, we say that the wanting thereof wittingly is a token of the want of true repentance, with∣out which there is no saluation. And albeit I doubt not but that I may say hereof that it is more sincerely practised with vs than it is with them: yet I will not now stand to contend thereabout. But wheras Watson the Proctor for the Priests against the Iesuits hath particularly set downe great value of goods gotten by the Iesuits through meere collusion and fraud, let him acquaint vs that they haue made restitution hereof and then I will giue him further answer.

31. W. BISHOP.

8. The eight prohibiteth vs to beare false witnesse against our neighbour: and yet do Ministers (the master Procestants) in their pulpit (where truth should onely be taught) most com∣monly beare such false witnesse against Catholikes, that the very stones may be astonished at their most impudent slanders: to wit, that Papists beleeue in stockes and stones: that they will not be saued by Christ and his passion, but by their owne works: that they rob God of his honour, and giue it to Saints;

and a hundreth such like most notorious and palpable lies. Wherefore as the Preachers bee guilty of bearing false wit∣nesse: so the auditors deserue to be seduced by them, who hea∣ring them to lie so shamelesly in some things, will neuerthelesse beleeue them in others.

R. ABBOT. * 1.422

The very stones if they could speake would iustifie the Protestants in this behalfe and cry out against the idolatry and abomination of the Papists. Whether Papists beleeue in stockes and stones and teach men so to do let it appeare by Thomas Aquinas who propounding the question, a 1.423 whether the crosse of Christ be to be worshipped with the wor∣ship of Latria, determineth the matter in this sort: We giue the worship of Latria to that wherein we put the hope of our saluation. But we put the hope of our saluation in the Crosse; for the Church singeth, All-haile O Crosse our only hope at this time of the passion; To the godly increase righteousnesse, and to the guilty grant forgiuenesse; Therefore the Crosse is to b••e worshipped with Latria. Let M. Bishop now tell vs whether they trust in stocks and stones who place the hope of their saluation in that Crosse to which they say All-haile O Crosse, &c. that is in a Crosse of wood or stone. Yea and Polydore Virgil acknowledgeth of their rude people that b 1.424 they put more trust in their images than they doe in Christ or in the Saints whose images they are. He spake gently of it be∣ing loth to touch the sore too hard for feare of offence; but it is well known how the common people haue been affe∣cted with these delusions and still are where their abomi∣nable idolatry holdeth still it former strenth. The second point that Papists will not be saued by the passion of Christ but by their own workes is made plaine to vs by the Spanish In∣quisitours in their c 1.425 Index Expurgatorius, who finding in an Order for visiting the sicke imprinted at Venice these questions to be asked of the sicke man, d 1.426 Beleeuest thou, not by thine own merits, but by the power and merit of the passion

of Christ to come to glory? Beleeuest thou that our Lord Iesus Christ died for our saluation; and that none can be saued by his own merits or by any other meanes but by the merit of his passion; with comfort giuen that e 1.427 there is no doubt to be made of the saluation of him who thus beleeueth with the heart and confesseth with the mouth, haue defaced all these words and appointed them in new impressions to be wholly left out. The third point also is manifest; for sith worship and deuotion of religion belongeth to God only, as hath been f 1.428 before shewed, surely the Papists in giuing religious wor∣ship to Saints, doe rob God of his honour and giue it vnto the Saints. These things, M. Bishop, are cleere and plaine; they are not our notorious and palpable and shamelesse lies, but they are your notorious and palpable and shame∣lesse heresies. We know you daube these things and set colours vpon them, as heretiques haue been wont to doe vpon their false and wicked opinions; but your colours with vs are soone washed off, and where you are in your owne kingdome, there we know how you appeare in your own likenesse. As for our auditors, thanks be to God, they are not like yours. Yours are like g 1.429 the Gentiles of old caried away to dumbe Idols euen as they are led. They must follow you blindfolded without seeing which way they go. They must search nothing, they must know nothing, but take what you tell them. But our hearers, thanks be to God, haue the liberty of Gods word, wherin they see with their own eies, and whereby they plainly vnderstand that wee seduce them not, because we teach them nothing but what they find there that God hath taught. And you they ther∣by learne to hate and detest as seducers and deceiuers, be∣cause you go about to teach them those things which they see God hath not taught you.

32. W. BISHOP.

9. and 10. Of the ninth and tenth I haue spoken already; wherein they erre grieuously, in teaching euery man to sinne

damnably, by hauing any euill motion cast into his minde by the Diuell, albeit he resisteth it presently, and foorthwith chase it away. In which conflict and ouercomming of temptation, the grace and power of God is perfited, as S. Paul witnesseth: and S. Iames calleth the allurement of concupiscence temptation on∣ly; and then first sinne when it conceiueth (that is) getteth some liking of the party.

R. ABBOT.

Where the mind is free from sinne, the Diuell can cast no euill motion into the minde. * 1.430 If the Diuell cast euill mo∣tions into the mind, it is a token that hee findeth there a mould wherein he casteth them, and a mine whence hee diggeth the matter of them. From the habitual corruption of our nature, all euill motions flow, which both in the spring and in the streame, both in the roote and in the branch, is before iustified to bee sinne. Wee resist it, he saith, and chase it away; but therefore we resist it and chase it away, because it is sinne; it being the vse and worke of our warfare a 1.431 to fight against sinne, and the grace and po∣wer of God assisting vs, whereby we ouercome sin. He al∣leageth that S. Iames calleth it only temptation, and then first sinne when it conceiueth: and I answer him, that S. Paul cal∣leth it sinne before it be temptation, b 1.432 sinne wrought all ma∣ner of concupiscence in me, and therefore in temptation it is sinne. See heereof the question of originall sinne handled at large before, and of this place of S. Iames, the sixt section.

33. W. BISHOP.

Now to conclude this passage, if you please to heare to what height of perfect obseruance of the Commandements, the E∣uangelicall Preachers haue brought their followers in Germa∣ny vnto, by teaching the Commandements to bee impossible, and that onely faith iustifieth, and that good works haue no reward in heauen, and such like; Iacobus Andreas a famous Lutheran shall enforme you, * 1.433 who writeth thus. That the

whole world may see these men alienated from the Papa∣cie, and to put no confidence in works; * 1.434 therefore they doe no good worke at al. In stead of fasting, they feast, and are drunken day and night: in lieu of Almes, they oppresse and pill the poore: they haue changed praying into cursing and blaspheming the name of God, so prophanely, that no Turkes nor Saracens commit the like impietie against Christ: for humilitie, there raigneth pride, disdaine, cruel∣tie, and riot in apparell, &c. and much more to the same pur∣pose. And that this truth may be confirmed by the testimony of two sound witnesses; Musculus, a man of no smal account among them, thus reporteth of his brethren in the Lord. * 1.435 Such now adaies is the condition of the Lutherans, that if any man list to behold a great number of Knaues, robbers, maliti∣ous persons, coseners, vsurers, and such like deceiuers, let him but enter into a Citie where the Gospel is taught, and there he shall finde good store of them: and a little af∣ter. Surely it is true, that among Heathens, Iewes, Turkes, and other Infidels, none can bee found more vnruly, and that lesse esteeme of honesty and vertue, than the Euange∣licall brethren; with whom all things passe currant, and nothing almost is blamed (except vertue:) For the diuell hath shaken off all their bands, and turned them loose.

R. ABBOT.

And what M. Bishop, are there not, thinke you, * 1.436 as many knaues in Rome as in any city of the Lutherans? What, are there no Minions, & Courtisans there that serue for the vse of the Pope & his Cardinals? Did you not remember what was said of Rome by one of your owne Poets?

Viuere qui sanctè cupitis, discedite Roma. Depart from Rome all yee, whose care is to liue holily.

Did you not consider that it was easie for vs to retort your words to your selues, and to say; If you please to heare what good effects the Popish doctrine of iustification by works doth bring foorth, looke to the Iesuits Catechisme,

to Watsons Quodlibets, and to the rest of those bookes of the same argument, written by Popish Priests concerning the Iesuits, who are the Puritane-Papists, and the verie quintessence of their religion, and yet are there described to be no other but Epicures, Atheists, fornicatours, Sodo∣mites, coseners, traitours, proud, malitious, contentious, couetous, and what not? Now wee know that the Iesuites will say that you are as leaud and naught as you haue de∣scribed them to be. Like will to like, and get you both to∣gether: there is no such goodnesse in either of you, as that you should take vpon you to question our goodnesse. And if I should rippe vp this matter of your vertues to the full, I should but cause a lothsome and filthie stinke, trouble∣some both to my selfe and to the Reader. Therefore I rest my selfe with that answer that I haue a 1.437 before giuen vpon the like occasion. Onely I must note it for one of M. Bi∣shops Sycophants tricks, that hee reckoneth it amongst our doctrines, that good works haue no reward in heauen.

34. W. BISHOP.

Hauing done with the Creed and ten Commandements, we must now come to our Lords praier.

Master PER. beginneth with it thus. The Lords Praier is a most absolute forme of praier: now in this wee are taught to direct our praiers to God alone, Our father, &c. and that onely in the name and mediation of Christ; for God is our father onely by Christ: therefore to vse any mediation of Saints is needlesse.

Ans. We allow our Lords praier to be a most perfect forme of praier: yet hold that many other sort of praiers may be made vnto God very acceptably, as sundry other praiers vsed by Christ, and set downe in the Gospell doe teach vs: and therefore to argue, that because one praier of Christs making is directed to God, that no other may bee made to any Saint, is very chil∣dish. Wee gather praier to Saints out of S. Pauls requesting the Romans and Corinthians, and others to pray for him:

and out of the mediation of the woman of Cananea to Christ for her daughter: and the Disciples speaking to Christ for her; with such like, both out of the old and new Testament. For if it had been either needlesse or bootlesse, to haue praied vnto God any otherwise, than in the name and by the mediation of Christ; then S. Paul would not haue requested the helpe of mortall mens praiers to God for him: and if poore sinners praiers may helpe vs, much more may the intercession of the glorious Saints do, who are in far greater fauor with God: See the question of intercession of Saints. Againe, if that only forme of praier were to be vsed, neither were it lawfull to pray to Christ himselfe; neither could it bee prooued thereby, that we should praie in Christs name. For there is no expresse mention of Christs name; neither any petition for Christs sake. For God may bee truely called our Father, in that he immediately createth and giueth vs our soules, which is more than our bodies, that we re∣ceiue from our carnall fathers.

R. ABBOT.

If the Lords praier be a most perfect forme of praier, * 1.438 as M. Bishop alloweth it to bee, then are we perfectly there∣by directed, both to whom and for what we are to praie. It cannot bee called a most perfect forme of praier, wherein there is any want of either of these things. To adde any thing to that that is perfect, is to denie the perfection of it, and to take away any thing from it, is to make it maimed and vnperfect. Seeing then by the most perfect forme of praier, we are instructed to pray no otherwise but to God onely, it followeth necessarily, that praier to Saints is vn∣lawfull, because it is exorbitant from that most perfect forme. M. Bishops exception heereto is very childish and vaine, that other praiers may be made vnto God very accep∣tably, and that other praiers are vsed by Christ, and set downe in the Gospel, because in other praiers there may bee no∣thing, and in the praiers set downe in the Gospel there is nothing, but what is consonant and agreeable to this form.

For though praier be conceiued in other words, yet it va∣rieth not from this forme, so long as wee pray to no other but to whom in this forme wee are directed, nor for any o∣ther thing, but what in this praier is concluded. And albeit M. Bishop can alleage, that in the Gospell and otherwhere there are other praiers vsed and set down beside the Lords praier, yet in the whole course of Scripture can hee finde vs no example of any praier but to God alone. If hee did bring vs example of praier to Saints, somewhat it were, but now it is idle that he alleageth that there are praiers in other words. But he telleth vs that they gather praier to Saints out of S. Pauls requesting the Romans, Corinthians, & others to pray for him. And well indeed they may, if they can prooue that S. Paul in the same sort praid to the Romans & others to pray for him, as they pray to the Saints in hea∣uen to pray for thē. But if that which S. Paul did, were but a familiar request of mutuall charitie, wheras their praier to Saints is a seruice of religious dutie; and hee did beseech them onely as fellow members of the same body to giue assistance to his praiers, not as Mediatours, as they make the Saints to obteine for their sakes the acceptance there∣of; then doth M. Bishop shew himselfe a ridiculous man, that will draw from the one of these a conclusion of the other. Or if he will needs confound the one of these with the other, it shall be well that his disciples that craue the help of his praiers do take their ghostly father and set him vp like sweete S. Rood, and deuoutly kneele downe and pray vnto him. But if to craue ech others praiers be piety, and to doe that ech to other which they doe to the Saints be damnable idolatrie, then it is apparent that they gather that which was neuer sowed, and doe colourably alleage these instances for the abusing and blinding of simple men. As for a 1.439 the woman of Canaan, we reade that she praied to Christ for her daughter, but we doe not reade that her daughter praied to her; and wee finde that by her praier she shewed her compassion, but that shee tooke

vpon her any power of mediation, wee doe not finde. b 1.440 But whereas hee addeth the disciples speaking to Christ for her, hee sheweth little discretion therein, because it appeareth not that they spake for her, but onely re∣quested their master to send her away, as being offended at her importunate crying. And so little helpe is there out of this example for praier to Saints, as that Chrysostom rather giueth vs hereby a note to except against it. Behold, saith he, the wisedome of this woman; she requesteth not lames, she intreateth not Iohn, she goeth not to Peter, she looketh not to the company of the Apostles, she seeketh for no mediatour, but in stead of them all she taketh repentance for her companion which supplied the place of an aduocate, and so went to the well-head. And whereas he hath before demanded of her; c 1.441 Tell me woman, how durst thou, being a sinfull and wicked woman thus come to Christ? he bringeth her in answering; I know what I doe: therefore descended he from heauen, therefore did hee take flesh and became man; that I might be bold to speake vnto him. It should seeme then that it is a point of godly wise∣dome, neither to goe to one Saint nor other but to goe di∣rectly to Christ himselfe, and not to be terrified by the conscience of our sinnes, because for that purpose he be∣came man that wee might be bold to come to him and to seeke of him the remission thereof. But M. Bishop addeth another wise reason and well beseeming his learning; If it had been either needlesse or bootlesse to haue prated vnto God any otherwise than in the name and mediation of Christ, then S. Paul would not haue requested the helpe of mortall mens traiers vnto God for him. As if S. Paul when hee requested them to pray for him, did intend that they should pray o∣therwise for him than in the name and by the mediation of Iesus Christ. He praieth for them and they pray for him, not to be heard ech for others sake, but all to be heard for Christs sake. d 1.442 Thus, as Austen saith, the praier of all the members labouring vpon the earth, ech for other, goeth vp to the head who is gone before into heauen, in whom is the propi∣tiation

for our sinnes. Now therefore M. Bishop very vain∣ly inferreth, that if poore sinners praiers may helpe vs, much more may the intercession of the glorious saints, because poore sinners praiers doe not helpe vs by way of mediation, but onely in louing care they ioyne themselues to pray with vs, that we may both be helped for Christs sake; whereas Popish intercession of Saints intendeth not so much that the Saints should pray for vs for Christs sake, as that Christ should accept vs for the Saints sake. As for the fa∣uour of the Saints wee know God fauoureth vs no lesse than hee fauoureth them, being redeemed with the same bloud, and by one spirit sealed to the same hope; and no more will hee suffer an elect to perish on earth, than he will suffer a Saint to perish in heauen. Whatsoeuer M. Bishop will plead for their fauour, sure we are that they haue no fauour in this respect, and therefore without as∣suming any thing to themselues, they haue left vs to de∣pend vpon Christs fauour as they haue done. Now heere againe, see, saith he, the question of the intercession of Saints, whereas he hath taken paines to skip ouer that question also, and hath said nothing of it. But remembring him∣selfe, hee goeth further heere and saith, that if that onely forme of praier were to be vsed, neither were it lawfull to pray to Christ himselfe, neither could it be prooued thereby that we should pray in Christs name. As if any of vs doe say, that that onely forme of praier is to bee vsed, who doe commonly our selues vse other formes of praier, and condemne them that hold it vnlawfull so to doe. Wee onely say, as hath beene alreadie declared, that no praier is to be made, the matter and substance wherof is not conteined in the Lords praier. And though that onely forme were to bee vsed, yet it followeth not that Christ is not to bee praied vnto, because Christ is that God who is our heauenly father, and therefore to Christ also wee pray when wee say; Our father which art in heauen. Neither doth it follow that then we shold not pray in the name of Christ, because it should

nothing detract from the perfection of this form of praier, that we be otherwhere taught to make this praier in the name of Christ. Albeit the praier it selfe, though not in words, yet in effect leadeth vs thereunto, because God is our Father no otherwise but in Christ, who hath taken vs into his communion and fellowship where he hath said; e 1.443 I ascend to my father and your father, to my God and your God; f 1.444 Which name (of father) saith Cyprian, none of vs might presume to vse in praier but that Christ hath giuen vs liber∣ty so to pray. Now therfore we cannot truly say vnto God Our Father but with implication of the name of Christ, in whose name only it is that we vnderstand him to bee our father. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that God may be truly called our father, in that he immediatly createth and giueth vs our soules, that is nothing to the purpose, because we question not how God may be called our father, but in what meaning it is that we doe call him father when wee say, Our father which art in heauen. For sith g 1.445 the name of fa∣ther importeth kindnesse and loue, as their own Romane Ca∣techism expoundeth, surely it followeth, that because God is no otherwise kind and louing vnto vs but h 1.446 onely in Christ, therefore in Christ only it is that we can call him father.

35. W. BISHOP.

Secondly, he hoppeth to the fourth petition; Giue vs our daily bread: in which words we acknowledge (saith he) that euery morsell of bread is the meere gift of God: what madnesse then is it for vs to thinke that wee should merit the kingdome of heauen, that cannot merit so much as bread? It is false that we cannot merit our bread: * 1.447 For Christ teacheth, that he who goeth to preach the Gospell, is wor∣thy of, that is, meriteth and deserueth his meat; which S. Paul testifieth, saying: that our Lord ordained, that those who preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell. And doe not day-labourers deserue their bread, before they eat it?

and others that buy their bread, doe I hope deserue it. What ignorance then is it, in the very principles of our faith, to auouch that we cannot merit bread? which notwithstanding wee pray God to giue vs; because, neither could we deserue and yerne it, without his helpe and as sistance; neither would it do vs any good without his blessing.

R. ABBOT.

When Christ saith, * 1.448 a 1.449 The workeman is worthy of his meat, he maketh one man debtour to another, but God is deb∣tour to no man. The preacher deserueth his liuely hood of the hearer, but yet at Gods hands he can challenge no∣thing by desert. He that setteth a day-labourer to worke is bound to pay him his hire, but God is not bound to pay him bread. Yea many a man laboureth most painfully, and yet cannot thriue to maintaine himselfe with bread, and will M. Bishop say that God doth him wrong in not gi∣uing him his desert? And if the labour of the hands be to merit at Gods hands, then the wicked man meriteth as wel as the iust, because the wicked often laboureth as carefully as the iust. So if to buy bread be to merit bread, then the vngodly also meriteth his bread, because he hath mony to pay for it. Would any man expect such silly and childish toies from so learned a man as M. Bishop would bee thought to be? Notwithstanding all the labour and tra∣uell of our hands, notwithstanding all the vertues and righ∣teousnesse of our life, yet we beg our bread at Gods hands as the gift of his mercy. M Perkins therfore rightly argu∣eth, that if by merit we cannot claime of God the bread of this life, much lesse can we haue any merit whereby to lay claime to euerlasting life.

36. W. BISHOP.

Thirdly, in the next petition: Forgiue vs our debts; foure opinions of the Roman religion (saith he) are direct∣ly ouerthrowne. What foure at one blow! what a Hercules

haue we here? let vs heare which. The first is humane satis∣faction: for the child of God is taught here to pray for the pardon of his sinnes; now to pray for pardon and to make satisfaction be contrary.

Answ. This is a silly ouerthrow: for it is so farre off, that praier and satisfaction are contraries, that praier it selfe is one of the three works of satisfaction: Fasting, Praying, and gi∣uing of Almes are not contrary, but the very workes of satis∣faction. And our Lords praier is esteemed by S. Augustine (who is assoone to be beleeued as M. * 1.450 PERKINS) sufficient of it selfe, to satisfie for the light dayly offences that iust men fall into: besides, Christ himselfe praied for pardon of these mortall sinnes, for which notwithstanding Gods iustice was fully satisfi∣ed by Christ his sufferings; wherefore satisfaction and to sue for pardon, are not so contrary, but they may well stand toge∣ther.

R. ABBOT.

Christ offered himselfe to God for the sacrifice and sa∣tisfaction of our sinnes, * 1.451 that by vertue of this satisfaction he might intreat pardon for vs, and we thereby also in his name might intreat pardon for our selues. Therefore we doe not say that praier for forgiuenesse of sinnes is the de∣nial of satisfaction, but we say that this praier being groun∣ded vpon a satisfaction made already in Christ is a denial of satisfaction to be made by vs. Our sinnes being satisfied for in Christ, remaine vpon our faithfull praier freely for his sake to be forgiuen vs. The forgiuenesse of sinnes is no∣ted in scripture to be a 1.452 the not imputing of them. If satisfacti∣on be required for sinne, it cannot be said not to be impu∣ted; and if it be not imputed, because b 1.453 it is as if it neuer had been, as Bernard saith there can no satisfaction be requi∣red for it. What a franticke dreame it is whereby they haue made praier for forgiuenesse of sinnes to be a satisfa∣ction for sinne, and that S. Austins words make nothing for their purpose, it hath beene c 1.454 before sufficiently declared, and is needlesse here to be repeated.

37. W. BISHOP.

Now to the second downfall: Merits are heere also ouer∣thrown. For we acknowledge our selues debters, and wee dailie increase our debts: now it is madnesse to think that they, who daily increase their debts, can deserue or pur∣chase any good of the creditors; in a word, this must bee thought vpon, &c.

And good reason too. First then I answer, that veniall sins and small debts that iust mendaily incur, doe not hinder the daily merit of their other good workes. As aseruant hired by the day, by committing some small fault, doth not thereby lose his daies wages: againe, though he should commit such a fault, that might make him vnworthy of his daies hire; yet, if his Master did forgiue him that fault, his wages were notwith∣standing due to him: and so the asking pardon for our sinnes doth not ouerthrow, but rather establish and fortifie our me∣rits.

R. ABBOT.

Ʋeniall sinnes, * 1.455 small debts, small faults, saith M Bishop. A vaine man, that knoweth neither God nor himselfe, and therefore hath so small conceit of the sinnes that he daily committeth ag••inst God. No doubt but hee could plead the matter in Adams behalfe, that God did h••m wrong to censure him so seuerely for so small a fault. What, it was but the eating of an apple or a figge, and he might by his merits soone haue made amends for it, and would God for so light a trespasse adiudge him to death, yea, and all his posteritie for his sake? Well, God make him wise to know with whom he hath to doe, and then hee will see that his sinallest faults are great enough to blow vp all his merits, yea, and that in his best merits there is enough to con∣demne him, if God should enter into iudgement with him. And let me aske him out of his own wise sawes that he hath here set downe, if a hired seruant of his by breach of cone∣nants

from day to day, haue voided the condition of his wages, and yet he be in the end content to remit all, and to yeeld him his conditioned hire, will he thinke it well that his seruant shall say, that he oweth him no thanks because he hath nothing but what he hath merited and deserued? Surely M. Bishop would expect that his good will and bountie should bee acknowledged in this case, and would thinke it a wrong to be vpbraided with his seruants merit. But though his head serue him not to conceiue this, yet do thou remember, gentle Reader, that one forfeiture of a mans estate, putteth him wholly vnder the mercie of his Lord, and whatsoeuer he can plead for himselfe otherwise, it serueth not the turne, but he standeth at the courtesie of him whom he hath offended. And what shall we say then for our selues, whose life is a continuall forfaiture of our estate with God by our trespassing daily and hourely a∣gainst him? Shall we thinke we haue merits to plead? shall we not acknowledge and confesse that wee stand meerely and wholly at the deuotion of his mercy? And if remitting aliour trespasse, hee vouchsafe to remember our seruice o∣therwise, and to reward it, shall we say that hee giueth vs but our own desert? Do we not see our good deeds whatso∣euer they be, to be so drowned and ouerwhelmed with our sinnes, as that it is Gods meere mercy that any mention is made of them? But when furthermore our good deeds haue in themselues such spots and staines of sinne as doe giue God iust cause to reiect them, as hath beene a 1.456 before declared, shall wee be so drunke with our owne fancies as that wee will still dreame of merit towards God? These things need not to bee strongly vrged, because they pre∣taile mightily in the consciences of all that are not of be∣nummed and dead hearts, and more hath beene answered heereof before, than that M. Bishop should thinke fit to trouble vs any more with these blinde reasons. Hee neuer ceaseth to oppose, though when he is answered hee neuer knoweth what to reply.

38. W. BISHOP.

The third opinion imagined to be confuted by this petition, is: that temporall punishment may bee retained after the crime it selfe, and the eternall is remitted: but this cannot stand (saith he.) For wee owe to God obedience, and for the defect of this paiment, wee owe to God the forfeiture of punishment. Sinne then is called our debt, in respect of the punishment: And therefore when we pray for par∣don of our sinnes, we require not onely the fault to be par∣doned, but the whole punishment; and when debt is par∣doned, it is absurd to thinke that the least paiment should remaine.

Answ. Heere is a most absurd collection: For when we in our Lords praier craue pardon of our debts, wee confesse that we are in his debt, and that there is paiment of punishment yet due vnto vs, the remission whereof we then require: now this praier is made by the best men after their conuersion (as he con∣fesseth) who standing in Gods fauour, and therefore free from eternall punishment, doe notwithstanding craue pardon and release of some punishment, by M. PER. owne interpretation: Whereupon it followeth most euidently out of this petition, that after eternall punishment is forgiuen vnto the iust, there is some other punishment remaining, of which they craue pardon; and consequently this opinion of ours is (by this very petition and M. PER. owne exposition of it) much strengthned and confir∣med, and nothing at all weakened.

R. ABBOT.

If M. * 1.457 Bishop may be the expounder of M. Perkins ex∣position, we doubt not but he will make some good matter of it. M. Perkins meaning is plaine enough, and so are his words, that after our first conuerting & turning vnto God, we haue stil cause from day to day to humble our selues be∣fore God, and to begge of him remission both of temporall and eternall punishments, which by our sinnes from day to

day wee runne into. It followeth not of any thing that Master Perkins saith, that the eternall punishment being alreadie forgiuen, wee aske heere the forgiue∣nesse of some temporall punishment, but that as our sinnes are daily, so wee aske forgiuenesse daily both of the one and of the other. a 1.458 Because the offence is euery day, saith S. Austin, therefore wee haue need to haue remission euc∣ry day. Now the collection against M. Bishop is pregnant and cleere; for if to aske forgiuenesse of the sinne be to aske release of the punishment, then it followeth, that our peti∣tion being granted, there is no remainder of punishment after the forgiuenes of the sin. The ground of this collecti∣on he himselfe approoueth, saying, When wee in our Lords praier craue pardon of our debts, we confesse that we are in his debt, and that there is paiment of punishment due vnto vs, the remission whereof we then require. If then we here require the remission of punishment, I aske him, do we not require theremission of eternall punishment? What, haue wee the remission of eternall punishment without asking or pray∣ing for it? Doth Christ teach vs to begge the forgiuenesse of temporall punishment and not of eternall? Tell vs your minde plainly M. Bishop: doe not glosse the matter with a false application of M. Perkins words. A man committeth mortall sinne, and thereby incurreth eternall punishment. Hee commeth to God and humbleth himselfe and saith as Christ hath taught him: forgiue vs our trespasses. Doth he not heereby craue of God for Christs sake, the release of of that punishment? If he say, no, hee is more absurd than that Christiā eares wil giue him the hearing. If he say, yea, he is confounded in the cause, because it must then needs be granted, that the hearing of our praier is the relaxation both of temporall and eternall punishment; of temporall, by his owne confession; of eternall, by a truth which hee must confesse whether he will or no. Their opinion there∣fore is not strengthened as hee vainly pretendeth, but is

plainly ouerthrowen by the true and necessarie constructi∣on of this petition.

39. W. BISHOP.

The fourth point of our doctrine hence impugned by M. PER. is: that a man in this life may fulfill the law. Where∣as in this place euery seruant of God is taught to aske dai∣ly pardon for the breach of the law: answer is made, that our daily sins are veniall, and not against the law, though besides the law: but this which they say, is against this pe∣tition: for a debt that commeth by forfeiture, is against the band or obligation. Now euery sinne is a debt, causing the forfeiture of punishment, and therefore is not beside, but against the law.

Answ. I grant that euery sinne is a debt, causing the for∣feiture of punishment; but this punishment may bee small and short, and so the sinne veniall, and the debt not against the law directly, yet against the band of some morall duty: as the misspending of time, vsing of some idle words, and the com∣mitting of such like light faults, which I am bound in reason to auoid; but not by any prescript law directly. And thus in fine we see, how foulely M. PER. was mistaken, that thought to ouerthrow foure points of our doctrine at a clap, when not so much as one is thereby any whit at all stirred.

R. ABBOT.

It will be well for M. Bishop that misspending of time and vsing of idle words be reckoned for veniall sinnes; for God knoweth he hath misspent a great deale of time in the writing of these books, and hath sent vs a number of idle words. Tush, saith he, the sinne is but veniall, and the pu∣nishment but small and short for such light faults. But if it be a point of godly a 1.459 wisedome to redeeme the time, as S. Paul teacheth, surely it is a point of folly to esteem so light∣ly of misspending time; and hee will not so easily swallow

idle words, that regardeth what our Sauiour saith that b 1.460 of euery idle word that men shall speake they shall giue account at the day of iudgement. To come to the matter, M. Perkins reason is very good, There can be no forfaiture without breach of the condition of a bond. Euery sinne is a forfei∣ture. Therefore euery sinne is a breach of the condition of a bond. The obligation or bond here is the law of God. Se∣ing then euery sinne, and therefore euery veniall sinne ma∣keth a man subiect to a forfeiture of punishment, it must needs be that euery veniall sinne must be holden to bee a breach of the law of God. And because no man can liue without daily committing veniall sinnes, therefore it fol∣loweth that no man can liue without daily breach of the law of God. I dispute not heere whether sinne be rightly called veniall in his sense or not; I aime at the point, that because no man by their confession can liue without venial finnes for which he daily saith, forgiue vs our trespasses, and euery veniall sinne is a breach of the law of God, therefore no man can liue without daily breach of Gods law, and therefore that no man in this life doth fulfill the law. But well fare a schoole-tricke yet that shall put this argument quite out: forsooth there is a twofold bond whence the for∣feiture ariseth. One is the law of God, and veniall sinnes he telleth vs are not against the law directly; wee are not bound to auoid them by any prescript law directly. Thus faintly and fearefully he speaketh: his owne conscience telleth him that they are against the law of God, but being loth to confesse the truth, which thus notwithstanding reign∣eth ouer him, he minceth the matter with directly and in∣directly. But if the curse of God which is the penaltie of the law doe light vpon him for these sinnes, what shall it boote him to say, that he did but indirectly runne into it? Well they are not directly against the law, but against what are they directly? They are, saith hee, against the bond of some morall dutie, and we are bound in reason to auoid them. Heere is then the other obligation or bond, the bond of rea∣son,

the bond of morall duty. But is there any bond of mo∣rall dutie but only the law of God? and doth not the law perfectly determine all morall duty? or doth the reason of man find it selfe otherwise bound than by the conscience of the law? Surely S. Paul saith, c 1.461 I knew not sinne but by the law, and hath M. Bishop a way to know sinne otherwise than by the law? S. Paul saith; d 1.462 Where there is no law, there is no transgression, and shall we beleeue M. Bishop that there is transgression where there is no law? e 1.463 How should it not be forbidden by righteousnesse, saith S. Austin, if it be sin? and that that is sinne, saith he, shall be no sinne if God doe not forbid the being of it. Doth God forbid all sinne or else it is no sinne; and yet is there some sinne that is not against the law of God? Well, let vs leaue M. Bishop to his reason; for we see he knoweth not the law. As for vs, we doubt not but the law of God is the full description of all morall du∣tie, and that euery trespasse in morall dutie, and namelie their veniall sinnes are transgressions of the law, and there∣fore that no man fulfilleth the law because no man liueth without daily veniall sinnes: veniall as they call them, though all sinne by the law be adiudged mortall. Thus we see how foully M. Bishop was mistaken to thinke with his elder sticks to prop vp his foure points of Poperie, which whether he will or not are fallen to the ground, and he can deuise no further to hold them vp.

40. W. BISHOP.

He saith further, In this clause (as we forgiue our debters) it is taken for granted, that wee may certainly know that we repent and beleeue, and are reconciled by God; which all Roman Catholikes deny.

Answ. Nothing lesse, because much more is required to the one, than to the other. For it is farre easier to discerne, whether I doe yet beare any euill will to my neighbour, than to know as∣suredly, that I doe hartily repent me of all my sinnes, and that for the loue of God; and further, that I haue a firme purpose

not to commit hereafter, any kind of mortall sinne: these things (as euery one may plainly see) are farre more difficult, than the other of forgiuing them that trespasse against vs.

R. ABBOT.

M. Perkins doth not say, * 1.464 that in this clause it is taken for granted that we may certainly know that we repent and beleeue, as M. Bishop hath falsly and guilefully set down, but that in this clause it is taken for granted that wee may certainlie know that we are in loue and charity with men when we make reconciliation. Whereupon he inferreth the other, Why then may we not know certainly that we repent and beleeue, and are reconciled to God? M. Bishop telleth vs, that much more is required to the one than to the other, but what that is he tel∣leth not. He saith it is far easier to discerne the one than the other, but reason he giueth none. He saith that euery one may plainly see it, and we thinke we can see into a milstone as far as he, and yet we cannot see but that a man may dis∣cerne the truth of his heart in the one as well as in the o∣ther, and till he giue reason to the contrary, wee so leaue him.

41. W. BISHOP.

In the last words: and lead vs not into temptation, * 1.465 wee pray not (saith he) that God should free vs from temptati∣on, for it is otherwhiles good to be tempted: but that wee be not left vnto the malice of Satan, and held captiue of the temptation: for heere to be led into temptation, and to be deliuered, are opposed. Now hence I gather, that hee who is the childe of God truely iustified and sanctified, shall neuer fall wholly and finally from the grace of God; and I conclude on this maner: * 1.466 That which we aske according to the will of God, shall be granted: But this the childe of God asketh, that he might neuer be wholly forsaken of his father, and led captiue into temptation: this therfore shall be granted.

Answ. If this argument were sound, neuer should any Chri∣stian that saith our Lords praier, fall finally & be damned; be∣cause they all make this petition, and that according to the will of God, who would haue all men saued. Many things then besides saying our Lords praier, are required to saluation, for want of which many that haue often said that praier fall final∣ly. Againe, he mistaketh the true sense of that petition: for therein we do not aske that we continue not in sin, which we as∣ked in the former petition (forgiue vs our trespasses) but wee pray that we be not ouercome by the diuell, by yeelding our con∣sent to the temptation, and so fall into sinne. Lastly he forget∣eth himselfe much when he saith, that it is good to be temp∣ted: for he holdeth for certaine, that the very first motions to sinne in vs (which is the beginning of the temptation) are mortall sinnes; and so by himselfe, it is good to fall into mortall sinne, if it be good we should be tempted.

R. ABBOT.

Many there are who are Christians in name, * 1.467 but not in deed; Christians to men, but not to God, Christians by outward profession and partitipation of Sacraments, but not by inward regeneration and grace. M. Perkins namely speaketh of them who are truely iustified and sanctified, who with a true heart and vnfeined faith, doe call vpon the name of our Lord Iesus Christ. The rest speake praiers, but they do not pray: they repeat words with the mouth, but the heart, where is the true seate of praier, hath no feel∣ing of that they say. Now of them that are truely the children of God, and do faithfully and truely pray, it is vndoubtedly true which M. Perkins saith, that neuer any doth wholly and finally fall away from the grace of God. For a 1.468 the Lord is nigh vnto all them that call faithfully vpon him, and fulfilleth the desire of them that feare him; hee will heare their crie and will helpe them. And b 1.469 this is the assu∣rance that we haue of him, that if we aske any thing according to his will, he heareth vs; and if we know that he heareth vs,

whatsoeuer we aske, wee know that we haue the petitions that wee haue desired of him. c 1.470 Whosoeuer then is heard, saith S. Austin, in that he praieth, not to be led into temptation, hee is not brought into the temptation of that wilfulnesse, where∣by hee should faile to perseuere in holinesse. And whereas it may be obiected, Yea, but it is by a mans owne will that hee forsaketh God, so as to be woorthily forsaken of God; he an∣swereth, Who will denie that? But therefore doe wee aske not to be brought into temptation, that that may not come to passe; and if we be heard, surely it doth not come to passe, because God doth not suffer it so to be. As touching the sense of the petition, M. Bishop to assume somwhat to himselfe, taketh vpon him to correct M. Perkins, whereas the sense deliue∣red by M. Perkins, is the more sound and effectuall, that our praier is; not to be left to the malice of Satan, and held captiue of the temptation. For whereas M. Bishop saith, that we pray that we be not ouercome by the diuell, by yeelding our consent to the temptation, and so fall into sinne, it is true indeed that so we pray; but yet because wee know that God doth not so free his elect from temptation, but that they are sometimes ouercome, and doe consent to the temptation, and fall into sinne, wee vnderstand further, that if God see it expedient thus to let vs fall by temptati∣on, yet he will not leaue vs to bee holden captiues therein, nor suffer vs so to be tempted, but that he be alwaies with vs, to deliuer vs from euill, that d 1.471 though wee fall, yet wee may rise againe whilest he supporteth vs with his hand. For whereas M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins much forgetteth himselfe, in saying, that it is good otherwhiles to be tempted, it is he indeed that much forgetteth himselfe in so blame∣ing M. Perkins, who intendeth not that temptation is good of it selfe, but onely accidentally in respect of the good vse which God maketh thereof, turning the poi∣son of one sinne to be a preseruatiue against another, and by falling once making a man the more warie not to fall againe. And thus S. Austin by the words of the Apostle

saith, that e 1.472 all things to Gods elect worke together for good; f 1.473 euen so altogether all things, as that if any of them swarue and goe aside out of the w••y, hee maketh that also to further their good. g 1.474 For doe not sinnes worke for good to him, saith S. Bernard, who is found thereby more humble, more feruent, more carefull, more fearefull and warie than before? And thus Gregorie verie truely saith, that h 1.475 by the woonderfull dispensation of pietie, it commeth to passe that by what the wicked enemy tempteth the heart to destroy it, by the same our mercifull creatour nurtureth it to life. But the concupiscen∣ces and lusts of sinne, doe specially serue for this end; which God hath left as an enemie within our owne ber∣ders, to fight against vs for the exercising of our faith and hope, that seeing our owne weakenesse and danger in our selues, we may the more earnestly call vpon God, and de∣pend vpon his power; that being vexed and afflicted with the temptations of sinne, wee may hunger and thirst after righteousnesse so much the more; that being wearied with warre, we may the more long after the place of our peace; and obteining through his grace the conquest and victo∣rie, we may through his mercy obteine the promise of the crowne of glory. Thus God i 1.476 commandeth the light to shine out of darknesse, and out of euill worketh good vnto those that are his, which M. Bishop also I doubt not would acknowledge, but that a malicious spirit of wilfull contra∣diction carieth him headlong to resist apparent and knowen truth.

42. W. BISHOP.

Finally (he saith) this clause (Amen) signifieth a speci∣all faith concerning all the former petitions, that they shall be granted, and therefore a speciall faith concerning re∣mission of sinnes.

Answ. It signifieth a speciall hope and confidence to obtaine them, but no certaintie of faith, vnlesse vpon a condition which is vncertaine: that is, if wee doe our parts, God will not

faile of his; if wee doe heartily repent vs, and vse the Sacra∣ment of Penance duly, wee shall assuredly obtaine remission of our sinnes.

R. ABBOT.

The Romane Catechisme in this point confirmeth that which M. * 1.477 Perkins saith and maketh good our speciall faith, expounding Amen to bee added by our Sauiour Christ a 1.478 as Gods answer to this effect; Know that thy praiers are heard; and that we are to vnderstand it, as that wee haue obtained all our desires, and feeling the present power of the helpe of God doe sing with the Prophet; Behold God is my hel∣per; the Lord is the protector of my soule. If I be to conceiue Amen to be Gods answer that hee hath heard the praier that I haue faithfully made vnto him, then am I to beleeue that God hath forgiuen me my sinnes, because that is one part of the praier which I haue made. Whatsoeuer poison there is in the Romane Catechisme that M. Bishop sucketh very greedily; but this acknowledgement of truth, though perhaps vnwarily deliuered, he can by no meanes admit. As for his vncertaine condition I haue before shewed that it is the ouerthrow of Christian faith and hope, which whol∣ly withdraweth our eies from looking vpon our selues and our owne merits that we may rest wholly and only vpon the mercy and goodnesse of almighty God. It may well stand with that doubting and feare which elsewhere he re∣quireth, but confidence and hope can in no sort grow vp∣on it.

43. W. BISHOP.

Hitherto M. Perkins hath argued against vs out of the Lords praier: now I will briefly shew how the Protestants do∣ctrine contrarieth it.

I haue in my answer to his obiections, touched some points al∣ready: I adde, that one position of their doctrine crosseth three of the first petitions. I prooue it thus: In euery petion we must

be assured (as M. Perkins holdeth) or at the least haue a good hope to obtaine that wee pray for, or else it booteth vs not to pray: but according to the Protestants doctrine no man can be assured, nay can haue any hope to obtaine the three first petiti∣ons: for if originall sin do continually dwell in vs, and infect all our actions with deadly sinne, as they teach: Gods name can∣not be sanctified in vs, that are infected with such an vnclean leprosie: neither secondly, can God raigne as a King in vs, if sinne possesse and command all our members: and thirdly, Gods will cannot bee done by vs on earth as it is done in heauen, if wee cannot keepe his lawes and commandements, which they in heauen doe: wherefore the Protestants haue no assurance to obtaine the three first petitions, who are by their teachers assured, that they are not to bee expected or hoped for: nor they cannot (according to their owne rules) from their heart make the said petitions, being out of all hope to obtaine them.

R. ABBOT.

There is a notable picture of the regenerate man in the holy woman Rebecca when a 1.479 the children stroue within her, and the Lord said vnto her, Two nations are in thy wombe, and two maner of people shall be diuided out of thy bowels, and the one people shall be mightier than the other, and the elder shall serue the yonger. For so are there in the faithfull the old and the new man, the flesh and the spirit, somewhat whereby they are the children of God, and somewhat wherby they are still the children of this world. The originall leprosie still cleaueth vnto vs, but it is begun to be clensed and the strength of it is abated already. Sinne still possesseth and dwelleth in our members, but we do not say, as M. Bishop falsly pretendeth, that it hath the commanding of them. b 1.480 We are now like vnto God, saith S. Austin, by hauing the first fruits of the spirit, and we are still vnlike vnto him by the rem∣nants of our old state. So far therefore as we are like him, so far are we by the spirit of regeneration the sonnes of God: and so

far as we are vnlike him, so far are we the children of the flesh and of the world. On the one side therefore we cannot sinne, but on the other side if we say that we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs. Now then semblably wee answer M. Bishop, that according to that we are renued, and by the spirit of God are become the sonnes of God, the name of God is sanctified in vs, his kingdome is begun in vs, and we doe his will in earth with ready will as it is done in heauen. But by the remainder of the corruption of flesh and of the old man, there is a let that Gods name is not perfectly sanctified in vs, his kingdome taketh not full place in vs, neither doe we his will in such measure as we ought to doe. Yet we pray that the old man, the body of sinne may more and more be destroied, that the worke of Gods kingdome may more and more be fulfilled in vs; that we may more and more keep his commandements and do his will, not only with ready will, but without all let and hinderance fully and perfectly as they in heauen doe. Herein we pray that we may increase from day to day, and we beleeue that God heareth vs and granteth our request and will goe forward with his good worke till he bring vs in heauen to the perfection of it: so far are the Protestants from being out of hope of the obtaining of these three first petitions as M. Bishop fondly dreameth.

44. W. BISHOP.

In the fourth we aske aswell to be made partakers of Christs blessed body in the Sacrament, which is the food of our souls: as for our daily corporall sustenance. For so do the ancient fathers expound that petition: as namely S. Cyprian in oratione Do∣minica: S. Hiero. in 6. Matt. S. Amb. li. 5. de Sacra. c. 4. where he hath these memorable words of the blessed Sacrament: that before the words of Christ it was bread, but after it is the body of Christ. Why then (saith hee) is it called heere bread? he answereth, that it is called bread not simply, but supersubstantiall bread. For so doth the Greeke word Epióu∣sion

signifie, as well as daily:) it is (saith he) not such bread as passeth into our body, but it is the bread of eternall life that vpholdeth the substance of our soules. Now you may be well assured, that Protestants who will not beleeue any such bodily presence, doe not pray to God to giue it them.

R. ABBOT.

Wee wot well that sundry of the ancient Fathers haue expounded this petition, * 1.481 not onely literally of corporall foode, but also mystically of the participation of the bles∣sed Sacrament, wherin Christ is spiritually offered and gi∣uen vnto vs to be vnto vs the bread of euerlasting life. Of this we will not contend with the fathers; onely we would know of M. Bishop, if this daily bread bee vnderstood of the Sacrament, how is it that the people with them are not called and vrged to the daily participation of the Sa∣crament, that daily they may be partakers of this bread, ac∣cordingly as they are taught to pray? Or if without the receiuing of the Sacrament, a man may be partaker of the spirituall food of the body and bloud of Christ, as by their construction of this petition compared with their practise it may seem they do confesse, then they must acknowledge that there is no necessitie of their reall presence, to make vs partakers of the body and bloud of Christ. Which al∣though I do not see how M. Bishop should well and han∣somly auoid, yet he thought good here to put in one place for the same reall presence of Christs bodie, his choise notwithstanding being so smal, as that he hath brought vs one that saieth nothing for him, yea in very truth saith altogether against him. The words of Ambrose are these: a 1.482 Before the words of Christ that which is offered is bread; but when the words of Christ are vttered, it is not now termed bread, but it is called the body. M. Bishop falsifieth the words: but taking them as they are, what doth hee finde in them, for assertion of the reall presence? Is it anie proofe of reall presence, to say that the Sacrament is called

the body of Christ? Now as it is called the body of Christ, so is it also called supersubstantiall bread, not for that that it is really to the mouth & belly, but for that that it signifieth and presenteth to our faith. And this doth Ambrose him∣selfe immediately declare when hee addeth, b 1.483 for it is not this bread which passeth into the body, but that bread of eter∣nall life that vpholdeth the substance of our soule. Where when he deuideth the bread of eternall life, from that which goeth into the bodie, hee plainly sheweth, that that which goeth into the body, is not the reall body of Christ, which is the bread of eternall life. What hap had M. Bishop heere to speake of the reall presence, hauing no better witnesse to plead for it?

45. W. BISHOP.

And touching forgiuenesse of their debts to God, and sins; they are so assured of that before hand, by the certaintie of their new faith, that they can no more request of God forgiue∣nesse of their sinnes, then they can aske, that God will make them reasonable creatures, which they see that hee hath done already. And they holding the first motions to euill in tempta∣tion, to be mortall sinnes, which no mortall man ordinarily can now auoid; how can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation, when they teach it to bee impossible to escape the venime of it? And if they vnderstand it so, as M. PERKINS teacheth: to wit, that they there pray, not to be left to the malice of Satan, they cannot without losse of the certainty of their faith pray so; because they hold them∣selues assured of that before hand.

Neithey can they pray God generally to deliuer them from all euill, affirming as they doe, that wee must needs fall into mortall sinne at euery step almost, which is the greatest of all other euill. And finally, if it belong to God to deliuer vs from sinne, and all other euill; then Caluin and his followers doe wickedly blaspheme, who teach God to be the author and worker in vs, of all errour, sinne, and wickednesse. Thus much of the Pater noster.

R. ABBOT.

Our beleefe and assurance of the forgiuenesse of sinnes is, that when we begge the same of God by faithfull prai∣er, he granteth vs our desire; and therefore doe wee praie for it, because he hath promised, and wee beleeue his pro∣mise, that in praying we shall obteine it. Of this idle So∣phisme of his, there hath beene enough said * 1.484 before. We pray that we be not led into temptation, in such meaning as before hath beene said, vnderstanding simply temptati∣on, so as to be left of God therein, without the assistance of his grace. This hindereth not but that the first motions of lust wherewith wee are tempted, are in their owne na∣ture mortall sinnes, though by the mercy of God they become not so to vs. For we doe not say, as hee vntruely alleageth, that it is impossible to escape the venime of tempta∣tion; nay, we say that the faithfull do escape the venime and poison of it, because b 1.485 all things (euen temptation and sinne) worke together for good vnto them that loue God. And thus do we praie also, to bee deliuered from euill, that though we be not as yet set free from temptation, yet the same by his ouerruling prouidence, may be so ordered, as that by his mercy we may be free from the euill and danger ther∣of. And what should let but that we may pray God gene∣rally to deliuer vs from all euill, euen from that c 1.486 euill which is (alwaies) present with vs when we would do good; from d 1.487 the law of sinne that is in our members; from e 1.488 the flesh that lusteth against the spirit, because wee beleeue that God heareth vs when we so pray, and will deliuer vs from that bondage wherein we are forced for the time to serue? Yea this he hath begun to doe alreadie, destroying by the po∣wer of his spirit more and more the bodie of sinne, and yeelding f 1.489 the outward man to bee corrupted, that the inner man may be renued from day to day, vntill perfect newnesse shall come, and all euils shall bee fully abolished, because g 1.490 God who is all good, shall be all in all. And if wee cannot

pray generally to bee deliuered from all euill, because wee affirme the first motions of sinne which are euill to conti∣nue still in vs, let M. Bishop tell vs how they pray to be de∣liuered generally from all euill, who though they acknow∣ledge not the first motions to bee sinne, yet acknowledge them to be euil as wel as we; and that from this euil no man is set free so long as hee continueth in the warfare of this life. As for the certainty of saluation, wee loose it not by these praiers, but are rather thereby confirmed in it, be∣cause we beleeue as hath beene said, that God heareth vs when we so pray, and therefore rest assured according to the measure of our faith, that God will guide vs in safety through the middest of all temptations, and will finally deliuer vs from all euill, and bring vs to bee partakers of his kingdome for euer. That which hee saith of Caluin is an odious repetition of an impudent slander, which is cleered before in the answer to his Preface, the tenth sect.

46. W. BISHOP.

Now before I come to the Sacraments, I may not omit to speake a word of the Aue-Maria, which in old Catechismes followeth immediately after the Pater noster. The Prote∣stants haue cassierd it, and may not abide to heare it once said; but therein, as much as in any other such matter, they dis∣grace their doctrine, and discredite themselues. For all the words vsed of old therin, are the very words of the holy Ghost, registred in S. Lukes Gospell; and therefore they bewray ei∣ther great ignorance, or a wicked spirit to dwell in them, that cannot indure to heare the words of Gods spirit. Besides in holy Scripture it is prophesied, * 1.491 that from henceforth all genera∣tions should call the Virgin MARY blessed. In what termes then can wee more conueniently so call her, then in the verie same that were composed by an Archangell, are penned by the Euangelists, and by them commended vnto all good Christians? besides, the sence of them is comfortable vnto vs, as containing a remembrance of the incarnation of the Sonne of God for our

redemption, and we on our parts doe thereby giue thanks to God for that inestimable benefit, and congratulate our Saui∣our with humble thanks therefore, saying: Blessed be the fruit of thy wombe, IESVS. I need not in such cleere euidence of Gods word, alleage the testimonie of any ancient father: hee that list to see how it hath beene vsed in the purest antiquity, let him reade S. Athanasius in Euang. de deipara. S. Ephem. de laudibus B. Mariae. S. Basils and S. Chrysostomes lytur∣gies, which can with no more reason be denied to be theirs, then the rest of their works. One short sentence I will set downe in commendations of it, out of that most reuerend and deuout Bernard. The Angels triumph, and the heauens doe congra∣tulate with them; the earth leapeth for ioy, and hell trembleth when the Aue-Maria is deuoutly said. * 1.492 Good Christians then must needs take great delight in it, euen as the badde may not abide it.

R. ABBOT.

The Protestants doe so well indure to heare the words of Gods spirit, as that they haue made speciall choise ther∣of as the principall weapon wherewith to fight against the superstitions and abominations of the Papists. Whose ab∣surd dotage as many other waies, so in their Aue-Marie most notably appeareth, in that of a salutation to the vir∣gin Marie being present, they haue made an inuocation of her being absent, and thinke it a matter of great merit and deuotion to vse it like a charme by saying it ouer thus or thus many times at once which the Angell spake but once. M. Bishop allegeth for it the old Catechismes, but he neither telleth vs what Catechismes he meaneth, nor how old they are; which if he had, we should easily haue descried the va∣nity of his speech. For if by old Catechismes he meane as he should, the Catechismes of the ancient fathers and pri∣mitiue Church, he is therein found a liar, because in those Catechismes there is nothing of it. But if by old Catechisms he meane any that haue beene of latter times vnder the

darknesse of Popery, he abuseth his Reader, who in case of Religion looketh for satisfaction euen from the first age, because what was not then a part of religion can be no part of religion now; the truth of Christ being one and the same from the beginning and for euer. The words, he saith, are the words of the holy ghost, and so say we; but we say that the words of the holy ghost may be abused, as here they are, against the purpose and meaning of the holy Ghost. They are the words of the holy Ghost which Christ vsed to the Apostles, a 1.493 Fooles and slow of heart to beleeue all that the Prophets haue spoken: and will M. Bishop therfore say that we may vse those words for inuocation of the Apo∣stles? He allegeth againe that it is prophecied that all gene∣rations should call the virgin Mary blessed; and we deny it not but we may call her blessed in the meditations of our own hearts, and in speaking of her to them that heare vs, though we speake not idlely as to her that heareth vs not. Be it that the words were composed by the Archangell, penned by the Euangelists, commended to the reading of all good Christians as other words of scriptures are; be it that the sense of them is most comfortable vnto vs, yet what is all this to prooue that these words are to bee vsed for a deuotion and seruice to the virgin Mary? specially in such sort as Po∣pery hath vsed them in a strange and vnknowen tongue, which could yeeld no comfort of the sense, nor remem∣brance thereby of the incarnation of Christ, nor perfour∣mance of thanksgiuing or congratulation towards God. That purest antiquity which he allegeth is but corrupt no∣uelty, and leud forgery. The Liturgies of Basill and Chry∣sostome are very falsly so termed, and yet in Basils Litur∣gie there is no mention of the Aue-Mary. Of Chrysostomes Liturgie there are so many different copies published, one by Leo Tuscus, another by Erasmus, another by Pelargus, who also testifieth that hee hath seen a fourth, as that if Chrysostome did leaue any, yet no man is able to say of any of them that this is it. The sermon of Athanasius in Euan∣gel.

de Deipara, is by b 1.494 Nannius their own translatour put amongst the ranke of bastards and counterfets. The name of Deipara was not so famous in the time of Athanasius as to be prefixed in the title of a sermon; neither could it haue wanted memorable testimony in the councell of Ephesus if it had been then knowen for his. Ephrems works, as c 1.495 Hi∣erome saith, were written in the Syrian tongue. If M. Bi∣shop can shew them in the same tongue, yea or ancientlie translated into the Greeketongue, we can giue the better credit that they are his indeed. Otherwise we know that they haue been in hucksters handling; neither can we but be suspicious of that iugling and foisting which we finde to haue been so vsuall and common with them. And if M. Bishop will haue vs to take it for Ephrems worke, let him tell vs who is the translatour of it. Gerardus Vossius who translated and published the works of Ephrem by the war∣rant of Pope Sixtus the fift, whereas he putteth his name to so many as hee translated, putteth no name to the Ser∣mon which M. Bishop citeth, shewing thereby that it is not in Greeke, and therefore importing it to be a counter∣feit. He saith, that these can with no more reason be denied to be theirs, then the rest of their works: But I answer him, that though there were no other reason, yet it is sufficient reason for vs to bee suspicious of these, because in them some things are set downe, whereof in the rest of their vndoub∣ted workes, and in the infinite volumnes of antiquitie which are approoued and acknowledged, there is no to∣ken to be found. As for Bernand he liued in latter times of great apostasie and corruption. In that truth which he re∣teined, he is a good witnesse for vs against them; but hee can be no witnesse for them to make good those corrupti∣ons which hee drew from the time wherein he liued. And yet neither is his testimonie cited out of any of his owne works, but from another, I know not whom, and therefore is the lesse to be regarded; to say nothing, that the speech is ridiculous and fond: for why should wee imagine that

the Angels triumph, and the heauens congratulate, that the earth leapeth for ioy, and hell trembleth at the deuout say∣ing of the Aue-Mary, more then when wee say deuoutly, Our Father which art in heauen, &c? Surely good Christi∣ans will reiect such absurd dotages and idle dreames, though with bad Christians al is fish that commeth to net: and what custome offereth, they are readie to entertaine, neuer regarding to consult with the word of Christ for warrant of that they doe.

47. W. BISHOP.

Now let vs come to the last part of the Catechisme, which is of the Sacraments, where M. PER. doth briefly repeat his arguments, vsed before against the reall presence: I might therefore, send the Reader vnto the first Chapter of this booke for the answer; but because the matter is of great importance, I will heere againe giue them a short answer. [unspec 1] First (saith hee) the reall presence is ouerthrowne out of these words, hee tooke bread and brake it: ergo, that which Christ tooke, was not his bodie, &c.

A simple ouerthrow, Christ (indeed) tooke and brake bread, but presently after blessing it, made it his body by these words, this is my bodie.

R. ABBOT.

I might send the Reader, saith M. Bishop, vnto the first chapter of this booke for the answer, and yet in this booke there is no such chapter where his answer should be found. But touching the reall presence, M. Perkins argueth out of the words of Christ to this effect; that Christ brake that which he tooke, and that which hee tooke was bread and not his body, and therefore that it was bread and not really his body which hee brake; it being absurd that Christ should bee said to breake himselfe, and therefore remaining that that which hee brake was the Sacrament only, and not himselfe. To answer this M. Bishop wee

see is somewhat hardly bestead, and forceth the words of Christ to another order than the Euangelists and S. Paul haue obserued in the deliuering of them. Yea hee crosseth the Canon of the Masse of rather setteth the Canon of the Masse at variance with the institution of Christ. In a word hee saith hee knoweth not what, and and cannot tell what to say. The Euangelists and the Apo∣stle constantly and with one consent put blessing before breaking; but he saith that Christ first brake and then bles∣sed. He saith that it was bread which Christ brake, but if it were bread which Christ brake, then what is it which the Priest breaketh? If it be bread, then there is no tran∣substantiation. If it be not bread, then he swarueth from Christs institution. Hee maketh Christ to breake the host before consecration; but the Masse-priest breaketh it not till after consecration. How then shall the Masse-book and the Gospell be thought to agree together? All this it see∣meth he runneth into because he cannot tell how it should be said that Christ did breake himselfe which was the thing that M. Perkins vrged. But let him reconcile these differences, and then send vs a more perfect answer; other∣wise we must hold him for a simple man that could not a∣uoid such a simple ouerthrow.

48. W. BISHOP.

Againe: * 1.496 Christ said not vnder the forme of bread, or in bread; but this that is, bread is my body.

Answ. It is false to say that this word (Hoc. This) doth demonstrate bread: for it is of a different gender from it, both in Latin and Greeke; and if he had said, that that bread had been his body, his word was so omnipotent, that it had beene of force to make it his body; so that M. Perkins maketh a false constraction, which nothing helpeth his error.

R. ABBOT.

His exception as touching the different gender is excep∣ted

against, I will not say by his Grammar rules; for I will not shame him so much as to send him to his Grammar, but by their glosse of the Canon law which telleth him that a 1.497 the adiectiue in the neuter gender is spoken of euery gen∣der. Though therefore the particle demonstratiue This be in the neuter gender in the Greeke and Latin tongue, yet that hindereth not but that bread being of the masculine gender may bee demonstrated thereby. And so the anci∣ent fathers vnderstood it that b 1.498 Christ called bread his body, euen c 1.499 bread made of many cornes he calleth his body; that d 1.500 he honoured the visible signes with the name of his body and blood; that e 1.501 he ministred bread and wine for signes and tokens of his body and bloud; that f 1.502 he gaue to his Apostles at his last sup∣per bread and wine; and in a word that g 1.503 bread is the body of Christ. Now if there be no bread, then it cannot bee said that bread is the body, or that it is called the body of Christ. If bread be called the body of Christ, then is it ne∣cessarily imported that there is bread which is so called. Which because it cannot be before consecration, therfore after consecration there must be bread to be and to be cal∣led the body of Christ. And beyond this the omnipotent force of the word of Christ doth not extend it selfe. Hee thereby maketh the bread his body, not as h 1.504 of water hee made wine, so as to be no longer water, but as i 1.505 the word was made flesh, and yet still continued to be the word, k 1.506 not changing nature, as Theodoret expresseth it, but adding grace vnto nature. Albeit to dispute here what the word of Christ had been of force to doe, is fantasticall and idle: what hee did intend to doe, is manifest and plaine vnto vs. He pur∣posed to institute a Sacrament; and l 1.507 sacraments haue a resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, and by reason of that resemblance they commonly take the names of the

things themselues. Christ therefore according to this accu∣stomed maner calleth the Sacrament of his body and bloud by the name of his bodie and bloud, and saith of bread, This is my body, and of the Cuppe, This is my bloud, and not in name enely but m 1.508 in power and effect they are to the faithfull receiuer the same that they are called. Heerein the force of Christs word is seene, that to so weake and simple creatures he addeth so rich and vn∣speakable grace; and by so slender meanes worketh so great effects whereby he maketh vs poore creatures of the earth to become one with himselfe in heauen. But if M. Bishop will deny the meaning to be, This bread is my body, we desire him to declare a better meaning, and to tell vs certainly whereto to refer This; which if he can define, we will hold him for a wiser man than any hitherto hath been amongst them. After much tossing this matter to and fro needlesse here to be stood vpon, their great Master Bellar∣mine commeth to strike the matter dead, and telleth vs that the meaning is; n 1.509 This, that is, the substance contained vnder these formes. But his wisedome might haue seene that the question heere continueth still the same, what the sub∣stance is that is conteined vnder the formes. The body of Christ they say, is not there till o 1.510 the last instant of the words of consecration, and till then the substance of bread is there. The sustance then demonstrated by This, must necessarilie be granted to be bread as wee expoundit, because as yet there is no other. Much adoe they make about this matter, and can resolue nothing, and whilest they will not sub∣mit themselues to the truth, they are so intangled in their owne errour that they know not which way to quit them∣selues.

49. W. BISHOP.

Thirdly, * 1.511 Bread was not giuen for vs, but onely the bo∣die of Christ, and in the first institution, the body of Christ was not then really giuen to death.

Ans. This maketh nothing at all against the reall presence,

but doth greatly fortifie it: For Christ gaue vs in the Sacra∣ment, that which should be put to death for vs, this is my body that shall be giuen for you. Now not bread, but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs: ergo Christ gaue vs to eate not bread, but his true reall body.

R. ABBOT.

If M. Bishops argument be good against vs, we will re∣turne it to himselfe againe. Christ gaue vs in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for vs; but not the forme of bread: but Christs true body was giuen to death for vs, therefore Christ gaue vs to eate, not the forme of bread, but his true reall body. And doth M. Bishop beleeue so? If he doe not, then let him answer his owne argument, and wee shall thereby finde a way to answer him. It is true that Christ in the Sacrament giueth his body, but he giueth not onely his body, but also the Sacrament of his body. He gi∣ueth the Sacrament of his body externally and corporally to be receiued by the mouth: hee giueth-his true bodie in∣ternally and spiritually to be receiued by faith. He giueth vs then that bodie that was giuen to death for vs, but hee doth not giue it to the swallowing of the throat, but to the meditation of the heart. And this S. Austin notably decla∣reth, when for exposition of the words of Christ, Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, &c. he saith, or rather maketh Christ to say: a 1.512 Vnderstand spiri∣tually that which I haue said; Yee shall not eat this bodie which yee see, nor drinke that bloud which they shall shead that crucifie me: I haue commended vnto you a Sacrament, which vnderstand spiritually, and it shall giue you life. Where vnderstanding eating and drinking properly with the mouth, hee denieth the very body and bloud of Christ to this eating and drinking, and leaueth onely the Sacrament to be appertaining thereto. Now in this meane while M. Bishop hath slipped M. Perkins argument, and let it goe without answer that the Sacrament is not simpl••e the body

of Christ, but onely as it is giuen to death for vs, and be∣cause the body of Christ neither was in the first institution, nor now is in the Sacrament really giuen to death for vs, therefore the Sacrament is not really the body of Christ.

50. W. BISHOP.

Fourthly, * 1.513 The cup is the new Testament by a figure, why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure?

Answ. A goodly reason, if there bee one figure there must needs be two. How followeth this? if those words of S. Paul be obscure, why did he not rather cleare them by conferring them with S. Matthew, and S. Marke, who deliuer it plainely thus: this is my bloud of the new Testament that shall be shedde, &c? But hee that delighteth in cauilling, must seeke darknesse.

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishop anone a 1.514 after telleth vs that no good Christian may thinke but that our Sauiour Christ Iesus very well fore∣seeing all such inconueniences, as he hath there expressed, did deliuer the Sacrament in such termes as he would haue to bee taken properly, and not bee construed at mens pleasures figura∣tiuely. If this be true, how doth hee heere thinke of him∣selfe that doth admit, that Christ in the deliuering of the Sacrament, namely of the cup, did speake figurariuely? Or if he be a good Christian notwithstanding, that contrary to his owne rule he admit a figure in Christs deliuering of the Sacrament, must we be no good Christiās if we admit two? Surely there is the same reason of the one part of the Sa∣crament as there is of the other; and sich there is a necessity to vnderstand a figure in the one, either hee must giue vs sound reason to the contrary, or else he must leaue vs to our own reasons to conceiue the like of the other also. Though it be not a goodly reason to say, if there be one figure, there must needs be two, yet it is a good reasō to say, if there may be one figure, nothing hindreth but there may be two. If

Christ might say by a figure, a 1.515 This cup is the new Testa∣ment in my bloud, as S. Luke and S. Paul haue set downe, then hee might say also by a figure, This is my bodie; this bread is my body. But saith he, if those words of S. Paul bee obscure, why did he not rather cleere them by conferring them with S. Mathew and S. Marke? So then there may be here somewhat obscure, but it must bee onely what pleaseth them, who, notwithstanding of that that is most cleere, as we haue seene in the former section saue one, doe by their exposition make a matter most intricate and darke. But what cleering doth S. Paul receiue from S. Mathew and S. Marke? Forsooth they deliuer it plainly thus, This is my bloud of the new testament that shall be shed, &c. Hee setteth downe the words, but what cleering it is that he meaneth, he sheweth not. And indeed the words on both sides are alike; S. Luke and S. Paul speake by a figure; and so doe also S. Mathew and S. Mark. S. Mathew saith; b 1.516 This is my bloud of the new testament; but what meaneth he by This? Surely This hath heere the nature of a relatiue, and must be referred to his antecedent before set downe. And what is the antecedent but the cup? Iesus tooke the cup, and gaue it to them saying, Drinke yee all of this; of what, but of this cup? for this, that is, this cup is my bloud of the new testa∣ment, &c. The words of c 1.517 S. Marke doe beare also the same sense; which as it is the very Grammaticall con∣struction of the words, so it is also fully confirmed in that S. Luke and S. Paul doe expresly deliuer it in that sort. So then by all three Euangelists and S. Paul, there is a figure in one part of the Sacrament; let vs then aske M. Bishop againe, why may there not be so in the other also? But hee doth not loue to be troubled with too many questions. He cannot tell as yet what answer to giue vs, and therefore we must be content to giue him further time till he may better bethinke himselfe.

51. W. BISHOP.

Fiftly, Christ did eat that supper, but not himselfe? * 1.518

Answ. A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eat of that Sacrament, as M. PERK. doth, because hee hath no warrant for it in the written word: yet we doe grant that he did so, and hold him most worthy to taste of that heauenly food.

R. ABBOT.

If the written word doe not warrant that Christ did eat of the Sacrament, I maruell why M. Bishop citeth to that purpose out of S. Luke those words which a 1.519 anon he doth; that he maruellously desired to eat this last banquet with his disciples. Whether hee cite it truely or falsly, let himselfe looke to that; but either hee must confesse that hee hath cited amisse there, or else that he hath spoken rashly here. But if Christ did eat of the Sacrament, will M. Bishop haue vs to beleeue that he did eat himselfe, or dranke the bloud of his owne bodie? May we be perswaded that one and the same Christ at one and the same time was both wholly within himselfe, and wholly also without himselfe? that hee sate visible by his Apostles, and yet was then wholly conteined within the compasse of his owne bowels? or that in his owne bowels hee at that time caried his owne bloud? or that moreouer hee was then by the Sacrament in the bellies of all the Apostles, euen of the traitour Iudas? Surely what Christ did eat, the same Iudas did eat also. But of Iudas S. Austin teacheth, that b 1.520 hee did eat of the Lords bread, but not of the bread which is the Lord. Therefore al∣though Christ did eat the Sacrament, yet may wee not imagine that hee did eat himselfe. These are horrible and vnchristian fancies; but out of the schoole of Transubstan∣tiation they come, and they that maintaine the one, must necessarily maintaine the other also.

52. W. BISHOP.

Sixtly, We are bid to doe it till he come: Christ then is not bodily present.

Answ. Wee are bid by S. Paul to shew the death of our

Lord till he come to iudgement, which we may very well doe, * 1.521 his body being present: as certaine noble Matrons preserued of their husbands blood, to represent more freshly vnto their chil∣dren, the slaughter of their fathers.

R. ABBOT.

It is true that his comming shall bee to iudgement; but what shall he need to come if he be here already? It was not questioned whereto he should come, nor whether we may shew the death of the Lord, his body being present, if it were present; but why the Apostle should say till he come, if he be intended to be here already present. His body being present saith he, as though he meant that Christ were not wholly present, whereas they tell vs that whole Christ is in the Sacrament, both God and man, soule and body, flesh blood and bone as hee was borne of the virgin and nailed afterwards to the Crosse. And if Christ be wholly present, what reason had the Apostle to say till he come? He telleth vs a ridiculous and impertinent tale of certaine noble Ma∣trones, who preserued of their husbands blood to represent more freshly to their children the slaughter of their fathers. But what is this to the matter here in hand? If those noble ma∣trones had had their husbands with them, and in the pre∣sence of their children; then let him tell vs whether it had not been a witlesse thing to bid them expect their fathers till they come? But hee stealeth away from the point, and though he doe but gull his Reader with an idle iest, yet he would haue it thought that hee hath giuen a worthy an∣swer. As touching the truth of this matter, our Sauiour in∣formeth vs when he telleth his disciples, a 1.522 The poore ye shall haue alwaies with you, but me ye shall not haue alwaies. S. Au∣stin giueth a reason of those word; b 1.523 because according to the presence of his body, he was conuersant forty daies with his disciples, and then they bringing him on the way by seeing, but not by following, he ascended into heauen, and is not here. Christ then according to the presence of his body is not here; yea

c 1.524 the heauen must containe him, saith S. Peter, vntill the time that all things be restored, and therefore d 1.525 from heauen wee looke for him, saith S. Paul, euen as in our Creed we professe to beleeue that from thence hee shall come to iudge both the quicke and the dead. Now because we beleeue according to the scripture, that Christ as touching his body is in heauen and not here, and that from heauen we are to looke for him at the last day, we are able to giue a iust reason why the A∣postle should say, vntill he come, which M. Bishop out of his learning cannot doe.

53. W. BISHOP.

Seuenthly, Christ bid vs to doe it in remembrance of him; but signes of remembrance are of things absent.

Answ. We see one thing and remember another. By Christs body really present, we remember the same to haue been nailed on the Crosse for our redemption: as Goliaths sword was kept in the tabernacle, in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goli∣aths head with the same sword; and the women before rehear∣sed, kept their husbands blood, & might much easier haue pre∣scrued their bodies embalmed, to keepe the better their deaths in fresh memory.

R. ABBOT.

We see one thing, saith M. Bishop, and remember another. But a 1.526 that which you see, saith S. Austin, is bread, as your very eies tell you. If then our remembrance be by our sight, it is by bread that we remember the body of Christ. M. Bi∣shop, I hope, will not say that we see the body of Christ really present; and if we see it not, how should we remem∣ber any thing by it, seeing signes of remembrance must be things seen? Such was Goliaths sword, such was the hus∣bands blood kept by the wines, as much pertinent to this purpose as a goose quill to a woodcocks taile. The reall presence therfore in this behalfe, is altogether idle neither is there any fruit or effect of it, because there is nothing

thereby to be seen. Albeit Christ did not say, see this in re∣membrance of me, but do this in remembrance ofme. And what he bid vs doe, S. Paul telleth vs, namely b 1.527 to eat of this bread, and drinke of this cup. And how shall wee eat of this bread in remembrance of him, if it be true which they say that in the sacrament there is no bread? If he will say that by the forme of bread we may be remembred, though the body be not seen, we can also say that by the bread we may be remembred though there bee no reall presence of the body, and therfore the reall presence because it is needlesse is iustly affirmed to be none at all.

54. W. BISHOP.

Eightly, If the reall presence be granted, * 1.528 then the body and blood of Christ are either seuered or ioined together: if seuered, then Christ is still crucified: if ioyned together, then the bread is both the body and blood of Christ; wher∣as the institution saith, the bread is the body, and the wine is the blood.

Answ. The body and blood of Christ, are (by force of Christs words) consecrated apart, so that if they could be na∣turally separated, they should bee also seuered in that Sacra∣ment, as they might haue been at Christs death, when all the blood was poured foorth of his body; but euer sithence Christs resurrection, they are so ioined together, that they can bee no more seuered: so that we grant vnder one kind of the Sacra∣ment, to be both Christs body and blood, which is not wrought by the words of the institution, but by the necessary and insepa∣rable coniunction of Christs body with his blood, euer since his glorious resurrection.

R. ABBOT.

To this it shall be needlesse to say any thing here, be∣cause it commeth more fitly to be spoken of in the next section.

55. W. BISHOP.

Finally, M. Perkins condemneth the administration of

the Sacrament vnder one onely kind: for the commande∣ment of Christ is, drinke ye all of this, Mat. 26. vers. 27. and this commandement is rehersed to the Church of Corinth in these words: doe this as oft as ye drinke it, in remem∣brance of me. vers. 25. and no power can reuerse this com∣mandement, because it was established by the soueraigne head of the Church.

Answ. He began to set downe the institution of the Sacra∣ment out of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. heere he leapeth backe to S. Mathew, because he fitteth him better in this point: to whom I answer, that Christ there spake only vnto his twelue Apostles, who were afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to o∣thers; and so something ther-about is spoken to them which may not bee extended vnto lay-men, but vnto Priests onely, who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministery. All men do con∣fesse these words: hoc facite, doe yee this: that is, administer yee this Sacrament, to be spoken onely to the Apostles, and in them to all of the Clergie alone: euen so, drinke yee all of this, was in like maner spoken vnto them onely as Clergie men; and therfore it is a commandement onely to Priests so to do: and as for others, they may either drinke of it, or not drinke of it, as it shall bee thought most expedient by their supreame Pastors; and this may be gathered out of those very words, drinke ye all of this. For why should the Apostles haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cuppe, then to eat of that food; vnlesse it were to signifie, that whereas all men should be bound to re∣ceiue Christs body: they should bee further bound to receiue that holy cuppe also; from which bond other men should stand free? But to come to the purpose, when they quarrell with vs for taking away from the people one kind of the Sacrament: we answer, that we doe them no hinderance thereby; because we giue them both the blessed body, and sacred bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde: yea whole Christ, both God and man; because they be so vnited that they cannot be separated. But what can they answer, when we complaine vpon them, for that they haue defrauded the poore people, of both body and

bloud of Christ, and in lieu of that most pretious banquet, doe giue them a cold breake-fast, of a morsell of bread, and a suppe of wine? this is a most miserable and lamentable ex∣change indeed: our blessed Lord giue them grace to see it, and deliuer them speedily from it. Heere is the place to shew how the Protestants doe not onely bereaue their vnfortunate fol∣lowers of this most heauenly food of Christs body: but that they also depriue them of the manifold and great graces of God, de∣riued vnto vs in siue other Sacraments: but because I haue touched it in the Preface, I will omit it heere, and make an end with M. PER. assoone as I haue requited him, by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence, as hee hath done against it.

R. ABBOT.

Whether it bee S. Mathew or S. Paul, they serue both for the confirming of one truth, and doe both condemne the Antichristian and damnable sacriledge of the Church of Rome, in maiming the Sacrament of Christ contrary to the institution of Christ himselfe, to the very intention and purpose of the Sacrament, to the example and practise of all ancient churches. Our Sauiour Christ saith: a 1.529 Drinke yee all of this. But the Church of Rome saith; Not so, for there are iust and reasonable causes why it is not fit that all drinke therof, but it is sufficient that the Priest alone drinke for all. M. Bishop to make this good, telleth vs that Christ there spake to his Apostles onely, and that some thing there∣about is spoken to them, which may not bee extended vnto lay∣men, but vnto Priests onely. But how will hee make it ap∣peare that Christ in the one part of the Sacrament spake to the Apostles onely, and not in the other also? There were none there present but the Apostles, and what direction haue we in the words of Christ, to restraine the vse of the cup, as peculiar to the Priests, and to make the other common to the people? And if Christ did so intend, how falleth it out that the Apostle S. Paul in the recitall of

Christs institution, professing b 1.530 to deliuer precisely what he had receiued of the Lord, maketh no mention of this re∣straint? and what presumption was it in the whole primi∣tiue Church, contrary to that intendment, to make that common to the laitie, which Christ had made the prero∣gatiue of the Priests onely? He saith, that others may drinke of it, or not drinke of it, as it shall be thought most expedient by the Pope, whom hee falsly nameth the supreme Pastour. But how may it appeere that there is any such authoritie left to the Pope? Surely, if Christ spake only to the Priests, it should not seeme likely that the Pope should haue liber∣ty to extend this fauour to the people; and if the Pope may giue libertie heereof to the people, then it is certaine that Christ did not speake only to the Priests. But there is a speciall secret heere which I would gladly haue M. Bi∣shop to vnfold: for if the words of Christ, Drinke yee all of this, were spoken onely to Priests, and doe belong to them, how is it that c 1.531 Priests also in the church of Rome, he only excepted that ministreth, are excluded from being partakers of the cuppe? Christ saith, by their owne con∣fession, Drinke all yee Priests; how impudently then doe they transgresse the commandement of Christ who barre all Priests from the Cup but him only that saith Masse? Here their wicked and damnable hypocrisie most plainly appeareth, and the knots wherewith they are tied are such, as that they know not which way to vntie them. The Priests that minister not, are with them in that behalfe as in the case of lay-men, and therefore are forbidden to be par∣takers of the cup. But in that case also the Apostles were at the institution of the Sacrament; for Christ only mini∣stred and not any of them. And yet to the Apostles being thus as in the state and condition of lay men, because they ministred not, our Sauiour Christ saith, Drinke ye all of this. What now followeth hereof, but that to lay men, and of lay men as well as of Priests, our Sauiour Christ said, Drink ye all of this; euen you all that haue eaten of this bread,

drinke ye also of this cup? But all men confesse, saith M. Bi∣shop, that these words hoc facite, doe ye this, were spoken only to the Apostles, and in them to the Clergy alone. And it may be that all his men confesse so, or all the men that he had in his head when he wrote this, but otherwise all men will not so confesse, because to confesse so, should be to con∣fesse an vntruth. For those words haue reference to the whol celebration of this mystery, requiring the same to be performed in remembrance of him by whom it was first ordained. Yea and that they haue their respect to the re∣ceiuers, appeareth plainly by the very coherence and con∣sequence thereof; d 1.532 Take, eat; doe this, namely that I haue bidden you doe, to take and eat, in remembrance of me. And this is as cleere in the Apostles description of the instituti∣on of the Cup; e 1.533 He tooke the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you; this doe as oft as ye drinke it in remembrance of me. Which later words sound plainly to this effect; Drinke ye all of this, and as oft as ye do so, doe it in the remembrance of me. But yet we will deale cur∣teously with M. Bishop, and grant him his desire, that Christ here speaketh of the ministration of the sacrament which appertaineth to the Clergy alone; and will he here∣of conclude that when hee saith Drinke ye all of this, his meaning was that the Clergy only should drinke thereof? Verily the contrary rather most plainly followeth. For when he saith, Doe this, what else doth he say, but what ye see me doe, the same doe ye; I say to you all here present, Take and eat; I deliuer the cup to you all that you may all drinke thereof; doe you administer to others in the same sort; what I haue done to you, the same doe you to them in remembrance of me. And this rule Cyprian most vehe∣mently presseth, and vrgeth it to Cecilius again and again; f 1.534 that in remembrance of the Lord, we are to do the same that the Lord did; that we are not in any sort to depart from the precepts of the Gospell; and the disciples are to obserue the same things which their master hath taught and done; that that

Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ, who imitateth that which Christ hath done; that we ought to doe nothing but what he hath done; that so often as we offer the cup in remem∣brance of the Lord and of his passion, wee are to doe the same which we are assured Christ did. Now if the minister bee to doe the same that Christ did, then is he to administer both parts of the sacrament alike to all that are present, because we find that Christ did so. Yea but why should the Apostles, saith M. Bishop, haue a speciall charge more to drinke of that cup, then to eat of that food, vnlesse it were to signifie that wher∣as all men should be bound to receiue Christs body, they, namely the Apostles, should be further bound to receiue that holy cup also; from which bond other men should stand free? Thus he falsifieth the institution of Christ, that from an imagined ground of his owne, he may infer a conclusion answerable thereto. For had not the Apostles as speciall charge to eat of that food, as to drinke of that cup? did not Christ aswell say to all his Apostles, Take, eat, this is my bo∣dy, doe this in remembrance of me; as he said, Drinke ye all of this? If hee did so, and thereby all men are bound to eat of that food, doth it not follow that by the other all men are bound also to drinke of that cup? Christ commandeth all his Apostles to take & eat. He commandeth al his Apostles to take the cup & drinke. On the one side he saith, Do this. On the other side he saith, Doe this. What reason can M. Bishop giue why al Christians should be concluded on the one side; and all saue the Priests should be excluded on the other; yea and all the Priests also that are present, saue he onely that administreth for the time? What, will hee wil∣fully blinde himselfe? Will he stoppe his owne eies, that he may not see that which hee cannot choose but see? Well, he will yet make amends for all, telling vs, that when they take away from the people one kinde of the Sacrament, they do them no hinderance thereby, because they giue them both the body and bloud of Christ together vnder one kinde. But who hath taught them so to doe, or that so they can doe? and if

both may bee giuen vnder one, why did Christ by his in∣stitution ordaine seuerally a Sacrament of both? Let him satisfie vs in this behalfe; if the whole intention of the Sa∣crament be atteined in one kinde, why our Sauiour Christ would do a needlesse worke to institute both? and if it be needfull for the Priest to drinke of the Lords cup, why is it needlesse for the people? or if it be sufficiently auailea∣ble for the people that the Priest drinke thereof, why is it not also sufficient that the Priest onely doe eate for all? Hee telleth vs that the body and bloud of Christ bee so vnited that they cannot be separated; and we grant so much of the bo∣die and bloud of Christ as now they are, but he should re∣member that by this Sacrament g 1.535 wee shew foorth the death of the Lord, and in the death of the Lord his bodie was broken, and his bloud was shed for vs, accordingly as it is said, h 1.536 This is my body which is broken for you, l 1.537 this is my bloud which is shed for you, and therefore that the sacrament must represent and offer vnto vs the bloud of Christ, as se∣parated from the body. Which because it cannot do, be∣ing vsed in one kinde, therefore it followeth, that the Po∣pish vsage thereof in that sort, excludeth the intention of the sacrament, and robbeth vs of the comfort of Christs bloud shed for the forgiuenesse of our sins. And surely if the effect of the sacrament be wholly attained by receiuing onely in one kinde, there was no cause why Gelasius Bi∣shop of Rome, hearing of some, k 1.538 who receiuing the portion of Christs sacred body, did forbeare the cuppe of his sacred bloud, should decree as he did, that either they should receiue the whole sacrament, or else be excluded from the whole, ad∣ding a reason thereof, which cleerely cutteth off all Po∣pish exceptions, because the diuiding of one and the same mysterie cannot come without great sacriledge. Why should Gelasius vrge a matter so needlesse if it be true which now is taught in Poperie? or if Gelasius then saw it to be sacri∣ledge to diuide this mysterie of Christ, how commeth it a∣bout that it is not so now? In the time of Iulius the first,

long before Gelasius, another abuse was creeping into the Church, of dipping the Sacrament of Christs body into the cup, as thereby to saue a labour, and so vnder one to deliuer both. It appeareth heereby, that Christian people were not then taught as they are now in the Romane church, that the one part of the Sacrament is by concomi∣tancy, as their Schoolemen haue deuised, both the bodie and the bloud of Christ, neither did Iulius vpon that ground condemne that dipping as superfluous and cause∣lesse, which both hee and they should in that respect haue conceiued so to bee if that fancie were true. But they by Christs institution conceiued a necessitie to receiue both, and therefore in this sort by dipping the Eucharist in the cup, prouided so to doe; in which sort notwithstanding to receiue both, Iulius approoued it as a thing vnlawfull, l 1.539 be∣cause there is no testimony heereof in the Gospell where Christ commended to his Apostles his body and bloud; for there is re∣corded seuerally the deliuery of the bread and seuerally of the cup. Now if Christ to the end he might commend to vs both his body and bloud, would seuerally commend the one, and seuerally the other; surely the church of Rome in debarring the people from the cup, confoundeth the institution of Christ, and commendeth the one onely without the other. And sith Iulius did hold that for di∣rection in this behalfe, the Church is to haue recourse to the example of Christ in the Gospell, to doe as Christ there is recorded to haue done, wee must needs conceiue that the Church of Rome now, is not of the same mind that Iulius was, which so manifestly crosseth that which is described in the gospell. And not Iulius only but the whole Church of Christ held it selfe tied to that exam∣ple, and practised accordingly: neither was there any Church in the world which held it sufficient or lawfull to administer the sacrament to the people in one kind. Hie∣rome saith that m 1.540 the Lords supper ought to be common to all, because the Lord Iesus equally deliuered the sacraments to all

his disciples that were present. So Chrysostome saith n 1.541 that in the receiuing of the holy mysteries there is no difference be∣twixt the Priest and the people; for we all, saith he, are vouch∣safed to receiue them alike. o 1.542 This dreadfull cup, saith Theo∣phylact, was in like or equall condition deliuered to all. In a word, when Cyprian saith that p 1.543 by right of communion we admit the people to drinke in the Church of the Lords cup, what doth hee but plainly declare that the Church of Rome doth apparant wrong to the people of God, in that it bereaueth them of this right? We may therefore iustlie thinke them very impudently obstinate, whom neither the authority of Christ, nor the consent of fathers, nor the practise of Christian Churches vniuersally through the world, nor the very reason of the Sacrament it selfe can mooue to reform this maiming of the sacrament of Christ, but doe make choise rather to continue still in error, than to acknowledge that they haue erred. But M. Bishop here pretendeth that they haue more cause to complaine of vs, than we of them; for he saith that wee haue defrauded the poore people of both body and blood of Christ, and in lieu of that most pretious banquet, doe giue them a cold breakefast of a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine. Which words hee vseth rather of malice, then for that he knoweth not that wee af∣firme in the due participation of this Sacrament a heauenly riches of grace and of the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Tell vs M. Bishop, when Gelasius saith, that q 1.544 the Sacraments which we receiue of the body and blood of Christ are a diuine thing, and we are thereby made parta∣kers of the diuine nature, & yet there ceaseth not to be the sub∣stance or nature of bread and wine, did hee make the Sacra∣ment to be no more but a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine? If wee respect the nature of the outward and visible ele∣ments, it is true that we receiue in the Sacrament a morsell of bread, and a sup of wine, for these creatures r 1.545 remaine still, as Theodoret saith, in their former substance: but if

we respect them in their vse and effect, this bread is hea∣uenly bread, and this cup is the cup of saluation and life e∣ternall. And as he is a mad man who hauing a rich gift con∣firmed vnto him by his Princes seale, will vilifie the seale and say it is but a peece of wax; euen so is he as mad who of the Sacrament of Christ, which is s 1.546 the seale of the righ∣teousnesse of faith, the pledge of the remission of sinnes, the meanes whereby grace and life through faith are deriued vnto vs, will say either in baptisme that it is but a handfull of water, or in the Lords supper that it is but a morsell of bread and a sup of wine. But of this and of his fiue other sa∣craments, as he hath spoken before, so I haue answered him t 1.547 before: and I refer the reader to that that is there said, where he shall easily see that he hath no cause to account himselfe vnfortunate for following vs, but rather to hold them for vnfortunate fooles that yeeld themselues to bee guided by such fancies.

56. W. BISHOP.

Let this be the first. [unspec 1]

The state of the new Testament, which is more perfect then the old, requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection than the old had: they had Manna, which for substance and taste far passed our bread, and in significati∣on was equall to it: Wherefore, either we must grant our Sa∣crament of bread and wine, to be inferior to theirs of the old Testament; or else acknowledge and confesse it to be the true body and bloud of Christ, which doth surpasse theirs exceed∣ingly, as the body doth the shadow. This argument is confirmed by our Sauiour himselfe, who in expresse termes doth preferre the meat that he was to giue to his disciples, before that of Manna, * 1.548 which their Fathers had eaten in the wildernesse.

R. ABBOT.

If this argument be good, it prooueth reall presence in Baptisme as well as it doth in the Lords supper. If in Bap∣tisme

without any reall presence, there be greater grace & perfection, as in a Sacrament of the new testament, then there was in the Sacraments of the old, then nothing hin∣dreth but that in the Lords supper the like also may bee: neither can M. Bishop alleage any reason to prooue it ne∣cessary in the one, that shall not prooue it in the other al∣so. The preeminence of the state of the new testament a∣boue the old, standeth in cleerenesse of light; not in diffe∣rence of faith; in the performance of promises, not in any diuerse effect of them. a 1.549 Wee haue the same spirit of faith: and a little to turne the Apostles words; b 1.550 they hoped to bee saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ euen as wee doe. c 1.551 The same faith, saith S. Austin, saued the iust of old time that saueth vs; euen the faith of the Mediatour betwixt God and man, the man Iesus Christ; the faith of his bloud, the faith of his crosse, the faith of his death and resurrecti∣on. To them he was to come, to vs hee is already come; he hath stood as it were in the middest betwixt vs; they looked vpon him forward, we looke vpon him backward, but both receiue from him the same grace. Accordingly therefore the Sacraments of the old and new testament, though in outward forme and administration they differ much, yet in inward power and effect they are the same. d 1.552 Christ as S. Austin noteth, hath laid vpon vs an easie yoke by Sacraments, in number very few, in obseruation most easie, and in signification most excellent: they were forced to attend to many types and figures, and encumbred with infinite ope∣rositie of manifold obseruations and ceremonies. Our state therefore is better than theirs, for that wee with more ease are partakers of the same effects of grace, which with grea∣ter labour and difficultie, God so disposing, they did at∣teine vnto; but otherwise what benefit we receiue by our Sacraments towards eternall life, they also receiued by theirs. For why doth the Apostle say, that the Israelites e 1.553 were baptised in the cloud and in the sea, but to signifie, that in these types and figures they were made partakers of the

same spirituall blessing and grace that in baptisme is mini∣stred vnto vs. And why doth he say, that they did eat the same spirituall meate, and drinke the same spirituall drinke, but to giue to vnderstand that they also did f 1.554 eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud, that they might liue thereby? for if wee respect the outward signes, they did not eat the same, or drinke the same that we do. It must needs therefore bee as touching the spirituall and inward meate and drinke which is the body and bloud of Christ. And so the Apostle saith, that they dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them, and the rocke was Christ. g 1.555 Which, saith Ambrose, is not referred to the godhead of Christ, but to the flesh, which did water and refresh the hearts of the thirsty people, with the euerflowing streame or riuer of his bloud. And thus S. Austin saith of Manna, that it signified h 1.556 the same bread (euen the body of Christ) that is signified in the table of the Lord; they are both Sacraments saith he; in signes they are diuers, but in the thing signified they are equall and alike. Now if without any reall presence the faithfull in Manna did eat the flesh of Christ, and in the water of the rocke did drinke the bloud of Christ, then it followeth, that there is no necessitie of the reall presence to our eating the flesh of Christ, and our drinking of his bloud. But I would yet further aske him how the reall presence maketh our Sacrament of greater grace and perfection then the old, seeing the body of Christ is thereby made subiect to bee eaten of wicked and vngodly men, who receiue no grace by it, yea of swine and dogs, and mice, as they affirme, which are not capable of any grace? For if the very recei∣uing of Christs body into our bodies doe worke effect of grace, then should grace bee wrought in these also. But if the effect of grace be to be attributed vnto faith, then the reall presence is needlesse, because faith touching the Sa∣crament, but as the hemme of Christs garment vpon earth, receiueth vertue from the body of Christ in heauen to heale, to feed and strengthen vs vnto eternall life. That

which hee bringeth for confirmation of his argument be∣longeth nothing therto. Christ, saith he, preferreth the meat that he was to giue to his disciples before that of Manna which their fathers had eaten in the wildernesse. And who doubteth thereof, when as our Sauiour saith; i 1.557 I am the bread of life? The bread which I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world (for who doubteth but that Christ or the flesh of Christ is to be preferred before Manna?) but that this flesh of Christ is to be eaten in the Sacrament real∣ly with the mouth and into the belly this place prooueth not. Christ there compareth not their sacrament with ours, but he compareth their sacrament as the signe with him∣selfe, as the thing that was signified thereby. k 1.558 Which signe or figure they who vnderstood no otherwise but carnally, died and perished; but they who vnderstood the same aright, vnderstood Christ therein; they did eat the flesh of Christ and drinke his bloud, as before was said, and obteine life by his name. l 1.559 The visible food, saith Austin, they vnder∣stood spiritually they spiritually hungred after it, they spiri∣tually tasted it, that spiritually they might be satisfied. So do we in our Sacrament, and without any reall presence it is life to vs euen as it was to them.

57. W. BISHOP.

Secondly, [unspec 2] Christ promised to giue to his Disciples his flesh to eat, and his bloud to drinke: and when they marueiled how that could be, hee assured them; * 1.560 that vnlesse they did eat his flesh, they should not haue life in them; and fur∣ther certified them, that his flesh was truely meat, and his bloud truely drinke: whence it is most plainely deduced, that he who neuer faileth of his promise, gaue them his true flesh to eate.

R. ABBOT.

We grant his conclusion, that Christ gaue to his disci∣ples, and further giueth vnto vs his true flesh to eat: but the question still is how or in what sort we eat it. Christ in∣deed

hath taught vs that a 1.561 his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drinke indeed; but will M. Bishop say that they are meat and drinke to the body; that the body is nourished and fed with the body and blood of Christ, and that the same is turned by digestion into the substance of our bo∣dies? If not, then it cannot be said that with the body wee eat the flesh of Christ and drinke his blood, but this must necessarily be vnderstood to be an action of the minde. Therefore Cyprian saith that for the doing hereof b 1.562 we doe not sharpen our teeth to bite, but with sincere faith we breake the sacred bread: and Austin questioneth; c 1.563 why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? beleeue and thou hast eaten; and defineth it d 1.564 to be eating within, not without; to be eating with the heart, not crushing with the teeth. And otherwise to vnderstand it of eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth, what is it but the grosse error of the Capernaits, li∣terally vnderstanding the words of Christ, because they were no other but carnall men? e 1.565 They thought his speech to be hard & intollerable, saith Tertullian, as though he had de∣termined that they should verily eat his flesh. But if they had been intelligent hearers, and men spiritually minded, they would haue discerned by the other words of Christ the true meaning of this speech. For when he attributeth the same to beleeuing in him, that he doth to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, that f 1.566 whoso beleeueth in him hath euerlasting life, he plainly giueth to vnderstand that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is to be expounded by beleeuing. And so doth S. Austin con∣strue it when hee saith; g 1.567 To beleeue in Christ, that is, to eat the bread of life: he that beleeueth eateth. Againe, when he perceiued their repining at his words, he saith vnto them; h 1.568 Doth this offend you? What then if ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before? i 1.569 They thought, saith

Austin, that he would impart to them his very body, but he telleth them that he will goe vp to heauen euen whole. When ye shall see the sonne of man ascend where he was before, surely then ye shall see that he doth not impart his body in that ma∣ner as you thinke; ye shall then vnderstand that his grace is not deuoured by morsells. Now if the ascending of Christ into heauen were an argument for the reforming of their fancy, and correcting of their error, then it must needs be a misconstruction of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ whereby the same is said to be done by his being really present vpon the earth. And that it might not be so vnderstood, he further saith; k 1.570 The words which I speake vnto you are spirit and life: it is the spirit that quick∣neth, the flesh profiteth nothing, thereby aduertising them as S. Austin giueth to vnderstand, that l 1.571 they knew not in what sort his flesh was eaten, or what the maner thereof is, and that they should spiritually conceiue the doing of it, in such maner as was before expressed out of Austin. And hereof Origen saith; m 1.572 There is in the new Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually listen to it; for if thou fo∣low according to the letter that which is written, Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood, that let∣ter killeth. Therefore S. Austin deliuering certaine rules whereby figuratiue speeches are to be knowen doth by his rule find that this speech of Christ is not properly or li∣terally to be vnderstood, but by a figure. n 1.573 If any speeche seem to command a hainous or wicked act, or to forbid well do∣ing or any profitable thing it is a figuratiue speech. Where Christ saith, Except yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood &c. he seemeth to command a hainous thing. It is therefore a figure instructing that we are to communicate of the passion of the Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. In which sort S. Bernard also expoundeth that o 1.574 vnder the

mystery of eating his body Christ admonisheth his disciples to communicate of his passions. Here is therefore no other but a spirituall action of the heart and soule, which requireth no reall presence because the spirit of man by faith climb∣eth vp to heauen and looketh backe vnto the crosse of Christ, and there receiueth nourishment and strength of him to liue by him for euer.

58. W. BISHOP.

Thirdly, [unspec 3] Christ said in most cleere tearmes, this is my bo∣dy: this is my blood. What could be more certaine or more perspicuous?

R. ABBOT.

The words as wee expound them out of the circum∣stance of the text and the consent of ancient fathers are indeed perspicuous and cleere yeelding this meaning, This bread is my body, this wine is my blood, that is, the signe, the sacrament, the participation of my body and blood. But M. Bishop for his life cannot make any certaine and defi∣nite meaning of them whereby their transubstantiation and reall presence may be made good If the words be so perspicuous and cleere for them, how commeth it about that they haue so tossed and tumbled them, and yet there is no certaine meaning thereof concluded amongst them till this day? I need not stand hereupon hauing before said what is sufficient for this purpose in the eight and fortieth section.

59. W. BISHOP.

Fourthly, [unspec 4] These words of the institution are recorded by three Euangelists, and by S. Paul: and they all vniformely de∣liuer it to be, not the figure of Christs body, but his body; and that his body which should be giuen for our redemption on the crosse: ergo, it was that his true reall body, which was nailed to the crosse for vs.

R. ABBOT.

Euen so three Euangelists and S. Paul doe vniformely deliuer that the cup is the bloud of Christ or the new testament in his bloud, as hath been a 1.575 before said, and yet M. Bishop will not say, I hope, that the cup is really the bloud or te∣stament of Christ. That the Sacrament is the figure of Christs body, is no new speech. S. Austin saith, that b 1.576 Christ commended and deliuered to his disciples the figure of his bodie and bloud. Tertullian expoundeth thus, c 1.577 This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Gelasius the Bishop of Rome saith, that d 1.578 an image and semblance of the body and bloud of Christ is celebrated in the administration of the Sa∣craments. Chrysostome saith, that e 1.579 in the sacred vessels not the true body of Christ, but the mysterie of his body is contei∣ned. The ancient Liturgies doe vsually call the Sacraments f 1.580 the signes of the body and bloud of Christ, and so g 1.581 Charles the great, stileth them in his epistle to Alcuinus. It should not therefore seeme strange to M. Bishop, that wee also should expound the sacrament to bee the figure of Christs body. Yea but Christ, saith he, saith not that it is the figure of his body, but his body. And euen so S. Paul saith not that the rocke was a figure of Christ, but h 1.582 The rocke was Christ; i 1.583 which yet, saith Austin, was not Christ in substance, but in signification. If S. Paul might say, that the rocke was Christ, though in substance it were not so; then might Christ say of bread, this is my body, though it bee not so in substance, but in signification and power onely, euen as hath beene k 1.584 before said, that Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are sacraments, and that because though they be signes and figures, yet they are such signes as doe by the ordinance of God truely and effectually ex∣hibite and yeeld to the faith of the beleeuer the heauenly

and spirituall grace that is signified thereby. Now when we say that the Sacrament is thus the figure of Christs bo∣dy, how doe wee meane it but of his bodie which was gi∣uen for our redemption vpon the crosse? and therefore that addition set downe by M. Bishop is impertinent and ma∣keth nothing at all for him.

60. W. BISHOP.

Fiftly, [unspec 5] * 1.585 S. Paul demandeth thus: the Chalice of benedicti∣on which we doe blesse, is it not the communication of the bloud of Christ? and the bread that we breake, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? if then wee doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christs body, and communicate his bloud, they surely are there really present.

R. ABBOT.

We doe in receiuing the blessed Sacrament participate Christs body, and communicate his bloud, and yet they are not there really present, because wee participate Christs body by faith in spirit and soule, not in body by the mouth and belly, as hath beene before shewed. S. Austin suppo∣sing Christ to be absent in body yet teacheth vs how wee receiue him when he saith; a 1.586 How shall I lay hold of him be∣ing absent? how shall I put vp my hand to heauen, to lay hold of him sitting there? send vp thy faith, saith he, and thou hast taken hold of him. There needeth then no reall presence for the receiuing of Christs body, but by faith we lay hold thereof sitting at the right hand of God the father.

61. W. BISHOP.

Againe, [unspec 6] S. Paul saith: He that eateth and drinketh vn∣woorthely, * 1.587 eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe, not discerning the body of our Lord: and before, is guilty of the body and bloud of Christ: ergo, the body and bloud of Christ are there present; or else why should a man incurre

that guilt, but by his vnwoorthy receiuing of it, and by not discerning Christs body to be there present?

R. ABBOT.

M. Bishop thinketh that we doe indignitie to the Saints when wee pull downe their images which they worship, and yet hee will not say that those images are the Saints themselues; and can he not conceiue that in the dishonor of the sacrament, is the dishonour of Christ, though the sacrament be not verily Christ himselfe, but the represen∣tat••on and signe of his body and bloud? the despight and villaine that is done to the Princes picture or seale is con∣strued to be an indignitie to the Prince, and so will the A∣postle haue vs to conceiue of the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christ. It is by Gods ordinance to vs, and in our vse as it were the body and bloud of Christ, and there∣fore iustly is he said not to discerne the Lords body, and to be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ, who vnreuerently and with contempt presumeth to offer himselfe to these mysteries of Christ, though Christ himselfe be not really present in the vsage thereof.

62. W. BISHOP.

Besides all these plaine texts of holy. [unspec 7] Scripture in confirma∣tion of the reall presence, [unspec 7] the very circumstances of it doe much fortifie our faith therein. In S. Luke we haue, * 1.588 that our Sauiour maruellously desired (desiderio desideraui) to eat that this last banquet with his Di••ciples. S. Iohn addeth, that whereas he loued his that were in the world, vnto the end he loued them: and knowing that the Father gaue all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God, &c. What coherence (I say) with this excee∣ding loue and infi••••te power of Christ, to bee shewed in his last supper, if he hath left onely bread and wine to bee taken in remembrance of him, any meane man might easily haue done as much; and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus,

did much more: for hee left a more noble remembrance of himselfe behinde him, to wit, his cloake and double spirit. But Christ bequeathing vs his true naturall body to bee the foode of our soules, and comfort of our hearts as wee beleeue and teach, he then (indeed) shewed his i••finite power and loue towards vs, and that he came from God, and as God bestow∣ed an inestimable gift vpon vs, such a one as neuer any other did, or could possibly doe.

R. ABBOT.

It is truly said by Tertullian, that a 1.589 nothing so much offen∣deth mens mindes (in the Sacraments) as the simplicitie of Gods works, as they seeme in act, and the magnificence which is promised in effect. M. Bishop looking to the outward signes in the Lords supper, taketh the same to be a simple token of Christs exceeding loue towards vs, a matter that any man might doe; and not so much as that that Elias left to his scholar Elizeus. Thus in his blinde fancie hee amplifieth the matter as if wee taught that Christ in his last supper had recommended nothing to vs but bread and wine. But let him vnderstand that we see and teach in this sacrament, the exceeding great loue of Christ, not in those simple creatures which we see in act, but in the magnifi∣cence of grace which is promised in effect. If wee con∣sider these creatures in act, they are but bread and wine, but consider them in vse and effect, and then this bread is heauenly bread, the bread of life, the food of immortalitie; there is in it the spirit of Christ, euen the power of the word of God, not onely feeding but also sanctifying and clensing the soule. I will expresse it by M. Bishops owne words, that Christ hath bequeathed and heereby giueth vnto vs his true naturall body, to be the food of our soules; of our soules, I say, not of our bodies; which if he did rightly meane, as he rightly speaketh, he would not vnderstand it to be receiued by the body. And thus Christ sealing vnto vs in the Lords supper, all the fruits of his passion, and

giuing himselfe vnto vs spiritually to become one with vs, and to make vs one with him, hee hath without reall pre∣sence bestowed, as M. Bishop saith, an inestimable gift vpon vs, such a one as neuer any other did or possibly could doe.

63. W. BISHOP.

Moreouer, [unspec 8] the institution of a religious rite and ceremo∣nie, to be vsed in the whole Church vnto the worlds end, and to be receiued of all Christian people of age and discretion, did necessarily require that it should bee done in most certaine and cleare tearmes; otherwise, there might arise great strife and contention about it, and be the ruine of thousands. And speci∣ally great perspicuitie is required in this holy Sacrament, where the mistaking of it, must needs breeed either idolatrie, if wee worship for Christ, that which is not Christ: or impietie, if on the other side we should not giue to it (being Christ God and man) diuine honour. Wherefore, no good Christian may thinke, but that our prouident Sauiour Christ Iesus, who verie well foresaw all these inconueniences, did deliuer it in such tearmes as he would haue to be taken properly, and not be construed at mens pleasures figuratiuely. Adde, that hee spake those words to the twelue Apostles onely, whom hee was accustomed to in∣struct plainly, and not in parable darkely; and who were woont also to aske for the interpretation of obscure speeches, who here made no question about this high mysterie, because they were sufficiently forewarned, that they should eat Christs flesh, * 1.590 and that his body was truly meat: and therefore beleeued Christs words without further question.

R. ABBOT.

The institution of a religious rite and ceremonie for the vse of the Christian Church, required such termes as had beene formerly accustomed in the institution of such reli∣gious rites, wherein as hath beene a 1.591 before noted out of Austin, Sacraments commonly beare the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments. So is circumcision called b 1.592 the

couenant of the Lord, being but the signe and seale of his couenant. So is the lambe called c 1.593 the Lords Passeouer, though it were but a signification and remembrance there∣of. So were the sacrifices of the law called d 1.594 attonements or reconciliations for sinne, which yet they were not in them∣selues, because e 1.595 it was vnpossible that the bloud of calues and goats should take away sins, but were onely signes and fi∣gures of the attonement that should be made by the bloud of Iesus Christ. And thus Cyprian saith expresly of the Lords supper, that therein f 1.596 the signes, and the things signified are reckoned by the same names, being both termed the body & bloud of Christ. And herein is no occasion of contention but to them only that are contentious, & will prefer their own absurd fancies before the light and truth of the word of God. Who as they do peruersly and wilfully mistake, so doe wilfully by mistaking runne into idolatrie, g 1.597 worship∣ing the creature insteed of the creatour, & giuing to the signe or sacrament that diuine honour which belongeth pro∣perly to Christ himselfe. And if it be idolatrie, as heere he telleth vs, to worship for Christ, that which is not Christ, then hee hath told vs amisse before, that men doe not commit idolatrie, though they worship the Host when the Priest hath had no intention of consecration. In a word our Sa∣uiour Christ though he spake by a figure, yet spake so, as that not at mens pleasures, but according to the course of Gods word he might easely be vnderstood. And as for the Apostles, we cannot doubt but that they were so well in∣structed in those other signes and sacraments wherewith they had beene before acquainted, as that they could not make any scruple or question what his meaning was in the institution of this. Therefore no cause was there for them to be troubled, or to aske interpretation heere, as of some darke and obscure matter, but there had beene cause for them to haue questioned many things in the words of Christ, according to that interpretation which the Church of Rome hath made thereof. For though Christ spake to

them before of the eating of his flesh, and that his flesh was truely meate, yet had hee said nothing vnto them that they should eate a whole body in the likenesse of a peece of bread. Yea though hee spake to them of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud, yet withall he spake enough wher∣by to giue them instruction how that should bee vnder∣stood, as h 1.598 before hath been declared.

64. W. BISHOP.

Finally, this holy Sacrament is a principall part of the new Testament, and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequea∣thed vnto vs Christians. Now what law or conscience will per∣mit, that any legacie should be interpreted figuratiuely? to wit: that for a house, goods, or lands bequeathed and giuen by last will and testament, you should vnderstand a figure of a house to be giuen, or the signification and representation of some goods or lands. If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man, about temporall goods: how much more pernicious and intollerable is it, to suffer this in the eternall Testament of the Sonne of God, and that in his di∣uine and inestimable treasures?

And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this booke, wherein (good Christian Reader) if thou finde a∣ny thing, that may confirme thee in the true Catholike faith, or further thy knowledge therein; giue God (the Father of lights, from whom all good gifts descend) the whole praise: If any thing be amisse, impute it partly to my slender skill, ouer∣sight, or negligence; and partly to the want of a conuenient resting-place, commoditie of bookes, and conference: all which, these times of persecution doe depriue vs of.

R. ABBOT.

He that maketh his last will and testament and giueth thereby great legacies of lands and goods, and putteth to his seale for confirmation of the legacies that he hath gi∣uen, shall he be said in giuing his seale to bequeath only a

peece of waxe, or a figure and representation of landes and goods? The seale indeed is but wax; it is but a signe and token of somewhat, but yet it serueth to giue assurance of the legacies for confirmation whereof it is appointed. The new testament of Christ is, the couenant and promise of forgiuenesse of sinnes purchased by his bloud. This hath he published by the Gospell to all that repent and beleeue in him. For confirmation heereof he hath put to his Sacrament as a seale, thereby to deliuer after a sort, and to put into our hands the thing which he hath promised; euen as hee who hath receiued a seale presumeth that thereby hee hath in effect the thing that is sealed vnto him. And shall a man say that Christ in gi∣uing vs this seale, hath bequeathed to vs no other but a figure, a signification or representation of somwhat, and not the thing it selfe that is represented thereby? If it be absurd to say so in humane testaments and wils, what meaneth M. Bishop to transferre such an absurditie to those things that are diuine? I need not stand vpon this matter; I say briefly, that it is idle to say that the Sacra∣ment is the chiefest legacie that Christ hath bestowed vp∣on vs. He hath bequeathed vnto vs himselfe, the fruit of his passion, the riches of his grace, the inheritance of eter∣nall life, which hee will vndoubtedly giue to euerie true beleeuer, and in the meane time hath giuen his Sa∣crament to bee to our faith the pledge and assurance thereof.

And thus M. Bishop telleth vs that he is come at length to the end of his booke; wherein I ghesse he hath taken small ioy, because he hath quite left out the middle, euen whole twelue questions handled by M. Perkins, and which he notwithstanding pretendeth to haue answered, as hath beene before obserued. We are beholding to him for that he giueth vs leaue if any thing heerein bee amisse to impute it partly to his slender skill, ouersight, or negligence. And surely, what betwixt his slender skill one way, and his ouer∣sight

and negligence, another way, he hath sent vs so ma∣ny things amisse, as that the Reader hath small cause heereby to bee confirmed in that which he by a wrong name calleth the true Catholike faith. Thou hast gen∣tle Reader, what hee can say on the one side; thou hast what I haue had to answer on the other side: it is now left to thee to iudge of both, which so doe, as being thy selfe to giue answer of thy iudgement to Christ the Iudge of all.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Our religion, and not Po∣pery, is the old religion.
• a 1.2

  Act. 24.14.
• * 1.3

  The Councel of Trent a mockerie of the world.
• b 1.4

  Conc. Trid. sess. 7. in prin∣cip. & sess. 25. cap. 21. de re∣format. Salua semper in om∣nibus authori∣tate sedis Apo∣stolicae.
• * 1.5

  The church of Rome hath swaiued from the tra∣dition of the Apostles.
• c 1.6

  De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Per∣acta. Peracta consecratione communicent omnes qui nolin•• eccleasisticis ca∣rere liminibus: sic enim Apo∣stoli statuerunt & sancta Ro∣mana tenet ecclesia.
• d 1.7

  Bellarm. de Missa. lib. 2. ca. 10. Cortum est decreta ista quae sine dubio non diuini sed humani iuris erant, si ad po∣pulum pertine∣bant, progressis temporis abro∣gata fuisse.
• e 1.8

  Concil. Const. sess. 13. Licèt Christus post coenam institu∣erit & discipu∣lis suis admini∣stranerit sub vtra{que} specie panis & vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum, tamen hoc non obstante, &c. Et similitèr, quòd licèt in primitiua eccle∣sia huiusmodi Sacramentum à fidelibus reci∣peretur sub v∣traque specie, tamen haec con∣suetudo ad eui∣tandum aliqua scandala & pe∣ricula est ratio∣nabilitèr intro∣ducta quòd à laicis tantum∣modo sub specie panis suscipia∣tur, &c. vnde pro lege haben∣da est, &c.
• f 1.9

  Of Traditi∣ons sect 4.
• * 1.10

  1. Tim. 3.15. Ioh. 16.13.
• * 1.11

  Con. Epist. Iud. cap. 5.
• * 1.12

  The Creed how the key and rule of faith.
• a 1.13

  Answer to the Epistle. sect. 3.
• b 1.14

  Leo epist. 12. Leo papa eccle∣siae Catholicae vrbis Romae.
• c 1.15

  Socrat hist. li. 1. ca. 6. Con∣stantinus Ca∣tholicae Alex∣andrinorum ec∣clesiae.
• d 1.16

  Athanas A∣polog. 2. Theog∣nio. &c. Pres∣byteri & diaco∣ni sub reueren∣dissimo episcopo Athanasio Ca∣tholicae ecclesiae Alexandrinae.
• e 1.17

  August. cont. Crescon. li. 3. ca. 13. Omnis A∣phricana Catho∣lica ecclesia.
• f 1.18

  Collat. cum Donat. cognit. 1. ca. 16 Aure∣lius episcopus ecclesiae Catholi∣cae Carthagi∣nensis.
• g 1.19

  Ibid. ca. 201. Aurelius epis∣copus ecclesiae Catholicae Ma∣comadiensits: & cap. 204. Nouatus episcopus ecclesiae Catholicae Sitifensis.
• h 1.20

  Concil. Constantinop. 5. act. 1. Supplica∣ti•• à Clericis & Monachis Apostolici thront Antiochenae magnae ••uitatis Catholicae sanctae eccle∣siae
• i 1.21

  Dei. Act. 8. in subscript. Sextiltanus in sericordia Dei episcopus ecclesiae Catholicae Tum∣ensiu Megethius gratia Dei episcopus sanctae dei Catholicae ecclesiae ciuitatis Heracleae, &c.
• k 1.22

  Duraeus cont. Whitak. li. 3. In nullum planè a∣liam Catholicae nomen ecclesiae, & quaerun{que} de Christieccle∣sia Prophetae praedixerunt, quàm in Roma∣nam conuenire possunt.
• * 1.23

  The Church how the pil∣lar & ground of truth.
• l 1.24

  1. Tim. 1.3.
• m 1.25

  cap. 3.15.
• n 1.26

  1. Pet. 2.5.
• o 1.27

  2. Cor. 6.16.
• p 1.28

  Eph. 2.22.
• q 1.29

  Mal. 2.7.
• t 1.30

  Mal. 2.6.
• s 1.31

  Eph. 2.20.
• t 1.32

  Ambros. in Eph. 2. Hoc est, supra nouum & vetus teslamen∣tum collocati.
• u 1.33

  1. Tim. 4.2.
• x 1.34

  2. Pet. 2.3.
• y 1.35

  Reu. 18.13.
• * 1.36

  Whom and how the spi∣rit of Christ leadeth into all truth.
• z 1.37

  Ioh. 16.13.
• a 1.38

  August. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 32. cap. 17. Dicere soletis, Ipse vos inducet in omnem veri∣tatem, &c. de vestro Mani∣chao esse praedi∣ctum.
• b 1.39

  Tertull. de Veland. virgi∣nib. sub initio.
• c 1.40

  1 Ioh. 2.27.
• d 1.41

  August. in 1. Ioan. tract. 4. Eadem vnctio, id est, ipse spi∣ritus domini.
• e 1.42

  Idem. in actis cum Felice Manich. lib. 1. cap. 10. Si hanc doctrinam pu∣tas ad illam ve∣ritatem perti∣nere, &c. inter∣rogo te qunt sint stellae. Ibid. Ego tibi possum di∣cere ea quae per∣tinent ad do∣ctrinam Chri∣stianam.
• f 1.43

  Idem. cap. 11. Dicebat Apo∣stolus, Ex parte scimus, &c. quia in ist a vi∣ta homo cum est, non potest assequi omnia; sed ex parte as∣sequitur in hac vita; ipse autem spiritus qui ex parte docet in hac vita, post hanc vitam in∣troducet in om∣nem veritatem. Vide eund. in Ioan. tract. 96.
• g 1.44

  Phil. 3.15.
• h 1.45

  Ioh. 14.26.
• i 1.46

  cap. 16.14.
• k 1.47

  Thophylact. in Ioan. 16. Ni∣hil docturus est extra ea quae Christus docuit.
• l 1.48

  Ioh. 14.10.
• m 1.49

  Chrysost. de sanct. & o∣rando spiritu. Quia seductor est habitus, di∣cit; Ego à meip∣so non loquor, sed de lege, de Prophet is
• n 1.50

  Ibid. Siquem videritis dicen∣tem, spiritum sanctum habee, & non loquen∣tem Euangelica sed propria, is à seipso loquitur, & non est spiri∣tus sanctus in ipso. Et paulò post: Siquis eo∣rum qui dicun∣tur habere spi∣ritum sanctum, dicat aliquid à seipso, & non ex Euangelijs, ne credite, &c. Ex quo non le∣git haec scripta, sed ex seipso lo∣quitur, manife∣stum est quod non habet spiri∣tum sanctum.
• o 1.51

  Esay 59.21.
• p 1.52

  Eph. 1 13. Col. 1.5.
• q 1.53

  Tertul. Apo∣loget. cap. 5. A∣pud vos de hu∣mano arbitratu diuinitas pensi∣tatur: nisi ho∣mini deus pla∣cuerit deus non erit.
• r 1.54

  Hieron. in Da∣niel. 7. Eleuatur supra omne quod dicitur deu••, cunctam religionem suae subijciens pote∣stati.
• s 1.55

  Ioh. 8.33.
• t 1.56

  cap. 9.28.
• u 1.57

  vers. 41.
• x 1.58

  Ier. 8 8.
• y 1.59

  ca. 18.18.
• z 1.60

  Rom. 3.2.
• a 1.61

  Luk. 24.44.
• b 1.62

  Aug. cont. Gaudent. lib. 2. cap. 23. quibus dominus testi∣monium perhi∣bet tanquam testibus suis.
• c 1.63

  Luk. 24.27.
• d 1.64

  Aust. in Psa. 58. Per omnes gentes dispersi sunt ludaei te∣stes iniquitatis suae & veritatis nostrae: ipsi ha∣bent codices de quibus prophe∣tatus est Chri∣slus, & in Ps. 56. Codicem portat Iudaeus, vnde credat Christianus.
• e 1.65

  Of Traditi∣ons, sect. 17.
• f 1.66

  Of Traditi∣ons, sect. 22.
• g 1.67

  Of Tradi∣tions, sect. 21.
• a 1.68

  Greg. Nazia. de sp. sancto. o∣rat 6. S••••reatū est, quo pacto in ipsum eredi∣mu? &c. Non enim idem est in aliquem cre∣dere, & de eo credere: nam illud diuimt atis est; hoc cuiusuis rei.
• b 1.69

  Ioh. 14.1.
• c 1.70

  Hilar. de Trin. lib. 9. Vni∣ens se fidei dei & naturae eius vniuit, &c. de∣umse per id do∣cens cum in eum credendum sit ab his qui in de∣um credant.
• d 1.71

  Aug. in Ioan. tract 29. & de ciu. dei. l. 18. ca. 54. Euseb. E∣missen. Ruffin. Venant. in sym∣bol. Apost.
• e 1.72

  Elucidat. Ca∣tech. Roman. c. 9. q. 5. Cùm di∣cimus nos crede∣re in deum pa∣trem, in filium, in sp. sanctum, phrasis haec lo∣quendi signifi∣cat nos ita cre∣dere deum pa∣trem, filium & spiritu sanctū, vt etiam in eis omnem fiduci∣am nostram collocemus, quam in deo so∣lo, non autem in creaturis ponere possumus, ex quibus tamen ecclesia compo∣sita est.
• f 1.73

  Rom. 10 17.
• g 1.74

  Basil. Ethit. reg. 80. Si quic∣quid ex fide non est peccatum est, fides verò ex au∣ditu, auditus autem p••r ver∣bum Dei est; er∣go quicquid ex∣tra diuinam Scripturam est, cùm ex fide non sit peccatum est.
• h 1.75

  Rom. 10.14.
• i 1.76

  Grego. Moral. lib. 22. cap. 13. Vera postulatio non in oris est vocibus sed in cogitationibus cordis.
• k 1.77

  1. King. 8.39.
• l 1.78

  Mat. 3.17. Ephe. 3.12.
• m 1.79

  Iohn 14.13.
• n 1.80

  Rom. 8.34.
• o 1.81

  Heb. 7.25.
• p 1.82

  August. in Psam. 64. Solus ibi ex his qui carnem gusta∣verunt interpel∣lat pro nobis.
• q 1.83

  Cyprian. de dupl. martyr. Non credit in deum, qui non in eo solo collo∣cat totius feli∣citatis suae fidu∣tiam.
• r 1.84

  Psalter. Ma∣riae. Psal. 7. Domina in te speraui; de ini∣micis meis libe∣ra animam me∣am. & Psal. 10. In domina con∣fido propter dul∣cedinem miseri∣cordiae nominis sui. & psal. 21. Quia ego spera∣ui in gratia tua, sempiternum a me opprobrium abstulisti. & Psal. 45. Do∣mina refugium nostrum tu es in omni necessitate nostra. & Psal. 53 Domina in nomine tuo sal∣uum me fac.
• s 1.85

  Ibid. Psal. 9. Confitebor tibi Domina in toto corde meo. & Psal. 102. Om∣nia praecordia mea glorificate nomen eius.
• * 1.86

  The truth of Christs body destroied by Popish tran∣substantia∣tion.
• a 1.87

  Preface to the Reader, sect. 2.
• b 1.88

  Ephe. 4.10.
• c 1.89

  Preface to the Reader. sect. 8.
• d 1.90

  Leo. epist. 70. Nulla ratione extranostri est corporis verita∣tem.
• e 1.91

  August. in Ioan. tract. 31. In terra loque∣batur, & tamen in caelose esse di∣cebat: sic venit vt inde non ab∣scederet: sic re∣dijt vt nos non derelinqueret. Quid mirami∣n••? Deus hoc facit. Homo enim secundù;m corpus in loco est & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo lo∣co vnde venit non est: Deus autem implet omnia, & vbi∣que totus est, non secundum spatia tenetur locis.
• * 1.92

  Chrysost. lib. de sacerd.
• * 1.93

  Real presence denied by our beleefe of Christs ascen∣sion.
• a 1.94

  August. in Ioan tract. 50. Conuersatus est secundum corpo∣ris praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum dis∣cipulis suis, & eis deducentibus videndo non se∣quendo ascend it in caelū, & non est hîc.
• b 1.95

  Chrysost. op. imperf. hom. 11. In vasis sancti∣facatis non est verum corpus Christi sed my∣sterium corporis eius continetur.
• e 1.96

  August. epist. 23. Secundum quendam mo∣dum sacramen∣tum corporis Christi corpus Christi est.
• d 1.97

  Cyprian. de re∣surrect. Christi. Quod videtur nonane & vir∣tute Christs cor∣pus censetur.
• e 1.98

  August. in Psal. 33. conc. 2. Ipse se porta∣bat quodammo∣do cum diceret, Hoc est corpus meum.
• f 1.99

  Chrysost. de sacerd. lib. 3. Dum conspicis dominum im∣molatum, Sa∣cerdotem sacri∣ficio incumben∣tem ac preces fundentem, tum verò turbam circumfusam pretioso illo san∣guine intingi ac rubefieri, eti∣amnè te inter mortales versa∣ri at{que} in terra confistere censes? annon potiùs e∣vestigiò ad cae∣lum transferris? annon omnem ca ni••c••gitatio∣nem abijcre••s mente ••ura cir∣cumspie••••quae in ce•••• sunt? O mi∣raiu um; O d•••• bemgintatem; q•••• cum patre sursum sedet, in illo ipsotemporis articulo on nium manibus pertra∣ctatur, a•• s••••p•••• tradit w••••tibus ipsum excipere acc••m••lecti, fit autem id nullis praestigijs, sed apertis ac••••reumsp••tientibus circumsistentium omnium occutis.
• * 1.100

  The Church as it is belee∣ued is not seene.
• a 1.101

  Origen. in Cant. hom. 1. Ecclesiam coe∣tum omnium aduerte sancto∣••um Et hom. 2. Ecclesia ante constitutionem mundi: sic enim dicit Paulus: sicut elegit nos in Christo. &c.
• b 1.102

  Gregor. in Cantic. cap. 3. Secundum prae∣scientiae suae gratiam Chri∣stus sanctam ecclesiam de in aeternum per∣mansurissanctis construxit.
• c 1.103

  Ephe. 1.23.
• d 1.104

  Reuel. 21 9.
• e 1.105

  Reuel. 5 9.
• f 1.106

  1. Pet. 1.2.
• g 1.107

  Rom. 8 11.
• h 1.108

  Rom 5.19.
• i 1.109

  2 Cor. 1.22. Eh••. 1.13.14. 2. Tim. 2.19.
• * 1.110

  Pag. 2••0. &. 275.
• * 1.111

  De bono perse∣uer. cap. 22. De correct. & grat. cap. 13.
• * 1.112

  Romission of sinnes is belee∣ued, not wrought.
• a 1.113

  Sect. 3.
• b 1.114

  Agust. in Psal. 88. Non s••cundi••m meri∣ta nostra, sed secundùm mise∣recordiam eius, firma est pro∣missio.
• c 1.115

  Iere. 31.34.
• d 1.116

  Gregor. in Ezechiel. hom. 22. De fide & operatione Io∣annes fatetur dicens; Qui di∣cit se nosse de∣um. &c.
• e 1.117

  Rom. 7.12.
• f 1.118

  Heb. 12.14.
• g 1.119

  Gal. 3.10.
• h 1.120

  Rom. 4.14.
• i 1.121

  v. 16.
• k 1.122

  Rom. 11.6.
• l 1.123

  Eccles. 7.22.
• m 1.124

  Iames 3.2.
• n 1.125

  Psal. 143.2.
• o 1.126

  August de ciu. det, lib. 19. cap. 27. Ipsa iustitia nostra tanta est in hac vita, vt potiùs remissione pec∣catorū, constet quàm prefecti∣one virtutum.
• p 1.127

  August. de bono perseuer. cap. 22. De vita aeterna quam filijs promissio∣nu promi sit non mendax deus ante tempora a terna, nemo potest esse secu∣••usmisicum ••ō∣summata fuerit ista vita, quae tentatio est su∣per terram; sed faciet nos perse∣uerare in se vs{que} in huius vitae ••∣nem, cui quotidie dicin us; Ne nos inferas in tentationem.
• q 1.128

  1. Thess. 5.24.
• r 1.129

  ••e corrept. & gratia. cap 13. Credenaū est, qu••sdam de fi∣lijs perditionis non accepto do. no perseueran∣tiae vsque in fi∣nem, in fide quae per dilectionem operatur incipe re viuere, & a∣liquandiu fide∣liter aciustè viuere, & post∣ea cadere &c.
• s 1.130

  Of the cer∣tainty of sal∣uation. sect. 10.
• t 1.131

  Gregor. Mo∣ral. l. 25. c. 8. Specie tenus cre∣dunt quotquot certum est ele∣ctorum nume∣rum summam{que} transire. Ad fi∣dem specie tenus regni veniunt, qui a numero regnicaelestis excluduntur.
• u 1.132

  Ibid. lib. 34. cap. 13. Aurum quod prauis eius persuasionibus quasi lutum sternipotuerit, aurum ante dei oculos nunquam fu••t. Qui enim seduci quando{que} non reuersuri possunt quasi habitam sanctita∣tem ante oculos hominum videntor amittere, sed eam ante oculos dei nunquam habuerunt.
• * 1.133

  Cal. lib. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sess. 18.
• * 1.134

  Confess. fidei gener.
• * 1.135

  In actis Serueti. pag. 872.
• * 1.136

  In colloq. Marpurg. art. 29. Li. 1. cont. Scargum, cap. 14. Dialog. de cor∣pore Christi. pag. 94. De con∣sil. part. 2.276.
• * 1.137

  Caluin deni∣eth not the Creed to be Apostolike.
• a 1.138

  Caluin Insti∣tut. lib. 2. cap. 16. sect. 18. Apostolicum autem nuncupo, de authore in∣terim minime solicitus. Apo∣stolis certè mag∣no veterum Scriptorum con∣sensu ascribi∣tur, siue quod ab illis in com∣mune conscrip∣tum & editum existimabant, siue quòd com∣pendium istud ex doctrina per corum manus tradita bona fide collectum tali elogi•• con∣firmandum cen∣suerunt. Neque verò mihi dubi∣um est quina prima flatim ecclesiae origine ad ecque ab ipso Apostolorum seculo instar publicae & omnium calculis receptae confessionis obtinuerit, vndecun{que} undem initio fuerit profectum. Nec ab vno aliquo priuatim fuisse conscriptum verisimile est, ••••m ab vltima vsque memoria sacrosanctae inter pios omnes authoritatu fu••sse constet. Quod vni∣cè curandum est, id extra omnem controuersi••m positum habemus, totam in eo fidei nostrae histori∣er saccinctè, distinct••qu•• ordine recenseri; nihil autent contineri quod solidis Scripturae testimo∣cijs m•• sit consignatum. Quo intel••ecto de anth••re vel anxiè laborare vel cum alique digladiari nihil attinet.
• * 1.139

  One essence of God distin∣guished really into three persons.
• b 1.140

  August. de haeres. ad Quod vultd. c. 41. Di∣cunt eundem ipsum esse pa∣trem & filium & sp. sanctum.
• c 1.141

  Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 1. q. 28. art 3. in corp. Oportet quòd sit in deo distinctio realts non se∣cundum rem ab∣solutam quae est essentia, in qua est summa vni∣tas & simplici∣tas, sed secundū r••m relatiuam.
• d 1.142

  August. de fide a•• Pet. dia∣con. c. 1. Vna est patris & filij & sp sancti essentia, in qua non est aliud pater, aliud filus, a••ad sp. sanctus, quan ••is perso∣n••tlitèr sit alius p••ter, alius filius, alius sp∣sanctus.
• * 1.143

  The sonne how vnder∣stood to haue a distinct sub∣stance from the Father.
• e 1.144

  Tertul. adu. Praxed. Ergo, inquis, das ali∣quam substan∣tiam esse sermo∣nem? Planè. Nouimus enim eum substanti∣uum habere in re per substan∣tiae proprieta∣tem, vt res. & persona quae. dam videri pos∣sit. &c. Nihil dico de deo mae∣ne & vacuum prodire potuisse &c. nec carere substantia quod de tanta sub∣stantia proces∣sit. &c. Quod ex ipsius sub∣stantia missum est, sine sub∣stantia non erit. Quaecun{que} ergò substantia ser∣monis fuit, illam dico personam, & illi; filij no∣men vindico; & dum filium agnosco, secundum a patre defendo.
• f 1.145

  Hilar. de Synod adu. Aria∣nos His nominibus significantibus diligenter propriam vniuscuius{que} nominatorum sul stantiam & ordinem & gloriam vt sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam verò vnum. Ex••••∣cil. Antiocheno.
• g 1.146

  Ibid. paulo post. Tres subst iutias esse dixerunt, subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes, non substantiam patris & f••••ij & spiritus sancti diuersitate dissimulu essen∣tiae separantes.
• * 1.147

  Christ borne without breach of his mothers vir∣ginity.
• h 1.148

  Luk. 2.23. Exod. 13.2.
• i 1.149

  Tertull. de carne Christi. propè finem. Origen. in Luc. hom 14. Ambros. in Luc. 2. lib. 2. Hierom. cont. Pelag. l. 2.
• k 1.150

  Tertul. vt su∣pra. Virgo & non virgo: vir∣go quantum à viro: non vir∣go quantum à partu.
• l 1.151

  August. de fi∣de cont. Manich. cap. 22. Maria non incongruè propter partum dicitur mulier, virgo verò quòd virilem nescierit con∣uentionem, ne{que} pariendo virgi∣nitas eius cor∣ruptasit. Christ as God our M••diator, yet the God. head it selfe suffereth not.
• m 1.152

  Vigil. cont. Eutych. lib. 2. Passus est deus in vnione perso∣nae, non est pas∣sus in proprie∣tate naturae; si∣quidem possio∣nis iniurias eti∣am diuinitas pertulit, sed passionem sola etus caro per∣sensit.
• n 1.153

  Heb. 9.14.
• * 1.154

  2. Apolog. ad Sanct.
• * 1.155

  Lib. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sess. 8.
• * 1.156

  Of Christs descending into hell.
• a 1.157

  Greg Marti. Discouery chap. 7. sect. 6.
• b 1.158

  August. epist. 99. Ne ipsos quidem inferos vspiam scriptu∣rarum locis in bonum app••lla∣tos potuti repe∣rire. Quod si nusquam in di∣uinis authorita∣tibus legitur, non vti{que} sinus ille Abrahae, id est, secretae cu∣iusdam quietis habitatio, ali∣qua pars infero∣rum credenda est. &c. si in il∣lum Abrahae si∣num Christum mortuum venis∣se sancta scrip∣tura dixisset, non nominato inferuo eiusq̄; doloribus, miror si quisquam ad inferos eum des∣cendisse asserere auderet.
• c 1.159

  Idem de Ge∣nes. ad lit. l. 12. c. 33. Illud me nondum inve∣nisse confitetor, inferos appella∣tos vbi iustorum anima requies∣••••nt. &c. Et ideo quomodo apud inferos eum (Abrahae sinum) credamus esse non video.
• d 1.160

  Ibid. Videmus inferorum mentionem non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in supplicio di∣••itis.
• e 1.161

  Tertull. cont. Marc. lib. 3. Vester Christus posi decursum vitae pocticetur apud inferos in sinu Abrahae refrigerium. Et lib. 4. Mer∣cedem refrigerij apud inferos de∣terminat eis po∣sitam qui legi & prophetis obe∣dierint.
• f 1.162

  Origen. de recta in deum fide dialog. 2. Ait in inferno Abraham fuisse non in regno cae∣lorum. Ex eo quòd illi cum diuite colloqui∣um intercesse∣rat simul fuisse intelligitur.
• g 1.163

  Ibid. Ingen∣tem hiatum qui nominatur non attendisti; Me∣dium enim illud inter caelum & terram hiatum vocat.
• h 1.164

  Ibid. Erigens oculos suos: tol∣lere verò oculos in caelum visita∣tum est.
• i 1.165

  Tertul. vt supra lib. 4. Aliud inferi vt puto, aliud quo{que} Abrahae sinus. Nam & magnum ••it intercedere inter istas regiones profundum & transitum vtrin{que} prohibere. sed nec alleuasset di••e•• oculos, & quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora.
• k 1.166

  Mat. 8.11.
• l 1.167

  Origen. in Genes. hom. 11. Omnes sancti qui de quatuor terraepartibus veniunt in sinum Abrahae portantur ab Angelis.
• m 1.168

  August. Con∣fess. lib. 9. cap. 3. Et nuncille viuit in sinu Abraham.
• n 1.169

  Ruffin. in ex∣posit. symb. Apost. Sciendum sanè est quòd in ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non ha∣betur additum, Descenditad in∣ferna, sed ne{que} in Orientis ec∣clesiis habetur hic sermo.
• o 1.170

  Tom. 9. de symb. vel reg. fidei ad Cate∣chumenos.
• p 1.171

  Tom. 3. de fide & symbolo.
• q 1.172

  Tertul. de praescript. & adu. Praxean, & de veland. virginib.
• r 1.173

  Iren. adu. heres. lib. 1. c. 2. &. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• s 1.174

  Synod. Roma. tom. 1. Concil.
• t 1.175

  Concil. Con∣stantin. 1 cap. 7.
• u 1.176

  Synod Aleu∣and. apud. Cy∣ril. & in Con∣citio Ephes.
• x 1.177

  Acts. 2.27. Psal. 16.10.
• y 1.178

  Preface to the Reader. sect. 5.
• z 1.179

  Durand apud Bellarm. de Christianima. cap. 15.
• a 1.180

  Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 3. q. 52. art. 2. in concl. Christus secun∣dùm effectum in omnem infer∣•••• locum descen∣dit, secùndum verò substanti∣alem praesenti∣••m non descen∣dit nisi ad locum iustorum.
• b 1.181

  Bellarm. de Christianima. c. 16. Probabile est profectò ani∣mam Christi ad omnia inferni lo••a descendisse.
• c 1.182

  Tho. Aqui. vt supra art. 4. in concl. Animam Christi tamdiu fuisse in inferno credendum est, quamdin cor∣pus fuit in se∣pulchro.
• d 1.183

  Vig. ••o. Eutyc. lib. 2. Anima (Christi) per illud triduum in inferno.
• e 1.184

  Augst. cont. Felic. Arian. ca. 15. Si mor∣tuo corpore ad paradisum ani∣ma (latronis) mox vocatur, quenquamnè adhuc tam im∣pium credimus, qui dicere au∣deat, quoniam anima saluato∣ris nostri triduo illo corporeae mortis apud inferos custodiae mancipetur?
• f 1.185

  Thom. Aquin. sum. pa. 3. qu. 52. art. 1. in corp. Conueni∣ens fuit Chri∣sten ad infernum descendere, quia ipse venerat portare poenas nostras vt nos a poena eriperet: ex peccat•• autem homo incurrerat non solum mortem corporis, sed etiam descensum ad inseros.
• g 1.186

  Bel∣lerm. de Christi anima, cap. 16. ex Bonauentura. Dicit Christi animam dum esset in inferno fuisse in loco p••••••ae, sed sine poena.
• h 1.187

  Nicol. Causan. Excitat. lib. 10. ex sermone in iliud; Qui per sp. sanctum se metipsum obtulit. Passio Christi (qua maior nulla potest esse) suit vt damnatorum, qui ••agis damnari nequeunt, scilicet vs{que} ad poenam infernalem. Etibid. Illam poenam sensus conf••r∣nem daemnatis in inferno pati voluit in gloriam der patris sui.
• i 1.188

  Ferus. in Math. 27. Poenam & me∣ritum peccato∣rum (quae sunt Frigus, calor, efuries, sitis, ti∣mor, tr••pidatio, horror mortis, horor inferni, desperatio, mors, infernus ipse) in se trans∣ferens. &.
• k 1.189

  Sect. 13.14.
• l 1.190

  Andrad. De∣fens. fidei Tri∣dent. lib. 2. Animaduerta. mus infernum hoc loco (solutis doloribus infer∣ni. Act. 2) pro morte atque sepulchro He∣braeorum di∣cendi more vsurpari, vt Psa. 15. is quem mox Petrus citat, Quoniam non dere••••quisti an man in in∣ferno. &c.
• m 1.191

  Suarez in Thom. Aqui. p. 3. q. 52. art. 8. disp. 43. §. 1. Me lina dicit a iquos Catholi∣cos sensisse Chri∣flūpassū esse a∣liquas extrinse∣cas poenas dāna∣•••••••• in inferno.
• n 1.192

  Luk. 23.43.
• * 1.193

  Cal. in 27. Math. Perkins pag. 194. In. ca. 24. Lucae,
• * 1.194

  1 Cor. 15. vers. 21. Coll. 1.18. Beza. inc. 2. Actorum L. 1. ar. 25. de concor. Calui∣nist.
• * 1.195

  L. 2. Insti. c. 14 ss. 3.
• * 1.196

  Christ in his resurrection resumed his blood againe.
• a 1.197

  Psal. 16.10.
• b 1.198

  Aug. de. ciu. Dei. lib. 22. ca. 19. Non quòd existimē corpori cuiquam peri∣turum quod na∣turaliter inerat.
• c 1.199

  Ibid. cap. 14. & 20 Luk. 21.18.
• d 1.200

  August. de. ciui dei. lib. 22. cap. 19. Quando ille à suis ita deberet attendi vt p••ss••t agnosci Quò pertinuit etiam vt contrectanti∣bus ostenderet suorum vulne∣rum cicatrices, vt etiam cibum potum{que} sume∣ret; non ali∣mentorum in∣digentia, sed ea qua et hoc pote∣rat potestate.
• e 1.201

  August. in Psal. 23. Con∣trecta cicatri∣ces & senties reparatas & immortalitati redditam hu∣manam infir∣mitatem. The heauens gaue way to Christs body in his ascensi∣on.
• f 1.202

  August epi. 57. Cui profectò immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit.
• g 1.203

  Ibid. sub finem. In aliquo cali loco propter veri corporis modum.
• h 1.204

  Idem in Psal. 23. Pate∣factis sibi caelestibus.
• i 1.205

  Hieron. in Psal. 23. Ipse dominus nunc regna caelestia repetens nunciatur. &c. Tollite portas. &c. Hoc est, reserate caelestes aditus, pateat aeternalis ingressus.
• k 1.206

  Act. 7.56.
• l 1.207

  Tertul. adu. Hermog. Philosophi haereticorum patriarch.
• m 1.208

  Col. 2.18.
• n 1.209

  2. Kin. 2.11.
• * 1.210

  The soules of the faithfull in heauen be∣fore Christs incarnation.
• o 1.211

  Luk. 9.31.
• p 1.212

  Heb. 11.1.
• q 1.213

  Iohn 8.56.
• r 1.214

  Reuel. 13.8.
• s 1.215

  Rom. 6.9.
• * 1.216

  Christ vntill his second comming abi∣deth in hea∣uen onely.
• t 1.217

  Iohn 12 8.
• u 1.218

  Acts 3.21.
• x 1.219

  Heb. 10.12.13.
• y 1.220

  See the An∣swer to the Epest. sect. 14.
• * 1.221

  How Christ shall continue or cease to sit at the right hand of God.
• z 1.222

  Luk. 1.33.
• a 1.223

  Iohn 5.22.27.
• b 1.224

  Ephe. 1.21.
• c 1.225

  Mat. 28.18.
• d 1.226

  1. Cor. 15.24.
• e 1.227

  August. lib. 83. q 69. Opor∣tet eum regnare donceponat om∣nes inimicos suos sub peaibus suis, qu••a talis regni quale habent principes arma∣torum nulla exit causa, hoste ita subiecto vt re∣bellare non pos∣sit. Nam vti{que} dictum est in Euangelio, Et regni cius non erit finis, secun∣dum quod reg∣nat in aeter∣num; secundum autem••d quòd aduersus diabo∣lum sub eo mili∣tatur, tamdiu erit vtique ista militia donec ponat, &c. po∣stea verò non erit, cum pace perpetua per∣fruemur.
• f 1.228

  1. Cor. 13.12.
• g 1.229

  August. de Trin. lib. 1. ca. 10. Vt iam non interpellet pro nobis Mediator & Sacerdos noster filius Dei & filius hominis, sed & ipse in quantum Sacer∣in est, assumpta propter nos serui forma, subiectus sit ei qui illi subiecit omnia vt in quant is Deus ••••t cum illo nos subiectos habeat; in quantum Sacerdos nobiscum illi subiectus sit.
• * 1.230

  Gods ren∣dring accor∣ding to works prooueth no merit.
• h 1.231

  Rom. 2.6.
• i 1.232

  Gal. 6.7.
• k 1.233

  Iohn 5.28.
• l 1.234

  Rom. 3.24.25.
• m 1.235

  Gregor. in Psal. paenitent. 7. Si illa sancto∣rum foelicitas misericordia est & non meritis acquiritur, vbi erit quod scrip∣tum est, Et tu reddes vnicui{que} secundum opera sua? si secundum opera redditur, quomodo miseri∣cordia aestima∣bitur? sed ali∣ud est secundum opera reddere, aliud propter ip∣sa opera redde∣re. In eo enim quod secundum opera dicitur ip∣sa operum quali∣tas intelligitur, vt cuius apparu∣erint hona op••r••, eius sit & retri∣butio glori••sa∣i•••• nam{que} hea∣tae vitae in qua cum deo & de deo v••••i ur nullus potest aequari labor, nulla opera compara••i, praesertim cum Apostolus dicat, Non sunt condignae passiones, &c.
• n 1.236

  Of Iustifica∣tion sect. 49.
• o 1.237

  August. de grat. &. lib ar∣bit. cap 7. Si dei dona sunt bona merita tua, non deus cororat merita tua tan∣quam merita tua, sed tanquā dona sua.
• * 1.238

  In the Pre∣face. In cap. 6. &. 17. Isa. & in 16. Marc.
• * 1.239

  In 26. Math. v. 64.
• * 1.240

  The holy Ghost not made inferior to the Father and the Son.
• a 1.241

  Matt. 23.9.
• b 1.242

  Eph. 4 6.
• c 1.243

  Origen. cont. Cels. ••.8. Chri∣stiani soli Deo per Iesum pre∣ces offerentes.
• d 1.244

  Calu. Opus in Explicat. per∣fidiae Valent. G••ntil. Certè vn•• consensu fatemur Chri∣stum impropriè vocari creato∣rem coeli & ter∣rae quoad per∣sonae distinctio∣nem. Ne{que} enim dubium est quin seriptura patri nomen Creatoris ven∣dicans personas distinguat.
• e 1.245

  August de praedest. san∣ctor. cap. 8. Inseparabilia dicimus ••sse ope∣ra Trinitatis.
• f 1.246

  Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 8. Di∣cimus immedi∣atum opifice•• esse fi••um dei verbum. &c. Ver•• aut••m pa∣trem, curus mandato mun∣du•• sit per ipsum filium conditus, esse primarium opincem.
• g 1.247

  Hilar. de Sy∣nod adu. Aria. Si suis vnum di∣cens deum, Chri∣stum autem de∣um ante secula filium dei obse∣cutum patri in creatione omni∣um non confite∣tur, anathema sit.
• h 1.248

  Rom. 1 7. 1. Cor. 1.3. et in reliq.
• i 1.249

  2. Cor. 1.3. Ephe 1.3.
• k 1.250

  Preface to the Reader. sect. 7.
• * 1.251

  one.
• * 1.252

  holy.
• * 1.253

  Catholike.
• * 1.254

  The Catho∣like Church only one.
• a 1.255

  August. in 1 Ioan. epist. tract. 3. Sic sunt in corpore Christi quomodo humo∣res mali.
• * 1.256

  The holines of the church imputatiue and reall.
• b 1.257

  Rom. 8.23.
• c 1.258

  Mat. 5.6.
• * 1.259

  Of the true sense of the name Catho∣like.
• d 1.260

  Cyril. Hiero∣sci. Catechis. 18. Illuminat. Catholica voca∣tur quia per vntuersum sit or••em terrarum diffusa &c. Et quia doret Catholicè, hoc est, vniuersali∣tèr & sine vllo defectu vel dif∣ferentia omnia dogmata quae deberent venire in cognitionem, &c Et quòd omne genus ho∣minum ipè subiugat; et quia in vni∣uersum curat omne genus pec∣catorum &c. hab tur{que} in illa omne genus vir∣tutis. &c.
• e 1.261

  Ambros. Hexaem lib. 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia habet tempora sua persecutio∣nis & pacis. vi∣detur sicut luna deficere, sed non deficit; obum∣brari potest, de∣ficere non potest.
• f 1.262

  Beliarm. de notis eccles. cap. 7. Si solae vna prouincia reti∣neret veram fidem, adhuc verè & propriè diceretur eccle∣sia Catholica, dummodo clarè ostenderetur eam esse vnam & eandem cum illa quae fuit aliquo tempore vel diuersis in toto mundo.
• g 1.263

  Tert. de prae∣script. adu. hae∣ret. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus A∣postolicae depu∣tantur pro con∣sanguinitate doctrinae.
• h 1.264

  Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Quod quidem tunc praeconiauerunt, postea per dei voluntatem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae fu∣turum.
• * 1.265

  The church how farre to be beleeued in points of faith.
• * 1.266

  Communion of Saints im∣plieth neither Purgatorie nor praier to saints.
• i 1.267

  Aug. de vera relig. cap 55. Honoramus eos charitate, non seruitute: ho∣norandi propter imitationem, non propter re∣ligionem ado∣randi.
• k 1.268

  Esay 63.16.
• l 1.269

  Eph. 1.10. Col. 1.20.
• m 1.270

  Reu. 14.13.
• * 1.271

  Psal. 51.
• * 1.272

  Originall sin how it is for∣giuen to In∣fants.
• a 1.273

  Rom. 4.5, vulgat. Eph. 1.5.9
• b 1.274

  Gen. 17.7.
• c 1.275

  1. Cor. 7.14. Children of faithfull pa∣rents how vnderstood holy.
• d 1.276

  Psal. 51.5.
• e 1.277

  Aug. Enchir. ca. 33. Cum hac quippe (ira dei) omnis homo nas∣citur.
• f 1.278

  Eph. 2.3.
• g 1.279

  Iohn. 3.36.
• h 1.280

  1. Ioh. 2.2.
• * 1.281

  Epist. ad Fa∣rellum.
• * 1.282

  Vide Conradum lib. 1. art. 20.
• a 1.283

  Caluin. epist. 103. Quòd res tibi incredibilis videtur huius carnis resurre∣ctio, nihil mirū.
• b 1.284

  Sect. 10.
• * 1.285

  3. Institu. 25. sess. 6.
• * 1.286

  Enarra. in Gen. cap. 26. In Ecclesi. c. 9. v. 10.
• * 1.287

  Lib. 9. hist.
• * 1.288

  In 20. Luc. hom. 35.
• * 1.289

  In 1. c. Petri 1. 1. Cor. 15.42.
• * 1.290

  The soules of the faithfull affirmed by Caluin and Luther to be in heauen.
• a 1.291

  Cal. Instit. l. 3. ca. 25. sect. 6. De fidelibus lo∣quens.
• b 1.292

  2. Cor. 5.1.
• c 1.293

  Nisi supersti∣tes essent animae corporibus quid est quod habet deum praesen∣tem vbi fuerit à corpore sepa∣ratum? Nisi etiam animae corporibus exu∣tae retinerent suam essentiam, ac beatae gloriae capaces essent, non dixisset Christus latro∣ni: Hodie me∣cum eris, &c.
• d 1.294

  Scriptura vbi dixit Christum illis praesentem esse & eas reci∣pere in Parae∣disum vt conso∣lationem perci∣piant, reprobo∣rum verò ani∣mas cruciatus quales meritae sunt perpeti, non vltra pro∣greditur.
• e 1.295

  Quum scrip∣tura vbi{que} iube∣at pendere ab expectationae aduentus Christi & gloriae coronam eous{que} differat, contenti simus his finibus diuinitus nobis praescriptis, animas piorum militiae labore perfunctas in beatam quie∣tem concedere vbi cum foelici laetitia fruitionem promissae gloriae expectent, at{que} ita omnia su∣spensa teneri donec Christus appareat redemptor.
• * 1.296

  Col. 3.3.4. 1. Ioh. 3.2. 1. Pet. 5.4.
• g 1.297

  Caluin. adu. Libertin. ca. 22. Etsi fidelium animae simulac separatae sint à corporibus vi∣uunt cum deo ac foelici regni gaudio potiun∣tur, tamen per∣fecta omnium filiorum dei foe∣licitas vs{que} ad secundum Chri∣sti aduentum defertur.
• h 1.298

  Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. Reuera sensit animas non vi∣suras deum nisi post resurrecti∣onem.
• i 1.299

  Eccles. 9.10.
• k 1.300

  Luth. Eccl. 9. Alius locus quòd mortui nihil sentiant: nulla enim, in∣quit, est ibicogi∣tatio, ars, cogni∣tio, sapientia: sensit ergò So∣lomon mortuos omninò dormire & nihil prorsus sentire. Iacent ibi mortui non numerantes dies vel annos, sed excitati vi∣debūtur sibi vix momentum dor∣miuisse.
• l 1.301

  Ibid. Insernus propriè me iudi∣ce significat il∣lum abditum recessum in quo dormiunt mor∣tui, &c. vt in∣telligas infer∣num dici vbi continentur a∣nimae & quasi quoddam se∣pulchrum ani∣mae extra hunc corporalem mundum, stcut terra est sepul∣chrum corpo∣rum: quid au∣tem illud sit no∣bis est incogni∣tum.
• m 1.302

  Luther. in Gen. c. 25. Nos habemus grati∣am & donum ac manifestam & multiplicem scientiam de morte & vita. Siquidem certi sumus saluato∣rem nostrum Christum Iesum sedere ad dex∣teram dei patris & expectare nos decedentes ex hac vita. Quandocun{que} igitur excedi∣mas è viuis, ad Episcopum ani∣marum nostra∣rum egredimur, qui recipit nos inmanus suas: is noster Abra∣hā est cuius cō∣plexu fruimur: is viuit, imò regnat perpetuò.
• n 1.303

  Ibid. In Chri∣sto mors non est acerba sicut impijs est, sed est commutatio huius miserae & calamitosae vitae in quietam & bes••. tam. &c. Et paulò post. Multi loci scripturae sanctae comprobant quòd post mortem non morimur, sed viuimus simplicitèr. Esa. 57. Requiescit in cubili, &c. Ingrediuntur non in mortem, purga∣torium aut infernum, sed in pacem.
• o 1.304

  Esa. 57.2.
• p 1.305

  Et mox. Alia quaestio nascitur, cùmcer∣tū sit viuere & esse in pace animas, qualis illa vita aut quies sit. Haec verò sublimior & difficihor est quàm vt à nobis possit definiri: deus enim noluit id a nobis cognosci in hac vita: sufficit igitur nobis haec cognitio non egredi animas ex corporibus in periculum cruciatuum aut poenarum in∣ferni, sed esse eis paratum cubiculum in quo dormiant in pace. Differunt tamen somrus siue quies huius vitae & futurae. Homo enim in hac vita defatigatus diurno labore sub noctem intrat in cu∣biculum suum tanquam in pace, vt ibi dormiat & ea nocte fruitur quite, ne{que} quicquam scit de ••llo malo siue incendij siue caedu. Anima autem non sic dormit, sed vigilat & patitur visiones & loquelas angelorū & dei. Ideo somnus in futura vita profundior est quàm in hac vita, & tamen anima coram deo viuit.
• q 1.306

  Ibid. Qui somnum natu∣ralem dormit nihil eorum scit quae geruntur in domo vicini, & tamen viuit, li∣cet contra natu∣ram vitae nihil sentiat in som∣no. Idem in illa vita fiet sed a∣lia & meliore ratione. Proin∣de sicut mater desert infan∣tem in cubicu∣lum, ponit in cunas, non vt moriatur sed vt dormiat & quiescat suaui∣tèr, ita ante Christum & multò magis post Christum ingressae sunt & ingrediun∣tur omnes ani∣mae credenti∣um insinum Christi.
• r 1.307

  Sleidan. Com∣ment. lib. 9. Sed postquam inno∣tuit, & aliquid roboris assump∣sit Lutheri do∣ctrina, paula∣tim euanuerunt eiusmodi spe∣ctra. Docete∣nim Lutherus è sacris literis mortuorum a∣nimas quiescere & supremum iudicij diem ex∣pectare: turbas autem illas & strepitus formi∣dolosos ac phan∣tasmata per Sa∣tanam excitari dicit, qui nullā praetermittit oc∣casionem vt im∣pios cultus & falsas opiniones in animis homi∣num coufirmet & Christi ser∣uatoris nostri beneficium ex∣tinguat.
• s 1.308

  Aug. in Psal. 30. cō. 3. Quàm multos putatis fratres mei vel∣le esse Christia∣nos, sed offendi malis moribus Christianorum?
• t 1.309

  Luther. in 1. Pet. c. 1. Fra∣ternitas est qu••d Christiani inter se vt fra∣tres esse debent, nec vllum pror∣sus discrimen admittere: si∣quidem omnes in communi vnum Christū, vnum baptis∣ma, vnam fidē, vnum{que} the sau∣rum habemus. Non possum e∣quidem pluris esse quàm tu: quod tu babes & ego habeo, &c. Christus ae∣què meus est ac D. Bernardi: tuus non minus at{que} D. Francis∣ci, &c. vnam Christiani om∣nes fraternita∣tem habemus, quam in baptis∣mo sumus conse∣cuti, de qua nul∣lus diuus plus habet quàm ego ac hi. Nam quanto ille pretio redemptus est, tanto sum & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 redemptus, &c.
• u 1.310

  Matt. 20.2.12.13. Aug. de Sanct. Virgin. cap. 26. Hiero. cont. Io∣uinian. lib. 2. Gregor. Moral. lib. 4. cap. 31.
• a 1.311

  Psal. 19.7.
• * 1.312

  All works of perfection prescribed by the lavv.
• b 1.313

  Deut. 6.5. Luk. 10.27.
• c 1.314

  Esa. 1.12.
• d 1.315

  Luk. 18.22.
• e 1.316

  Rom. 4.15.
• * 1.317

  Analog••n.
• * 1.318

  All Images generally for∣bidden to be worshipped.
• a 1.319

  Of Images. sect. 5.
• b 1.320

  Ioseph. Ant. Iudaic. l. 8. c. 3. See of Images. sect. 5.
• c 1.321

  Of Images, sect. 4. & 7.
• d 1.322

  Deu. 4.12.15
• e 1.323

  Aug. de vera relig. ca. 55. Ad vnum deum tendentes & e•• vni religantes animas nostras, vnde religio di∣cta creditur. Lactant. Instit. li. 4 cap. 28. Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti deo & religati sumus; vnde ipsa reli∣gio nomen ac∣cepit.
• f 1.324

  Lactan. Instit. l. 1. c. 20. Religio ac veneratio nulla alia nisi vnius dei tenen∣da est.
• g 1.325

  Aug. cont. 2. ep. Pelag. lib. 3. c. 4. Debent ob∣seruari Christi∣ani, vt vni deo religionis obse∣quio seruiatur.
• h 1.326

  Idem cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 14. cap. 11. Apostolus crea∣turam laudat, & ei tamen cul∣tum religionis exhiberi vetat.
• l 1.327

  Idē de eiu. dei, l. 5. c. 15. Pietas vera non exhi∣bet seruitutem religionis, quam latriam Graeci vocant, nisi vni vero deo.
• k 1.328

  Idem de vera relig. cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mor∣tuorum. Hono∣randi sunt prop∣ter imitatio∣nem, non ado∣randipropter religionem.
• l 1.329

  1. Pet. 4.3.
• m 1.330

  Greg. de Va∣lent. de idolat. lib. 2. c. 7. Quid attinebat ita determinatè cultus simula∣chrorum illici∣tos notare, si om∣ninò nullos si∣mulachrorum cultus licitos esse censuisset?
• u 1.331

  Cypria. de ex∣hort. martyr. ca. 2. Quod Deus solus coiēdus sit.
• o 1.332

  Origen. cont. Cels. lib. 1. Cul∣tus & adoratio nulli creaturae concedi potest abs{que} diuinita∣tis iniuria.
• p 1.333

  Hieron••. aed Ripar adu. Vigi∣lant. Ne solem quidem & Lu∣nam, non ange∣los, non archan∣gelos, non Che∣rubim, non Se∣raphim, & om∣ne nomen quod nominatur & in praesenti secu∣lo & in futuro colimus & ado∣ramus.
• q 1.334

  Epiphan haer. 79. Collyrid. Sit in honore Ma∣ria: Pater, Fi∣lius, Sp. Sact a∣doretur: Mariā nemo adoret.
• r 1.335

  Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, l. 3. cap. 12. Maria erat templum Dei, non Deus templi: & ideo ille solus adorā∣dus qui opera∣batur in tēplo.
• s 1.336

  Reu. 19.10.
• t 1.337

  Act. 10.25.
• u 1.338

  Of Images, sect. 5.8.
• x 1.339

  Deut. 22.10
• y 1.340

  Lactant. Inst. l. 2. c. 19. Non est dubium quin religio nulla sit vbi∣cun{que} simula∣chrum est.
• * 1.341

  The Papists worship they know not not what.
• a 1.342

  Bellarm. de Sacra. in Gen. ca 27. sententia Catholicorum est requirs in∣tentionem fa∣ciendi quod fa∣cit Ecclesia.
• b 1.343

  Sect. 63.
• c 1.344

  Humphred. de vita & obitu Iuelit, pa. 120. ex Holcot. As∣serit fidem laici adorantis hosti∣am non conse∣cratam sufficere illi ad saluatio∣nem, tametsi er∣roneam: & ho∣minem posse mereri per fi∣dem erroneam, etsi contingat vt adoret diabolū.
• d 1.345

  Ioh. 16.2.
• e 1.346

  Act. 22.3.
• f 1.347

  Luk. 23.34.
• g 1.348

  Aug. epist. 48. Arbitrabantur se pro ecclesiae dei facere quic∣quid inquie∣ta temeritate faciebant.
• h 1.349

  Ioh. 4.23.
• i 1.350

  Ibid. vers. 22.
• k 1.351

  Ioh. 17.3.
• l 1.352

  Os•• 4.6.
• * 1.353

  Festiuall daies lawfully pre∣scribed by the church.
• a 1.354

  Bellar. de cultu sanct. l. 3. ca. 10. Sunt dies festi verè alijs fan∣ctiores & sa∣cratiores, & pars quaedam diuini cultus.
• * 1.355

  Matth. 4.22.
• a 1.356

  Col. 3.20.
• * 1.357

  The validitie of contracts & marriages without con∣sent of pa∣rents.
• b 1.358

  Conc. Trident. sess. 24. Sancta Synodus ana∣themate dam∣nat eos qui fal∣sò affirmant matrimonia à filijs familias sine consensis parentum con∣tracta irrita esse, & parentes rata vel irrata facere posse.
• c 1.359

  Gen. 21.21. Exod. 34.16. Deut. 7.3.
• d 1.360

  Gen. 26.34.
• e 1.361

  Ibid. 28.8.
• f 1.362

  Ibid. 27.46.
• g 1.363

  Gen. 38.2.
• h 1.364

  Num. 30.4.
• i 1.365

  Exod. 4.25.
• k 1.366

  Num. 16.38.
• * 1.367

  Childrens vowes of Moonkerie vnlawfull.
• l 1.368

  Conc. Gāgrens. cap. 16. Si qui filij parentes maximè fideles deseruerint oc∣casione Dei cul∣tus, hoc iustum esse iudicantes, & non potius debitum hono∣rem parentibus reddiderint, vt hoc ipsum in eis venerentur quòd fideles sunt, anathema sint.
• * 1.369

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.370

  Cap. 5.28. & 29.
• * 1.371

  Rom. 7.7.
• * 1.372

  That concu∣piscence is sinne in the first motions thereof.
• a 1.373

  Iam. 1.14.
• b 1.374

  Matt. 5.28.
• c 1.375

  Full. Offic. l. 1. Cauet in omni∣bus opinionibus & factis nequid libidinosè, aut faciat, aut cogi∣tet.
• d 1.376

  Idem Tuscul. quaesi. lib. 4. Vt turpes sunt qui efferunt se laeti∣tia tum cum fruuntur vene∣reis voluptati∣bus; sic flagiti∣ost qui eas in∣flammato ani∣mo concupis••ūt. Et paulò post: Ve haec omittamus, (stupra, corrup∣telas, &c.) per∣turbatio ipsa mentis in amore foeda ser se est.
• e 1.377

  Ibid. Quae crescentia per∣niciosa sunt, cae∣dem sunt vitio∣sa nascentia.
• f 1.378

  Esa. 42.19.
• g 1.379

  Ioseph. Antiq. Iudat••••. l 12. ca. 13. D••m••r••r Polybium qui ait 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Antio∣chum 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 conatu•• sit Dianae templi thesaures & do∣naria 〈◊〉〈◊〉 V••••u••sse enim tan 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ac non etiam perse••••sse 〈◊〉〈◊〉, non vitetus res ••••g∣〈…〉〈…〉.
• h 1.380

  B••••l de Amiss. gr•••• & s••at. p••••c. l. 5. c. 10. Qu•• s••ribit motum inter∣num non esse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••si 〈◊〉〈◊〉 se pro∣dat.
• i 1.381

  Tu••. Orat pro 〈…〉〈…〉 for∣ti 〈…〉〈…〉, non 〈…〉〈…〉: perind•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈…〉〈…〉 non h••m aum con••••••ia legibus vindic••ntur.
• k 1.382

  Psal. 66.18.
• l 1.383

  Bell vt supra ex R. Dauid Kimhi. Non imputabit ad p••ccatum desi∣derium min∣stum, si tantùm sit in corde.
• m 1.384

  Rom. 7.7.
• n 1.385

  Rom. 4.14.
• o 1.386

  vers. 15.
• p 1.387

  Aug. cont. 2. epist Pelag. l. 1. c. 10. & ••ont. Iulian. l. 6. c. 11.
• q 1.388

  Of originall sinne sect 2.
• r 1.389

  Catech. Rom. part. 3. de 9. & 10 praecept. Quodam natu∣raetumine intel∣lectum est, alie∣nae vxoris poti∣undae cupidita∣tem prohiberi, vetito adulte∣rio: nam si con∣cupiscere lice∣ret, fa•• item esset potiri.
• * 1.390

  Gods mercy excludeth the merit of man.
• * 1.391

  Defid. cont. Manich. cap. 9.
• a 1.392

  Rom. 1.5.
• b 1.393

  Ier. 6.16.
• * 1.394

  No satisfa∣ction of one man for ano∣ther.
• c 1.395

  Of Satisfa∣ction. sect. 11.12.
• d 1.396

  Es. 14.21.
• * 1.397

  The keeping of Gods cō∣mandements not denied.
• e 1.398

  1. Ioh. 2.4.
• f 1.399

  Pro. 27.22.
• * 1.400

  1. Epist. 5. v. 3.
• * 1.401

  The Prote∣stants teach faith, hope and charitie aright.
• a 1.402

  1. Io. 5.10.11.
• b 1.403

  Rom. 8.25.
• c 1.404

  Eph. 2.10.
• d 1.405

  Heb. 9.28. & 10.14.
• * 1.406

  Psal. 75.13.
• * 1.407

  Spirituall vowes admit∣ted; Popish vowes reie∣cted.
• a 1.408

  1. Cor. 11.23
• b 1.409

  Greg. ep. l. 7 Indict. 2. ep. 63. Mos Apostolo∣rum fuit vt ad ipsam solummo∣do orationem dominicam ob∣lationis hostiam consecrarent.
• c 1.410

  De cons. dist. 2. Cum omne. Quòd pro com∣plemento com∣munionis intin∣ctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex Euangelio testi∣monium recepe∣runt, &c.
• d 1.411

  Cyp. l. 2. ep. 3. In sacrificio quod Christus est nonnisi Chri∣stu. sequendus est.
• * 1.412

  Princes lawes how they binde in con∣science.
• a 1.413

  Epist. to the king sect. 34.
• b 1.414

  Preface to the Reader. sect. 3.
• * 1.415

  Popish bar∣baritie colou∣red by slande∣ring the Pro∣testants.
• a 1.416

  See heereof, The diffe∣rence be∣twixt Chri∣stian subiecti∣on, and vn∣christian re∣bellion. part. 3. by D. Bilson then Warden of Winche, and now Bi∣shop there.
• * 1.417

  Protestants allow neither adultery nor incest; Papists doe both.
• a 1.418

  Mat. 5.32. & 19.9.
• b 1.419

  August. de ciu. d••i l. 15. c. 16 ••actum eti∣am••••••••um propter vicini∣tatem horreba∣tur illiciti.
• * 1.420

  Our lawes allow no vsu∣ry at all.
• a 1.421

  Mat. 19.8.
• * 1.422

  Papists be∣leeue in stocks and stones.
• a 1.423

  Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 3 q. 25. art. 4. See before of Images. sect. 14
• b 1.424

  Polyd. Virgil. de inuent. re∣rum. l. 6. c. 13. his (imaginibus) magis fidunt quam Christe vel alijs diuis quibus dicatae sunt. Papists wil be saued by their own works, not by the passion of Christ
• c 1.425

  Index Expur. Hispan. Ex li∣bro qui inscribi∣tur, Ordo bapti∣zandi cum Mo∣do visitandi, impresso vene∣tijs, ann. 1575.
• d 1.426

  Deieantur illa verba: Credis non proprijs me∣ritis sed passionis domini nostri Iesu Christi vir∣tute ac merito ad gloriam per∣uenire? Credis quòd dominus noster Iesus Christus pro ne∣stra salute mor∣tuus sit, & quòd ex proprijs meri∣tis vel alio modo nullus possit sal∣uari nisi in me∣rito passionis ipsius?
• e 1.427

  Deleantur illa verba: Non erit desperandum vel dubitandum de salute illius qui suprapositas petitiones corde crediderit & ore confessus fuerit.
• f 1.428

  Supra sect. 17
• g 1.429

  1. Cor. 12.2.
• * 1.430

  Euery euill motion is sin.
• a 1.431

  Heb. 12.4.
• b 1.432

  Rom. 7.8.
• * 1.433

  De planetis.
• * 1.434

  De Planetis.
• * 1.435

  De prophetia Christi.
• * 1.436

  The vertuous conuersation of Papists.
• a 1.437

  Sect. 15. and of satisfacti∣on sect. 19.
• * 1.438

  The Lords praier exclu∣deth praier to Saints.
• a 1.439

  Matt. 15.22.
• b 1.440

  Chrysost. ex varijs in Math. locis hom. 17. Vi∣de prudentiam mulieris: non rogat Iacobum, non obsecrat Io∣annem, neque pergit ad Pe∣trum, nec inten∣dit Apostolorū chorum, non quaesiuit media∣torem, sed pro omnibus illis poe∣nitentiam acce∣pit comitem, quae adu••cati locum in pleuit & sic. ad summum fontemperrexit.
• c 1.441

  Ibid. Dic mihi mulier, quemad∣modum ausa es, cùm sis peccatrix & iniqua, acce∣dere ad Chri∣sium? Ego, in∣quit, nou•• quid agam &c. prop∣terea descendit, propterea car∣nem assumpsit & hon••o factus est vt ego ei au∣deam loqui.
• d 1.442

  Aug. cont. epis. Parmen. l. 2. c. 8. Sic oratio pro in uicemmembrorū omniū adhuc in terra laboranti∣um ascendit ad caput in quo est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris.
• e 1.443

  Iohn 20.17.
• f 1.444

  Cyprian. de orat. Domin. Hoc nomen ne∣mo nostrum in oratione aude∣ret attingere, nisi ipse nobis sic pernasisset ora∣re.
• g 1.445

  Catechis. Ro∣man p. 4. cap 9. sect. 1. Quid iu∣cundius est pa∣trius nomine quod induigen∣tiam sonat & charitatem?
• h 1.446

  2. Cor. 1.20.
• * 1.447

  Math. 10. v. 11. 1. Cor. 9. v. 14.
• * 1.448

  Our daily bread is of Gods mercy.
• a 1.449

  Mat. 10.10.
• * 1.450

  Lib. 1 de Sym∣bolo. cap. 6. in Enchir. cap. 69.
• * 1.451

  Forgiuenesse of sinnes ex∣cludeth our satisfaction.
• a 1.452

  2. Cor. 5.19.
• b 1.453

  Bernard. in Cant. ser. 23. Omne quod mi∣hi ipse non im∣putaredecreue∣rit sic est quasi non fuerit.
• c 1.454

  Of satisfacti∣on. sect. 6. & 15.
• * 1.455

  Confession of sinnes is the demall of merit.
• a 1.456

  Of iustifica∣tion, sect. 44. &c
• * 1.457

  Temporall punishmēt re∣mitted in for∣giuenesse of sinnes.
• a 1.458

  Aug. de vera & falsa paenit. cap. 5. Quia quotidiana est effensio, oport••t vt sit quotidia∣na etiam remis∣sio.
• a 1.459

  Ephe. 5.16.
• b 1.460

  Mat. 12.36. No man li∣ueth without breach of Gods law.
• c 1.461

  Rom. 7.7.
• d 1.462

  Rom. 4.15.
• e 1.463

  August. de pecc. meritis & remiss. l. 2. c. 16. Quomodo non vetatur per iu∣stitiam si pecca∣tum est? Neque peccatum erit si∣quid erit, si non diuinitus iube∣atur vt non sit.
• * 1.464

  Our repen∣tance and faith to be known as wel as our charity.
• * 1.465

  Psal. 26.1.
• * 1.466

  1. Ioh. 5.
• * 1.467

  The true Christian ne∣uer falleth a∣way.
• a 1.468

  Psal. 145.18.
• b 1.469

  1. Ioh. 5.14.
• c 1.470

  Aug. do bono pers••uer. cap. 6. Quisquis igitur exauditur hoc poscens, non in∣fertur in contu∣maciae tentatio∣nem qua possit vel dignus sit perseuerantiam sanctitatis a∣mittere. At e∣nim voluntate sua quis{que} dese∣rit deum vt me∣rito deseratur à deo. Quis hoc negauerit? sed ideo petimus ne inseramur in tentationem vt hoc non fiat, & si exaudimur vti{que} non fit quia deus non permittit vt fiat.
• d 1.471

  Psal. 37.24:
• e 1.472

  Rom. 8.28.
• f 1.473

  Aug. de cor∣rept. & grat. ca. 9. Talibus dili∣gentibus deum omnia cooperā∣tur in bonū, vs∣queadeo prorsus omnia vt si qui corum deuiant & exorbitant, etiam hoc ip∣sum eis faciat proficere in bo∣num.
• g 1.474

  Bernar. de di∣uers. ser. 1. An verò ei peccata ipsa non coope∣rantur in bonū qui ex eis humi∣lior, feruentior, solicitior, timo∣ratior, & cauti or inuenitur?
• h 1.475

  Greg. Moral. l. 2. c. 25. Fit mi∣ra dispensatione pietatis vt vnde malignus hostis cor tentat vt interimat, inde misericors con∣ditor hoc erudi∣at vt viuat.
• i 1.476

  2. Cor. 4.6.
• * 1.477

  Amen what it importeth in the Lords praier.
• a 1.478

  Catec. Roman. p. 4. cap. 17. sect. 4. Cui voci illa quodammodo subiecta senten∣tia est, scito tuas auditas esse pre∣ces. Habet enim vim responden∣tis & illum qui precibus quod velit impetrarit cum bona gratia dimittentis dei. Et sect. 6 Intel∣ligentes nos iam impetrasse om∣nia ac sentien∣tes praesentem vim diuini aux∣ilij illud vnà cum propheta canimus; Ecc•• dominus adiu∣uat me &c.
• a 1.479

  Gen. 25 22.23.
• b 1.480

  Aug. de pee∣cat. mer. & re∣miss. l. 2. c. 7. Nunc ei similes esse tam coepi∣mus per primi∣tias spiritus, & adhuc dissimiles sumus per reli∣quias vetusta∣tis, proinde in quantū similes, in tantum rege∣nerante spiritu filij dei: in quā∣tum autem dis∣similes, in tan∣tum si. ij carnis & seculi. Illinc ergò peccare non possumus; hinc verò si dixeri∣mus quia pecca∣tum non habe∣mus, nosi, so•• decipimus &c.
• * 1.481

  Reall pre∣sence fondly collected out of the Lords praier.
• a 1.482

  Ambr. de Sa∣cram. l. 5. cap. 4. Ante verba Christi quod offertur panis est: vbi Christi verba deprom∣pta suerint, iam non panis dici∣tur sed corpus appellatur.
• b 1.483

  Ibid. Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vi∣tae eternae qui anima nostrae substantiam fulcit.
• * 1.484

  a

  Of the cer∣tainty of sal∣uation. sect. 5.18.

  How we pray not to be led into temptati∣on, but deli∣uered from e∣uill.
• b 1.485

  Rom. 8.28. See before sect. 41.
• c 1.486

  Rom. 7.21.
• d 1.487

  vers. 23.
• e 1.488

  Gal. 5.17.
• f 1.489

  2. Cor. 4.16.
• g 1.490

  1. Cor. 15.28.
• * 1.491

  Luk. 1.
• * 1.492

  Apud Dionisi. Corinth. 1. part. in Euan. c. 5.17.
• a 1.493

  Luk. 24.25.
• b 1.494

  Nann. epist. nuncupatoria praefixa oper. A∣thanasij. In ter∣tiam classem: relegaui omnes supposititios li∣bros quos Atha∣nasij non puto.
• c 1.495

  Hieron. in Ca∣talog. script. ec∣clesiast. Multa syro sermone composuit.
• * 1.496

  M. Per. 2.
• a 1.497

  Extravag. de schismat. c. du∣dum. in glossa. Neutrum adie∣ctiuum de omni genere praedica∣tur.
• b 1.498

  Tertul. cont. Marcionem. l 4. Panem corpus suum appellans.
• c 1.499

  Cyprian. l. 1. e∣pist. 6. Corpus suum panem vo∣cat de multorum granorū aduna∣tione congestum.
• d 1.500

  Theodoret. Dialog. 1. sym∣bola & signa quae videntur appellatione cor∣poris & sangui∣nis honorauit.
• e 1.501

  Orig. de rectae in deum fide. Corporu & san∣guinis signa & imagines •• anem & poculum ministrauit.
• f 1.502

  Cyprian, de vnct. Chris. In mensa in quae vitimum cum Aposto••is parti∣cipauit conuiuiū proprijs manibus tradidit panem & vinum.
• g 1.503

  Aug. ser. ad Infant. Quod autem fides postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi.
• h 1.504

  Iohn 2.9.
• i 1.505

  Iohn. 1.14.
• k 1.506

  Theodoret. vt supra, Non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens.
• l 1.507

  Aug. epi. 23. si sacramenta similitudinem quandam non haberent earum rerū quarum sunt sacramenta, omninò sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerun{que} rerū ipsarū nomina acci••iunt.
• m 1.508

  Cyprian de resurrect. Chri∣sti. Quod vide∣tur, nomine & virtute Christi corpus censetur.
• n 1.509

  Bellar. de sa∣cram. Eucharist. l. 1. c. 11. Hoc, id est, substantia sub his spectebus contenta.
• o 1.510

  Tho. Aquin. summ. p. 3. q. 75. art. 7. ad 2 vl∣timuminstans prolationis ver∣borum est pri∣mum instans in quo est in sa∣cramento corpus Christs; in toto autem tempore praecedente est ihi substantia panis.
• * 1.511

  Per. 3.
• a 1.512

  August. in Psal. 98. spiri∣tualiter intelli∣gite quod locu∣tus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis mandu∣caturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me cru∣cifigent, sacra∣mencum ali∣quod comn en∣dani vohi••; spi∣ritualitèr in∣tellectum viui∣ficabit v••s.
• * 1.513

  Per. 4.
• a 1.514

  Sect. 63.
• a 1.515

  Luk. 22.20. 1. Cor. 11.25.
• b 1.516

  Mat. 26.28.
• c 1.517

  Mark. 24.23.24.
• * 1.518

  Per. 5.
• a 1.519

  Sect 62. ex Luc 22.15.
• b 1.520

  Aug. in Ioan. tract. 59. Non est ex eis iste, &c. Illi mandu∣cabant panem dominum; ille panem domini contra dominū.
• * 1.521

  1. Cor. 11. v. 26.
• a 1.522

  Iohn. 12.8.
• b 1.523

  August. in Io∣an. tract. 50. Quoniam con∣uersatus est se∣cundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diel. us cum dis∣cipulis suis & eis deducentibus videndo, non se∣quendo a scondit in caeiu•• & non est hic.
• c 1.524

  Acts 3.21.
• d 1.525

  Phil. 3.20.
• a 1.526

  Aug. serm. ad infantes, apud Bedam in 1. Cor. 10 Quod vide∣tis panis est & calix, quod vo∣bis esiam oculi renunti••nt.
• b 1.527

  1. Cor. 11.26
• * 1.528

  Per. 8.
• a 1.529

  Matt. 26.27.
• b 1.530

  1. Cor. 11.23
• c 1.531

  Concil. Trid. ses. 5. can. 2. Ec∣clesia iustu cau∣sis & rationi∣bus adducta vt laicos at{que} eti∣am Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantum: modo specie com∣municaret, &c.
• d 1.532

  Mat. 26.26. Luke 22.19.
• e 1.533

  1. Cor. 11.25
• f 1.534

  Cyprian lib. 2. ep. 3. In comme∣morationem do∣min•• hoc facia∣mus quod secit & dominus &c. Ab Euangeii••i•• praeceptis omni∣nò recedendum non esse, & ea∣dem quae magi∣ster docuit & fecit, discipulos quo{que} obseruare & facere debe∣re &c. Vti{que} ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qurid quod Christus fecit imitatur. &c. Nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere de∣bemus &c. Quotiescun{que} calicem in com∣memorationem domint & pas∣sionis eius offe∣r••mus•••• quod consia•• domi∣num fecisse, faci∣amus, &c.
• g 1.535

  1. Cor. 11.26
• h 1.536

  1. Cor. 11.24.
• l 1.537

  Mat. 26.28.
• k 1.538

  De consecrat. dist. 2. Comperi∣mus quosdam qui sumpta sa∣cri corporis portione à ca∣lice sacrati cruoris abstine∣ant; qui quia nescio qua su∣perstitione do∣centur astringi aut integra sa∣cramenta perci∣piant aut ab in∣tegru arcean∣tur; quia diui∣sio vnius eins∣dem{que} mysterij sine grandi sa∣crilegio non po∣test prouenire.
• l 1.539

  Dist. 2. cap. Cum omne. Quod pro com∣plemento c••m∣munionis inein∣ctam tradunt Eu haristiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex E∣uangelio testi∣moniū recepe∣runt, vbi Apo∣stolu corpus su∣um commenda∣uit & sangui∣nem; seorsum enim panu & scorsum calicis commendatio memoratur.
• m 1.540

  Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11. Domi∣nica coena om∣nibus debet esse communis, quia ille omnibus dis∣tipulu suis qui aderant aequa∣liter tradidit sacramenta.
• n 1.541

  Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 18. Est vbi nihil differt sacerdos a sub∣dito vt quando fruendum est sacris mysterijs; similiter enin, omnes vt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 participemus digri habemus.
• o 1.542

  Theophylact. in 1. Cor. c. 11. praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cun∣ctis conditione sit traditus.
• p 1.543

  Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 2. Quo∣modo ad marty∣rij poculum ido∣neos facimus si non eos ad bi∣bendum prius in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicatio∣nis admittimus?
• q 1.544

  Gelas. cont. Eutych. & Ne∣stor. Certè sa∣cramenta quae sumimus corpo∣ris & sanguin•••• domini, diuina resest, & per illa diumae con∣sortes ••fficimur naturae, & ta∣men esse non desinit substan∣tia vel natura panis & vini.
• r 1.545

  Theodoret. dialog. 2. Manent in priore substantia & figura & forma, &c.
• s 1.546

  Rom. 4.11.
• t 1.547

  Preface to the Reader, sect. 20.
• * 1.548

  Ioh. 6.48.49.
• a 1.549

  2. Cor. 4.13.
• b 1.550

  Act. 15.11.
• c 1.551

  Aug de nat. & grat. cap 44. Ea fides iustos sanauit anti∣quos quae sanat & nos, id est, mediatoris dei et hominum, homi∣nis Iesu Christi; fides sanguinis eius, fides cru∣cis eius, fides mortis & resur∣rectionis eius.
• d 1.552

  Aug. ep 118. Leus iugo suo nos subdidit & sarcinae leui; vnde sacramen∣tis numero pau∣cissimis, obser∣uatione facilli∣mis, significati∣one praestantis∣simis societatem noui populi col∣ligauit.
• e 1.553

  1. Cor 10.2.
• f 1.554

  Ioh. 6.54.
• g 1.555

  Amb. de Sp. Sanct lib. 1. in Prolog. Quod vti{que} non ad di∣uinitatem eius sed ad carnem relatum est quae sitientium corda populorum pe∣renni riuo sui sanguinis inun∣dauit.
• h 1.556

  Aug. in Ioan. tract. 16. Hunc panem significa∣uit Manna; hunc panem sig∣nificauit Altare dei. Sacramenta ill: fuerunt; in signis diuersa sunt; in re quae significatur pa∣riasunt.
• i 1.557

  Ioh. 6.48.51.
• k 1.558

  Augu. cont. Faust. Manich. li. 12 c. 29. vete∣rem figuram carnalitèr acci∣p••entes, mortui sunt.
• l 1.559

  Aug. in Ioan. tract. 26. Visi∣bilem cibum spi∣ritualiter intel∣lexerunt, spiri∣tualiter esurie∣runt, spiritua∣liter gustaue∣runt, vt spiritu∣alitèr satiaren∣tur.
• * 1.560

  Ioh. 6.55.
• a 1.561

  Iohn 6.55.
• b 1.562

  Cyprian. de cae∣na domini. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acu imus, sed fide syncera panem sanctum fran∣gimus.
• c 1.563

  Aug. Cur pa∣ras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti.
• d 1.564

  Idem. in Ioan. tract. 26. Qui manducat intus non foris; qui manducat cor∣de, non qui pre∣mit dente.
• e 1.565

  Tertul. de re∣surr. carnis. Du∣rum & intole∣rabilem existi∣mauerunt ser∣monem eius, quasi verè carnē suam illis eden∣dam determi∣nass••t.
• f 1.566

  Iohn 6.47.
• g 1.567

  August. in Io∣an. tract. 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viuum: qui credit, man∣ducat.
• h 1.568

  ver. 61.62.
• i 1.569

  Aug. vt supra ille putabant eum erogaturū corpus suum; ille autem dixit se ascensurū in calum, vti{que} integrum. Cum vid eritis filium hominis, &c. certè vel tunc videbitis quia nō eo modo quo pu∣tatis erogat corpus suum; certè vel tunc videbitis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus.
• k 1.570

  vers. 63.
• l 1.571

  Aug ibi. Quo∣modo quidem edatur & quis∣nam sit mandu∣candi modus ignoratis.
• m 1.572

  Ori. in Leuit. hom. 7. Est & in nouo testa∣mēto litera quae occidit eum qui non spirituali∣ter aduertit. Nam si secundū literamsequaris id quod dictum est; Nisi mandu∣caueritis car∣nem &c. litera illa occidit.
• n 1.573

  Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 16. si flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere aut vti∣litatem & be∣neficentiā vita∣re, figurata est. Nisi manduca∣••eritis carnem filij hominis &c. facinus vel fla∣gitium videtur iubere. figura ergò est praecipi∣ens passioni do∣mini esse cōmu∣nicandum & suauitèr at{que} vtiliter recon∣dendum in me∣moria quod car•• eius pro nobis crucifixa & vulnerata sit
• o 1.574

  Bernar de verb. Habac. super custodiā &c. sub edendi corporis sus mysterio discipulos ad commun•••• andum passionibus suis aumonens.
• a 1.575

  Sect. 50.
• b 1.576

  Aug in Psal. 3. Conuinium in quo corporu & sanguinis sui fi∣guram discipu∣••usuis co••men∣dauit & tradi∣dit.
• c 1.577

  Tertul. cont. Marcion ••••. 4. Ac••eptum pa∣nem corpus su∣um fecit, dic••••∣do, hoc est cor∣sus meum, id est, figura corpo∣ris mei.
• d 1.578

  Gelas. cont. Eutych & Nest. Et certo imago & simili∣tudo corporis & sanguinis domi∣ni in actione mysteriorum celebratur.
• e 1.579

  Chrysost. Op∣imperf. in Mat. hom. 11. In qui∣bus non verum corpus Christi, sed myst••rium corporu eius continetur.
• f 1.580

  Constit Clem. l. 7. c. 26. Anti∣typa corporis, &c. Iacob•• Li∣turg. Typus cor∣poris & sanguinis Christi tui.
• g 1.581

  Carol. Magn. epist. ad A cuin. Panem fregit & calic••m pa∣••iter dedit eis in figuram corporis & sanguinis sui.
• h 1.582

  1. Cor. 10.4.
• i 1.583

  August. in Leuit. q. 57. Quod vti{que} non erat per substantiam sed per significationem.
• k 1.584

  Sect. 48.
• * 1.585

  1. Cor. 10.16.
• a 1.586

  Aug. in Ioan. tract. 50. Quo∣modo tenebo ab∣sentem? quo∣modo in coelum manum mit••am vt ibi sedentem teneam? fidem mitte & tenu∣isti.
• * 1.587

  1. Cor. 11.28.
• * 1.588

  Luc. 22.15.
• a 1.589

  Tertul. de Baptism Nihil adeò est quod obiurat mentes hominum quàm simplicitas diui∣norum operum quae in actu vi∣dentur & mag∣nificentia quae in effectu re∣promittitur, &c.
• * 1.590

  Ioh. 6.
• a 1.591

  Sect 48.
• b 1.592

  Gen. 17.13.
• c 1.593

  Exod. 12.11.
• d 1.594

  Leuit. 1.4. & 4.20 &c.
• e 1.595

  Heb. 10.4.
• f 1.596

  Cyprian de Vnct. Chrismat. significantia & significata eis. dem nomenibus censentur.
• g 1.597

  Rom. 1.25.
• h 1.598

  Sect. 49. & 57.