A REPROOF OF M. D OCT. ABBOT'S DEFENCE, OF THE CATHOLIC DEFORMED BY M. W. Perkins.  
WHEREIN His sundry abuses of Gods sacred word, and most manifold mangling, misaplying, and falsifying, the ancient Father's sentences, be so plainly discovered, even to the eye of every indifferent Reader, that whosoever hath any due care of his own salvation, can never hereafter give him more credit, in matter of faith and religion.  
THE FIRST PART.  
Made by W.B. P. and D oct. in divinity.  
As jannes' and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith, but they shall prosper no further, for their folly shall be manifest to all, as theirs also was.  2. TIM. 3. vers. 8. & 9 
¶ Printed with Privilege, Anno Domini, 1608.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
GOOD CHRISTIAN READER,  
I do voluntarily confess, that after I had seen M. Abbot's answer to my Epistle unto his Majesty, I was a long time unwilling to reply upon it; not for that I esteemed it to contain any such extraordinary learning, as be too too fond vaunteth off (for I dare be bold to say, that in a skilful man's judgement, there are more pregnant proofs of their new doctrine in two leaves of M. Perkins book, then in ten of his:) but clean contrary, I find so little substance in his work, and so great store of impertinent and vile stuff, such superfluity of idle amplifications, so many uncivil and foul words; that I could not think the time well bestowed, which should be spent in so frivolous and pain an altercation. Notwithstanding being often admonished by my friends, that divers Protestants much commended M. Abbot's discourse, some for the style, and his cunning and confident carriage in it; others for that they saw it thick interlaced with sundry ancient Author's sentences: and thereby thought and gave out, that he refused not to deal with us at our own weapons. Hereupon I resolved at length to afford it some answer, specially for such good people's sake, who are desirous to bolt out that truth of God, which only can save their souls, and are not willing to be deceived with fine tricks, nor do wittingly suffer themselves to be carried away with fair glozing speeches, or stout brags, when they find no correspondence of sound and well grounded matter. To give the man his due, I acknowledge that he inditeth not amiss, if he did not defile and poison his pen with so huge a multitude of ugly, venomous, and unsavoury terms. But what account is to be made of choice, picked, and pleasing words, when they be employed not only to abuse and beguile simple souls, but also to disgrace the sincere verity of God's word? surely for the debating of controversies in religion, plain usual speeches without painting or superfluity, have always been taken by the learned for most decent and expedient, according to that ancient Adage: simplex est veritatis oratio, the style of truth is simple and plain. And where much colouring and flourishing is used, there is no small suspicion of a bad cause and fraudulent dealing. What need bad M. Abbot to fill up thirty sheets of paper, to give answer unto one sheet and half of mine? doth it not argue to a man of understanding, that what he could not answer unto directly in few words, he would at least cloak with long circumstances, and cast a mist before the Readers eyes with gay glorious phrases, that he might not see and discern the truth?  
Touching his frequent disgraceful and odious terms, and most bitter railing against the best sort of men on our side, I would gladly learn how it can stand with Christian charity and modesty. Sure I am, that it consorteth full evil with that sacred rule of the Apostle: 
2. Tim. 2. vers. 24.  The servant of our Lord must not wrangle, but be mild towards all men, apt to teach, patiented, with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth. And S. Peter telleth us, that the natural property of a true Christian is, 
1. Pet. 3. vers. 9  To be modest and humble, and not so much as to render evil for evil, or curse for curse: so far off was he from encouraging any man to revile and rail at them, who never gave him any one foul word in all their lives, yea whom he never saw. And he further biddeth us to follow the example of Christ our great master, who did not revile, when he was reviled: but hath in express words forbidden us to use any contemptuous or opprobrious speeches against our brethren, assuring us before hand, that he 
Math. 5. vers. 23.  Who shall say to his Christian brother (thou fool) shall be guilty of hell fire. This and an hundred times more to the same purpose, being set down in the divine Scriptures against bitter and barbarous speeches; yet M. Abbot a professed Divine, seemeth to take a special delight in them, and to esteem them no small ornaments of a Divines style: otherwise he would not so often use them. I wot well that the most mild and sweet penmen, are sometimes through zeal of the truth, or by the overthwart dealing of their adversary, moved to let slip now and then a hard word or two; but ordinarily, or upon every small occasion to fall into a fit of railing, and to vomit up most rustical and ruffianlike taunts, cannot but discover a very corrupt and venomous stomach. In this one discourse of M. Abbots, a diligent scavenger may rake together well-near a tumbril full of them. I do entreat the gentle Reader not to be offended with me, if I do here for verification of what I say, trouble him with the view of some few of them. The Bishop of Rome is seldom called by his right name, but Antichrist, 
Page 118. 124 146. 150. 162.  the man of sin, that harpy of Rome, filthy harlot, filthy and unnatural strumpet, the whore of Babylon, and such like. Religious men he termeth idle lossels and filthy belly-gods, swarms of Locusts, Romish vermin, full gorged Friars, and so forth. Myself and others my brethren, False harlots, witless sophisters, blind Doctors, abominable hypocrites, lewd caitiffs, the seed of the Devil, unclean beasts, foul mouthed dogs, like unto other swine of his fraternity, base fugitives, false traitors, the villainy of our profession, and innumerable others; which cannot but convince and demonstrate M. Abbot to be one of them, whom the spirit of God hath lively described, when he wrote: 
Rom. 3. vers. 13.  Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they deal deceitfully, the venom of serpents is under their lips, their mouth is full of malediction and bitterness, their feet swift to shed blood, destruction and infelicity is in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known, there is no fear of God before their eyes. And if M. Abbot scorn to be advised by me his adversary to forego this rude rhetoric of brabbling and scolding women, in latin called Canina eloquentia; let him follow the grave counsel of that sage Lawyer Sr. Edward Cook, whose book ●e citeth, wherein is said: 
In the preface of his fift of reports.  That controversies in religion are to be handled with all candour and charity, and not with bitter invectives, like men transported with fury. To end this point, if he hold ●n that course of scurrility, he will drive me and others to give him over in the plain field, for a foul-mouthed wrangler that deserveth no answer. Thus much by the way of the manner of his inditing.  
Now to the matter of his book, which doth principally consist in allegation of Authors, and applying their sentences to his purpose. How insufficiently he hath behaved himself therein, shall be particularly discyphered 〈◊〉 their proper places: I will here only for a taste of his judgement, and sincerity therein, give a touch unto some general heads thereof. First, doth 〈◊〉 not evidently prove great want of judgement and discretion, to allege 〈◊〉 upright witnesses in matters of controversy, such authors as are known to all the world, to be professed parties of the same side? If I should cite for confirmation of the Catholic cause; D oct. Harding, D oct. , D oct. Stapleton, or any other Catholic late writer; would not the unpassionate reader take me for very simple, if I thought that any man would the sooner believe me for their opinions, that were men (though most learned and right honest) yet not indifferent, because they were professed advocates of the same cause? Even so a man of any wit, cannot but marvel where M. Abbot's senses were, when he so commonly and confidently for proof of any doubt, doth produce the authority of Bale, (a late Irish Apostata Friar, whom be sometime also calleth Balaeus, to make him seem two worshipful authors, that is not worthy to be half one) Fox, jewel, Humphrey, Holinshed, Sr. Edward Cook, the Magdeburgenses, Kemnitius, Illyricus, Sleidan, Hospinian, and many others open and professed adversaries of the Catholic Roman Church, and therefore no upright and fit witnesses against it. He without doubt may garnish his margin with variety of quotations, that blusheth not to cite so frequently as M. Abbot doth, such partial writers. But no man (I hope) will be so foolish, as to give credit unto any thing that is no better verified, then by the verdict of such false witnesses. For to call one of them to give testimony is no better, than (after our English proverb) to hid a man ask one of his fellows, whether he be a thief or no.  
Again, there is another circumstance in the citing of his late partial authors, which maketh it yet more absurd and ridiculous. For he sticketh not to produce the credit of a silly writer of this last hundred years, for verification of a matter done more than a thousand years before he was borne. For example, to prove that Pope Eleutherius acknowledged Lucius (King of our Country 1400. years passed) to be supreme governor in causes Ecclesiastical, 
Page 26.  M. Abbot allegeth Holinshed a Chronicler of our age: what a jest is this? how knew this late writer what passed so long before his own time? was there not any one historiographer more ancient than he, neither Latin nor English, that could tell any tidings of such a matter? And yet M. Abbot is so il advised, as to persuade us to receive it upon his silly poor credit. Of the like stuff is that in another place of his book, 
Page 60.  to wit, that Syritius Bishop of Rome (who lived about 1200. years ago) was a noveller, and that by the worshipful verdict of Polidore Virgil: who lived eleven hundred years after him. What, are learned men grown so careless of their credit, that they dare let pass to the print such doting follies, and so gross absurdities? this may serve for a note of his oversight, in alleging his own pewfellows for upright and indifferent umpeers, and late modern authors for the certainty of ancient matters.  
Now to his citations of the more authentic approved writers, whom he doth greatly abuse in divers and sundry fashions. The first and most gentle is, when he doth cite their words truly, but doth apply them clean contrary to their meaning. For example, in his Epistle to the kings Majesty be approveth his highness course for the answering of Catholic books, producing for it this sentence out of S. Bernard: That though thereby the Heretic arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confirmed in her faith: M. Abbot meaning as the sequel of his speech doth import, that if thereby men of the Roman religion will not be converted from their errors, yet the good Protestants may be confirmed in their new faith: which is very far wide from S. Bernard's express declaration; as elsewhere, so in that very place. For that devout holy Father was so far off from dissuading any man from the Roman faith, that he wisheth all men to make their recourse unto the See of Rome, for resolution of all doubts in faith: these be his words to Pope Innocentius. We must refer to your Apostleship, 
Epist. 190.  all the scandals and perils which may fall in matter of faith specially, because the defects of faith must be helped where faith cannot fail: for to what other See was it ever said, 
Luc. 22. vers. 31.  I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy faith do not fail. See then what Church S. Bernard would confirm in her faith, not the Protestant but the Roman. Moreover, in that very discourse out of which M. Abbot ●icketh the former sentence, 
Serm. 66.  S. Bernard doth in particular describe those Heretics, whom he persuaded to arise from their filth, to be such as held the Church not to have been visible for many years, but to have lain hid in corners. Item, that would not believe, ●hat any souls departed went to Purgatory, but either to heaven or to hell presently; and so defrauded the dead of the prayers of the living. Also such as would dissuade from praying to the Saints: these and such like are those Heretics by S. Bernard's judgement, whom he would have to rise from the dross and dregs of such erroneous opinions, and return unto the Roman Catholic faith. Now judge with what conscience M. Abbot could cull some words out of the same discourse, to persuade men by the countenance of S. Bernard, to forsake praying to Saints, and for the dead, and the whole Roman religion so strongly established by that reverend religious Father in the very same place. This may suffice for a proof of his misapplying the Father's sentences, wherein he offendeth as often and as grievously (I think) as ever did any Christian writer, as shall be hereafter showed.  
Now to another trick of his no less shameful, which is the misconstruing of their words: let this serve for a pattern. Against the worshipping of Images he produceth the authority of S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, 
Page 104.  Commending (as he fableth) the zeal of Serenus Bishop of Massilia, who could not endure that any thing should be worshipped that is made with hands; and telleth him, that he should forbid the people the worshipping of them, etc. Here are many foul faults: for S. Gregory did not commend but reprehend the undiscreet zeal of that Bishop, who did break some pictures set in the Church, because some late converted Heathens not yet well instructed in the Christian religion, did adore them as if they had been Gods. S. Gregory telleth him plainly, That that should not be broken, which was not set up in the Church to be adored, but only to instruct them that were ignorant. Secondly, though S. Gregory forbid Images to be adored as Gods, yet doth he teach them to be worshipped as representations of most holy personages: which may be seen plainly (to omit divers other places) by his letters unto Secundinus, 
L●v. 7. Epist. 53. add Secund.  To whom he sent the Images of our Saviour, of the blessed Virgin Mary, and of the holy Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul; telling him first, that his petition to have those Images, did greatly please him: for (saith he) thou dost love him with all thy heart and whole intention, whose Image thou desirest to have before thine eyes, and strait after addeth: I know that thou dost not therefore desire to have our saviours Image, that thou mayest worship it as a God; but for a remembrance of the Son of God, that thou mayest wax warm in his love, whose Image thou dost behold: and we truly do cast ourselves down before the said Image, not as before a Godhead, but we adore him whom by the Image we remember to have been borne, or suffered, or to sit in his throne. Can any thing be more manifest, than that S Gregory approved both the having of Images, which be sent to his friend; and setting them in Churches for the instruction of the unlearned; and also worshipping of them, even so farforth as humbly to kneel before them? which he himself as well practised in his own person, as also taught others so to do: which is all that we Catholics do defend, as greatly condemning (as the Protestants themselves) that any Christian should adore them as Gods, or give any Godly honour unto them. How wrongfully then did M. Abbot allege S. Gregory's words? and how shamefully hath he misconstrued them clean besides that most holy Father's meaning, with whom in faith and doctrine we do fully agree?  
But let us yet go one step further, more evidently to discover, how perfidiously M. Abbot doth deal with those ancient and most holy Doctors. He is not ashamed to cite them sometimes in confirmation of those errors, the which they do expressly confute in the very same place: take this for an assay. Epiphanius (saith he) an Eastern Bishop, 
Page 62.  even in the time of Hierome, acknowledgeth for true those words of Socrates, that the Priests and Bishops thereof, were not forced by any law to forbear their wives, and that many of them whiles they were Bishops, had children borne unto them by their lawful married wives: and quoteth Epiphanius against the 59 Heresy of the Cathary; where in deed he handleth that matter, but after another manner. These he his words: Indeed the holy preaching of God, doth not since Christ's coming admit them to take holy orders, who have married again after their first wives death, in respect of the excellent dignity of Priesthood: and this doth the Church of God observe sincerely, (but so doth not the Church of the Protestants: ergo, it is not the Church of God.) Then he cometh to our present purpose, and saith: The same Church of God doth not admit and receive a man that hath a wife living, and that getteth children, to be a Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon; but him that either abstaineth from the company of his wife, or else liveth widower, and that specially where the Ecclesiastical Canons be sincere and not corrupted. Hitherto Epiphanius, as flat contrary to M. Abbot's report of him as can be: for he reported, that whiles they were Bishops they had children borne unto them, and there was no law that forced them to for●eare their wives. Epiphanius telleth us otherwise: That the Canons of the Church (which are Ecclesiastical laws) did not suffer any to be Bishop or Priest, that kept company with their wives. And ●hich maketh the fault the more palbable, Epiphanius addeth an objection, upon which it seemeth M. Abbot grounded his assertion: But ●hou wilt say that in some places, Subdeacons', Deacons, and Priests, do yet get children (note by the way that in no place how corrupt soever, Bishops so did, as M. Abbot reporteth:) but this (answereth holy Epiphanius) is not according unto the Canon, but after the mind of men, that in tract of time fainted, and so forth. Where he proveth abstinence from marriage, or continual continency, to be not only decent for the high and holy calling of Clergy men; but also necessary for their daily prayers, and for the sudden occasions of their sacred function: so that finally S. Epiphanius is found to confute that directly, which M. Abbot reports him to acknowledge for true. And if this be not most wilful corruption, and falsification of these learned Father's sentences, I know not what may be.  
Because this is a point, that toucheth every Christian that hath care of his salvation so near, 
Page 122.  I will insist more upon it. Is not this (saith M. Abbot) a horrible impiety, that standeth written in their law, our Lord God the Pope: and then doubleth it, saying; To believe that our Lord God the Pope could not so decree, as he hath decreed, should be accounted heresy. In the Canon law (which he calleth our law) is no such horrible impiety, but in his report is a double lie. The former is, to avouch that to stand in the law, which is only written in the gloss; which is no law as all men know. The second and the more shameful is, that it standeth not in the gloss neither, but he belieth both the one and the other: 
Extravag. joan. 22. cum inter, in glossa.  let any man turn to the place quoted by himself, and there towards the end, upon the word, declaramus, he shall find only Dominum nostrum Papam, our Lord the Pope; and the word (God) is foisted in by M. Abbot, to make up that horrible impiety of which he speaketh. As very a lie is it, which he citeth out of the Decretals of Pope Gregory, 
Page 119.  that (forsooth) the Pope is not a mere man: whereas the Canon hath, 
De translat. Episco. cap. Quanto.  Non puri hominis, sed veri Dei vicem gerit, that is, The Pope is the vicegerent or vicar, not of a mere man, but of true God: to wit of Christ, who is both God and man.. No more truth is in that assertion of his out of venerable Bede, 
Page 199.  our very holy and most learned countryman: Then were the Scriptures in four several languages, of so many several nations in this land; whereas he signifieth the plain contrary: that the Scriptures were only in the Latin tongue among them, and that therefore many of each language learned the Latin tongue, that they might by the help thereof understand, meditate, and study the Scriptures: these be S. Bedes words. 
Lib. 1. hyst. Aug. cap. 1.  This Island at that time, did study and confess one and the same knowledge of truth, in five sundry languages, to wit: in the English, Briton, Scottish, Picts, and Latin tongue, which Latin by study of the Scriptures, was made common to all the rest. Note how for to study the holy Scriptures, men of the other four several languages were feign to learn the Latin tongue; which they needed not to have done, if the Scriptures had been then translated into their own mother language, as M. Abbot reporteth. Another notorious untruth, and most malicious slander, doth be cast out in the next precedent page, against the blessed Bishop S. Augustine, our English Apostle: 
Page 198.  That (forsooth) because he could not get the Britons to obey him, he therefore provoked Ethelbert King of Kent, (a very good Christian) to procure the death of two thousand Monks of Bangor, besides many other more innocent men; whereas that holy Religious Father, was dead and buried many years before that slaughter happened: which was also committed, not by Ethelbert King of Kent, 
Beda lib. 2. hyst. cap. 2.  but by Ethelfride a Pagan Prince of the North parts, and that not for any quarrel of religion neither, but to enlarge his Dominions, and to be revenged on his enemies. Neither can M. Abbot or any other Protestant, produce one ancient and approved author, to justify that S. Augustine was any way accessary to that wicked fact; but is glad to shroud himself under the shrub of an old nameless Chronicle, (and therefore Apocryphal) cited by the Arch-lier, and late partial writer jewel: fit witnesses for such a palbable and spiteful slander.  
But if I would stand here to make a Catalogue of M. Abbot's corruptions, falsifications, and other odd tricks, which he useth in alleageing of the Fathers, and other approved authors; I should reduce the greatest part of his book to this place, which chief consisteth in such paltry shifts, and unchristianlike dealing: this that I have here declared, cannot but suffice to discredit him with all indifferent men. For if he hath wittingly misreported such worthy authors, of purpose to beguile his credulous reader, as it is most like (for he will not be taken for a man that citeth the Fathers by hearsay, without looking in●o their works) than he hath a most seared and corrupt conscience, unworthy the name of a Divine, and walking alive is dead in conscience, and consequently in credit with all men that love the truth: 
Sapient. 1. vers. 11.  For the tongue that lieth, killeth the soul. But let us suppose the most that may be said in his favour, that he hath not wittingly and of purpose to deceive the simple, cited the holy Father's sentences wrongfully, but taking them up upon the credit of some other of his companions, without looking into the Doctors own works, whether they were true or no, and being deceived himself, doth afterwards beguile others: this I say being of courtesy admitted, which is the best excuse that can be truly made for him; yet no mean wise man can ever hereafter trust him, that so confidently without any qualification, averreth such false tales: for his untruths are so plain and palbable, that you need no more, but compare his reports with the author's words, and at the first sight any mean scholar shall find his cozenage and deceit.  
I come now unto the last kind of abuse, that M. Abbot offereth unto the sacred senate of those most renowned ancient Fathers, wherein he doth more ingeniously, discover and lay open the right humour of a true Protestant: which is to deny their authority flatly, to control and censure them as simple men, to accuse them of error and falsehood; yea and finally, to prefer old rotten Heretics opinions before the best of them. To begin with Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea a most famous historiographer, that lived in the days of Constantine the great, because he doth more mannerly reprehend him, and saith: 
Page 177.  That we must give him leave, to censure Eusebius of an injuditious and presumed explication of Constantine's mind and purpose. Truly I see no cause why we should give him any such leave: for who can be so simple, as to think that M. Abbot (borne 1200. years after Constantine's death) should know more of his mind then Eusebius, who conversed with him most familiarly, and was of his privy Council in such affairs, and a man otherwise very learned and judicious. Secondly, he taxeth the most holy and reverend Patriarch of Constantinople S. chrysostom, 
Page 175.  for playing the orator, and enforcing that in one place for true, which in another place he himself denieth: 
Page 176.  and for reporting that of Constantine's Son, which is much different from the certain story. In like manner be standereth S. Augustine, 
Page 54.  for writing against jovinian the Heretic, whose opinions (saith M. Abbot very audatiously) S. Augustine knew only by hearsay, and not of any certainty. Secondly, 
Page 60.  Though Augustine doth not break into those rude and undecent speeches against marriage, as Hierome did; yet he was deceived where he said, that no Priests embraced Iouinians heresy. I will omit, how they note S. Hierome (that most virtuous, zealous, and learned Doctor) with a black coal, 
Page 57  For writing with all indignation and stomach, for railing, and false doctrine; because I make haste to acquaint the reader with the most shameless prank of all others, which is: that they in express terms prefer the most infamous condemned Heretics, even in the very points of their errors; before the most judicious, learned, and sincere Doctors of the Church. 
Page 73.  It it manifest (saith M. Abbot) that Hierome (one of the four principal Doctors of the Latin Church) was deceived, and that Vigilantius, (a lose and lewd Heretic) had just cause to say as he did. Again, Aërius (a damned Arrian) spoke against prayer for the dead, 
Page 86.  with greater reason than Epiphanius (a most ancient, learned, and holy Greek father) hath defended it. jovinian (a notable audacious and ignorant Heretic, as both S. Augustine, S. Hierome, 
Vincent. Lyr. cap. 15. do●. rank jovinian in the number of pestilent Heretics.  and Vincentius Lyrinensis do testify, though by reason of his later standing he was unknown to Epiphanius:) this Heretic I say, Did teach (as M. Abbot reports page 56.) the doctrine of Paul in Rome, against the superstitious conceit of the holiness of Virginity, before the holiness in Marriage: which notwithstanding was maintained by S. Augustine and S. Hierome, with the whole court of Rome at those days; as be himself confesseth in the same place. Doth not this (to omit much more of the same kind) convince and demonstrate, unto all unpassionate Christians of any understanding, that the poor miserable Protestants be exceeding blindly bend unto the defence of their errors, who seeing them most plainly condemned by the best and most learned of the primitive Church, and pure antiquity (to which they would sometime in great confidence seem to appeal,) had notwithstanding rather consort themselves, and follow very base, unlearned, and wretched Heretics, and with them to band against the invincible troops of the ancient holy Fathers, and most renowned Doctors? will it any whit avail them to say, that those men of condemned memory, did in their opinions better agree with the word of God, and therefore are to be preferred before the rest, though otherwise better scholars than they? surely nothing at all with the judicious; because this is but a scarecrow to amate the simple. For whether were more like to understand better the sacred word of God, either Augustine, Hierome, Epiphanius, chrysostom, and such others, who endued with excellent wits, and well furnished with all other kind of learning, had most diligently studied both the old and new Testament, as by their translations, and most learned Commentaries and explications, they have testified to the ●orld? or Aërius, Vigilantius, or jovinian, who have not left any one monument of learning, wit, or honesty behind them? and jovinian (reputed of those three the most sufficient) was so insufficient and unlettered, that he could not so much as indite in the Latin tongue congruously, and so as he might be understood, 
Hieron. lib. 1. cont. jovin. in initio.  as S. Hierome proveth. To finish this point, seeing that M. Abbot doth not only misapply the ancient Doctor's sentences, but doth also misconstrue, corrupt, and falsify them; yea, doth plainly and roundly deny their grave and sacred authority, preferring the confessed and condemned errors of notorious reproved Heretics, before their uniform and approved doctrine: they must needs confess themselves to have been a little deceived, who took him to have beaten the Papists with their own weapons, that is, to have brought better testimony out of pure antiquity in favour of the Protestants opinions, than the Catholics do for theirs; whereas in truth he handleth those sacred Fathers, even as Caluin reporteth the Libertine to deal with the holy Scriptures. 
In instruct. adverse. Libert. cap. 9  These lose men (saith he) when we press them with the Scriptures, do not much dissemble, that they esteem no better of them, then of fables: notwithstanding they in the mean season do not let to use them, if they find any place that they can wrest unto their own meaning; not that they themselves do give any credit to it, but only that they may thereby trouble the unlearned, and so daunt and stagger them, that they may at length the more easily draw them to like of their errors: thus far Caluin. Even so playeth M. Abbot with the glorious Doctors of the Church, whom how little he regardeth, doth appear by his often abusing their words, by his resisting their authority, and setting less by them, then by ignorant obscure and abject persons: yet knowing that all sober Christians do highly esteem, and make great account of their grave authority, as of the principal lights of Christ's Church since the Apostles times, they do greedily catch hold of any broken sentence of theirs, that doth any way sound in favour of their heresy; not that they themselves give any credit thereunto, but to astonish and deceive the simple reader, and thereby to persuade him to like the better of their errors. Thus much in general, of the abuses which M. Abbot offereth unto the ancient Fathers.  
But doth be behave himself more reverently towards the holy Scriptures, and sacred word of God? one example I will give here, by which you may take a scantling of the rest; and not to seek far, it shall be the very first in his book: these be his words. 
Page 6.  This is the thing that M. Bishop labours for, seeking with 
Act. 13. v. 8.  Elimas' the Sorcerer to pervert the strait ways of the Lord: and whereas his Majesty hath made profession to advance the honour of Christ, he would in steed thereof draw him to advance the Idol 
Dan. 11. vers. 38. 2.  Mauzzin, the God of Antichrist, and to establish damnable heresies by him privily brought in, whereby his agents and factors through 
Pet. 2. vers. 1. & 3.  covetousness, with feigned words do make merchandise of the souls of men, speaking things which they ought not for filthy 
Tit. 1. vers. 11.  lucre's sake. Here you see his text enriched, and his margin garnished with a gay show of God's word, and yet here is not one whole sentence of holy Scripture to any purpose, but divers words picked out of sundry places, and by the new Evangelist M. Abbot made a new piece of unholy scripture; which pretty devise if it should pass for currant, any had matter might be graced with the gloss of Scripture: so that the first fault committed by M. Abbot herein, is the dismembering of God's word, and renting of it in pieces at his pleasure, with which pieces afterwards oddly and idly patched together, he maketh up (as it were) a poor beggars cloak, rather than any testimony of Scripture. Secondly, the words hang together very untowardly, one of them not agreeing with the other: for if his Majesty should be persuaded to advance the Idol Mauzzin, the God of Antichrist, he could not establish heresies privily brought in; for that false God will wholly oppose himself against Christ, and not suffer any other God besides himself to be adored: so that he will not establish heresies, which are errors defended by them which profess Christ and do adore the true God; neither will be privily bring in be●esies, but openly profess Idolatry, and compel all others to do the same. Thirdly, these words are most falsely and fond applied to us Roman Catholic Priests: for first that false God of Antichrist shall not be advanced by the Romans, but fought against, and foiled by them, as it is clear in the very text. 
Dan. 11. vers. 30.  The Galleys and Romans shall come upon him, and he shall be strooken and turned back.  
And lastly, how il advised was M. Abbot, to charge poor seminary Priests with covetousness, and speaking of things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake? whereas it is manifest unto all men, women, and children almost, that they who become such Priests, are so far off from seeking after any temporal gain thereby, that they do willingly forego all hope of benefices, and all other whatsoever commodities and dignities in their country, which they might perhaps aswell attain unto as some others, if they would follow the current of the time: Yea, they do also debar themselves of lands, legacies, annuities, and all other profits and commodities whatsoever, which might accrue unto them, from their parents, kinsfolks, and friends; being content to live upon God's providence, and that poor pittance which the impoverished estate of some few Catholics will afford them. The Protestant Ministers, who by their profession are capable of fat benefices, headships of houses, Deaneries, and such like dignities and commodities, may be truly suspected to bend their studies that way, and to maintain heresies in hope of gain and promotion: and they who cannot be satisfied with two or three of those great livings joined together, or with one Bishopric alone, but would have bishoprics and Deaneries united; such men may indeed rightly be suspected, to make merchandise of men's souls for filthy lucre's sake: but to impute covetousness unto seminary Priests, who have debarred themselves of all preferment both spiritual and temporal, which their Country yieldeth to men of their profession, and can look for no other promotion there, than a halter at Tyburn, was no less shameful than witless impudence. Briefly, M. Abbot by tearing Gods words in pieces, and patching it up again with his own words full ilfavouredly, and by applying it most absurdly, is found to offer as great injury to it, as he hath done unto those holy ancient learned Fathers aforesaid; who were by the spirit of God selected to be the principal expounders of it. So that finally, whether you regard the handling of Scriptures or Fathers, you shall seldom light upon any Divine that doth perform it more insufficiently (shall I say) or more perfidiously: nevertheless he sets such a brazen face on the matter; speaketh so confidently; conveyeth it so cunningly; and doth gild it over so artificially, that the credulous and unwary reader would think him to be some jolly fellow, and a rare flourishing writer. But be that will not take vain words for good payment, nor tricks and shifts for sufficient proofs; but will weigh his arguments well, and diligently examine his testimonies: he shall quickly discover M. Abbot's weakness, and find him to be one of the most shallow and beggerliest writers of these days: for he like a mount-banke indeed (to return his own words upon him) setteth out for fresh and new merchandise, the very rif-raf and refuse of other Protestant authors, and that which hath been an hundred times answered unto by the learned on our side. In him therefore is truly verified that witty observation of S. Augustine, 
Lib. 1 cont. Gaud. c. 39  uttered against the Donatist Gaudentius: Nihil assert praeter lassum & quassum, he bringeth nothing that hath not been already (by his own companions) wearied out, and (as it were) tired by over often using; and 〈◊〉 our party so shaken, battered, and beaten, that it cannot be but a foul ●sgrace among the learned to put into light, and to set to sale so base, ●erworne, threadbare, and ragged stuff.  
This I hope will suffice for a preamble, to advertise the indifferent ●ader what opinion he is to conceive and carry of M. Abbot's writings, ●●e rest I remit to the Treatise itself; desiring the judicious reader to ●●are with those manifold difficulties, which we that live in the land have in this time of persecution, both to compose and to print our books: which duly considered, he will not greatly blame our slowness, if our works come not forth so speedily, as he may well expect, and we do greatly desire. Almighty God whose glory we seek, and for whom we labour in the conversion and right instruction of Christian souls, vouchsafe to send his heavenly blessing on our poor travails, and upon all them who with good intention shall read them over.   


MASTER ABBOT'S EPISTLE TO HIS MAJESTY.  
AMONG the manifold benefits, which the divine providence hath yielded unto us, by the happy entrance of your most sacred Majesty, to the imperial Crown of this realm, we cannot but most especially recognise that, which we take to be the pillar and upholder of the rest, the preserua●n of true religion, and continuance of the Gospel of Christ: ●hich albeit it be a singular and inestimable mercy of God, yet ●ere is found amongst us a viper's brood, a malcontented Sama●an generation, which never ceaseth whining and repining there 〈◊〉, accounting this blessing of God to us, a great wrong to them, whilst by a cachexy and corrupt disposition of the stomach, ●ey better brook the Onions and garlic of Egypt, than the ●anna of heaven, and bread of Angels; and have ears more de●hted with the mermaids notes, and enchanting music of the ●oore of Babylon, then with the plainsong of true religion, dejected by the simplicity of the word of God. Therefore, as in the ●ies of our late most gracious Queen, they never rested working, bring this land again under the slavery and bondage of the ●n of sin: so since your Majesty's coming to the Crown, ●●ey have been still plotting the same; not only by attempting ●ur highness subjects, but also labouring in their Petitions and ●dicatory Epistles, to draw your Majesty one way or other, to ●nsort with them in their damnable and accursed devices. And 〈◊〉 Mountebanks do set forth base wares with magnifical and lofty words: so do they with brave terms labour to grace a counterfeit and bastard faith, and in their supplications have ●●unted to your Majesty of a religion, and never rest to commend a religion; which indeed in the questioned part thereof, is no other but a refined heresy, compounded of sundry ancient heresies, only clarified by School-tricks from the more feculent and gross parts thereof.   

THE ANSWER TO M. ABBOT'S EPISTLE TO HIS MAJESTY.  
WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THIS Epistle consisting partly upon vaunts of their own new-no-religion, but more specially in a most bitter invective against ours, may for the former part be easily answered; because that in all his Epistle he hath not produced one silly proof of any parcel of it, but only avoucheth in a certain grave Ministerial confidence, that their counterfeit superstition is the plainsong o● truth, directed by the simplicity of God's word; which when he goeth about to verify, an answer shall be given him. In the mean season we contrariwise take their profession of faith, to be no better than a heap of ragged errors, raked out of the dunghill of old condemned heresies, though freshly trimmed up, and varnished over deceitfully, with the gloss of God's word after their own interpretation. And touching their pretended divine service, were pute it (as worthily we may) to be a profane mingle-mangle compounded of some of the old and some of the new, by humorous novellers to please men in authority; that they might there by shoulder out their betters, and shuffle in themselves (though most unworthy) into the highest places of dignity, and best benefices of the land. This briefly may serve for answer unto th● which M. Abbot speaketh in praise of his own religion.  
Now to those grievous and malicious slanders, which he pow●●h forth abundantly against the poor Catholics. The first is, ●●at they are a viper's brood, and a male contented Samaritan generation. ●ood words (gentle Sir) and until you have gotten the credit of ●●other S. john Baptist (which will not be this year) bear with us, ●●ough we cannot brook such foul words, so wrongfully cast ●pon us: Let it be considered, whether those terms do not ra●her fit men of your own coat and profession. Young vipers to ●●eepe into this world, do gnaw out their dams bellies, and to ●et the use of life to themselves, do kill those that gave them life. ●●e not the Protestants (trow you) such kind of creatures? did ●●ey not receive their christendom and new birth by Catholics, ●●at were their Predecessors? and do they not by all means seek ●●e overthrow and destruction of them, by whom they were re●●nerated and borne anew? If the Catholics had been descended from the Protestants, and had put them down to set up themselves, M. Abbot's reproach might have had some col our of truth: ●●t the contrary being so notorious, that the Protestants issued of ●●e Catholics, and to hatch the vipers of their venomous errors, ●●d (as much as in them lay) procure the destruction of their Ancestors faith and religion; who can doubt, but that the Protestants ●e much more like the viper's brood, than the Catholics be? The ●●me may be said of the Samaritan generation, who albeit they pretended to be the offspring of jacob, 
job. 4.  and to have the true worship of God in the mount Garazin; yet were indeed idolaters, ●●d by force and usurpation held that part of the country, which ●●as the ancient right of the Israelites: And because they could 〈◊〉 quietly possess it (as they thought) without they served the ●od of Israel also; 
4. Reg. 17.  they got some Priests of the Israelites among ●●em at the first, to reach them their rites and ceremonies, and so ●●rued together both the God of Israel, and each people their several Gods beside: Lo what it is to be a Samaritan generation. ●●e not the Protestants their cozen germane, or very near kinsmen? They vaunt themselves to be lineally descended of the Apostles, and to serve God most purely; but they can make no better ●●oofe of their pedigree and lawful succession from the Apostles, ●hen the Samaritans could do of their natural descent from jacob: ●herefore they are strangers, borne of the sins of the people, and raised out of the ashes of old rotten Heretics, that have no right unto any rooms in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, no more than the Assyrians had unto the land of Israel. Again, being entered into possession of the church-livings by violence, did they not for fear of displeasing the people (that might perhaps have hoist them out again) join very many rites of the old service, with their new devices, and got not one only (a● the Samaritans did) but many of our Priests to instruct them in the old ceremonies; even as the Samaritans for pure fear, served the God of Israel with their own Idols? so that in every respect, the Protestant progeny is proved to resemble to the life, a Samaritan generation. Now the Catholics, that have not forcibly driven the Protestants out of their ancient country, nor taken any of their Ministers to teach them how to serve their Lord, but succeeding lineally the Apostles, as in place, so in doctrine and religion, can with no reason be called a Samaritan generation; and consequently M. Abbot was foully overseen, to charge us with the imputation of such contumelies, that do in no sort touch us, but do hit themselves home. In which, he (that would be taken for a great Orator) must needs confess, that he much forgot the wise counsel of the prince of Orators Cicero, who saith: Qui alterum criminis accuset, etc. He that accuseth another man of any crime, ought beforehand diligently to consider, that be himself be not guilty of the same: for it is a gross and intolerable impudence, to upbraid another with that, wherein yourself are most faulty. But herein (as in many such like) M. Abbot thought it more policy belike, to imitate those infamous Elders, who fearing to be accused truly by chaste Susanna of their outrageous attempt, began first to burden her wrongfully with the accusation of forged crimes: If therefore he speed no better therein than they did, let him thank himself for his bad choice.  
I omit here his manifold other spiteful terms against his Holiness, and other inferior persons, as the ordinary flowers of his rusty rhetoric: yet I cannot but note, that he doth repeat again and again, the word (Religion) too too scornfully for a man that maketh account of any religion: and may not let pass that incongruity, which M. Abbot (being a great Architect of words) hath committed in his own art. For in the forefront of his dedication, he hath placed such a number of base, rascal, & vile words, as must needs seem very unfit to present unto so high a Majesty, as is the Monarch of great Britanny: whose most civil and delicate ears, may not abide the sound of such rude and harsh speeches: as be (for example) Vipers brood, whore, bastard, slavery, damnable, accursed, enchanting, whining, repining, onions, garleeke, feculent, cachexy, and such like: a dainty mess of words no doubt, and meet to be tendered unto so judicious a Prince, for a choice breakfast. 
Page 39  join here unto that which M. Philpot (as he saith) in great heat of spirit answered D oct. Chadsey: Afore God you are bare-arsed in all your religion, and many of the same sort, wherewith his writings are besmeared; and then judge whether they do not smell more rankly of some noisome tan-fat, then savour of any civility; and whether that old Adage may not be verified in him, That which is bred in the bone will never out of the flesh: otherwise the study of Philosophy in so famous an University, and chief the profession of Divinity, would have weaned him from such rustical and homely terms, and have taught him to use more civility in his writings, dedicated specially to so high a Majesty. Let us proceed.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
AMONGST the rest one Doctor Bishop a secular and seminary Priest, a man of special reputation among them, and chosen to be a main stickler in the late contentions of the secular Priests against the jesuits, hath taken upon him to solicit your Majesty in that behalf, and having apprehended a speech or two, delivered from your Majesties own mouth in the conference of Hampton-Court, would make you believe, that if you will stand unto what yourself have delivered, you must needs admit their Catacatholike tradition, to be the Catholic and true faith. Whose Epistle to your Majesty, when I had perused and examined (the answering of the whole book, being by authority under your Majesty committed unto me) I could not but wonder, that the author of it durst offer it, being so full of falsehood and childish folly, to a Prince so learned and well able to judge thereof; but that I considered that one untruth must uphold another, and he that hath undertaken a bad cause, must use worse means for the maintaining of it. He chargeth the religion established and professed by your Highness, with heresies, impieties, blasphemies, absurdities, and what not that malice and ignorance can devise to speak? And this is the common style of the rest of them, who when they come to prove and exemplify what they speak, they show themselves to be but sycophants and hirelings to the Pope, for whose sake they must speak to gale and disgrace, howsoever there be no truth in that they speak. And if they dare thus impudently carry themselves in print, and to your Majesty, what dare they not say in corners, to the entrapping and seducing of simple and unlearned men? by which means, many of your Majesty's subjects are entangled in a misconscience of religion, and thereby withdrawn from the true conscience of their loyalty towards your Highness their Liege and sovereign Lord, and are made but flax and tow for the fire of their seditious practices: who have been bold already to tell your Majesty, that if you will not yield them what they desire, 
Sect. 34. of D. Bishop's Epistle. Aug. in psal.  God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity will force them unto at length; therein verifying of themselves that which S. Augustine said of the Donatists their Predecessors. Where they cannot by sty and wily cozenage creep like Asps, there with open professed violence they rage like Lions.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THAT dissensions do sometimes fall among the best and most perfect Christians, is not unknown unto them that be conversant in the Scriptures. In the beginning of the Apostles government, 
Act. 6. ver. 1.  There arose a murmuring of the Greeks' against the Hebrews, for that their widows were despised in the daily ministry. Again, 
Act. 15. vers. 39  There arose a dissension (between two principal persons S. Paul and S. Barnabas) about the taking of john surnamed Mark into their company, so that they departed the one from another. Such dissensions as are without the breach of unity of faith and religion, are so incident unto the diversity of men's different judgements, that no advised creature ought to be scandalised thereat. If then the Priests and jesuits did disagree about the introduction of a new kind of discipline and government (which never lightly happeneth in any common weal or company, without some jar and contention,) what just cause hath M. Abbot or his fellows, to declaim against it? We do not strive about the number and nature of the Sacraments, as the Lutherans and Zwinglians did and do: we do not disagree about the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and the whole frame of church-government, as do the Protestants and Puritans; or briefly, in any matter of faith or religion: only the Priests found themselves grieved, because in that matter of a new form of government to be put upon them, neither their advises were heard, nor their consent required, whom it did principally concern; but all passed by the information and instigation of them (as it was thought) who would be wholly exempted from it. At this manner of proceeding, and at that which ensued of it, they were not a little moved: yet, seeing they orderly sought to their Superiors for redress, and referred the whole matter unto their determination, the dissension was but, such as hath been among the best Christians; what great matter then can they make of this? And did M. Abbot mean (trow you) by making me a special stickler for the secular Priests, to pick a thank at my hands, for recommending me thereby to his Majesty and the state, who seem to have the jesuits in far greater jealousy for dealing in matters of government, than the seculars? It is not likely, because he forthwith falleth to discommending me and my simple work, as much as may be; wondering how I durst offer it to his Majesty, being so full of falsehood and childish folly Is it not a far greater wonder, to see so industrious and learned a Doctor, as M. Abbot would be reputed, to be holden one year and a half, about the answering of one sheet and a half of such childish follies? nay is it not a wonder of wonders, that he who taketh himself able to furnish truth with all it strength, 
In his epistle to the King.  should notwithstanding confess, that he may not think himself to have attained (in this his answer to these childish follies) unto that that the matter doth require? How hang these things together? if you thought it policy to depress and disable my book, as in effect containing nothing but toys, and the rublish of old walls; you should not so soon after have declared in words, and by long labour about it rectified in deeds, that it required great ability and long time, to be in any reasonable sort answered.  
When you say that I charge the religion professed by his Majesty, with heresies, impieties, blasphemies, etc. you in the weightier part do falsely slander me, 
Page 121.  which I will prove even by your own testimony. For I say (as it may be seen in your own book) that I will let pass their impiety, that make God the author of all wickedness, and say nothing of their blasphemy, who touch our Saviour with doubting, if not with despair of his own salvation. In which my speeches, I tax by the way Caluin, 
In the Preface unto the second part of the reformed. Page. 124.  Beza, and some other, whom I have more fully proved else where, to teach plainly those points of impiety and blasphemy. But how doth that concern the doctrine established and professed by his Highness, seeing that you yourself testify, that you in your Churches and Schools do determine the contrary? you yourself then are my witness, that I do not charge the doctrine established by his Majesty, neither with impieties nor blasphemies; though Caluin and his complices stand justly chargeth therewith. And you yourself, though at the first you would seem to dislike them, yet draw very near them: for first you are not abashed to say; 
Page 125.  That God taketh occasion to provoke a man to do wickedly. Now to provoke, that is, to stir up and push a man forward to commit sin, is so evil of itself, and so contrary to Gods will and commandments, that it cannot be imputed to God without impiety; who as S. james witnesseth, 
jacob. 1. vers. 13.  Tempteth no man. Further, you say in the same section: That the burden of God's wrath lay so bevy upon Christ our redeemer, that it pressed him even to the gates of hell; and his estate for present feeling, was as if God had abhorred his soul. 
Page 127.  Again, Christ according to his present feeling said; my GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me: which words signify, that our Saviour both thought, said, and felt, that his heavenly father for the time had forsaken him, and did abhor his soul; which, if it be not blasphemy, I know not what blasphemy is. For God doth not withdraw his love and liking from any man that he once loved, and doth not abhor his soul, unless that man do first forsake God, and commit some offence against his divine Majesty, as all divines agree: but to imagine that our Saviour committed any offence against his heavenly Father (as impious Caluin doth insinuate) is flat blasphemy against his immaculate purity, 
In c. 27. Mat.  and against the holy Scriptures, that do testify 
Hebr. 7. vers. 26.  Our high Priest to be holy, innocent, impolluted, segregated from sinners, higher than the heavens, etc. That had no necessity to offer for his own sins. How therefore could his heavenly Father abhor his soul? or how could he be so evil persuaded of so good a Father? God indeed to show the rigour of his justice against our sins, for which Christ suffered, and the better to declare Christ's invincible fortitude, and most fervent love towards us; was content not to yield unto Christ's humanity upon the cross, so much as the ordinary inward comfort, which he affordeth unto all that suffer for his name's sake: and that only did Christ in the name of his humanity express, where he said; My GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me, and dost not afford me so much as that inward consolation which thou grantest to others? But he was at the very same instant most assured, that even then God did love him more ardently (if it were possible) then at any time in his whole life before; because that then he did for his sake, according to his heavenly decree, and to satisfy his will and pleasure, suffer the greatest sorrows that the nature of man could sustain, and that without any kind of extraordinary or ordinary help, comfort or consolation: but of this I have spoken more in the Preface before alleged.  
Here I am only to note how M. Abbot slandereth me in this place, with that whereof he himself cleareth me afterwards in his book: Let us go on with his reproaches. He saith; That we be but sycophants, and hirelings to the Pope, for whose sake we must gale and disgrace, howsoever there be no truth in that we speak. How proveth he this? is it not the part of a notable sycophant indeed, to upbraid a whole order of men with so great crimes, without any proof at all? How many learned Catholic writers be there in the world, that never received one penny from the Pope's holiness, no nor never so much as saw him, or had any particular dealings with him? what they do out of their duty towards God, and of zeal to his sacred truth, that M. Abbot would have silly souls to believe, to be done only of constraint and fear, or for some hope of worldly gain. Perge mentiri; go on Sir with your tale: By which means (saith he) many of your subjects are entangled in a misconscience of religion, and thereby drawn from their true loyalty, and prepared for seditious practices: so saith he both simply and falsely, without any colour of proof. But we say, that by the Catholic doctrine, all subjects consciences are rightly informed in the ways of God, and thereby instructed to be true and faithful to their Princes, and to hate all such practices, as tend to the perturbation of the weal public. Yea, we do more forcibly and effectually by the Catholic doctrine move all subjects unto dutiful obedience, than the Protestants do: 
Caluin. lib. 4. Instit. ca 10. num. 5. Perkins reformed catholic, pag. 157.  for they hold, that Christian liberty alloweth all men the free use of all things indifferent, and that such things may not be made necessary in conscience; so that if the Prince go about to restrain his subjects of that liberty, they are not bound to obey him: whereas we all maintain, that all men are bound in conscience to obey all such just laws of Princes, as are not directly against the law of God: our doctrine therefore, doth far excel the Protestants, in the matter of true loyalty.  
And to answer here by the way, to that odious argument of theirs; That the Papists (forsooth) are but half subjects, because in matters of religion they are not ruled by their King and his laws, but do depend upon the Pope: I say, that if all they, who in matters of faith and salvation, do not take their temporal Prince to be their supreme governor, should be esteemed but half subjects: then the mighty monarch of France and Spain, and all other Catholic Kings or Princes of the world, have not any one whole subject; for none of their people acknowledge them for chief commanders in Ecclesiastical causes: then also for a thousand years together, our former Kings were wholly destitute of true and loyal subjects; for they depended no less than we do upon the Bishop of Rome, for declaration and decision of spiritual affairs, as it is very particularly demonstrated, in that learned answer unto Sr. Edward Cook's fift book of reports. Briefly, if this their reason were good, the Apostles and all the first and best Christians were but half subjects: for in matters of faith not one of them would be ruled by the Roman Emperors, or other their temporal Princes; but did all acknowledge and confess some other supreme governor in those spiritual cases: wherefore, they must either allow us to be perfect loyal subjects, notwithstanding our dependence upon the Pope's holiness in causes Ecclesiastical, or else condemn as disloyal, all the best Christian subjects that ever were even since Christ's own days. And thus much may serve for this place, to show that they are to be reputed whole subjects, and that of the best mark, who do give unto 
Math. 22. vers. 21.  Caesar, that which is Caesar's, reserving nevertheless unto God and his Vicar, that which to him appertaineth.  
I return to M. Abbot's accusations: They have been bold already (saith he) to tell your Majesty, that if you will not yield them what they desire, God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity, will drive them to at length, meaning (as he expoundeth it) that if we could not get what we desire by wiles like Asps, we would like raging Lions seek it by open violence. These words of M. Abbots maketh me remember that worthy saying of a grave wise author. 
Sr. Thomas Moor.  Take away lying and railing from Heretics, and you shall leave them little or nothing. This one little sentence of mine, whereon he makes a whole discourse a part, and doth glance and gird at it very often elsewhere, (thinking to have gotten thereby a great advantage against all Catholics) he could not propose to his Majesty without a lease of lies. The first is, that he avoucheth my only fear and conjecture, to be the constant opinion of all Catholics; they have been bold saith he, when he citeth my only words writing in mine own name: wherefore he doth open wrong to others, to impute that to them whereunto they were not accessary; if there be any oversight committed in it, it is mine alone, and not any other bodies. M. Abbots second untruth, is couched in these words: If your Majesty will not yield them what they desire, which are far wide from that which I wrote: for I said not, if we may not have what we desire (which were not only a toleration, but a perfect restitution of the Catholic faith) but if poor innocent Catholics, should for their conscience sake only be stripped of all their goods, deprived of their liberty, and live always in deep disgrace, and eminent danger of their lives, without any hope of amendment; that then at length God knoweth what necessity may drive them unto: this you see is far different, from that which M. Abbot relateth.  
Now to the third and most spiteful lie of all the rest: that if they may not obtain what they desire by fair means, than they will with fire and sword enforce it; which I neither said nor thought, as God the searcher of all hearts doth best know: I only signified a far off, and that under these doubtful terms (God knows,) that it was not unlike (considering the frailty of man's corrupt nature) but that such extreme usage, might perhaps provoke and stir up some impatient and fiery spirits, to undergo some certain attempt against some of them, whom they took to be the principal procurers of their misery; which other good Catholics would be right sorry to see, and might peradventure greatly rue. This being the uttermost of my meaning, and my words in reasonable construction not importing any thing more, was it not the part of a venomous spider, to suck so pestilent poison out of it? That vulgar proverb to which I alluded: Durum telum necessitas, or as it is in English, Necessity hath no law, is approved of all men: and the prudent Politician hath observed, that Patientia laesa vertitur in furorem; Patience to much pressed doth turn into fury. Out of which and the like Axioms of the wise, and over frequent putting them in practice by the unwise; a man of small providence might, if not easily foresee, yet greatly suspect and fear, lest such urgent extremity without any hope of redress, would make some evil mortified men, forget their duty to both God and man, and run headlong into some mischief. On the other side, all men that do treat of the method of persuasion, do instruct him that is to deal in that kind, to propose aswell the inconveniences that may ensue, if that be not done which he exhorteth unto, as the commodities that will arise of the doing of it; and when this is performed in decent terms and dutiful manner, none but wrangling cavillers can take any exception against it: Now, further to rack and wrist it into so odious a sense, as M. Abbot doth, must needs convince him to be a very virulent calumniator. Let us put the case, that those sage Counsellors, who advised King Roboam to deal more graciously with his people, than his Father had done before him, should after they had used other reasons to persuade him thereunto, have added this to move him the sooner to condescend to his subjects suit: That if he did then refuse to grant that their earnest request, God knoweth what they might thereupon be moved to do; had they been worthy to be styled false traitors for their labour, if out of their fear of future mishaps, they had put their Prince in mind of them beforehand, that he might being so warned the better prevent and avoid them? Sure I am, that the holy Ghost doth commend them for wise and faithful counsellors, and preferreth them far before those other, who encouraged the King to deal more hardly with his people, than ever his Predecessor had done before him: yet their words recorded in the sacred Text, seem not so respective as mine are; for they willed their Sovereign, 
3. Reg. 12. vers. 7.  To obey the voice of his subjects, and to serve them, and then they would serve him; signifying A contrario sensu, that if he did not yield unto their suit, they would serve him no longer: so that the ordinary method of persuasion approved by all the learned, fenced also and fortified with the precedent of so worthy wise men, commended in holy Scripture, will serve (I hope) for this time, to shelter me from the tempestuous tongue of M. Abbot. I will hereafter in the proper place, make answer particularly to all his exaggerations, outcries, and inferences thereupon; because he almost in every part of his discourse, is twanging upon this string: If I had overreached in any point of duty, I may be well assured, that I should have most often heard of it; he tosseth and tumbleth those few temperate words of mine so busily and spitefully; which if they be compared unto the plain and round speeches, which the pillars of their Gospel do chant and sound out in that kind, are not so much as flea-bite. Hear some of their sentences and then judge.  
Their ringleader Luther defineth in express terms: 
Luther. ad Elect. Saxon. & Lantgra. tom. 6. fol. 602.  That it is the duty of a subject, to rise in arms against his Sovereign in defence of their religion: Yea, That they do grievously offend, and tempt God, if in that his cause, they use not their weapons when they may: and this to have been the resolute opinion of other learned Lutherans, their own historiographer john Sleidan hath recorded. 
Sleidan. l. 22. hyst. fol. 345. Li. 4. Epistolarun Zwing. & Oecolamp. pag 868. & 869.  With Luther in that point agreeth Zwinglius, another of their great Rabbins, affirming; That if the Emperor or any other Prince oppress the Gospel, the people ought to resist them: which if they do not, but suffer the Prince to foil the Gospel, they thereby become as guilty of that heinous crime, as the oppressors themselves. john Caluin surpasseth the rest: for he declareth, 
* Caluin. in cap. 6. Dan. v. 22. & 25.  All Kings that go about to suppress the Gospel, to rebel and rise against God, and thereby to deprive themselves of all Kingly authority; Yea, to be unworthy the name of men: and that their subjects ought rather to spit in their faces, then to obey them. I let pass for brevities sake, what Goodman and the English brethren at Geneva decreed, concerning rebelling against our Queen Mary of happy memory: and what Knox and Buchanan, preached, taught, and practised against another blessed Queen Mary of Scotland. But M. jewels opinion in this case, is worthy to be chronicled; who living under a Prince of his own religion, yet to make it evident to the world what the Protestants constant opinion thereof is, doth deliver; 
* In the first part of his defence, pa. 16. & 17.  That subjects indeed are bound to obey their Princes, how be it not in all things, but so far as God's glory is not touched: wherefore, the Noble men of Scotland (that were then up in arms against his Majesty's mother) had learned of S. Peter, that it is better to obey God then man. Further, the Queen of Scotland was obeyed of her subjects, as far as it is convenient for God's people to obey their Prince: which was by force of arms for the Gospel to cast her into prison, and to deprive her of her Princely crown and dignity. These then being both the common doctrine and practice of Protestants, (which M. Abbot could not be ignorant off) with what face could he keep such ado about those few words of mine, that do neither teach, commend, nor allow of any violence offered to their Prince, no not in defence of men's own goods, liberties, and lives; but only to prevent all danger, do put his Majesty in mind of the old proverb: Durum telum necessitas, and refer it unto his Majesty's provident wisdom, to consider what may follow there of? and thus much of that matter, the sentence of S. Augustine shall be examined hereafter.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
SOME effect whereof your Majesty hath seen, in that barbarous and Scithian-like attempt, lately made for the destruction of your highness person and blood, and perpetual subversion and overthrow of the whole realm: which as it differeth from the practice of all ancient Christians, and Christian Churches (which undoubtedly were of God) so it plainly declareth, that that doctrine which professeth not a lawfulness only, but a merit in such attempts, is undoubtedly of the Devil and not of God. The brochers of which monstrous and unnatural villainies, as they have long time lived in exercise of that malice; so still will make it to appear, that they are not yet disgorged of the poison of it. Whereof sith they have given so great an argument, and assurance, by abusing your Majesty's lenity and patience towards them, when laws might more severely have proceeded against them; our prayer to God is, that your Majesty may from henceforth, take these things so far to heart, as shall be needful for the safety of your Royal person, your posterity and realm. And as for us, true it is, that our jealousy over the souls of your subjects, and grief to see them so seduced and beguiled, hath long made us say out of the Apostles affection, as he did of the false Apostles: 
Galat. 5. vers. 12.  Would to God they were even cut off that trouble you; being well assured, that their advantages gotten by your Majesty's patience towards ●hem, would in the end be a disadvantage to yourself. But yet we could not but subscribe, to your Majesty's most religious and Princely care, first to give them instruction and satisfaction, to try whither receiving answer to those things which to your Majesty they have alleged, they would be reclaimed from that headstrong presumption, which hitherto hath so mightily possessed them: wherein if they by their intolerable treacheries, have altered your Majesty's intent of favour unto them, and the state conceive just cause, with all severity and rigour to proceed immediately against them; the guilt lieth upon themselves, and they must confess, that they themselves have drawn the sword, to be imbrued in their own blood.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
TOUCHING that detestable enterprise, projected by some few green heads, who at their death made profession of the Catholic religion (though the chiefest of them as I verily think, had not lived Catholics three years before they entered into this conspiracy, but conversed among Protestants, of whom they might have learned that wicked lesson:) I do humbly and earnestly request all discreet Protestants (as they fear Christ's just judgements) not to suffer themselves to be further estranged from other Catholics, that were altogether innocent of it, than Christian charity, and human equity will give them good leave. First, then touching our religion (which M. Abbot most unjustly would have to stand charged with this most unchristian plot; for God be thanked it never proceeded to the hurt of any man's little finger,) it doth more roundly and absolutely condemn such bloody conspiracies, than the Protestants Gospel doth by an hundred degrees; for their chief Doctors do seem not much to dislike of it, as you have heard before: but we do detest and abhor it, as both highly offensive to God, and very hateful to man. But the conspirators with their complices, having suffered for it most painful and shameful death, and loss of all their lands and goods: what reason or conscience is it, that the guilt and obloquy thereof, should be extended and cast upon others, who are wholly guiltless and free from all privity or approving of it? the holy Ghost saith: 
Eccles. 27. vers. 3.  Conteritur cum delinquente delictum; the offence is wiped away and extinguished, when the offender is put to death and consumed. Again; 
Ezech. 18. vers. 20.  Anima que peccaverit, etc. The man who hath offended shall die: The Son shall not carry the iniquity of his Father, nor the Father of the Son, but the justice of a just man shall be to himself, and the impiety of the ungodly shall be upon himself, and not lie upon another. This being the decree of God, with what countenance can they that take upon them to be God's Ministers, impute the crime of those delinquents unto all men of the same religion, without any further proof of their fault therein? That holy Patriarch Abraham, when he heard that God purposed to destroy 
Genes. 18. vers. 24.  Sodom and Gomorrha with fire and brimstone, for their stinking and abominable sins, thought it yet a duty of humanity, to entreat for creatures of his own kind, though they were never so bad, and out of natural compassion, began to sue for their pardon; obtaining at length, that if there had been but ten just and innocent men in five cities and great towns, all the rest should for their sakes have been pardoned. Do not they then show themselves no kind children of Abraham (the Father of all true believers,) nor to have any Christian compassion or good nature in them, who are so far off from suing out the offenders pardon, for the sakes of many harmless persons, that they would clean contrary, have thousands of innocents destroyed for the trespass of some dozen of delinquents? and if this will not serve to purge and cleanse their festered stomachs, of that evil affection with which their preachers have infected them, I then do most heartily request them, to suppose for a season, the case to be their own; and then to tell me, whether they would think it reason, that they should be taken for accessary to all treasons committed by men of their own religion. And to omit all other rebellions raised at home and abroad by Protestants (which are exceeding many,) would they have our Sovereign Lord KING JAMES, repute and esteem all Ministers and their disciples to be disloyal unto him and traitors, 
Dangerous positions.  because the Ministers in Scotland with their followers rebelled against him, and by force of arms compelled him to yield unto their wills; or because that the Earl Gowry with his brother and family (almost earnest Gospelers) did actually attempt, traitorously to have murdered his Majesty's most sacred person, that therefore he should hate all men of the same religion, and repute them for traitors? I am well assured they will say no, and plead that ●it were no reason nor justice, to punish them that never meant his Majesty any harm, for the fault of others; and that in all religions there be some bad, for whose wickedness the good of the same religion ought not to be oppressed: if they would thus plead, if the case were their own, they should in Christian equity admit the like plea for us. But the simple people are (by their preachers and others) made to believe, that all Papists were privy to that conspiracy, or at least would have been glad of it, if it had succeeded and taken place: they are very simple indeed, that suffer themselves to be so persuaded.  
For answer unto the later surmise: If it had taken effect, it had blown up aswell Catholics as Protestants, and that in great numbers; who the first day of the Parliament, are wont to press into that place to hear his Majesty's speech: wherefore, Catholics could not have been glad of that, which should have devoured so many of their own profession. Again, suppose all the Parliament had been blown up (which God of his great goodness prevented) how much the nearer had the Catholics been to have obtained the establishment of their religion, the body of the realm being against them, and would for that bloody and barbarous act, have hated them much more than ever before it did? so that it hath no probability, that the wiser sort of Catholics would have been glad, that that should have been brought to pass, which would have proved so hurtful to so many of them, without any certainty to have benefited the rest. This therefore is only a malicious and odious surmise, put upon them by their backe-friends at pleasure. To the other point which is of very great moment (if is were any way probable) I answer; that all the circumstances of the matter, do fully clear and acquit all other Catholics of that crime: for first the whole process of the offenders, is set out in print by his highness authority, where twelve or thirteen persons only, are proved to have been privy, consenting, and accessary to it; who were all and every one of them, bound by oath and Sacrament not to communicate or utter the same to any other: so that all others being kept from so much as the knowledge of it, how could they be consenting to that they knew not? Secondly, his Majesty both by public speech in the Parliament, and by proclamation in the country did declare; that there were many Catholics innocent of this treason, yea some of them as forwardly to discover and apprehend the offenders, as any other subjects: these be his Highness one speeches, which are very memorable in a Proclamation of the 7. of Novemb. 1603. Although we are by good experience, so well persuaded of the loyalty of divers of our subjects (though not professing true religion) that they do as much abhor this detestable conspiracy, as ourselves; and willbe ready to do their best endeavours (though with expense of their blood) to suppress all attempts against our safety, etc. where also his Majesty out of his Princely equity commanded, that the innocent should not be wrongfully vexed about it. Thirdly, that most vigilant and prudent Counsellor, the right Honourable Earl of Salisbury now Lord Treasurer, (who was like to look as far into this plot as any other) in his eloquent discourse printed, doth not only free other Catholics from that conspiracy; but also yieldeth a very probable argument therefore, to wit: That the conspirators rising in a country where many of their religion are thought to dwell none (excepting some few of their own servants and kinsmen) would aid or assist them; Yea, many sent their men and armour to pursue and apprehend them, which was a manifest proof that they abhorred from that practice: for in any ordinary quarrel, the meanest of half a dozen of them might quickly have found many more to have taken his part, than all they could get together to assist them in that hateful enterprise. This might be yet further fortified if need were, by the testimony of Sr. Edward Cook (now chief justice of the common pleas, than Attorney general) who in his plea against the delinquents, delivereth the very same observation; That none of their religion would take part with them therein. All which, proceeding from such principal persons; who were, as of best intelligence in those affairs, so nothing partial in favouring that religion: how then can any man of mean understanding be yet holden in that gross error, that all Catholics were consenting, or any way privy to that powder-treason? And if all Protestants that conceive so uncharitable an opinion of their poor afflicted countrymen, be to blame; how much more are those preachers to be condemned, who (notwithstanding the public notice thereof given out in print, of which they could not be ignorant) have ever since, and do not yet cease, to cry out, infame, and slander all Catholics with that heinous crime? If they were Gods true servants, they would rather persuade to mercy, th●n to justice; because God doth exalt mercy above justice: but to cry out against harmless subjects, that they may be cruelly handled for other men's faults, hath no colour of either mercy or justice, but doth convince them of invincible malice, the peculiar property of the evil spirit and his Ministers.  
Now to M. Abbot, one of their principal proctor's for blood as it seemeth. He forsooth (Out of the Apostles affection) wisheth, that his Majesty would give order, that Catholic Priests at the least might be even cut in pieces: assuring his Majesty and the state, that if they with all rigour and severity proceed immediately against them, the guilt shall lie upon themselves; because they have drawn the sword to be imbrued in their own blood. What a bloodthirsty Minister have we here? what? because some rash unadvised Catholics, (who were for the greater part, much decayed in their estates) have deserved the sword, may all of the same religion how innocent soever of that fact, be therefore cut in piece? make ye no difference between the just and the unjust? must not the sword of justice be put up into the scabbard, when the unjust and trespassers are punished? No saith M. Abbot, it must not so be; for being once justly drawn, he that draweth it may lawfully lay about him, and strike as well on the left hand as on the right, it maketh no matter whom he kill and slay, so he be of the same religion: for the guilt of all shall be laid upon them, that first caused the sword to be drawn, and not upon him that strikes. Did ever any Christian man hear such a wicked sentence? can any thing be more unjust, cruel, and barbarous? what greater indignity could he have offered unto that charitable vessel of election S. Paul, then to make him patron of this his most detestable doctrine? who was so far off, from desiring any evil man's death, that rather he wished to die himself for his greatest enemies, then to have any of them killed: 
Rom. 9 vers. 3.  Optabam anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis; and these words of his cited by M. Abbot, are far from that sense, that he would wrest and wring out of them. Indeed the Manichaean Heretic Faustus, did take them even as M. Abbot doth, that you may know how well one Heretic consorteth with another; to whom S. Augustine answered 1200. 
Lib. 10. cont. Faustum. c. 22.  years ago thus: The Apostle seemeth to have wished ill unto the jews, that went about to persuade the Galathians to circumcision, when he said; I would they were even cut off that trouble you; but if thou diddest well consider the person that wrote it, thou wouldst understand that he rather wished them well, by a most elegant ambiguity of the word (abscissi) cut off or gelded: for there be eunuchs, who have cut and gelded themselves for the Kingdom of heaven; which (saith that learned Doctor) Faustus would have perceived and tasted, if unto the word of God he had brought a Godly palate or taste: so that the true meaning of S. Paul's words are, that he would have them that persuaded the faithful to be circumcised, not only to be circumcised themselves, but also to be abscided, that is, to be gelded; and that not carnally neither, as S. Augustine there expoundeth it, but spiritually, that is, to live continently all their life time, the better to serve in the ministry; of the Gospel If M. Abbot out of his Apostolical affection do wish that to Catholic Priests, he hath his desire; for they do profess perpetual chastity, the more conveniently to serve God in that calling: but if he mean thereby to incense his Majesty, to imbrue his sword in their blood, as the course of his words do too plainly import, he was as far wide from the right meaning of S. Paul's holy words, as he differeth from him in spirit and affection: And therefore too too presumptuously doth he rank himself in affection with that most zealous Apostle S. Paul. What do you speak out of the Apostles affection? bate me an ace I pray you modest Sir; the best man that liveth at this day, yea that ever lived since the Apostles time, would have been foully ashamed to have compared himself with S. Paul in zeal and affection. But our graceless Ministers, that have no spark of true zeal in them, blush not to equal themselves herein, with the most zealous of Christ's peerless Apostles; which must needs move all discreet Christians, to debase and humble them as much as may be, if not upon conscience for love of the truth, yet to fulfil that decree of our Saviour Christ: 
Luc. 18. vers. 14.  He that exalteth himself shall be humbled. Now to the last part of this Epistle.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
YET the course by your Highness intended, hath still most necessary use for the discovering of the impudence of these petitioners, for the gaining of such as may be gained to the acknowledgement of God's truth: And that as 
* Bernard in Cant.  S. Bernard saith, though the Heretic arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confirmed in the faith. To a part of which business, since it hath pleased them to whom your Majesty hath committed the care thereof, to call me the meanest of many other, albeit by reason of some infirmity in my eyes, I have not yet been able to perform the whole that was assigned unto me; yet for the time, to give some part of satisfaction to many of your Majesty's subjects, whom it hath much moved to see the state of our Church with calumnious libels so traduced and slandered, I have published this answer to D oct. Bishop's Epistle, therein carrying myself faithfully and uprightly, as to God and my Prince, though my ability be not such, as that I may think myself to have attained to that, that the matter doth require. But that which my small talon will yield, in all humble duty I tender to your Majesty's most gracious and Princely favour, hoping that your highness acceptation of these endeavours, shall stir up those that are of greater gifts, to yield greater helps, for the upholding and further building of the Church of Christ. The Lord preserve your most excellent Majesty, and as he hath hitherto done, so continue still to discover and bring to nought, the devices and counsels of them that imagine evil against you: and as of his infinite mercy he hath implanted in your Majesty the knowledge and love of his true religion; so go forward with his good work, to water that which he hath planted, that it may bring forth plentiful fruit to the public advancement of the glory of God, and the private comfort of your own soul at the day of jesus Christ.  
Your Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subject. ROBERT ABBOT.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THAT his most excellent Majesty, desireth to have all his liege people fully satisfied in these weighty matters of their eternal salvation, he is therefore highly to be honoured, reverenced, and beloved: but that there is no better order taken for the due execution of it, then to employ the pens of such railing writers, we are right heartily sorry. Our vehement desire and most humble suit, hath been and is unto his gracious Hihgnesse, that a public conference upon equal conditions might be granted us; where men being brought face to face will be made to blush if they speak not directly and sound to the purpose, and where they shall not be suffered to shift off matters, as they do absent by writing. In the mean season we wish very greatly, and earnestly request them to whom his Majesty hath committed this care for answering our books, that they would vouchsafe to match us somewhat more evenly, and not to appoint a great cracking sour of words, to cope with them that seek to cut off all superfluity and ornaments of words, and to furnish their work only with arguments. In deed, if there were nothing in my writings but childish toys, as M. Abbot reports; then he without doubt was a fit man to give it the answer: but if there lie more marrow and pith hidden in it then one at the first sight would perhaps suppose, then surely it doth require a man of more substance than he, though of lesser show.  
I have in my Preface declared, how much these few words of S. Bernard (cited by M. Abbot) be abused. That blessed devout Father, wished all Protestants and their like (whom he in that very discourse defineth to be Heretics) to rise from the filth of their own errors and evil life, and to return to the Catholic Roman Church; the faith whereof he in all his lifetime embraced, and by all means possible confirmed. I reserved to this place for the affinity of proper applying, the other two sentences taken out of S. Augustine; the former is set in the forefront of his book, and is rehearsed again in the latter end: Eorum dicta contraria, etc. If I would refel their sayings against us, so often as they impudently resolve not to care what they say, so that they speak (in what sort soever) against our positions, it would grow unto an infinite piece of work. This sentence of S. Augustine is pronounced against Infidels, who did not believe at all in Christ, nor profess the Christian faith; as appeareth both by the general scope of those books of the city of God, 
Lib. 2. de ci●itat. cap. 2.  which are written against the Heathens, and more particularly by the third chapter of the same second book by him cited. Now with what countenance and congruity, could M. Abbot cite that against us Christians, which he knew right well not to concern them any thing at all, at least in S. Augustine's meaning? M. Abbot thought (belike) to win no small reputation of great reading, and good remembrance of the ancient Doctor's works: but alleging them as he commonly doth, clean besides the holy Father's intention, he shall (I ween) pick very small thanks of any judicious reader for his labour, but be esteemed rather for one that is somewhat prettily overseen, than any whit well seen in their learned writings.  
Now to the other sentence of S. Augustine, which he pronounceth against the Donatists (our Predecessors, if all be true that M. Abbot saith:) where they cannot by fly and wily cozenage creep like Asps, 
In psalm.  there with open professed violence they rage like Lions. Note that M. Abbot cited this place even as that of S. Bernard, in general, not quoting particularly where, there being above 200. discourses of S. Augustine's upon the Psalms: the cause was, that he knew well that it did make nothing for his purpose. The Donatists were divided among themselves into three principal sects, called Donatists, Rogatists, and Maximianists: Now, the Donatists being the strongest part, and the head of the others, would in a certain city thrust out their younger brethren the Maximianists: and not knowing how otherwise to compass it, because of the temporal Magistrate who favoured neither party greatly, but was rather Catholic; the Donatists finally resolved to plead, that the Maximianists were Heretics, and therefore by the Imperial laws then and there in force, not to enjoy any spiritual livings; using this crafty trick of cozenage against their near kinsmen the Maximianists, for which S. Augustine resembleth them to Asps. Now against the Catholics in their coasts, they did roar and rage like Lions. Then doth that holy Father show, How the Lion's teeth were to be broken in their own mouths: for if (saith he) the Maximianists because they were Heretics, were not capable of any Church livings; much less were the Donatists who were the greater Heretics of the two, and against whom more specially the Imperial laws were enacted. Hence it is easy to be seen, how this sentence might be applied unto the Lutherans, that in some places of Germany, hoist out their younger brethren the Caluinists as Heretics: and also to the Protestants in England, who deal in l●ke manner with the Puritans; carrying themselves like Asps more wilily towards them, pretending only to censure and chastise them, under colour of Ecclesiastical uniformity among themselves: but proceeding against the Catholics Lion-like, with open professed violence. But how this may be cast upon the Catholics, no man can see (I trow) unless it be M. Abbot with his spiteful soar eyes: so that finally, few men can be found to match M. Abbot, in the untoward and il favoured applying of the Father's sentences, which hath been also before declared. And because he both here and often afterward calleth us Donatists, and the Donatists our Predecessors, I will here once for all, show who be true natural Donatists, and that out of S. Augustine and Optatus; both very renowned Bishops, both most learned and sincere witnesses, that lived also in the midst of the Donatists when they most flourished.  

August. ad Quodvult.  These than were the Donatists' chiefest heresies: First, That the true Church of Christ was perished all the world over, saving in some coasts of Africa, where their doctrine was currant. Secondly, They rebaptized Catholics that fell into their sect. Thirdly, They held not the faith of the blessed Trinity entire and whole, but some of them taught like Arrians, the Son to be less than the Father: but as S. Augustine noteth, this was not marked of their followers. Fourthly, They were soon divided among themselves into three principal sects, Donatists, Rogatists, and Maximianists. There were also amongst them many frantic furious fellows called Circumcelliones; 
August. Epistola. 50.  who roving up and down in troops, committed many outrages, set fire on Catholic Churches, tormented Priests, abused most impiously the blessed Sacrament of Christ's body reserved in the Churches, 
Optat. lib. 2. cont. Parmeni. Aug. Epist, 119. cap. 18.  cast the boxes of holy Oils out of the Church windows, that they might be broken, and the holy Oils trodden under feet. Finally, The Donatists devised a new kind of Psalms, to be song before their divine service and sermons. These be the special points of the Donatists' errors, and erroneous practices, as they witness who best knew them, and were least like of any men to bely them, S. Augustine I say, and Optaetus Bishop of Milevitane; both very sound authors, of singular same and credit. Now let any man of wit judge, whether the Catholics or Protestants do most resemble them; yea, who can deny, but that the Protestants do almost in every point follow them at the heels? For first, the Protestants teach even as they did, that Christ's visible Church was perished (for the invisible Church the Donatists held, could not perish as S. Augustine witnesseth) for 900. 
Aug. in psal. 101. cap. 2.  years at the least all the world over, and is even now wholly decayed in all other parts of the world, saving where their doctrine is embraced: and this was the main point of the Donatists' heresy. Secondly, though all the Protestants do not rebaptise, yet one part of them (to wit the Anabaptists) do use it. For the Protestants be divided into Lutherans, Sacramentaries, and Anabaptists, (to omit Trinitarians and Arrians,) even as the Donatists were into Donatists, Rogatists, and Maximianists. Thirdly, divers of their principal teachers, as Melancthon, Caluin, and many others, do corrupt the sound doctrine of the most sacred Trinity, as I have showed in the Preface of the second part of the Reformation of a deformed Catholic; though the common sort of them, do not greatly observe it. Fourthly, for plucking down of Churches, abusing the most blessed Sacrament, holy Oils, and all holy ornaments that belonged to the Catholics Churches, the Protestants are not behind, but go far beyond the Donatists. Lastly, they have also compounded and framed a new kind of Psalms, called Geneva Psalms, to be song before their sermons. See M. Abbot how jointly the Donatists and Protestants walk as it were hand in hand together: show not yourself therefore, so undutiful a child to your natural parents, as not to acknowledge them for such; for you are even as like unto them in the face and whole feature of both doctrine and manners, as if you had been spit out of their mouths. Do not for very shame hit us in the teeth any more with the Donatists, before you have by as sound witnesses, proved us to participate with them in the proper qualities of their profession. To be wily like Asps, and to rage like Lions, are not the peculiar recognisances and badges of their sect; but may agree unto many others, and perhaps to few other more truly then to Protestants: who when they be under, as they have been in England, and are now in the greatest Kingdoms of Europe, they are as wily as Foxes, the greatest commenders of clemency that may be; no man is then to be punished for his conscience, specially they that seek after nothing but reformation of men's manners, and the purity of the Gospel: but when they are gotten up, and sit at the stern of government, the case is clean altered, they become then as fierce as Lions. Our Fathers were beguiled by their wiliness, we feel their open professed violence; and were it not for the moderation of the chief Pilot, and some others in authority, I fear the world should quickly perceive, how Lion-like they would rage's: thus much by the way, to discover how impertinently and untruly, M. Abbot doth cite the ancient Doctor's sentences. If he thought their words proper for his purpose, though they used them not in the same sense as he doth, he might well have used the like words; but he ought in no case to add the Father's authority, when they meant no such matter as he citeth their words for. But what will you? necessity hath no law: either he must have omitted their authority, and so have put forth a lean, barren, and penurious piece of work, not worth the looking on; or else so use and abuse their words, as he doth. For in their true meaning, they will afford neither him nor any Protestant any favour or defence at al.  
To draw now to the conclusion of his Epistle: I have not with any calumnious libel, traduced and slandered the Protestants doctrine, but have out of my duty towards God's truth, and love of my dear countrymen's salvation, very truly, and in as fair sort as I could, set down the errors of their devices; that the well minded amongst them, may by the help of God's grace the better perceive them, beware of them, and fly from them in time, lest they draw them along with them, into everlasting damnation. Which my dutiful endeavours, if the enemies of truth do calumniate, and load with opprobrious lies and slanders, I must take it patiently, and comfort myself with these sacred words of our sweet Saviour: 
Math. 5. v. 11. & 12.  Blessed be you when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is nought against you, untruly for my sake; be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven: for so they persecuted the Prophets that were before you. Now whereas M. Abbot saith in his own commendation, that he carrieth himself in this work of his, faithfully and uprightly as to God and his Prince: I am sorry to see him make so slender reckoning both of his faith to God, and fealty to his Prince; for by this that hath been already said, and much more by that which followeth shall it appear, that he maketh no conscience to dally with God's word, and to mangle it most pitifully; to abuse the holy Father's sentences by all manner of means, that any graceless creature can do; to cast most wrongfully all kind of contumelies, taunts, and slanders upon Catholics, that he could devise; and finally to incense his most excellent Majesty, to bathe his sword in the blood of innocents: This may be peradventure, to behave himself like a true Minister of the new Gospel. But if he call this faithful and upright carriage, as to God and his Prince; as I am sure he can look for no reward of God for such lewd behaviour, who cannot be deceived: so I doubt not, but if his Majesty's leisure would permit him to peruse M. Abbot's railing and unlearned writings, pestered with innumerable of palpable untruths, he should thereby pick small thanks at his highness hands. Thus wishing (no less than any Protestant whosoever) perfect knowledge of God's truth unto his Majesty, and grace from heaven to embrace, maintain, and defend it, with all happiness unto his highness reign over us: I end my answer unto M. Abbot's Epistle dedicatory.    


MASTER ABBOT'S PREFACE TO THE READER.  
LET it be no offence to thee good Christian Reader, that for the present I give an answer to a Dedicatory Epistle, in steed of an answer to a whole book: it was now in january last passed, a full year since D oct Bishop's. book was sent unto me, by the most reverend Father in God the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace, my very good Lord, with direction to use the best expedition that I could for the answer of it; it found me at that time under the Surgeon's hands, of a grievous infirmity in mine eyes, by means whereof for some good space, and indeed longer than I expected, I was hindered from ableness to intend in any convenient sort, to any such important work. But taking the soonest and best opportunity that I could, after that I had gone over some good part of the book, to furnish myself with such matter as should serve for confutation of it; at length about the beginning of july, being desirous to bring somewhat to effect, I addressed myself with all instant endeavour, to give answer to the Epistle Dedicatory to the Kings most excellent Majesty: which as I accounted the principal matter in the book; so I held it my duty, to use very special care for the repulsing of those calumnies and slanders, which the author hath gathered and contrived into it: which being finished at Michaelmas, hath been since thought fit to be published for the time, till the rest of the work (wherein as time hath served, I have hitherto further proceeded) may fully be performed.   

THE ANSWER TO M. ABBOT'S PREFACE TO THE READER.  
WILLIAM BISHOP.  
courteous Reader, I would have let pass this narration as impertinent, had it been somewhat more probable: but because it discovereth and setteth forth the humour of the man, it is worth the noting. I bear with that incongruity; It was now in january last passed: if it were now which designeth the time present, how was it in january then past? but I take his meaning, that it was in january passed before he had seen my book; which though he say not directly, but that my book was then sent to him, yet he would have his reader take it so, that he might thereby and by that which followeth, gather what expedition he had used in the answering of it; wherein he giveth him wrong to understand. For two months before that, the book was common to be had, and great communication about the answering of it, in the place of his abode: and either he or one of his name, had in short marginal notes assayed to give answer unto many points of the same epistle, by that very january. But admit that he saw not the book before, why did he not then go in hand with it, having received strait commandment from so high a parsonage, to use all expedition for the answering of it? Forsooth the Barber-surgeon having his soar eyes in cure, would not give him leave to do it. Is it likely that the L. Archbishop was so evil informed of his estate, that he would require him to make a speedy answer to a book, before he knew that he was in case to read it? But his Lordship's letters perhaps, found M. Abbot (according unto the season of the year) frozen, and could not as then work in him any great resolution to answer: but the spring following, began to revive his drowsy spirits, and in july when the heat of Summer had thoroughly warmed him, then ●●e, his affection to answer was so fervent, and his disposition so fiery, that he bestirred himself beyond all measure; dispatching within three months, not only this book of thirty sheets of paper, but preparing also woof and warp (as he speaketh) for three hundredth more. Surely this were  celerity, if we might be so bold as to believe him; but until he make better proof of his fidelity, he must pardon us if in hast we give not credit unto him. For who can persuade himself, that M. Abbot being enjoined to use such expedition in answering, would have stayed one year and a half before he published his answer unto one sheet and half of paper, (for my Epistle containeth no more) if he could have sooner compassed it? and who knows not that a dedicatory Epistle (where matters are summarily touched only) is none of the hardest parts of the book to be answered? But the man meaning in this Preface to commend himself above the skies, saw that it was necessary to remove this stumbling-block out of the way, and before hand to excuse his extreme slowness; that it might not seem strange, how so admirable quick a penman, should be holden occupied so long time about so little.  
I may not omit to note that, which now three times M. Abbot hath repeated, to wit: That the answering of my book was committed ●o him from great authority; wherein he seemeth (by his often reiterating of it) to take no small pride, that such a charge should be assigned him from so high a parsonage. But good Sir, if my book be nothing else but A farthel of baggage, and rotten stuff (as you term it,) it must needs redound rather to your shame, to be thought a fit man to give it answer. For as every man knoweth, 〈◊〉 bald beggarly scholar is the meetest match to deal with a farthel of baggage. But if there be more in my book, than you sometimes would have people to believe; they that have a good opinion of it may hap to think, that those grave wisemen in high authority, foresaw that it would hardly be answered, by laying nakedly testimony of Scripture and Fathers, to testimony, and reason to reason: wherefore, they thought it best policy, to make choice of some jolly smooth-tongued discourser, that might with a ruffling multitude of fair pleasing words, carry his reader quite from the matter, and then blinding him with some colourable show of learning, l●●de him into error. Proceed.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
NOw the Treatise against which M. Bishop writeth, is commonly known and entitled A reformed Catholic, etc. written by one M. Perkins (since deceased) a man of very commendable quality, and well deserving for his great travail and pains for the furtherance of true religion, and edifying of the Church. Against this book M. Bishop so bendeth himself in his dedicatory Epistle, as that with all he traduceth the whole doctrine of our Church, and with such motives and reasons as a bad cause will afford him, playeth the part of Symmachus the Pagan, Labouring under the name of antiquity, 
Symmach. relat. ad Imp. Ambr. epistolarum, lib. 5.  to bring in Idolatry, and to persuade his Majesty, that that is Catholic religion, which indeed is nothing else but error and superstition. In the due examination whereof, weighing well the sundry and slippery foundations whereupon he buildeth, I presume (gentle reader) that thou wilt be of my mind, that he did not think hereby to prevail any whit with his most excellent Majesty, but only used the pretence of this dedication, to credit his book with them, who he knew would take all that he said hand over head, upon his own bare word. Surely if he had not presumed of very wel-willing and friendly readers, he would never have dreamt to gain any credit by writing in this sort. What his Epistle is, thou mayst here see: concerning the rest as yet I will not say much, only I advertise thee, and do assure thee, that if thou didst like of M. Perkins book before, thou hast no cause by M. Bishop to dislike of it now. Thou shalt see it assaulted with ignorance, with impudence, with untruth, and falsehood, with gross and palpable heresy: and that which he commendeth, to be the marrow and pith of many large volumes, thou shalt find to be nothing else, but a farthel of baggage and rotten stuff. For some taste thereof, let me entreat thee to take well in worth for the time, this answer to his Epistle: for the rest to have me excused as yet, both in respect of that weakness whereby I have been so long withholden from the following of this work, as also for the care I have, as well to give thee full satisfaction in the questions here discussed, as to stop the adversaries mouth, that he may have nothing further to reply. I have propounded to myself the rule of Tertullian, in such businesses always to be observed: Decet veritatem totis uti viribus, non ut laborantem; truth is to use it whole strength, and not to far as if it had much a do to defend itself. I am loath therefore to come hastily into the field, and with mine own sword only to make an uncertain fight, but to take convenient time to levy such troops and bands ●as that I may not need to doubt of the victory: and it may appear unto thee, that notwithstanding the cracks and brags of these Romish sycophants, yet the truth is, 
2. Reg. 6. vers. 16.  That they that are with us, are more than they that are against us.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THIS Section comprehends a praise of M. Perkins, a dispraise of me, and a commendation of himself. In praising of M. Perkins he is short and modest; let it therefore pass, that I may come to answer for myself. First he saith against me, that I would persuade his Majesty, that that religion is Catholic, which in deed is nothing else but errors. Is not this to speak idly and vainly, so to say without any proof? unless we must take that for a proof which followeth (which is a most evident falsehood, even by his own confession,) these be his words here: I presume gentle reader, that thou wilt be of my mind, that he did not think hereby to prevail any whit with his Majesty, but only used this dedication to credit his book withal. How knoweth M. Abbot what I thought? S. Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 2. vers. 11.  What man knows the secret things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is within him? God only is the searcher of men's hearts: but M. Abbot (perhaps) by some divine revelation, or by the spirit of prophecy dived into the depth of my secret thoughts, and by a very rare light of his piercing wit, espied that which was not there. If it had been so, he should at least have kept better his own counsel, and not like a blab and lying Prophet, have afterwards uttered and proved the flat contrary, as he doth in these words: And that he thought so indeed, 
Page 4.  viz. by offering his book to his Majesty, to perform some great exploit with him, appeareth by his own words, etc. where he declareth, that he was of opinion then, and that moved thereunto by good reason, that I thought to prevail much with his Majesty, by dedicating my book unto him: and yet he doth here bear his reader in hand, that I myself had no hope at all, of any good to be done thereby: so that if the reader will be of his mind, he must think here one thing, there another; now this, then that; and finally he knoweth not what. Is there any credit to be given to a man that telleth such contrary tales? he that fighteth so fond against himself, is he like to do another man any great harm? surely no, unless it be with some ignorant or credulous people, that either mark not what he saith, or lack judgement to discern how il he agreeth with himself, and how weakly he proveth that which he saith against his adversary.  
M. Abbot goeth on, deeply dispraising my poor labours, pretending them to be nothing else but a farthel of baggage and rotten stuff. God be thanked his word is no Gospel, nor his mouth any just measure of truth; and I take it for no disparagement to my work, to be reprehended without any disproof, by so bad a tongued workman. But good Sir, how could so small a farthel of baggage and rotten stuff, hold you (that would be reputed so quiver, nimble, and quick in inditing) occupied two or three years? let any man of understanding judge how handsomely these things hang together.  
Well let us come to the third point, which consisteth in the praises of his own ability: he taketh good respite to answer (he saith) because he will both give the reader full satisfaction in the questions here discussed, and also stop the adversaries mouth, that he may have nothing to reply. A strong faith of himself doth well; but O craking impudence, and impudent craking! Do you think yourself able to give your reader so full satisfaction? that requireth pardie not only full knowledge of those questions, and most exquisite explication of them: but also wonderful good luck to meet with such a ready and tractable reader, as will be fully satisfied thereby. But be it so, that you may chance to give some sleepy silly over-wel-willing reader, full satisfaction: with what countenance can you say, that you will so stop your adversaries mouth, that he may have nothing further to reply? did ever any man of the best gifts writ so absolutely, that he left not some one occasion or another unto his adversary, to take exceptions against him? But M. Abbot (by the verdict of the wiseman himself) will surpass all that ever set pen to paper, since Christ's time; and prove so provident and powerful a composer, that he will not leave any man one word further to reply upon him: whereas in truth the most that he produceth, is indeed such baggage stuff, and hath been already confuted both in Latin and English, so often over and over, that if any modesty were in him, he would have been ashamed to make so great cracks of such refuse, overworn, and forlorn ware.  
But brag on, and seeing you have begun to play the mount-banke, hold on hardly. Have you propounded Tertullia's rule to yourself, and do you mean duly to observe it? shall the truth be set out by you with it whole strength? yes marry shall it, what else? then surely do you not only match the Apostle S. Paul in affection, but do also go far beyond him in skill and knowledge. He saith of himself and other Apostles: 
1. Cor. 13.  Ex part cognoscimus, etc. We have not full and perfect knowledge whiles we live on earth, but know things in part. And if the principal peers of the Church, confessed themselves not to have the full knowledge of the truth, how dares this pigmy (and dwarf in divinity, if he be compared to them) avouch that the truth by his means shall be furnished with it whole strength? If it be an uncivil part, for any man to commend himself without urgent necessity; and intolerable arrogancy for a Christian (whose greatest jewel is humility) to rank himself with the best learned in antiquity: then surely so braggingly to undertake that, which the Apostle teacheth not to lie in the power of the most sufficient among Christians, must needs be unspeakable impudence. The Heathen Orator Cicero (who was vainglorious enough) could yet see by the light of nature, that it was a shameful part for any man to brag of himself, specially in that which is false, and by imitating the vainglorious soldier, to make himself a mocking-stock to all hearers. That M. Abbot might put us in mind, of that craking captain Thraso (whom he meant to imitate) he saith further; that he will levy such troops and hands, as that he need not to doubt of the victory. Now to uphold him in his humour, one should say: Even so was wont to do, that most valiant and politic warrior Pyrrhus, the renowned King of the Epirots. But I am no flatterer either by profession or natural inclination, and he seemeth to take it for a grace to be shameless: wherefore, it booteth not to go about to make him blush, or else I could advertise him, that these brags of his do not only exceed all measure, but do also expressly repugn against his own confession, in his Epistle to his Majesty; for there he acknowledgeth his ability not to be such, as that he might think himself to have attained to that, that the matter doth require: which (considering what he saith here) seemeth to have been spoken only for manners sake to his Majesty. For here he vaunteth (as you see) that he will furnish truth with it whole strength, and give so full satisfaction, that the adversary shall not have a word further to reply. Good Sir, if you can boast of your own doings so exceedingly without blushing, yet in discretion you should have been more wary, then to have lied so grossly, that every child almost may convince you of it, even by your own testimony. You had forgotten belike the proverb, Mendacem oportet esse memorem, A liar had need of a good memory; or else you would never have let such contrary tales slip out of your pen.  
Well, to stay the credulous readers, that they be not over hasty in giving credit to such unreasonable and vain vaunts, I will put them in mind of this worthy observation of the most prudent King Solomon: 
Proverb. 26. vers. 12.  Hast thou seen a man wise in his own conceit, a fool shall have greater hope than he: that is, own that taketh himself for very simple, shall be able to perform much more, than he that esteemeth himself to be so highly wise. The waters be not there deepest where the stream runneth with greatest noise; and as our English proverb is, The greatest barkers be not the soarest biters: Even so among many Protestant writers, I have seldom seen any that promiseth more or performeth less, than M. Abbot. He floateth inflanting words, but he is one of the shallowest for substance of matter, that ever I read. He allegeth divers ancient Authors I grant, but for the most part very impertinently; many also of them most corruptly and falsely: so that nothing is more absurd and notoriously false, than this his conclusion; More of the ancient writers be for us then against us. For not only the Romish sycophants (as of his accustomed modesty he termeth us) but the most learned of their own side, both domestical and foreign, do confess (compelled by evident force of truth) that the ancient Fathers for most points in controversy, do teach the very same doctrine that we now do. 
Tracked. 1. Sect. 3.  See the Protestant Apology of the Roman Church, where this is particularly verified: yet M. Abbot that sticketh at nothing, would feign bear the unlearned in hand, that the old Doctor's favour much their new learning; but till he do produce their testimonies more sincerely, and to better purpose than he yet hath done, few but fools can believe him: for hitherto (as hath been already showed) he hath not cited any one sentence, either of ancient Father, or of holy Scripture, that was to the purpose. Wherefore, the discreet reader hath just cause (notwithstanding his vain brags) to think no better of the rest of his book, until he shall see the contrary well verified: for in deed he shall find them to be but counterfeit, dismembered, and misapplied sentences, used as men do scarecrows in a field of corn, to amate and fright the unskilful.  
That which followeth consisting of the like cracks of their valour and our weakness, needs no further refutation: They have been hitherto so far off from driving us out of the field as he craketh, that we having by all manner of means, endeavoured to bring them once out into the field to a public disputation, as it were to a ranged battle to try the matter, could never obtain it; they using all the shifts that they could possibly devise, to hold us from it. And whereas he finally presumeth, that he shall be no longer in giving answer to my book, than the book was in making; his presumption is very vain and frivolous: for that book was made in half a year, as God he knoweth, and many honest men can witness, if time served to produce them: and the book being of five and twenty sheets, he was holden occupied one year and a half, with answering unto the first sheet and half of it; and since, another year and half is passed before his so worthy web be perfected. The malignant humour that before troubled this jolly websters eyes, is since (belike) fallen down into his legs, so that he cannot bestir himself so speedily, as in the heat of his spirit he presumed; yet before this could be printed, his whole work came forth.    


Robert Abbot. A view of M. Bishop's Epistle dedicatory to the Kings most excellent Majesty.  

VIVAT REX  
Anno 1608  
¶ Laus Deo, Pax vivis, Requies defunctis.  
GOD SAVE THE KING.   
William Bishop. TO THE MOST PVISANT, PRUDENT, AND RENOWNED PRINCE, JAMES THE FIRST, BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF ENGLAND, SCOTland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc.  
 decorative border around drop-cap 'M' 
* DIEV ET MON DROIT.  MOST gracious and dread Sovereign. Albeit my slender skill cannot afford any discourse worthy the view of your excellency, neither my deadded and daily interrupted and persecuted and persecuted studies, will give me leave to accomplish that little, which otherwise I might undertake and perform: yet being emboldened both by your high clemency, and gracious favour ever showed to all good literature, specially concerning Divinity, and also urged by mine own bounden duty, and particular affection, I presume to present unto your Highness this short ensuing Treatise. For your exceeding clemency, mildness, and rare modesty, in the most eminent estate of so mighty a Monarch; as it cannot but win unto you great love, in the hearts of all considerate subjects: so on the other side doth it encourage them, confidently to open their minds, and in dutiful manner to unfold themselves unto their so loving and affable a Sovereign. And whereas (to the no vulgar praise of your Majesty's piety) you have made open and often profession of your vigilancy, and care to advance the divine honour of our Saviour Christ, and his most sacred religion; what faithful Christian should stagger, or fear to lay open and deliver publicly, that which he assureth himself to be very expedient, necessary, and agreeable towards the furnishing of so heavenly a work? Moreover, if I your Majesty's poor subject, have by study at home, and travail abroad, attained unto any small talon of learning and knowledge: to whom is the use and fruit thereof more due, then unto my gracious and withal so learned a Liege? Finally, for a proof of my sincerity, affection, and dutiful love towards your Majesty, this may I justly say, that in time of uncertain fortune (when friends are most certainly tried) I both suffered disgrace and hindrance for it, being styled in print A Scotist in faction; therein further employing my pen in a twofold discourse (which I hope hath been presented to the view of your Majesty:) the one containing a defence of your highness honour; the other of your Title and interest of the Crown of England. And if than my zeal and love of truth, and obligation to your Majesty, drewme out of the compass of mine own profession, to treat of law causes: I trust your benign grace will now licence me, out of the same fountain of fervency and like zeal unto God's truth, no less respecting your Majesty's eternal honour and heavenly inheritance, some thing to say in matters of Divinity; having been the best part of my study for more than thrice seven years.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
IT were a thing worthy to be known, what was the drift of M. Bishop, and the mark whereat he aimed in the dedication of this his book to the King's Highness. When I look to those goodly insinuations, whereby he seemeth desirous to wind himself into the good opinion of his Majesty, and consider the motives and reasons which he pleadeth merely for himself, and the rest of his faction and conspiracy; me thinks his intent should be according to his pretence, to gain some favour at his Majesty's hands for toleration of the Romish Idolatry and superstition, that without contradiction of laws they may freely, if not exercise, yet profess and follow the same. But when on the other side, I consider his exceptions & allegations against his Majesty's proceedings, and against the Gospel of Christ and his true religion embraced by his Majesty, and by laws publicly established among us, I grow to another conceit: that surely he propounded some other matter to himself, than the obtaining of that which he seemeth so earnestly to contend for. For having to do with a judicious and learned Prince, who is well able (God be thanked) rightly to censure what he writeth; without doubt, if he had made this his project to compass the obtaining of his request, he would have dealt sincerely, and faithfully; he would have forborn our church; all unjust and slanderous imputations; he would not have sought, by apparent untruth and falsehood, to justify his bad cause; he would have had care so to carry himself, that his Majesty seeing nothing but true and plain dealing, might conceive what is amiss, to have proceeded only from simplicity of error, not from any obstinate and wilful malice against the truth. But he hath taken a far other course, and seeketh very lewdly, by lies and tales to abuse the Kings most excellent Majesty; by pretending antiquity for those things which by antiquity were condemned; by fathering their own bastards upon the fathers; by wresting and forcing their sayings to that which they never thought; yea, when sometimes in the very places which he allegeth, they have taught the contrary, by depraving our religion with odious consequences, of heresies, impieties, blasphemies, whereof notwithstanding I make no doubt, but he himself in his own conscience doth acquit us. Whereby it may seem, that howsoever he were willing to put his request to the adventure, yet being himself without all hope or opinion of success in it, his special respect was, to lengthen the expectation of his Catacatholike followers, that they might not utterly despair of that, with the hope whereof they have so long deluded them: to settle them in those heresies and irreligions, whereunto they have so long enured them; to continue them priest and ready to those intents and purposes, whereto they think they may hereafter have occasion to use them; to provide by these means with Demetrius, that his and his fellows craft and occupation might be maintained, which was now in jeopardy to grow utterly to decay; and lastly, to add some grace to his book, the better to serve all turns, while it should carry the name to be dedicated to the King: no man imagining (the case standing as it doth) that he would presume to offer it to his Majesty, but that doubtless he thought some exploit to be performed by him therein, and that he thought so indeed, appeareth by his own words in the Preface to the reader, etc.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THIS preamble of M. Abbot, puts me in mind of that worthy observation of the most judicious Doctor S. Augustine, who speaking of such like companions, 
Cont. Parmen. lib. 2. cap. 3.  saith: They do grope like blind men even at noonday, as if it were at midnight; which is the property of Heretics, who cannot see that which is most clear, and set before the eyes of all men. What could be more plainly set down, then that which I did humbly request of his Majesty? and the reasons that induced me to present my book unto his Highness, are there also delivered so distinctly, and with such perspicuity, that no man (excepting them whom that prudent father noteth for very blind, or most wilfully bend to cavil) could choose but see them: yea, M. Abbot himself cannot but confess, that when he considered of them, he was moved to think that I intended thereby to gain some favour at his Majesty's hands for our party. Notwithstanding that all men may perceive how he delighteth in wrangling, he will needs argue against that, which is as clear as the light at noon day; and bear his credulous reader in hand, that he must not believe that which he seethe set before his eyes to behold, but imagine with him some other hidden matter: this is a far more grievous malady of the eyes, then that whereof he complaineth in his Preface. Physicians tell us of a perilous eie-soare called in Latin Fascinatio, Englished the Eie-biting: it appeareth most, when from a cankered stomach boiling with malice, certain venomous vapours ascend into the eyes, and flowing from them do infect young and tender things, whereof the Poet speaketh: Nescio quis teneros oculus mihi fascinat agnos; I wot not what biting eye hath blasted my tender lambs. This contagious eie-malady, is to our purpose described more properly in the book of Wisdom: Fascinatio malignitatis obscurat bona; The eie-biting of a malignant and envious man doth obscure and deprave good things, causing simple souls through his subtle conveyance, to take them far otherwise than they were meant: this lo is the true disease of M. Abbot's eyes, which he discovereth all his book over. Here he doth pervert my plain meaning, by his counterfeit imaginations; and with his false surmises, endeavoureth so to dazzle his reader's understanding, that he should even doubt of that which he beholdeth with his eyes.  
The manifold causes that moved me to tender my book to his Majesty, are clearly set down in my Epistle; there any man that will may see them. The reasons that gave me hope of doing some good thereby, may be gathered also thence: as his Majesty's wisdom, that could not but foresee that by a toleration, great contentment would grow to many, and be a strong band to increase their dutiful affection, unto all other his Majesty's proceedings; his clemency and most forward natural disposition to pleasure all men, not delighting in the oppression and undoing of his subjects; the good deserts of Catholics, both towards his most blessed Mother of sacred memory, and towards his own just Title; the constant fame that was blown far and near, of his future moderation in matters of religion; the expectation of foreign Princes his dear Allies: these I say, and divers other important motives, could not but give great hope of some better course to be taken in those matters of religion, than had been in former time. And great reason it was that I, who had been to my small power a favourer of his rightful claim to the crown, should be as forward to do what in me lay, to win his Majesty to deal favourably with them, that so willingly honoured, loved, and followed him. All this notwithstanding, M. Abbot (if his aim fail him not) will persuade his reader, that I had no hope of prevailing: First, Because of my allegations against the Gospel of Christ, and his true religion embraced by his Majesty. Which reason of his is not worth a rush: for the former part of my Epistle is, to persuade his Majesty to embrace the true, ancient, Catholic Roman religion, which all his most royal progenitors did love and maintain. Now to perform that, I must needs speak against the new and false exposition of the Gospel, broached by the runagate Friar Martin Luther; and also further say what was fitting, in commendation of the old religion: that his Highness considering more maturely of that high and grave matter, comparing the antiquity, piety, and purity of the Catholic, with the novelty, corruption, and ungodliness of the Protestant, might the sooner be induced to embrace the Catholic. Besides, knowing that the hearts of Princes are in God's hands, to be dispose● off at his good pleasure, we may never be out of hope of any man so long as he liveth: so that my allegations against the religion embraced of his Majesty, and established with laws, was no sufficient reason, to move any man to think that I was out of all hope of prevailing with his Majesty. Did not sundry of the ancient Christian Doctors, present unto some of the Roman Emperors (than Heathens) apologies and Defences, even of that religion which they then greatly persecuted? Did not S. Hillary that glorious light of the French nation, (to omit all others) dedicate his book written against the Arrians, even unto Constantius the Emperor, who was a most earnest defender of the Arrian heresy? and were they trow you, out of all hope of doing any good, because of their exceptions and allegations against those Emperor's proceed, and the religion established by their imperial laws? nothing less. Nay they were therefore much respected of the same Emperors, and had great favour showed them, for those their zealous endeavours: wherefore this reason of M. Abbot is of no moment.  
And less worth be his lies that follow; That I deal not sincerely and faithfully, but seek to abuse his Majesty. The goodman if he were so wise as he should be, would forbear such injurious words, unless he did withal show some particulars, wherein I commit some such faults as he speaketh off; otherwise he must be content to be accounted rather a slanderous brabbler, than a discreet disputer. He saith also, that we father our bastards upon the Fathers, and poureth forth after his rude manner, many lavish foul words upon us: but because he goeth not about to prove any one of them to be true, he needeth no other confutation than a bare denial. I wish very heartily good Sir, that you could and would obtain of his Majesty, that we both might freely appear in person before his Highness, there to justify whether of us hath sought by lies to abuse his Majesty, and by pretending antiquity for those things, which by antiquity were condemned.  
Now, what other answer shall I make unto this audacious assertion of his that followeth; (That I in my own conscience acquit their religion of heresy, impiety, and blasphemy) then that of the Roman Orator, which fitteth well such brazen foreheads? He that hath once passed the bounds of modesty, careth not to become exceeding impudent. For who hath made M. Abbot so privy to the secrets of my conscience? If their religion be not acquitted and cleared of those imputations, before I in my conscience purge it of them, no doubt but it must always stand justly charged with them: see the Preface unto the second part of the reformed Catholic, wherein I have delivered mine opinion of their religion concerning those points.  
M. Abbot having (as he thinks) sound proved, that howsoever I was willing to put my request to adventure, yet I myself was without all hope of success: he than divineth and deviseth, what I respected in that my dedication. The first thing (saith he) was to lengthen the expectation of Catholics. If he mean, that I endeavoured to encourage them to persever constant in their religious courses, he is not deceived: for though the Epistle were principally meant and directed to his Majesty's good; yet consequently it may redound unto the benefit of others. Marry if he think, that Catholics do continue firm in their faith upon hope only of the Prince's favour, he is foully deceived; for they have learned this lesson of S. Peter: 
Act 5. v. 29.  That we must obey God rather than men: and that of David; 
Psal. 117. vers. 8.  That it is better to trust in God then in Princes. God (we know) of his inestimable mercy and goodness, and by his almighty power, can when he please, restore the Catholic religion in our country: in the mean season we are content to bear Christ's cross patiently, and to follow him rather than to depend upon the pleasure of mortal men. As for other practices, which he feigneth to have been my second respect, besides the diligent & devout exercise of God's true religion, we allow of none; much less do we prepare any man's mind thereto. Thirdly, touching mine and my fellows craft and occupation, by which he meaneth the holy exercise of Priestly functions, it was not at any time (since they began to persecute our religion) in less jeopardy to grow to decay, then at that time; for in that first year of his Majesty's reign (when my book was compiled) more were converted to our religion, then in any other year since I can remember: which also was so notorious to all Protestants, and so much spoken off throughout all England, that M. Abbot must needs confess himself to be either of simple intelligence, or rather of so scared and corrupt a conscience, that he passeth not how palpably he fableth. Lastly, what grace could the dedication of my book to his Majesty give it, if it be such a foolish babble as you make it? wherefore, your surmises about my drift of addressing my book unto the kings Highness, are vain and false.  
But what is that that followeth? it seemeth very strange, and to have leapt out of his pen unadvisedly: Doubtless (saith M. Abbot) he thought some exploit to be performed by him, by offering his book to his Majesty; and that we may be sure, that M. Abbot speaketh not this in other men's names without his own consent thereunto, he addeth: And that he thought so indeed, appeareth by his own words in the Preface. What Sir, did I think in deed to perform some exploit with his Majesty, by dedicating my book to him? then are you a very cozener, to go about to persuade your reader to the contrary: might not you have better spared this silly and senseless discourse, of my being out of all hope to prevail aught with his Majesty, then after you have made it, to overthrow it yourself in the very same side of a leaf? durst you in so short a space, set down propositions so contrary the one to the other, as these be? First, He himself was without all hope or opinion of success, in his request to his Majesty: And again, He thought in deed to perform some exploit, (that is, to prevail marvelous much with his Majesty) by it. If any man had a jade, that did enterfeere and cut his pasterns so pitifully, as this man crosseth himself in his own assertions, I am sure he would quickly cast him off, for fear of a foul fall: so I hope every advised reader will take heed how he believe him, that doth not believe himself, or else doth luculently bely himself; for if he had believed himself when he said, that I indeed thought to do much good with his Majesty, by dedicating my book to him, he would never so idly have gone about, to prove that I myself had no hope of success in it: But let us yet hear more of his worthy tale.    


ROBERT ABBOT.  
AND that he thought so indeed, appeareth by his own words in the Preface to the reader, commending this Treatise unto him, in these terms; He shall find herein, the marrow and pith of many large volumes, contracted and drawn into a narrow room. By his own conceit therefore, he hath sent us the strength of their strength, the choice of their learning, the flower of their arguments: so that this book is (as it were) a Goliath, out of the host of the Philistines, sent to defy the host of Israel, and to require a combatant, at one fight to try the matter; presuming that in all Israel is not a man to be found, that dare undertake to answer the challenge. Whereby appeareth, that it is but for fashion sake, that he speaketh so modestly in the beginning of his Epistle, excusing his slender skill, and complaining that his dead and daily interrupted and persecuted studies, will not give him leave to accomplish that little, which otherwise he might undertake and perform: surely he neither wanted skill nor leisure as it seemeth, that could thus gather the marrow and pith of so many large volumes. As for his studies, if he will confess the truth he must acknowledge, that they have been more interrupted by their contentions with the jesuits, then persecuted by us: albeit great reason it is, that he and his fellows should be persecuted (if he will so term it) by restraint of body, that abuse their liberty when they are abroad, to the persecuting and destroying of other men's souls, withdrawing them from the service of jesus Christ, & by their illusions, and enchantments, bewitching them to dote upon Antichrist, extinguishing in them the true conscience of allegiance to their Prince, and preparing them to the execution of their seditious and traitorous designments, as hath in some part appeared to his Majesty already, and I doubt not, but some further experience will make it further to appear.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
I Was bold in my Preface (according to the common custom of writers) to commend my book to the reader, that he might the more willingly read it over with diligence; and I showed before what I meant when I said: That he should there find the marrow and pith of many volumes, drawn into a narrow room. For whereas divers men, have set out whole volumes of one only controversy, some of the supremacy, others of the blessed Sacrament, divers men of sundry questions; in my book should be treated of many great controversies, and the principal arguments of those matters comprised in them: for on the Protestants side, M. Perkins (as I there said) had collected their choice arguments, which all were related in my book, besides their answers; and some of the best (according to my slender choice and skill) proposed in defence and favour of the Catholic party. Wherefore, I did not much exceed when I said; that the sum and substance of many large books, should be contracted into that small one of mine, meaning aswell of the Protestant authors as of the Catholic: wherefore M. Abbot's amplification of it, is both idle and false; for I sent them as well the cream of their own arguments, as the flower of ours. Neither did I challenge any man as he fableth, much less did I like Goliath defy the host of Israel: but do only give answer to an Ismaelite, who counterfeiting the Israelite, doth take upon him to reform them that are better informed then himself. There being then no just cause, why M. Abbot should use these superfluous words, will you give me leave to aim at this vainglorious man's meaning? In this resembling of his adversary to Goliath, would he not thereby (think you) have his reader imagine, that he as another David was chosen out of the host of Israel, to encounter with this great Goliath? And what marvel, though he that durst equal himself to S. Paul for zeal and affection, and for all sufficiency in knowledge, doth exalt himself above all men? taking also upon him not to be ignorant of men's secret intentions, nor of what shall happen hereafter, might moreover desire to be reputed another David, chosen to defend the people of God against the Philistines. M. Abbot's style and title then, in true Heraldry may be this: another David for valour and resolution; a second Paul for fervour in devotion; a Peerless disputer, that will not leave his adversary one word to reply; a Prophet, that can dive into the depth of another man's breast, and foretell what is to come; in a word a vain craking jangler, and a notorious liar: witness every leaf, and almost every line in his book.  
Is not that which followeth a strange tale? That my studies have been more interrupted by contention with the jesuits, then persecuted by the Protestants, whereas they have been rather furthered, then hindered by those disputes between the jesuits and us, about the government of the Church; which gave us great occasion, to look better into that noble knowledge of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, than ever we did before. And as in times past we had willingly reaped no small commodity, both in their well ordered schools, and out of their very learned writers: even so now upon this new occasion, we were by them almost compelled to take a deeper insight of the Canons of the Church, and to be far better acquainted with the managing of those spiritual matters. Wherefore the jesuits did rather advance our studies, than any way persecute them: whereas on the other side, the Protestants will suffer us to rest in no place, where we may study, and further do seek by all the ways that the wit of man can devise, how to deprive us of all means to maintain our studies: with what face then could this man say, that our studies were more interrupted by the jesuits, then by them? He addeth, that they well deserve persecution, that destroy men's souls, extinguish the true conscience of allegiance, etc. which is true, but concerneth themselves more than us: for rather Protestant's then Catholics be such, as I have heretofore in sundry places proved; and therefore do not stand upon it here, where he only affirmeth it after his manner without any proof.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
NOw it is well in the mean time, that he acknowledgeth in his Majesty, exceeding clemency, mildness, modesty, loving and affable disposition, singular ornaments of a Prince, and wherein is a special token of a King whom the Lord hath chosen: but his threatening words towards the end of his Epistle do presage, that hereafter they will alter this style, and cry out as they did in the days of our Queen deceased, of cruelty, tyranny, extremity of persecution, and martyrdoms, when by their disloyal and seditious courses, they have drawn from his Majesty greater severity, and sharpness of executions, than his Princely nature is of itself inclined unto: then shall this acknowledgement of his be an upbraiding of them, that they themselves have made the rod, wherewith they are scourged; that his Majesty hath been kind and loving to them, but they have been unkind and cruel to themselves.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
WE are most willing to acknowledge all God's gifts in his Majesty and to extol them to the uttermost of our power, that his Highness may thereby both see our dutiful affection towards him, and be the oftener moved to thank and serve God therefore, 
jacob. 1. vers. 16.  From whom descend all good and perfect gifts. We do (notwithstanding the great severity of his laws against us) continue still in the same mind, that his Majesty is of his own natural disposition, very mild and clement; yet by following over much other men's bitter and violent counsels, is too too much drawn from the goodness of his own nature and disposition. And although it be a marvelous precious ornament in a Prince, to be so human and clement, yet many have been excellent therein, whom the Lord did not choose for his. The emperors trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Antoninus Pius, were of a most courteous, mild, and moderate disposition; yet being Heathens, and following the course of their Predecessors laws, were not altogether free from the spilling of some innocent blood of the Christians. But let us allow clemency to be one of the richest jewels in a Prince's Diadem: who then is to be accounted a more true hearted and loyal subject, either I that endeavoured earnestly to persuade my Prince, to keep, cherish, and increase that precious gift of clemency in him, which doth so highly adorn his royal Majesty; or he that emploieth his whole wit, art, and skill, to deprive his Highness of the glory of those gracious gifts, and to incense him to all rigour and severity? If any men of our religion, by seditious and disloyal behaviour shall deserve severity, let them be severely punished: and if any be found so unreasonable as to cry out against it, upbraid them hardly with that their folly. But if for our religion only, without any other offence to his Majesty, or to the state, we be extreme rigorously dealt withal, or that innocent Catholics be unjustly oppressed for the faults of others; then they must give us leave to call things by their right names, and so to speak of them as they shall deserve: for the Prophet doth hold them accursed, that do call light, darkness; and good, evil: all things by men of truth are to be called by their true names. If his Majesty would follow M. Abbot's gentle advise, and imbrue his sword in the harmless blood of Catholics, he were like to get a good name, and to purchase to himself a great renown all the world over in short space. Now that which follows in M. Abbot is such a proper piece of stuff, that with the alteration of a few words, it may be turned more truly against themselves, than he hath spoken it against us: thus than it goeth with a very small exchange of some words.   

R. ABBOT and W. BISHOP.  
BUT his clemency and kindness, albeit it be an encouragement to good and faithful subjects in dutiful manner to unfold unto his Majesty their just grievances and requests; yet ought it not to embolden evil affected persons, with calumnious libels to interrupt the peaceable course of his Majesty's government, (as M. Abbot doth by egging him on to the spilling of innocent blood) and to seek according to their drunken humours and fancies, the alteration of the estate, and the admittance of those things, the building whereof they themselves know not how to settle upon any sure ground. And this is the thing that (
* M. Bishop  M. Abbot) laboureth for, seeking with Elimas' the sorcerer, 
Act. 13. vers. 10.  To pervert the strait ways of the Lord. And whereas his Majesty hath made open and often profession, of his vigilancy and care to advance the divine honour of our Saviour Christ, and his most sacred religion: he would in steed thereof, draw him (
* to advance  to prepare the way to) the Idol 
a Dan. 11.  Mazzin, the God of Antichrist, and to establish damnable heresies (by his Ministers first) privily brought in, (and now openly defended 
* by him ;) whereby they his agents and factors, 
2. Pet. 2. vers. 1. & 3.  Through covetousness, with feigned words do make merchandise of the souls of men, speaking things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake: And this he doth, under colour of delivering what he assureth himself to be expedient, towards the furnishing and setting forward of so heavenly a work. But it is not enough that he assureth himself so, unless he could by good ground assure his Majesty also of that which he laboureth to persuade, which he hath not done nor in deed can do; and therefore as touching his furnishing and setting forward of this work, we answer him as the Princes and Fathers of juda and Benjamin, answered their undermining adversaries: 
1. Esdr. 4, 3.  It is not for you, but for us to build the house unto our God. You Samaritans (
* you Papists  you Protestant's) are mongrels, taking upon you to serve the Lord, and with all do serve the Idols (
2. Reg. 17.  of your own brains,) neglecting the ordinances and commandments of the Lord, by which this house is to be builded; (yea teaching them to be impossible to be kept,) and doting upon (a new imputative justice,) & so after 
* your old custom  the old custom (of all Heretics) seek after strife and division: 
a V 34. & 40.  And therefore have no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem (which is the city of peace,) nor in this heavenly work and service of jesus Christ. Hitherto M. Abbots own words with a very little alteration as may be seen in the margin: these therefore must needs press his adversary very sore, when they may so easily and truly be turned against himself.   

W. BISHOP.  
Touching his mangling and perverting those texts of scripture, which he so clowterly botcheth together in the former place of this passage, I have already spoken in the Preface: now to them of the later connexion. Because M. Abbot is not yet allowed for an Evangelist, let us take away his own words, and then we shall presently see how handsomely the words of holy Scripture hang together: these they be. It is not for you, but for us to build the house to our God, Esdra. 4. Fear the Lord, serving Idols also, 2. Reg. 17. v. 34. old custom Ibid. 40. Having no portion, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem, Nehemi. 2. vers. 20. Is not this trim stuff? what revelation hath he, to join together words that be by the holy Ghost set so far asunder? well, let us give him leave to abuse God's word at his pleasure, or else he will take it whether we will or will not: but with what face can a Protestant say to the Catholics, that it is not for you Papists, but for us Protestants to build up houses unto God? whereas most of the Churches through all Christendom, built to serve God in, were erected by the Catholics; and the Protestants have rather pulled down an hundred, then built up one for God's service: is not this sentence then properly applied by him? That they also are rather like the Samaritans than we, I have proved in my Preface.  
Now to the last words that are most of all abused: for old custom in that place of the second of the Kings, is not taken for ancient traditions of either doctrine or ceremony, as M. Abbot would have it to sound; but for an inveterate evil custom of bad life, and transgressing of God's commandments, for which the Israelites being often rebuked by the Prophets, would not amend: so that those words are taken clean besides the right sense. But there followeth such a consequence, that it would procure a vomit to a weak stomach: It is (forsooth) that because the Israelites would not leave their old custom of evil living, therefore the Horomites, Ammatites, and Arabians (mere strangers to them, and of other countries) should have no place, nor right, nor memorial in Jerusalem; for to men of those countries, were these words of Nehemias' spoken by the Israelites themselves, and that above scutcheon years after the other of old custom. Did you ever see so miserable renting of God's word in sunder, and such paltry patching of it together again, without any time or reason, without any likely resemblance or good coherence? Doth not this argue the man to be well seen in the Bible, or rather desperately audacious, that dares ●o offer such violence unto the unviolable word of God? On Sir.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
INDEED it is true that he saith, that whatsoever talon of learning he hath attained unto, the use and fruit thereof is due to his Majesty; but the greater is his sin to withdraw it from him to whom it is due, being so far engaged to the Pope, as that his Majesty cannot presume of any true and faithful use thereof. As for the proof that he allegeth, of his sincere and dutiful affection, it is unsound. For to this purpose I may well demand, as did Constantius the Emperor father to the great Constantine: 
Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 1. cap. 11.  How should they be deemed faithful unto their Prince, who are found to be perfidious and unfaithful towards God? It appeareth by that secret which he uttereth in his Epistle towards the end, that his love is according to the rule of Bias, if at least it were his: Sic ama, tanquam aliquando osurus; Love so, as being perhaps in time to hate. Certain it is whatsoever he pretendeth, that neither he nor his ever meant his Majesty any good, unless they could gain him to be what they would have him to be.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
I Am so far from withdrawing the use and fruit of my poor talon from his Majesty, and the service of my country (though for the obtaining of my small talon of divinity, I have not been much beholding to either of them) that I do daily employ it therein, to the uttermost of my power; by praying for them, and seeking to instruct and confirm them in the true faith of Christ. The use of my talon is due unto his Majesty I confess, being now my natural Prince and lawful Sovereign; yet so, as almighty God (who bestowed it on me) be principally served thereby: Neither am I so engaged unto the Pope's Holiness, but that I may as fully and faithfully serve his Majesty, as ever any true subject did his lawful Sovereign. Our Saviour made no doubt, but that a true Israelite might give to Caesar that which belonged to Caesar, and to God that which was his. Neither did S. Peter or S. Paul make any question, but that good Christians might perfectly obey their Princes, and yet wholly descent from them in matter of religion, and therein take their whole direction from strangers. And even those Christians, that Constantius the Emperor did so commend and love for their constancy in religion, were as far engaged to the Bishop of Rome then, as we be now, and did no more follow the same Emperor Constantius in matter of faith, than we Catholics do our Liege Lord King james; yea were somewhat further of him, he being a Heathen and no Christian, as our King is: so fit and proper commonly be M. Abbot's sentences taken out of the ancient fathers, that they serve much more naturally for our purpose, even as this doth thus applied. 
Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 1. cap. 11.  Like as that renowned Emperor Constantius, did highly esteem of those Christians, that would not for any worldly loss or disgrace, no not to win their own Prince's love or favour, deny their religion, or falter in the confession of it; yea further was of opinion, That they who were so fast and faithful to their God, would also prove most trusty to their Prince, though of a far different profession from them: Even so his Majesty, after the example of so worthy and wise an Emperor, finding his Catholic subjects so firm in their religion, that no temporal discredit or incommodity how great or grievous soever, can remove them from the due confession of it, should thereupon persuade himself, that they who are so constant and true servants unto God, must needs also prove most loyal and dutiful unto their King, albeit of another religion. And it may in this manner also very aptly be returned upon M. Abbot himself, whom I have before proved to abuse God's word very miserably, to allege the ancient Father's sentences most perfidiously, and so to pester and infect the world with lies: That no man (I ween) can deem him to prove faithful to his Prince, that is found to deal so perfidiously both with God and man.  
Now to that rule of Bias, which being well understood cannot be much misliked. For such is the uncertainty and mutability of our corrupt and frail nature, that he whom this year we love most entirely, may the next year deserve to be misliked of us as extremely; for of a most excellent and virtuous man, he may become bad without measure: but of his Majesty I have always had a far better opinion, and do daily pray to God to preserve him from all such extremities. And howsoever it shall happen, I acknowledge myself bound, and steadfastly purpose (God willing) to bear towards his Highness the loyal heart of a true subject, and the charitable affection of a loving Christian: neither is there any thing in the end of my book to the contrary. That which he so often graceth upon, is already cleared, and shall be more fully handled in due place.  
Now to that which M. Abbot here delivereth for very certain, to wit: That neither I nor any of my mind, meant his Majesty any good, unless we could gain him to our religion; which not only to be very uncertain but also false, I may without more ado prove, even by his own confession in the next passage, where he saith: That the secular Priests under an uncertain hope of his Majesty's favour, acknowledged and maintained his just title to the crown of England, and would have offered him their help at the Queen's decease; therefore by his own verdict, we wished and meant his Majesty much good (no less than the crown of England) before we had gained him to be as we would have had him: for being under an uncertain hope of his favour, (as he writeth) we wished that inestimable treasure to his Majesty. Now, when his own sayings will serve to confute himself, I may spare my further labour: I hope that his Majesty hath found (contrary to this man's fond assertion) many good offices, of both loyal subjects and affectionate servants, performed to his Highness by men of our religion. Sure I am, that other mighty monarchs, do employ in places of great charge, men contrary to themselves and the state in religion, and have thereby given great contentment to others, and reaped no small profit to themselves: Now to M. Abbot's disproof of my reason.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
BUT what is the proof of that his sincerity, which he allegeth? forsooth, in time of uncertain fortune (when assured friends are most certainly tried,) he both suffered disgrace and hindrance for his love towards his Majesty, being styled in print A Scotist in faction; where we see that a false merchant needs no broker: how cunningly he gloseth the matter, to make show of great love where none was. What? was it for his Majesty's cause that those hard fortunes, that disgrace and hindrance did befall you? nothing less: the jesuits (forsooth) and the secular Priests, whilst each seek superiority over other, fall together by the ears. The jesuits procure an Archpriest, one that should be at their devotion, to be set over the Seculars: the Seculars refuse to yield him subjection, and by appeal refer the matter to the Pope; for the prosecuting of which appeal, M. Bishop with another in his company, are sent to Rome: there by procurement of Parsons, both ●e and his fellow were clapped up in prison, and continuing there for many weeks, were at length by the sentence of their Protector banished England, and the one of them confined to Lorraine, the other to France. This is now the main tragedy of M. Bishop's misfortunes, not concerning the cause of the kings Majesty any whit at all: only in the managing of these matters, it came to pass according to the proverb, that when thieves fall out, true men come by their goods; for whilst every part sought, to provide the better for themselves here in England for the time to come, the jesuits for their advancement, laboured to entitle the Lady Infanta of Spain, to the succession of the crown of England: but the Seculars presuming, that if the Infanta were set up they must certainly go down, and choosing rather to adventure themselves upon uncertain hope, then to give way to certain despair, shrouded themselves under the acknowledgement of his Majesty's just title: not for any love to his Majesty, but for hatred to the jesuits, and for the preferment of themselves. For imagining that things (upon the death of Queen Elizabeth) would grow troublesome, and intending to make offer to his Majesty of their help (forsooth) for the obtaining of the crown; they thought by capitulations and conditions (his Majesty prevailing) to make all sure for their part, thinking that the jesuits by their traitorous practices, had set a sufficient bar against themselves, and should be no let unto them. Hereupon they fall a writing one against another, and M. Bishop is styled A Scotist in faction, and to pick a thank with his Majesty, writeth his twofold discourse, One for the defence of his highness honour, the other for his title to the crown of England; a work of supererogation for his part: for his Majesty needed no such Proctors as he, neither was the wrangling of a company of base fugitives, sufficient to question either his Majesty's honour or his title to the crown.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
HERE is such a tedious tale, so impertinent, so improbable, that I could scarce endure the writing of it out; yet that he should not complain that any thing is omitted, I have put it all down. That part of it concerning M. Archpriests ordination, is wholly besides the purpose, and therefore I omit it wholly, though it be mixed with many untruths, which would give me advantage against him, if I were disposed to stand about them.  
To the other of titles M. Abbot acknowledgeth, that we secular Priests stood in defence of his Majesty's just title, against the pretensions made in behalf of the Lady Infanta: And therefore any man of mean intelligence of the state of those Catholic countries where we then lived, may easily conceive, that we could not but suffer disgrace and hindrance, by standing for a Prince that was not Catholic; especially when we wanted not others to amplify, urge, and enforce the matter against us. But our kind friend M. Abbot saith; we stood for his Majesty not for any love to him, but for hatred of the jesuits, and for our own preferment. I answer, that in true Christianity when good offices be performed, they must be interpreted well, unless there be apparent proof to the contrary, as all good men do agree: from which general rule the Ministers perhaps are to be excepted, and so they may (when all other reasons fail them) aim at the secret intentions of men, and judging them after their own inward dispositions say; though they did never so well, yet they meant not well. For what other means hath he to be privy to our inward thoughts and meanings, unless it be by revelation from heaven? of which when he can resolve me I will think him worthy of a further answer: In the mean season, he must be senseless, that will believe the secular Priests to have been so simple, that they expected greater preferment under his Majesty, professing and maintaining the new religion, than they could look for under the Infanta, that would have set up the old. For albeit the secular Priests, had not been advanced unto any of the greater livings and dignities; yet it could not be, but that the meanest amongst them should have had twenty times more, the state being Catholic, then being as it now is. And if M. Abbot could not see this, I should take him rather to be stark blind, then troubled with soar eyes: but if he saw this well enough, and yet to blind his reader would avouch the contrary, then is he a shameless man, and without any care of his own credit and honesty. If it be demanded, how we Catholic Priests could persuade ourselves, so much to respect and love a Prince, that was like to do so little for us, and to employ our pens and pains for him, that might perhaps little esteem of it. I answer, that he being by lawful succession to be our King, our duty obliged us to affect him. Again, for his most blessed Mother's sake, who lived and died so virtuously, we could not but love and honour him whom she loved most tenderly. Thirdly, the Princely endowments which God had largely powered upon his Majesty, and specially his rare literature, did draw the hearts of all men that fancied learning, to favour him. Fourthly, we did even then foresee, what bloody wars and intestine garboils were like to have consumed our whole country, if such opposition should have been made against him; and therefore thought it better to seek his Princely favour towards our religion, and some moderate toleration by fair dutiful means, then to hazard any such forcible attempt. Add hereunto, what a constant report was spread all the world over, (which was hearkened unto by the greatest personages) that his Majesty would take no exceptions against any man for his religion, but would suffer his subjects to live quietly to their conscience, and not so much as debar any Catholic (that should be found worthy) from any place of preferment under him. We having these and many other motives of love, let any reasonable man judge, whether we might not well even from our hearts affect his Majesty, and be priest and ready to do him all the service we could.  
M. Abbot having nothing else to except against my dutiful endeavours, saith; That it was a work of supererogation in me, for that his Majesty needed no such Proctor as I was: I must needs take it kindly at his hands, that he at length agniseth, that I out of the abundance of my affection towards his Majesty's honour and advancement, did do my good will; howbeit there was no need of my help. I also willingly confess, that his Majesty might have had many other, who could have performed that matter much better than myself, yet that I was forwardly in his service, when others were content to be silent, I hope was no token of a hollow hearted or backward subject. And whereas he signifieth, that his Majesty's title was then questioned only amongst some base fugitives, (so he uncivilly termeth his betters by many degrees) he shows himself a mere stranger in domestical affairs; for at those days (as all England can witness) his Majesty's title lay buried in oblivion, and few men durst speak of it, and not a few doubted of it: a pamphet was printed directly against it; an oath of assotiation, and an act of Parliament seemed to have been made directly in prejudice of it. There was further a most infamous libel published against his Majesty's most sacred Mother, and very exorbitant railing speeches powered out against her, even out of the pulpits: the Ministers and others, through her innocent sides wounding also her offspring, and for hatred of her religion, obscuring and blemishing much his Majesty's interest to our crown. Where was then this valiant muster-master, this powerable penman? why did not he then, when there was so great need of defence, make a sally forth, and show his valour and skill in the defence and favour of his future Prince? the time was nor propitious, his affection was frozen, he chose then rather with his fellow-Ministers to rail lustily at the mother, then with the poor fugitive Papists, to write or speak in defence of their honour or title. If you be such a server of times, and flatterer of men in authority; yet be not angry I pray you with those, nor seek to traduce their dutiful endeavours, who in doubtful fortune and in times of disgrace, showed far more true hearts, and forward affection unto his Majesty. Can you not be content, quietly to reap the harvest of other men's travails, unless you do also calumniate them, who took so much pains for you? can you not be satisfied to enjoy his Majesty's favour, for whom you would never speak a word, till it was for an advantage, unless you seek to incense him against them, who were more fervent and affectionate in his service? God send you more grace and better charity, and to his Majesty more mature consideration of his faithful subjects deserts.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
AND how little hold there was in these his defences, may appear by the example of his fellows Watson and Clarke, who took part with him in this action, and the one of them wrote as much in the kings defence, as M. Bishop did; and yet when they saw upon his Majesty's entrance, that things were likely to go otherwise then liked them, immediately they fall to conspiring and plotting against him: the case is altered, they were not now the men that they were before; the like is M. Bishop's fidelity and love. And he himself afterward plainly giveth his Majesty to understand, that he may hope no otherwise of him, than he hath already found in them: yet here he presumeth, That sith his zeal and love to his Majesty, hath heretofore drawn him, without the compass of his profession, to treat of law courses; therefore his grace will licence him, out of the like zeal unto God's truth, to say something in matters of divinity. But surely, if he by his law courses defended his Majesty's cause no better, then by divinity he hath defended his own; he might very well have spared the labour, and left it to them that were fit to do it. But this is the malapartness and sauciness of these base rascals and runagates, both jesuits and Seculars, to thrust themselves into matters that belong not to their profession or condition: they are tampering with causes of Kingdoms and states: they will determine of Titles and Inheritances, of Crowns and Sceptres. This is their arrogancy and presumption, assuming to themselves as if they were able for all things; all their Geese be Swans: not an Ass amongst them, but is worthy to stand with the King's Horses: not one of them (I warrant you) but is sufficient to be a Counsellor to a Prince: 
He lively describeth himself.  they are the only high spirited men, of great conceit, of deep reach, of noble resolution, of most special and secret intelligence, of brave discourse, that can tell great tales of Bombomachides Clunnistaridi sarchides, the great Gurgustionian Emperor; even like Narcissus, so far in love with themselves, that they are drowned in their own pride. But we know them well enough, we see their foolery and laugh at it: when they come to trial, they are for the most part but empty barrels; all this great noise, proveth in a manner nothing but mere wind. Only we are sorry, for that as the Heretics of old, by strange devised words and names, stupefied and amazed simple and ignorant people, and by that means gathered to themselves great admiration, drew many to their heresies: so these seducers, with bold faces and big looks, and bravadoes of prating and cogging, do make silly souls, unstable fools, but specially women to admire them, and grow in love with them, so to be carried by them blindfolded to their own destruction. But here we are much to observe, that by l●w courses only, M. Bishop defended his Majesty's title to the crown; by divinity he could say nothing: for his Master Bellarmine had taught him, that it is but De jure humano, quod hunc aut illum babeamus Regem; It is but by the law of man, that we have this or that man to be our King: and therefore he argueth, because the law of God is to be preferred before the law of man he that by the law of man is to be King, unless he will be a maintainer of Popish religion, a vassal and slave to the Pope, by the law of God he must be no King. This is M. Bishop's divinity, and by this divinity his Majesty must have been ordered, if (for our judgement) God had suffered him to fall into their hands. As touching his divinity otherwise, which he saith hath been the best part of his study more than thrice seven years, how well he hath profited therein, we shall see by examining the particulars of this book.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
IF any firm or sound proof may be drawn from examples, I say then, that his Majesty may better collect my fidelity by the example of more than two hundred Priests, that have always carried themselves faithful towards his Highness; then by the faults of two that did otherwise: but it is M. Abbot's custom to reason so loosely, and out of one or two particulars to conclude an universal, which in moral matters argueth yet far greater spite and malice; for who can abide to hear, that for one or two men offending, all men of the same profession should be condemned, rather than for the fidelity of hundreds, to think well of all the rest? Whether I gave any occasion of suspicion, by those my words upon which he so often warbleth, hath been already touched, and shall be more hereafter. Those idle, foolish, and false words of his that follow, where he affirmeth without any shadow of proof; that there is not one Seminary Priest, that doth not think himself able to be a Counsellor to a King, are so far from all truth and honesty, (as all they can best witness that know them) that I need not stand about the disproof of them. Only I note, that while he will needs out of his accustomed civility term us Asses, he by craft calleth himself and his fellow Ministers the kings Horses: for with whom should Priests be compared, but with men of the like profession? saying then, that there is not an Ass among the Priests (as he speaketh) but is worthy to stand with the kings Horses, he must in due proportion be understood to signify thereby, that there is not a Priest so simple, but taketh himself worthy to stand cheek by jowl with the jollier sort of Ministers, whom by Peryphrasis he describes and descries to be the King's Horses, and that not without some show of reason: for they are ready to be ridden whether his Majesty pleaseth, ●nd seem to make the temporal Prince's proceed their north-pole, by which they direct the whole course of their lives and learning But are they not made also (trow you) like to silly Asses, pressed to carry such weighty burdens imposed upon their benefices, as it shall please their good Patrons to lay and load upon them? and yet nevertheless, they will not stick to swear very formally, that they come frankly and freely to them. Albeit they be so quiet and commodious cattle to their good Patrons and Benefactors, nevertheless towards others (specially towards us Catholics) many of them be not unlike those horses described by S. john: 
Apocal. 9 v. 17. & 18.  And the heads of the Horses, were as it were the heads of Lions, and from their mouths proceeded fire, and smoke, and brimstone: so fierce and fiery they be against poor innocent Catholics, incensing the King and state to seek their utter subversion; and yet are they much more fatal to their own followers: ¶ For their tails (as it is also in the said text) be like to serpents, having heads, and in these they hurt, poisoning by their venomous doctrine and lend conversation, the souls of all men that believe and follow them. Thus much by occasion of M. Abbot's noble comparison of Asses and Horses.  
That which he speaketh of strange long-footed words, invented to stupefie the simple, is a riddle to me; our religion useth none such. As for novelty of words, bold faces, big looks, bravadoes, and such like, they are the proper badges of the new Gospel, and M. Abbot doth himself and his fellow Preachers great wrong, to impart their peculiar titles to others that deserve them not, nor like any whit of them.  
But let us leave these trifles, and come to his worthy observation and argument thereupon: It is, That M. Bishop (forsooth) by law courses only defended his Majesty's title to the crown, by divinity he could say nothing for it. Had not M. Abbots spiteful soar eyes helped him to an odd insight of my writings, he could never have spied that there, which was not to be seen in them: for though I passed out of the limits of divinity, into some points of law; yet divinity was my ground, which teacheth that we must yield to every one his right, and to lawful lineal successors, the lively-hoodes, lands, and possessions of their predecessors: his observation then was false, that I could say nothing out of divinity for his Majesty's title to the crown. But he will prove out of Bellarmine that most learned Cardinal, (who indeed was my master, and master also unto many my betters some six and twenty years ago) that I could say nothing out of divinity for his Majesty's title: For it is but by the law of man, that we have this or that man to be our King, but by the law of God no man is to be made King, that doth not truly serve God; then the law of God being to be preferred before the law of man, it followeth, that whosoever will not truly serve God, is not to be made King. M. Abbot should have done well to have solved this argument (which is not unworthy the maker, and taken as he meant it insoluble) and may happen to trouble many of his readers: but he loveth not this fight at the short sword, but to range a loof off, and to defend his part with foul words, rather than with any sound reasons. I will help him out of the briers this once and say, that in case of free election of a King, that argument of Cardinal Bellarmine's is most sound; for no good Christian ought to make choice of him for a King, or to yield their consent to him, whom he knoweth unlikely ever to serve jesus Christ the Sovereign King of heaven & earth: Marry, when the Kingdom goeth not by free choice and election, but by ordinary succession; then the subjects must accept of him whom it pleaseth God to give them. For our divinity teacheth us, that God sometimes giveth Kings in his wrath, and not always such as will serve him as they ought to do, which are (notwithstanding their undutifulness to God) to be received and obeyed of their subjects dutifully in all civil causes. And although God at the first left it to the free liberty of every country, to make choice of what kind of civil government they liked best (whereof it proceedeth, that it is by the law of man, that we have this or that man to be our King) yet when such a succession is once established by the law of man, and confirmed by long custom; then the law of God doth bind all men to the keeping of that just and good law of man. Thus much briefly to show how I could very well, by the rules of our divinity defend his Majesty's title to the crown, and to certify them that are in greater jealousy of our obedience, than they have just cause; that we take ourselves bound aswell by the laws of God as of man, to obey his Majesty, and dutifully to serve him in all temporal affairs: howbeit, we take the religion professed by his Majesty, and his proceed therein, not to be according to the good will and pleasure of God; and therefore do daily pray unto the divine Majesty, to send him grace to see and amend it, and to give us perfect patience in the mean season to endure whatsoever shall be laid upon us, for the constant profession of his only true and sincere religion. As for my skill either in this point, or in any other part of divinity, I know it to be very mean in comparison of thousands among the Catholics, and am very well content that it be put to the proof. Only I require an indifferent reader, and one that will not take vain words for good payment, but weigh diligently our arguments together, and try out by seeing the places, who citeth his testimony, both of holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers, more truly and pertinently.    


SECT. 2. W. BISHOP.  
WHEREUNTO I may conveniently enter with that golden sentence, with which your Majesty began the conference, etc. A love principium: conformable to this in holy writ. 
Apocal. 1. vers. 8.  I am Alpha and Omega: the beginning and end, saith our Lord; and applying it to Princes, I may be bold to say, that nothing is more expedient and necessary for Kings, nothing more honourable and of better assurance for their estate, then that in the very beginning of their reign, they take special order, that the supreme and most puissant Monarch of heaven and earth, be purely & uprightly served, as well in their own exemplar lives, as through their Dominions: for of almighty God his mere bounty and great grace, they receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Sceptres; and cannot possess and enjoy them (their mighty forces and prudent counsels notwithstanding) one day longer, then during his divine will and pleasure. Which the wisest King witnesseth, speaking also in the person of God's wisdom, 
Prover. 8, 15.  Per me Reges regnant: By me Kings do reign: and 
Dan. 4.  Nabuchodonoser sometime King of Babylon, was turned out to graze with beasts for seven years, and made to know and confess, that the highest doth command over the Kingdoms of men, and disposeth of them as pleaseth his divine wisdom, but I need not stand upon this point, it being so well known and acknowledged by your Majesty.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
PLUTARCH reporteth, that the Nobles of Lacedaemon approving a speech that was delivered by a man of evil behaviour, 
De auditione.  caused the same to be uttered by another of honest life and conversation, that it might carry the greater weight, when it proceeded from a man whose doings were answerable to his words. M. Bishop hath uttered a goodly speech, but it soundeth not effectually from his mouth or pen; it were fit that some other man of other profession and comportment, should be the writer and speaker of this matter: for he denieth to his Majesty, that supreme government in causes Ecclesiastical, whereby he should take upon him, to do that that he persuadeth him; and being sworn to the Pope, he cannot but maintain those laws of his, 
Distinct. 96. Si Imperator.  whereby he inhibiteth Kings and Princes to meddle with matters of religion, and of the Church, and reserveth the same wholly to be decreed by himself and his Prelates; and as for Princes, they must receive and practise the same according to his order.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
HERE cometh to my memory, that worthy observation of the divine Preacher: 
Eccles. 13. vers. 28.  The rich man spoke, and all men held their peace, and did extol his words up to the skies; but when a poor man spoke they said, who is this? It becometh not a Divine (saith our new gospeler) to discourse of matters of divinity, but Princes do them bravely. To M. Abbot I answer first, that his profane story is beside the purpose, for the Lacedæmonians took exception against that persons speech, because his life was not answerable: but he cavilleth at my discourse, not for default of my manners, but for other points of doctrine. Belike he thought it not expedient, (notwithstanding his example of the Lacedæmonians did lead him thereunto) to put men's doctrine to be tried by their life and conversation, lest their new Gospel, should by that rule be condemned and rejected, because their Preachers and Ministers lives, be not conformable to the precepts of Christ's Gospel. Besides, the disproportion of this example, that is also very false which he inferreth against me: That I do deny his Majesty to have authority to do that, which I persuade him to do, to wit; to take special order, that God almighty be truly and sincerely served: for Kings may and aught to do that, though they be not supreme governors in causes Ecclesiastical. For albeit it belong not to them, to declare the true sense of all questioned places of holy Scriptures; nor to determine all doubts rising in divinity; nor briefly, to perform such other functions as are proper to the supreme Governor of Christ's Church: yet his Majesty might have called together the most learned of his subjects of all sides, and have heard which of them could best have proved their doctrine, to have been most conformable to the sacred word of God, to Apostolical traditions, to most ancient general Counsels, to the uniform consent of the most holy and best learned Doctors of the primitive Church; and accordingly to have embraced the same himself, and by his Princely authority to have established the same throughout all his Dominions: It remaineth then evident, That his Majesty might have taken special order, for the true service of God, notwithstanding he have not supreme authority in Ecclesiastical causes. And most false is this assertion of M. Abbots, that any law of the Pope doth inhibit him to deal so farforth in matters of religion: that Canon which he citeth doth only forbid lay-Magistrates, 
Distinct. 96. Si Imperator.  to meddle with the ordering and judging of Priests and Clerks, and such other Ecclesiastical officers, as do properly belong to Bishops. But that Kings ought to meddle in matters of religion, and how farforth they ought, S. Leo the first a most famous Pope, doth in these memorable words declare: You must (o Emperor) without doubt know, 
Epist. 75. ad Leo. August.  that Kingly power is given to you, not only for the rule of the world, but is principally bestowed upon you, for the defence and aid of the Church; that by suppressing wicked attempts, you may both defend that which is established, and also pacify those things which are troubled. But of this point I shall have occasion presently to speak more at large. It followeth.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
AS touching the reason also which he allegeth, why Princes should take special order that God be rightly served, Because of his mere bounty and grace, they receive and hold their Diadems and Princely Sceptres: The Pope denieth that they hold the same immediately from God, but are to receive them by his mediation and approbation, and no longer to hold them, than they conform themselves to his laws; 
Bulla Pij 5.  Ecce nos constituti sumus super gentes & regna, etc. Behold (saith the Pope) we are set over nations and kingdoms, to build up and to plant, to pull up and to destroy, etc. And therefore what the wisdom of God saith (as M. Bishop allegeth) by me Kings reign, the same the Pope blasphemously apply to himself; 
Proverb. 8. vers. 15.  Per me R●ges regnant, By me Kings do reign: thus the Pope would have Princes as very beasts as Nabuchodonoser was, not to know of whom they hold their crowns and kingdoms, but to think that all dependeth upon him. But M. Bishop acknowledgeth here the truth, that of God they hold the same, and therefore should make it their special care, that the same God be honoured accordingly. And here unawares he justifieth our doctrine, as touching the Prince's supreme authority for the government of our Church, the effect whereof we teach to be this; to provide by laws and to take special order, that God be purely and uprightly served; that Idolatry and superstition be removed; that the word of God be truly and sincerely taught; that the sacraments be duly administered, and the Bishops and Pastors diligently perform the service and duty that doth appertain unto them; that the commandments of God be not publicly and scandalously broken: for these things we acknowledge the King to be under Christ, the supreme governor of the church within his Dominions, and this duty M. Bishop confesseth to appertain unto him. And thus did the good Kings of judah, David, Ezechias, josias, etc. thus have Christian Emperors and Princes done; thus and no otherwise did Queen Elizabeth; and yet for the doing hereof, she was proscribed by the Pope, and so much as in him lay, deprived of her Crown and Sceptre, but the hand of God was with her, and she prospered thereby, and died in peace, etc.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
I Do many times much muse, how men of any sort and fashion, specially how professors of God's truth (such as M. Abbot would be esteemed) dare put into light such odd paltry shifts, and pour out together such heaps of gross lies. A lie it was, that I denied to his Majesty such authority, as would serve for the taking order, how God might be rightly served in his realm. Another lie it is, that the Pope's laws do inbibite Kings to meddle with matters of religion. A third, that I affirmed Kings to hold their crowns immediately from God; which though it be true in that sense he taketh it; yet is it false that I so said in that place: for I meddle not with those terms of immediately, or mediately. The fourth is, that the Pope denieth Princes to hold their Diadems and Princely authority immediately from God, but are to receive them by his mediation; for even in the very Canon cited last before by himself, the Pope acknowledgeth, 
Distinct. 96. Si Imperator.  That Emperors and Kings receive from God the prerogative of their power: whereupon the Gloss plainly noteth, that they did not receive their sovereign authority from the Pope. Which was also observed in the Canon next before, 
Eaden distinct.  out of Pope Gelasius words. And it is further, the common opinion of all our Divines: wherefore unless this counterfeit Divine, did mean here to lie for the whetstone, I know not what he meant to huddle up lies so thick together, every one louder than the other. But (saith he) Pius Quintus writeth, Eccenos constituti sumus super gentes & regna; Behold (saith the Pope) we are set over nations and kingdoms, to build and to plant, to pluck down and to destroy, etc. therefore they apply to themselves, that which the wisdom of God giveth to Kings, By me Kings do reign. This is the fift lie that he makes within the compass of less than half a side; for albeit the Pope use the words spoken to the Prophet Hieremy: Ecce nos constituti sumus, etc. yet doth he not those by King Solomon, uttered in the person of God's wisdom, which M. Abbot deceitfully shuffleth in the place of the other. Now the authority committed to the Prophet Hieremy, did not make the King of juda to hold his crown of him, as all Divines both Catholics and Protestants do grant: wherefore though the same be yet remaining in the Church of God, (as it is not only granted by all Catholic Doctors, but even by the verdict of Caluin himself, 
In cap. 10. Cor. vers. 6.  who to prove it doth cite even the very same words out of Hieremy. And so 1200 years before him, that famous Father S. chrysostom did allege the like, out of the same chapter of the Prophet, to the same purpose: saying. 
Homil. 55. in Mathaeum.  The Father said to Hieremy, I have put thee as a pillar of iron and wall of brass, etc.) yet the Father placed him but over one nation (to wit, that of the jews) but Christ hath placed Peter over the universal world. Briefly, we granting the like power to be in the Bishop of Rome, that was in Hieremy the Prophet (whose words he useth) it can be no more deduced thence, that Kings hold their Princely diadems of him, then that the King of juda did his of Hieremy; which was neither mediately nor immediately: for only a certain spiritual power to root out Idolatry, error, and iniquity, and to plant religion and virtue, was by those words given to men of the Church. Which, if it do in some certain case, extend to the deposition of a Prince (as I read it hath been practised by most judicious, learned, and holy Personages, though I do not read where it is by the Church defined to be any article of our faith;) yet no man is so simple, as not to deem it more wholesome and expedient for the uniform and peaceable estate of Christendom, that such supereminent power should rather rest in the supreme Pastor of Christ's Church, then be left unto the discretion of the Ministers and Clergy of every country, according to the Protestants opinion and practice: It being (I say) granted, that the Bishop of Rome, may in some case depose any temporal Magistrate; yet can it not there hence be gathered, that Kings do hold their Kingdoms of the Pope's Holiness. For when one King will not let his neighbour Prince live in peace by him, but doth extremely waste his Dominions, kill his subjects, and make havoc of his country; the Prince so molested (if he cannot otherwise have remedy) may most lawfully by force of arms, proceed even to the deposition of that injurious King: And yet the invader did not hold his Kingdom of the other, any more than the other did depend upon him, but was an absolute King himself as the other was, notwithstanding by his intolerable outrages offered to his neighbour Prince, he made himself punishable, and subject to the other, against whom he so grievously trespassed. In like manner, if a Prince by most extreme persecution of Christ's flock, do become subject to the correction of the chief Pastor thereof; yet thence it followeth not, that that Pastor had power to dispose of his Kingdom at his pleasure, or that the King did hold his Diadem of him, either mediately or immediately; howbeit the Prince through his own exorbitant and otherwise remediless fault, do justly fall into the Pastor's hands to be punished.  
Here I do by the way, most humbly crave of them to whom it doth appertain, that it may without passion be duly considered: whether we Catholics do not his Majesty more faithful service, and show ourselves much more careful of the quiet continuance of his glorious & happy estate, when by all humble and fair means we do labour most diligently to entreat his most excellent Majesty, to deal more graciously and mildly with his poor Catholic subjects; then those hotspur Ministers, who labour tooth and nail, to cast their loving Sovereign into such a brake of briers by incensing his Highness to hold so extreme a course against them. For if his Majesty may be won to follow the gentle and sweet inclination of his own nature, and to qualify the rigour of the laws against recusants in such temperate manner, that the said recusant Catholics may not be oppressed thereby; the Pope's holiness without all doubt, will never go about to deprive his Majesty of his regal dignity, how forward soever he be otherwise to embrace and advance his own religion: for not so much for favouring the Protestants, as for extreme persecution of the Catholics (as the former example of neighbour Kings doth show) that most severe censure of the supreme Pastor of the Church is inflicted. Wherefore, when it shall please his Highness to condescend graciously unto our humble and daily supplication, for more moderation and mercy; then shall his Majesty without all doubt (as every man may easily perceive) take away all jealousy of those buzzes, which seem so greatly to disquiet the whole state.  
Now to that point wherein the kings supremacy lieth, according to M. Abbot's declaration. If it were only by laws to provide and to take special order, that God be well served, his word truly taught, his Sacraments duly administered, and that all Bishops and Pastors perform their duties; then I should think him a bad Christian, that would not acknowledge that his supremacy: And I most willingly admit, that the good Kings of Israel did so; but the man is so shallow, shuttle-witted, and uncertain, that there is no trust to be given to his declaration. M. Perkins goeth more substantially to work, and affirmeth the Supremacy to consist, not in the points above mentioned; 
Reformed Catholic page 285.  but in authority to declare, which books of Scripture be Canonical, which not; and to determine finally of all controversies, and doubts rising thereupon; to call general Counsels, and to ratify their decrees; to make Ecclesiastical laws that bind all the Church, and to excommunicate whosoever shall obstinately resist or break them; to consecrate and institute patriarchs & metropolitans, and many such like: which when M. Abbot shall prove to appertain justly to Kings and Princes, whether they be men, women, or children; then we will allow the supreme temporal Magistrate, to be also supreme governor in causes Ecclesiastical: In the mean season we will pray that God will vouchsafe to make them good and dutiful children, of the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that they may humbly learn those high mysteries of religion, whereof most Princes (as all the world seethe) would be very unmeet judges and also very evil dispensers. What variety of religions hath grown by that kind of supremacy, what dissolution of Church discipline, what corruption of civil justice, what iniquity and deceit in contracts and bargains, what oppression of the poor, and generally what looseness and lewdness of conversation, every true Christian man doth see and lament, and daily pray to almighty God our most merciful Father for amendment.  
That worldly peace and temporal prosperity be no assured marks of God's favour, nor of his true religion, King David is a sufficient witness, 
Psal. 72.  Whose feet (as he writeth) were almost moved, and began to slip through his zeal against the wicked, because he saw them suffered to live in such prosperity and to die in so great peace. And our Saviour in express terms teacheth, 
Math. 5. vers. 45.  That our Father in heaven maketh his Sun to rise upon good and had, and raineth upon just and unjust: that is, bestoweth out of his own bounty many temporal commodities upon them that do full little deserve them at his hands. Wherefore M. Abbot was overseen to bring in the Prince's prosperity for proof of the goodness of their religion. Let us proceed.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
BUT sithence there be in this our miserable age, great diversities of religions, and yet but one only wherewith God is well pleased, and truly served, (as saith the Apostle) 
Ephes. 4.  One body, one spirit, as you are called into one hope of your vocation, one Lord, one faith, one baptism: my most humble suit and supplication to your high Majesty is, that to your eternal good, you will embrace, maintain, and set forth, that only true Catholic and Apostolic faith, wherein your most royal progenitors lived and died; or if you cannot be won so soon to alter that religion, in which it hath been your highness misfortune, to have been bred and brought up; that then in the mean season, of your tender goodness you would not suffer the sincere Professors of the other, to be so heavily persecuted.   

R. ABBOT. SECT. 3. Page 14.  
HERE M. Bishop propoundeth briefly to his Majesty, the sum of his petition, the foundation whereof, he layeth in a principle which we acknowledge to be a truth, that whereas there be diversities of religions in the world, there is but one only where with God is truly served. Hereupon he frameth his humble suit, that his Majesty will embrace and maintain that only true Catholic and Apostolic faith: but that needeth no suit of his, for his Majesty already doth that. For what is the Catholic faith, but the faith of the Catholic Church? and which then shall we take to be the Catholic Church? surely the Catholic Church by the very signification of the word, is the universal Church, so called; Quia per totum est, 
August. de unit. Eccles. Athanas. Q 81.  Because it is over all, or through all the world, and is not tied to any country, place, person, or condition of men: not this Church, or that Church (as S. Augustine speaketh) 
* August in psal. 56.  But the Church dispersed throughout the world; and not that which consisteth i● men now presently living, but so as there belong to it, both those that have been before us, and that shall be after us to the worlds end: whereby we see, how absurdly the Church of Rome taketh unto it the name of the Catholic Church, and how absurdly the Papists take unto them the name of Catholics. The Catholic Church is the universal Church, the Church of Rome a particular Church: there fore to say the Catholic Roman Church, is all one, as to say the universal particular Church. To speak by their rule, the Roman Church is the head, and all other Churches are members to it; but the Catholic Church comprehendeth all: therefore to say the Roman Church is the Catholic Church, is as much to say, the head is the whole body. Neither doth it help them, that of old, particular Churches were called by the name of Catholic Church, it being no otherwise done, but as in toto similari, in a body where all the parts are of the same nature, where every part hath the name of the whole, and no one part can challenge the same more than another: as in the elements, every part of the fire, is fire; every part of the water, water; and so of the like: for so every Church where true faith was taught, 
August. count. Epist. Fund. cap. 4.  was called (to distinguish it from heretical assemblies) the Catholic Church; and every Bishop of such a Church, was called a Bishop of the Catholic Church, and no one Church more than another, assumed unto it any prerogative of that title. Therefore they called the Catholic faith, the faith that was received by the Church throughout the world: and the true Christians were called Catholics, 
August. Epist. 48.  Ex communicatione totius orbis; by having communion and fellowship of faith with the Church of the whole world: it is therefore a mere usurpation, whereby the Papists call the Roman Church the Catholic Church.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
M. ABBOT is now at length come from his extravagant ro●ing narrations, unto some kind of argumentation. Here he will give a proof of his valour: here we shall soon try whether he come so well furnished into the field, that he need not to doubt of the victory, as in the beginning he vaunted of himself; or whether his special skill and force, do not rather lie in railing at us, and in cozening of his reader, then in any sound kind of reasoning. That doctrine which he learned out of S. Augustine, concerning the signification of the word Catholic, we willingly admit off, to wit: That religion is Catholic, that faith is Catholic, which is spread over all the world, and hath been always embraced and practised, even from the Apostles time to our days; and such is the religion, which I would have persuaded his Majesty to receive in to his Princely protection. To this what saith M. Abbot? marry, that his Majesty hath already received it. How doth he prove that? not by any one plain and round argument directly to the purpose, but from the Catholic religion, falleth to the Catholic Church, and so spendeth the time in most frivolous arguing against the Roman Church, of which I made no mention at al. Doth he not deserve a laurel garland, for the worshipful ranging of his battle? and is he not like to fight it out valiantly, that thus in the beginning flieth from the point of the question? Prove (good Sir) that his Majesty embraceth and maintaineth that religion, which is spread over all the world, and that hath continued ever since the Apostles time; and than you may justly say, that he upholdeth the Catholic religion, according to your own explication out of the ancient Fathers. But because M. Abbot saw this to be impossible, he gave it the slip, and turneth himself to prove the Roman religion not to be the Catholic, and perceiving that also as hard to perform as the other, he shuffles from the religion and faith, of which the question was, unto the Roman Church, that is, from the faith professed at Rome, to the persons inhabiting the city of Rome, whom he will prove not to be Catholics, and the Roman Church not to be the Catholic Church. Do you mark what winding and turning, and what doubling this simple Minister is driven unto, ere he can come to make any show of a silly argument?  
But let us give him leave to wander whither his fancy leadeth him, that we may at length hear what he would say: It is forsooth, That the Church of Rome doth absurdly call herself the Catholic Church, and that Papists do absurdly take to themselves the name of Catholics, because the Catholic Church is the universal Church, but the Church of Rome is a particular Church; therefore to say the Roman Catholic Church, is all one to say the universal particular Church: here is a well shapen argument, and worthy the maker; it consists of all particular propositions, which every smatterer in logic knows to be most vicious: beside, not one of them is good, but all are sophistical and full of deceit. First, concerning the form, if it were currant one might prove by it, that no one Church in the world were Catholic; take (for example) the English congregation (which they hold to be most Catholic) and apply M. Abbot's argument to it thus: The Catholic Church is the universal Church, but the Church of England is a particular Church; wherefore to say the English Church is Catholic, is to say a particular Church is an universal. His first fault than is in the very form of reasoning, which alone is sufficient to argue him to be a sophister, and one that meaneth to beguile them that will trust him: now to the particulars. His first proposition (the Catholic Church is the universal Church) is both absurd, because the same thing is affirmed of himself (for universal is no distinct thing, but the very interpretation of the word Catholic,) and also captious, as having a double signification. For the Catholic Church doth signify both the whole body of the Church, compacted of all the particular members united and joined together, in one; in which sense no one particular Church can be called the Catholic Church, because it is not the whole body spread over all the world; for it is totum integrale (to use the school terms) and not totum universal, quod dicitur de multis. Secondly, the Catholic Church doth also design and note very properly, every particular Church that embraceth the same true Christian faith, which hath continued ever since Christ's time, and been received in all countries, not only because it is totum similare (as M. Abbot speaketh,) wherefore every true member of the Catholic Church may be called Catholic; but also because each of the said particular Churches hath the same Faith, the same Sacraments, and the same order of government (all which are as it were the soul and form of the Catholic Church,) which M. Abbot acknowledgeth: and further also confesseth out of S. Augustine, that Christians were called Catholics, Ex communicatione totius orbis, 
Epistola. 48.  By having communion of faith with the whole world. If then by his own confession, every particular Church, yea every particular Christian, that embraceth and professeth that faith which is dilated all the world over, be truly called Catholic; how fond then did he go about to prove the Church of Rome not to be Catholic, and Papists not to be Catholics, because forsooth they were particulars? Yet that he may be thought not to dote outright, but rather to dream, he addeth: That at least the Church of Rome, hath no reason to assume to herself the prerogative of that title, because that every Church where the true faith is taught, is truly called Catholic, and no one more than another. I note first, that this man is as constant and stable, as the weathercock on the top of a steeple: before he proved stoutly (as you have heard) that no particular Church could be called Catholic; now he will have every particular Church, that receiveth the true faith, to be called Catholic. Neither do we say that any one Orthodox Church, is more Catholic then another, if the word Catholic be taken precisely; though we hold, that among all the particular Catholics, the Roman holdeth the greatest privileges, both of superiority in government, and of continuance and stability in the same true Catholic faith, which is deduced out of the word of God; because that Church 
Math. 16. vers. 18.  Is the Rock (according to the exposition of the ancient Fathers) upon which the whole Church was built, and against which the gates of hell should never prevail. Again, the Bishop of Rome succeed lineally unto S. Peter, 
Luc. 22. vers. 23.  Whose faith (through the virtue of Christ's prayer) shall never fail; wherefore S. Ireneus, a most learned Archbishop of Lions in France, and a glorious Martyr of great antiquity, saith: That all Churches ought to agree with the Church of Rome, 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  for her more mighty principality. S. Cyprian Archbishop of Carthage in Africa, affirmeth: 
Li. 1. epist. 3.  That perfidiousness and falsehood in matters of faith, can have no access unto the See of Rome. S. Ambrose taketh it to be all one, to say the Catholic and the Roman Church, in these words: If he shall agree with the Catholic, that is, 
De ob. Satyri. Hieron. in Apolog. 1. cont. Ruffi. cap. 1.  with the Roman Church. So doth S. Hierome when he saith of Ruffinus: What faith doth he say his to be? if the Roman faith, we are then Catholics: affirming men to become Catholics by holding the Roman faith. 
a De Prescript.  Tertullian, 
b Epiphan. Haeres. 27.  Epiphanius, 
c Lib. 2. cont. Parmeni.  Optatus, 
d August. Epist. 165.  S. Augustine, do prove their Churches to be Catholic, and themselves to be Catholics, by declaring that they do communicate with the Church of Rome in society of faith: and do condemn their adversaries to be Schismatics and Heretics, because they did not communicate with the same Roman Church. And which is greatly to be noted, no general Council of sound authority, wherein the Christian truth hath been expounded and determined, but is confirmed by the Bishop of Rome: And on the other side, no heresy or error in faith, hath sprung up since the Apostles days, that did not oppose itself against the Roman See, and was not by the same finally overthrown. Whereupon S. Augustine had good reason to say: That that chair obtained the top of authority, 
De util. cred. cap. 17.  Heretics in vain barking round about it. This little (I hope) will suffice for this place to declare, that there is great cause, why we should attribute much more to the Roman Church, then to any other particular Church whatsoever; and yield to it the prerogative of all singular titles, in a more excellent manner.  
Here comes in M. Abbots second proposition, (but the Church of Rome is a particular Church) in which is as great doubling and deceit as in the former: for albeit the Church of Rome, do in rigour of speech only, comprehend the Christians dwelling in Rome; yet is it usually taken by men of both parties, to signify all Churches of whatsoever other Country, that do agree with the Church of Rome in faith, and confess the Pastor thereof, to be the chief Pastor under Christ of the whole Church. Like as in times past, the Roman Empire did signify, not the territory of Rome alone, or dominion of Italy; but also any nation that was subject to the Roman Emperor: Even so the whole Catholic Church, or any true member thereof, may be called the Roman Church, à part principaliore; because the Bishop of Rome is the supreme head of their Church. Whereupon, if you demand of a French Catholic of what Church he is, his answer will be, that he is of the Catholic Roman Church; where he addeth Roman to distinguish himself from all Sectaries, who do call themselves sometimes Catholics, (though most absurdly) and to specify that he is such a Catholic, as doth wholly join with the Roman Church in faith and religion. Even as the word Catholic was linked at first with Christian, to distinguish a true Christian believer from an Heretic, according to that of Pacianus an ancient Author; 
Epistola. ad Simphorian.  Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname: so now a days the Epitheton Roman is added unto Catholic, to separate those Catholics that join with the Church of Rome in faith, from other sectaries; who do sometimes call themselves also Catholics, though very ridiculously, because they be divided in faith, from the greatest part of the universal world. Out of the premises may be gathered, that the Roman Church may well signify any Church, that holdeth and maintaineth the same faith which the Roman doth: whence it followeth, that M. Abbot either dealt doubly, when he said the Roman Church to be a particular Church; or else he must confess himself to be one of those Doctors whom the Apostle noteth, 
1. Tim. 1. vers. 7.  For not understanding what they speak, nor of what they affirm.  
Now to this his second sophistication, The Roman Church (by our rule) is the head, and all other Churches are members to it, but the Catholic comprehendeth all: ergo, to say the Roman Church is the Catholic, is to say the head is the whole body. Here is first a misshapen argument, by which one may prove or disprove any thing; for example I will prove by the like, that the Church of England is not Catholic, thus: The Church of England by their crooked rule, is a member of the Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church comprehendeth all: where fore to say the English Church is the Catholic Church, is to say, a member is the whole body. Besides the counterfeit fashion of the argument, there is a great fallacy in it: for to omit, 
Fallacia accidentis.  that we say not the Church of Rome, but the Bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church, it is a foul fault in arguing (as all Logicians do understand) when one thing is said to be another by a metaphor, to attribute all the properties of the metaphor to the other thing. For example, Christ our Saviour is metaphorically said to be a Lion, 
Apocal. 5. vers. 5.  Vicit Leo de tribu juda: now if there hence any man would infer, that a Lion hath four legs, and is no reasonable creature, ergo. Christ hath as many, or is not endued with reason; he might himself therefore be well taken for an unreasonable and blasphemous creature: Even so must M. Abbot be, who shifteth from that propriety of the metaphor, bead, which was to purpose, unto others that are clean besides the purpose. For as Christ was called a Lion, for his invincible fortitude; so the Bishop of Rome is called the head of the Church, for his authority to direct and govern the same: but to take any other propriety of either Lion or Head, when they be used metaphorically, and to argue out of that, is plainly to play the sophister. Wherefore, to conclude this passage, M. Abbot hath greatly discovered his insufficiency in arguing, by propounding arguments that offend and be very vicious, both in matter and form; and that so palpably, that if young Logicians should stand upon such in the paruies, they would be hissed out of the schools: it must needs be then an exceeding great shame, for a Divine to use them, to deceive good Christian people in matter of salvation. And if after so great vaunts, of giving full satisfaction to the reader, and of stopping his adversaries mouth, that he should not have a word to reply, he be not ashamed to put such babbles as these into print; he cannot choose but make himself a mocking-stocke to the world: surely his writings are more meet to stop mustard-pots, (if I mistake not much) then like to stop any mean scholars mouth.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
IT is therefore a mere usurpation, whereby the Papists call the Roman Church the Catholic, and the very same that the Donatists of old did use. 
Aug. Ep. 48.  They held the Catholic Church to beat Cartenna in Africa; and the Papists hold it to be at Rome in Italy: they would have the Church to be called Catholic, 
Ibid. & breu. collat. 2. cap. dici. 3.  not by reason of the communion, and society thereof through the whole world, but by reason of the perfection of doctrine and sacraments, which they falsely challenged to themselves; & the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to itself, and will therefore be called the Catholic Church. 
Cont. Crescon. grammat. lib. 2. cap. 37. Epist. 48.  From Cartenna the Donatists ordained Bishops to other countries, even to Rome itself: And from Rome by the Papists order, must Bishops be authorized to all other churches. They would be taken to be Catholics for keeping communion with the Church of Cartenna: and so the Papists will be counted Catholics, for keeping communion with the Church of Rome. They held, 
Ibidem.  that howsoever a man believed, he could not be saved, unless he did communicate with the Church of Cartenna: And the Papists hold, that there is no salvation likewise but in communicating with the Church of Rome. The Donatists were not so absurd in the one, but the Papists are as absurd and ridiculous in the other.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
IN the former passage M. Abbot bestowed an argument or two, raked out of the rotten rubbish of those walls, (to use some of his own words) which were before broken down by men of our side: Now he cometh to his own fresh invention, as I take it; for it is a farthel of such beggarly base stuff, and so full of falsehood and childish follies, that any other man (I ween) would not for very shame have let it pass to the print. It consisteth in a comparison and great resemblance that is between the old doting Donatists, and the new presumptuous Papists, if M. Abbot dream not. The Donatists (saith he) held the Catholic Church to be at Cartenna, and the Papists do hold it to be at Rome in Italy. False on both sides, because we do not hold it to be so at Rome, as they did at Cartenna: for we hold it to be so at Rome, as it is beside also dispersed all the world over; they, that it was wholly included within the strait bounds of Cartenna in Mauritania, and her confines: so that whosoever was converted in any other country, must go thither to be purged from their sins, as S. Augustine testifieth in express terms, 
Epistola. 48.  in the very place by M. Abbot alleged. False also in the principal point, that the Donatists held the Catholic Church to be at Cartenna: for there dwelled only the Rogatists, who were (as S. Augustine there speaketh,) Brevissimum frustrum, de frustro maiore, A most small gobbet or fragment, broken out of a greater piece; that is to say, a few schismatical fellows fallen from the Donatists, as the Puritans are from the Protestants, or the Anabaptists from the Sacramentaries: so that although men of that sect held the Catholic Church to be at Cartenna, yet the main body of the Donatists maintained it not to be there at all, but held that congregation of Cartenna to be wholly schismatical, and no true member of the Catholic Church. This first part then of the comparison, is most ugly and monstrously false.  
The second is not unlike: The Donatists would have the Church to be called Catholic, not by reason of the communion and society thereof through the whole world, but by reason of the perfection of doctrine and sacraments, which they falsely challenged to themselves; the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to herself. Here are many faults: the first is a gross lie in the chief branch; for the Donatists did not call the Church Catholic, for the perfection of doctrine and sacraments: see S. Augustine in both places, who expressly delivereth, 
Brevi collat. cap. 2. diei 3. Epist. 48.  that it was for the fullness of sacraments, Ex plenitudine sacramentorum; or for the observation of all God's commandments, Ex observatione omnium divinorum praeceptorum: of perfection of doctrine they said not one word, they were more sharp-witted (as S. Augustine observeth) then to go about to prove universality by perfection, which is not universal. But seeing well that they could not defend their congregation to be Catholic, (that is universal) but by some kind of universality; they defended it to be so called, for the universality & fullness of sacraments and commandments, that is: because their Church retained all the sacraments that the Catholics did, and professed to keep all God's commandments as fully as they. M. Abbot's former fault then in this second point of resemblance (and that a foul one) is, in that he belieth the Donatists. And more palpably should he have belied the Roman Church, if he had justly brought in the resemblance, to wit: if he had said as due proportion required, that we hold our Church to be Catholic as the Donatists did theirs, for the perfection of doctrine and sacraments: which is so manifestly untrue, and so clearly against the doctrine of all Catholic writers, that he (that was wont to blush at nothing) seemeth yet ashamed to avouch it openly, and yet doth at last trail it in deceitfully. As for perfection of doctrine and sacraments, though it be only in the Catholic Church; yet it is so far wide from the signification and use of the word Catholic, that none (except such wise men as M. Abbot is) do think any thing to be Catholic, because it is perfect.  
The third particle of the resemblance is, That from Cartennathe the Donatists ordained Bishops to other countries, even to Rome itself. And from Rome by the Papists order, Bishops be authorized to all other Churches. I am not so copious, as to afford to every leasing of M. Abbot a new phrase; wherefore the reader (I hope) will bear with my rudeness, if I call sometimes a lie by the name of a lie. It is an untrue tale, that the Donatists ordained Bishops from Cartenna; for they could not abide that place, but esteemed it to be Schismatical, as you have heard before. He doth misreport S. Augustine, who saith: 
Lib. 2. cont. Crescon. c. 37  Quò ex Africa ordinare paucis vestris soletis Episcopum, you Donatists are wont to order and send a Bishop thither to your few companions out of Africa, not from Cartenna in Mauritania. Neither doth the Catholic Church appoint, that every Bishop should go to Rome to take holy orders, and from thence to be sent to other Catholic countries; but in every other region where be three Catholic Bishops, they may be lawfully consecrated: albeit for unities sake, and to preserve due order, they be confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, the supreme head under Christ of the Catholic Church.  
The fourth point of the comparison is most absurd; for the Donatists were so far from thinking them Catholics, that kept communion with the Church of Cartenna, that they detested and abhorred their company as Schismatics. Neither do we call any men Catholics for keeping communion with the Church of Rome, if it be taken for that particular Church which is contained within the walls of Rome; but because that communicating with that Church in faith and religion, they do communicate with all other of the same faith, which are spread all the world over.  
Finally, the fift is as false as the fourth, and in the same sort to be confuted. True it is, that the Donatists thought that none could be saved out of their congregation, which is almost a common position of every sect and heresy; but most sure it is, that there is no salvation out of the true Church of Christ, no more than was out of the Ark of Noë in the general deluge: wherefore, whosoever doth not communicate with the Church of Rome, (which is the chief member thereof) in society of faith and sacraments, is out of the state of grace and salvation; according to that of S. Hierome to Pope Damasus: I following no chief but Christ, 
Epistola. 7. tit. 2.  join myself to the communion of Peter's chair, upon that Rock I know the Church to be built, whosoever doth eat the Paschal lamb out of this house, he is profane; he that is not found within the Ark of Noë shall perish, etc. where there is much more to this purpose.  
To conclude this passage, seeing that M. Abbot went about, to prove the Church of Rome to be like that of the Donatists, by no one sound argument but by mere fabling & lying; he must look (unless he repent) 
Apocal. 21. vers. 8.  to have his part with all liars in the pool burning with fire and brimstone. And if it please the reader, to hear at what great square the Donatists were with the Church of Rome, to which M. Abbot doth so often resemble them, I will briefly show it out of the best records of that time. S. Augustine speaketh thus to the Donatist Petilian: 
Lib. 2. cont. Petili. c. 51.  What hath the Church or See of Rome done to thee, in which Peter did sit, and now sitteth Anastatius? why dost thou call the Apostolical chair, the chair of pestilence? See how friendly the Donatists saluted the Church of Rome, styling it the chair of pestilence. 
Lib. 2. cont. Parmeni.  Optatus Bishop of Milevitan saith thus: Whence is it that you Donatists contend to usurp unto you the keys of the Kingdom? and that you wage battle against the chair of Peter, presumptuously and with sacrilegious audacity? If they waged battle against the Church of Rome so cruelly, surely there was no agreement between them. Wherefore, as the Catholics of Africa then, so they that were taken into the communion of the Church of Rome, cared little for the Donatists, as witnesseth S. Augustine, saying of Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage: 
August. Epistola. 162.  He need not to care for the multitude of his conspiring enemies the Donatists, when he saw himself by communicatory letters joined with the Roman Church, in which always the principality of the Apostolical chair flourished, etc. So we at this time, need as little to care for the bitter reproaches and deceitful arguments of the Protestants, so we stand stable and firm, in the like society of faith and religion with the same Church of Rome.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  

Cont. Epist. Fund. cap. 4.  THERE was reason why Augustine should be moved with the name of Catholic, when they that were called Catholics, had testimony of their faith from the communion & society of the Church throughout the whole world, and were therefore so called; 
Brevi. collat. diti 3. cap. 2.  Quia communicant Ecclesiae toto orb diffusae, Because (saith S. Augustine) they communicate with the Church spread over all the whole world. But most sottishly it is alleged for a motive to us, being now Donatistically applied to one particular Church of Rome, and to men bearing the name of Catholics, only for communicating with that Church. Surely, as the name of jews was of old a name of honour, and the proper title of the people of God; but afterwards by their Apostasy who bore it, was left for 
Esai. 65. vers. 15.  a name of curse and reproach: so the name of Catholic was an honourable name, and the peculiar title of the true children of the Church; but now by their abuse who have unjustly taken that name unto themselves, it is become a name of curse and shame with the people of God, and the proper badge of Apostates and Heretics. And as the Apostle 
Rom. 2. v. 28.  denieth the name of jews to them, who yet according to the letter were so called, because of the circumcision of the flesh; and apply the truth of the nam● to them, who were so according to the spirit, albeit according to the letter they were not so named: so the name of Catholics in deed, belongeth not to the Romish faction, who according to the letter take upon them to be so called; but the true meaning thereof belongeth to them, who although they joy not in the literal name, etc. yet do follow the same faith which they followed, who first were called by the name of Catholics. Let them have the shell, so that we have the kernel, etc. the name in his true use, importeth them that embrace the faith of the Catholic, that is the universal Church, that hath been from the beginning of the world, that is through the whole world, and shall be to the worlds end.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
S. AUGUSTINE indeed, was so much moved with the name of Catholic, that he allegeth it to have been one principal cause, 
Cont. Epist. Fund. cap. 4. De vera relig. cap. 7.  which kept him in the lap of the Church. And else where very often exhorteth all Christians, To hold the communion of that Church, which both is Catholic, and known also by that very name; not only to her own followers, but also to others. And the self same reason alleged by M. Abbot himself, which caused that most holy, wise, and learned Father to esteem so highly of that title Catholic, is now of great force to persuade all reasonable men, to make themselves members of the Roman Church: for by joining in society of faith with the Church of Rome, they shall communicate with the Church spread over the whole world; because the faith and religion of the Church of Rome, hath been generally received all the world over, as our adversaries themselves do confess. The name Catholic, is by the Protestants Donatistically applied to their Schismatical congregation, that neither are nor ever were scattered all the world over; but be enclosed and confined within certain countries of Europe, as the Donatists were within the bounds of Africa. Most sottishly then (to use his own words) doth M. Abbot affirm, the name Catholic to be applied by us of the Roman religion, unto the particular Church of Rome; when as we call all other Churches of what country soever (that with the Church of Rome keep entirely the same faith) Catholic. And men of all other nations do we call Catholics, as well as those who are Romans borne, because they all believe and confess the same one Catholke faith, that is extended over all the world.  
Secondly, M. Abbot is much mistaken in his comparison of the name of jew, with the name Catholic: for to omit first that such examples prove nothing, but do only serve for show, or explication; and moreover, that it can hardly be showed that the name of jew was a name of such honour at any time: for that people's honourable name was Israelites, and were not called jews, till towards the declination and wane of their estate. Neither was it ever any peculiar and proper title of the people of God: for God had many good servants, that were never called jews, as may be gathered by job the Husite, Naaman the Sirian, the widow of 
Luc. 4. vers. 26.  Sarepta a Sidonian, and by a great number of Prosilites, and finally by that which the Apostle teacheth: 
Rom. 2. vers. 14.  Many Gentiles were saved without the law. Lastly, most uncertain it is, of what name the Prophet Isay speaketh when he saith: 
Cap. 65. vers. 13.  It shall be left for a name of curse. All these impertinencies of his example being too too many, I do remit him, but cannot pardon his gross fault in the main point of the comparison: for the name jew (according to the usual signification of the word) being the name of a certain people of one race and kindred, and having a law given them by Moses, which should continue only for a prescript time, and end at the coming of Christ, is not like the name of Catholic; which is no special name of the people of any one country, but is attributed and doth agree to all sorts of men, of what country or nation soever, that do embrace the true Christian faith: And is inseparably linked, and so fast joined and riveted with the Christian profession and religion, that it shall never fail, fall, or be separated from it, so long as Christ's faith standeth; nor ever be contemned of the faithful, whiles Christ's true religion flourisheth: which is proved invincibly out of the very Etymology of the name Catholic, and that according to M. Abbot's own interpretation in the same place, who doth expound it to signify that Church, which is through the whole world, and shall be to the worlds end. If the name Catholic, shall continue to the worlds end the true title of the Church, who then but miscreants and Heretics, can take it for a name of curse, reproach, and shame? Is it not until this day set down in the Apostles creed, as the honourable title and epithet of the true Church? I believe the holy Catholic Church. Must he then not be rather an Apostata than a scholar of the Apostles, ●hat blusheth not to avouch the very name Catholic, to be the proper badge of Apostates and Heretics, which the Apostles ascribe and appropriate unto true Christianity? If any proud and false fellows do usurp that name, and challenge it to themselves wrongfully, as many did even in S. Augustine's time, when M. Abbot confesseth it to have been in greatest estimation; let such usurping companions be rebuked sharply, and convicted of their insolent and audacious folly: but the name Catholic, which the Apostles thought worthy and fit to be placed in the articles of our creed, and principles of our religion, must always remain and be among true Christians, a name very glorious and desirable. We therefore say with S. Augustine: We receive the holy Ghost, if we love the Church, 
Tract. 32. in johannem. Lib. 1. cont. Gaudent. c. 33.  if we be joined together by charity, if we rejoice in the Catholic name and faith. And they that do not joy in that name, but mock at it, do blaspheme, as the same most holy Author intimateth. The name jew being taken in the Apostles sense, for one (of what nation soever) that fulfilleth the justice of the law, never was, nor never shall be a name of reproach: so that M. Abbot is driven to hop from one sense of that name to another, to make it appliable to his purpose.  
But (and it please you) the Protestants have the kernel of the name Catholic, and we but the shell. Why do they then so bitterly inveigh against it? why are they not more willing to extol and magnify that renowned title, being of such ancient Nobility? twenty pound to a penny, that what face soever he set on it, yet in his heart he marvelously feareth the contrary himself. If that faith and religion only be Catholic & universal (as he acknowledgeth) that hath ever been, and is also spread over all the world, and shall continue to the worlds end; then surely their religion cannot be Catholic, even by the uniform confession of themselves: who generally acknowledge, that for nine hundred years together, the Papacy did so domineer all the world over, that not a man of their religion, was to be found in any corner of the world, that durst peep out his head to contradict it. Can there be any Church of theirs then, when there was not one Pastor and flock of their religion (though never so small) in any one country? and even now when their Gospel is at the hottest, hath it spread itself all the world over? is it received in Italy, Spain, Greece, Africa, or Asia, or carried into the Indians? nothing less. They cannot then call themselves Catholics, after the sincere and ancient acceptation of that name, which is as himself hath often repeated out of S. Augustine: Quia communicant Ecclesiae toto orb diffusae; Because they communicate in fellowship of faith, with the Church spread over all the world. They must therefore (notwithstanding M. Abbot's vain brags) be content with the shell, and leave the kernel to us, who do embrace the same faith that is dilated all countries over: yea, they must be contented to walk in the footsteps of their forefathers the Donatists, even according to M. Abbot's explication, and fly from the universality of faith and communion of the Church spread all the world over, unto the perfection of their doctrine; which is nevertheless more absurd, and further from the true signification of the word Catholic, than the Donatists' shift was, of fullness of sacraments and observation of all God's commandments, as hath been already declared. But let us hear, how clearly and substantially, he will at length prove their Church to be Catholic.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
NOw, as of this Catholic Church from the beginning to the end, there is (as appeareth in the words cited by M. Bishop) but 
Ephes. 4. vers. 4.  One body, even as one Lord, one God and Father of all: so is there also but one spirit, one hope, one faith, one baptism, one spiritual meat and drink, one religion. Let us then look out those that have been before us, and consider Abel, Noë, Abraham, Isaac, jacob, and the rest of the patriarchs and Fathers. Let us look to Moses and the Prophets, and the whole generation of the righteous and faithful of the old Testament and see what their faith was, what was their religion and service of God: undoubtedly we find not a Papist among them; we find no shadow of that which they now obtrude and thrust upon us, under the name of Catholic religion. They did not worship Idols and Images: they did not coming after, pray to Saints that were dead before them: they used no invocation of Angels: they knew no Merits nor works of supererogation. They vowed no vows of Monkery: they made no pilgrimage to Relics and dead men's bones: they knew no shrift nor absolution, or any of that riffe-raffe-stuffe, wherein the substance of Catholic religion is now imagined to consist. But what they did, the same do we; as they worshipped God, so (saving ceremonial observances) we also worship him; as they believed, so by the same spirit of faith we also believe; as they prayed, so with the same words we also pray; according to the approved example of their life, we also teach men to live: therefore no Popery, but our religion is the Catholic religion, because it is that which the Catholic Church hath practised from the beginning of the world; and Popish religion not so. The same faith and religion which they followed, and no other, our Saviour Christ at his coming further confirmed, and only stripping it of those types and shadows, wherewith it pleased God for the time to clothe it, commending the same to his Apostles, simply and nakedly to be preached to the nations. They did so, They added nothing of their own, they preached only the Gospel, promised before by the 
Tertul. de Prescript. Rom. 1.  Prophets in the holy Scriptures, saying no other things 
Act. 26. v. 12. Lib. 3. cap. 1.  than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. The Gospel which they first preached, afterwards by the will God (as Ireneus saith) they delivered to us in writing, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith. Thus then, what Christ delivered the Apostles preached; what the Apostles preached they wrote; what they written we receive and believe, 
De prescript.  and believing this (as Tertullian saith) we desire to believe no more, because we first believe, that there is nothing else for us to believe. And therefore (as S. Augustine saith) if any man, 
August. count literas Petili. lib. 3. cap. 6.  nay if an Angel from heaven, shall preach unto us any thing concerning Christ, or concerning his Church, or concerning any thing pertaining to our faith and life, but what we have received in the Scriptures of the law and Gospel, accursed be he. Our faith therefore, because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing, is the Apostolic faith, and our Church ex consanguinitate doctrinae, by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine, is proved to be an Apostolical Church, etc. of this Apostolical Church his Majesty is the supreme governor under Christ. As for M. Bishop's religion, it cannot be the Catholic religion, because it is not that which the Catholic Church, that is the faithful of all ages have practised. His faith is not the Apostolic faith, because it is not that which the Apostles left in writing. They make no mention of the Pope, of his Supremacy, of his Pardons, of worshipping of Images, invocation of Saints, Pilgrimages, and a thousand such trumperies.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
WE agree in this, that there is but one faith, one baptism, one spiritual food, and one religion in the Catholic Church: but M. Abbot is foully overseen about the time, when the true Church began first to be called Catholic; which was not before Christ's time but afterwards, according to that alleged out of Pacianus an ancient author, who writeth of the name Catholic, saying: Christian is my name, 
Pacian. epist. ad Simphor. de nomine Catholico.  Catholic is my surname. For when among Christians some began to teach false doctrine, and to draw others after them into sects, they that remained sound, & did cleave fast unto the whole body of the Church were entitled Catholics, to distinguish them from Heretics that did not join with the universal corpse of Christians, in faith and religion; which M. Abbot before did in plain words confess: see his text afore, where he beginneth to argue of the word Catholic. And the reason is most perspicuous, why the jews and their religion could not be called Catholic, though it were right and according to the will of God for that time, because Catholic signifieth that which is spread all the world over, and received of all nations; so was not the law of Moses, and the manner of serving God therein prescribed, but was peculiar unto the children of Israel, and as it were confined within the limits of one land and country: wherefore it could not be called Catholic and universal.  
And M. Abbot was greatly deceived, or else goeth about to deceive others, when for proof of communicating with the Catholic Church, he recoileth back unto the beginning of the world. Why did he not rather show, that their new Gospel flourished in all countries assoon as the Christian faith was planted, and that it hath continued in all ages since the Apostles days, until our time? that had been to have spoken directly to the purpose, which he seldom useth. But he saw that to be a work to hard for Hercules, and therefore to delude his reader, and to lead him from the matter, he flieth up to the old farne-days of Abel, Noen, Abraham, etc. as though they had revealed unto them, all those particular points of faith which Christ taught his Apostles, and the same religion and manner of worshipping God that we Christians have; which is flatly opposite to the doctrine of S. Paul, who testifieth: 
Ephes. 3. v. 4.  That the mystery of Christ unto other generations, was not known unto the Sons of men, as now it is revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets in the spirit. Those ancient patriarchs (as men 
Hebr. 11. vers. 13.  looking a far off, at the days of Christ the light of the world) did not discover so distinctly the mysteries of the Christian faith as the Apostles who were 
job. 6. v. 45.  taught by his own mouth, and made to know 
joh. 15. v. 15.  all his Father's secrets, and had ¶ 
* Rom. 8. vers. 23.  the first fruits of the spirit, in best sort to understand them and carry them away. To be short, our Saviour hath decided this question, and saith in express words: 
Math. 13. vers. 17.  Many Prophets and just men, have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to bear the things that you hear, and have not heard them. Observe then how absurdly M. Abbot behaveth himself in this matter. First he useth tergiversation, in leaping so far back from the point of the question, seeking communion with the Catholic Church, some thousands of years before there was any Church Catholic. Secondly, in avouching the ancient founders of the first world, to have believed clearly and particularly, all the articles of faith that we believe; or else why doth he conclude, that the Roman faith is not Catholic, because in that old and hoare-headed world, some branches of their faith were not sprung up and of full growth? They did not (saith he) worship Idols and Images, they did not pray to Saints, etc. But (good Sir) did they believe that all their children were to be baptized? and that all persons of riper years among them, were to receive the holy Sacrament of Christ's body? yea, can M. Abbot demonstrate, that they had perfect faith of the most holy and blessed Trinity, believing distinctly in three persons and one God? or that the redeemer of the world Christ jesus, was to be perfect God and perfect man, the nature of man in him subsisting without the proper person of man, in the second person of the Trinity; which are the most high mysteries of our Christian faith? I am not ignorant, that albeit those ancient patriarchs and Prophets, had not clear and distinct knowledge of many articles which we are bound to believe; yet they believed some few of them in particular, and had a certain confuse and dark conceit by figures and types, of most of the rest.  
Touching these very points, whereof M. Abbot would have them wholly ignorant (if his bare word without any manner of proof were so powerful) I affirm, that they held the most of them; which I will not stand here to prove at large, for that were Protestant-like to run from one question to another without order: but I will only give a touch to every one of his instances, referring the reader for more full satisfaction, to the proper place of those head controversies. First, no Catholic ever taught any man to worship Idols, let that then pass as a Protestant slander: but that Images are to be placed in Churches, the examples recorded in the old Testament, of having them both in their 
a Exod. 25. vers. 18.  Tabernacle, and in the 
b 3. Reg. 6. vers. 23.  Temple of Solomon, & this sentence of the Psalmist; 
c Psalm. 98. vers. 5.  Adore his footstool, and many such like places and resemblances, do argue very strongly, that Images are to be worshipped. Secondly, invocation of Angels is most plainly practised, by the holy Patriarch jacob the Father of all Israelites: 
d Genes. 48. vers. 16.  God, etc. and the Angel that hath delivered me from all evil, bless these children. The example of so religious a person is our sufficient warrant, to pray to Angels and Saints: for 
e Luc. 22.  Saints in heaven are equal to Angels, as our Saviour himself assureth us; and job was counseled to pray and call for aid unto some of the Saints: 
f job. 5. vers. 1.  Ad aliquem Sanctorum convert. Thirdly, they of the old Testament knew good works to merit life everlasting, and had by God's grace free-will to do them; which I add, because by the same sentences I will prove both together. God said unto Cain: 
Genes. 4. vers. 7.  If thou do well, shalt thou not receive; if evil, thy sin willbe at the door, but the appetite or pang of it shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it: see both power given to the wicked to do well, if they will, and recompense promised therefore. Again, in the law Moses having propounded to the Israelites Gods commandments, exhorting them thereunto, saith: 
Deuter. 30. vers. 15.  Consider that I set before you life and good, and contrariwise death and evil; if you love God, and will walk in his commandments, life; or else death, etc. 
Vers. 19  choose therefore life, etc. Must they not be very dull, that hence cannot gather the keeping of God's commandments, to deserve and merit life everlasting, and that man hath by the aid of God's grace, free-will to perform them? Fourthly, they that were skilful in the law of Moses, could not be ignorant of works of supererogation, that is: that there were many good works which men were not bound to do, yet if they did them, they might thereby advance themselves in God's favour; because there is 
Numer. 6.  special order taken, for the sanctification of any man or woman, that would be a Nazarite, that is: any one that of devotion would withdraw himself from secular affairs, and for some certain time serve God more religiously, yet no man was bound thereunto. Further they were allowed and encouraged to make vows, which is also a work of supererogation, against M. Abbot, fift instance. For not only David saith: 
Psalm. 75. vers. 12.  Vow and render it to our Lord; but in the law it is written: 
* Deuter. 23. vers. 21.  When thou dost vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, slack not to perform it, because the Lord thy God doth require it, etc. but if thou wilt not promise thou shalt be without sin. And to leave the word Monkery, as fit for a Monkey then for an Abbot, josephus a grave author among the jews, witnesseth: That there lived in the time of the law many thousands called Esseni, 
Antiquitat. judaic. lib. 18. cap. 2.  who were contemners of riches, lived in common, having neither wives nor servants. What other thing do Monks profess then such poverty and chastity? saving obedience, which must needs also in some degree be among the others, who lived no doubt in orderly society. Sixtly, neither they nor we either buy or sell pardons, yet had great mercy and pardon showed them for their forefathers sake, as God testifieth in the first commandment. And that they were on the other side, to endure temporal punishment for sin, after the guilt of the sin, & the eternal pain was forgiven them, is most clearly recorded both of all the people of Israel, 
Numer. 14.  Whose murmuration against God, was at the earnest intercession of Moses pardoned; and yet were they therefore deprived of entering into the land of promise. Yea 
Numer. 20. vers. 24.  Moses and Aaron themselves, were in like manner both pardoned for their diffidence, that they did not glorify God at the waters of contradiction; and yet nevertheless 
Deuter. 32. vers. 51.  debarred from entering into the land of promise, for the same offence: so that after the mortal guilt of sin is remitted, there remaineth either some temporal satisfaction to be made on our parties, or else to be forgiven and pardoned us by God and his Ministers Seventhly, that they made prayers and offered sacrifice for the souls in Purgatory, is manifest by the fact of 
2. Mach. 12.  judas Machabeus, who was a most noble virtuous and faithful Israelite, as all Christians do confess. Neither is there any need, for this purpose to aver and prove the books of the Maccabees to be Canonical Scripture, when it serveth this turn, that they be taken for a grave History, and that the Protestants allow them to be of sufficient authority for instruction of manners. Further, all the jews even to this day, do pray for the souls in Purgatory: 
Titulo. 1. Sect. 4.  see the Catholic Apology out of Protestant Authors. Eightly, the jews of the male-kind, by their law were bound to go as it were in pilgrimage, at three solemn feasts in the year, unto one special place, that God should choose for his service: And King Solomon encouraged all strangers to go on pilgrimage, to the Temple builded by him, when he prayed 
Deuter. 16. vers. 16  that what stranger soever, should come thither to pray, he might obtain his suit. And the ¶ 
* 3. Reg. 8. vers. 21.  bones of the Prophet Elizeus, giving life by their touch unto a dead man, doth sufficiently instruct all true believers, that it is very profitable to go on pilgrimage, unto the sacred bones and holy Relics of Gods faithful servants departed. Lastly, they were not wholly unacquainted with a kind of shrift and absolution: for 
4. Reg. 13. vers. 21. Numer. 5. Levit. 5.  they were charged to confess the sins they had committed, and to bring with them unto the Priest, a prescribed sacrifice, to be offered by them for their pardon and absolution. And as the lepers by that law were bound to present themselves to the Priests, and were by them declared such, or purged from that imputation: so in the law of grace, men infected with the soul's leprosy (that is mortal sin) are either to be bound, and declared obstinate by the Priests, if they will not repent; or repenting and confessing the same, are to be cleansed therefrom by the Priest's absolution, 
Chrisost. li. 3. de Sacerdot. Hieron. in ca 16. Math.  as both S. chrysostom and S. Hierome do argue. This in brief will suffice I hope, for answer unto M. Abbot's particulars.  
I might easily add, how the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, were both prefigured by Melchisedeches Host in bread and wine, and foretold by the 
Genes. 14. Malach. 10.  Prophet Malachy: and what a lively type Manna (that Angelical and delicate food) was of Christ's body in the Sacrament And how the supreme authority of one head over all the whole Church, and that to belong to a Bishop & not to the lay Magistrate, was not obscurely shadowed but lively represented, by the Sovereign power that the high Priest of the old testament had over all the rest, 
Deuter. 17.  To determine and end all doubts and controversies, arising about any hard point of the law. As for consecrating of Priests, and hallowing of Churches and Altars, with all vestments and ornaments thereunto appertaining; and for the several feasts and fasts, there is so great resemblance between them and us, that Protestants commonly cry out against us, for the overgreat affinity that is betwixt the old law and our religion. But as they are to be reproved of indiscreet zeal against the rites of Moses law, which were of God and good for the time, and most of them figures and types of the law of grace, according to that of the Apostle; 
1. Cor. 10.  All things chanced to them in figure, and were written for our correction and instruction: so on the other side, some strange defluxion, and distillation of corrupt humours, marvelously darkened M. Abbot's soare-eys, that he could not discern nor find in the whole law of Moses, any one shadow of that which we now practise. May not these worthy words, which S. Paul pronounced of the blinded jews in his time, be verified of him? 
2. Cor. 4.  Their senses were dulled until this day: when Moses is read, a veil is put upon their heart; that is, they reading and hearing the law of Moses, do no more understand it, then doth a man hoodded, or that hath a veil before his eyes, see what is before him; or else M. Abbot reading the old Testament, could not choose but have seen much of our religion, and many articles of our faith there recorded. And albeit we teach, most mysteries of our faith to have been in the law of Moses prefigured and foretold: yet is it very absurd, to say as M. Abbot doth, that we believe no more articles of faith then they did; for we were by the Son of God our blessed Saviour, given to understand many high points of belief, which were not revealed unto them, as hath been before declared.  
And much more reproachful is it, to hold as he doth, That we worship God after the same manner as they did: for than should we sacrifice to him, beeves, muttons, calves, and lambs, and our sacrificers should be of Aaron's issue and order, and we all circumcised. I omit all their ceremonies, because M. Abbot excepteth them. And if the Protestants do altogether pray as they did, and in the same terms as M. Abbot affirmeth them to do; they sometimes then do pray unto God to 
Exod. 32. vers. 13.  remember Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and for their sakes to take mercy on them: for to that effect & in those terms prayed the Prophet Moses, and that according unto those patriarchs 
Genes. 48. vers. 16.  express order and commandment. Whereunto if it please the Protestants to join that other prayer of the Psalmist: ¶ 
* Psal. 131.  Remember (o Lord) David, and all his mildness; let them tell me, whither this small prayer, with which they find so great fault, (Tu per Thomae sanguinem, etc. Thou (o Lord) for that bloods sake, which thy servant shed in defence of thy holy Church, take compassion upon us) be not warranted for good, by example of the like recorded in the old Testament. For if they than did desire God to remember the excellent virtues of his servants, and for their sakes to show mercy to others, why may not we do the same now? why may we not as well beseech God to remember the constant fortitude of S. Thomas, as they did the mildness of David? I will not dwell upon these impertinent and lose follies, which all that be not babes, may of themselves easily descry; but do out of the premises infer: first, that no religion was to be called Catholic, before the Gospel of Christ was preached, or to be preached to all nations; and therefore the law of Moses, being peculiar to one people and country, could not be called Catholic: secondly, that the Roman faith and religion, is very conformable, to that of the patriarchs and Prophets, as the verity is to the figure; whence it followeth, that the Protestants new devices, hold no due correspondence with them. I have already confuted this his assertion, That Christ at his coming, confirmed the faith and religion of the jews, without any additions of his own, and commended it simply and nakedly (only stripping it of types and shadows) to be preached to all nations: And here I add, that then Christians may yet have many wives together, as the jews had, or give their wives upon any displeasure, a l●bel of divorce; for these were no shadows nor ceremonies. And briefly, it should follow thereof, that all that part of their law that doth belong to justice and judgement, stands still in full force and virtue among us Christians: which is most opposite to the determination of the Apostles in the first Council holden at Jerusalem, where it was plainly decided; that 
Act. 15. vers. 28.  we christian's were not bound to keep the old law. Again, if the Apostles were simply and nakedly, to preach unto the Gentiles the law of Moses stripped of types and shadows, why were they commanded to preach unto them the Sacrament of baptism, or of our Lord's supper, which are no where commanded in the law of Moses? Well let this then pass, as a most notorious and gross oversight. But the Apostles (saith he) added nothing of their own, which is very false; for many things were left by our Saviour to their disposition: whereupon S. Paul saith, 
1. Cor. 11. vers. 34.  Caetera cùm venero disponain, I will dispose of the rest when I come; and was further bold to say, 
1. Cor. 7. vers. 12.  Haec dico ego non Dominus, For the rest I say not our Lord. M. Abbot goes on belying the Apostle & saying, ¶ 
* Rom. 12.  and they preached only the Gospel, promised before by the Prophets: where he corrupteth the Text, by adding the word only; and weaveth into that Text to the Romans, these words out of the Acts of the Apostles, 
Act. 26. vers. 22.  saying none other things, than those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come: where he both mangleth the Text, and also breaks off in the midst of a sentence, that it might seem appliable to all points of the Apostles preachings, which the Apostle apply only to Christ's death and resurrection, and the preaching and carrying of light unto the Gentiles. It is a piece of strange alchumy, to distill out of these words of the Apostle, that they preached nothing but the same faith and religion which the jews embraced. S. Paul saith, that be had preached nothing of Christ's death and resurrection, and that he was the light of the Gentiles, but that which the Prophets did speak should come to pass: M. Abbot of his own head, enlargeth this his speech to all other points of our faith. Again, all is beside the purpose: for the Apostle saith not, that he taught any one article, which the common sort of the jews did believe, but such things as the Prophets said should come to pass. Who knows not, that they foresaw and foretold, many things that were no articles of faith in their days? and touching these very particulars, how many of the jews did believe that their Messias should die so shameful a death? or that M●ises law should be abrogated by their Messias? and that the Gospel of Christ should be preached unto all nations? all these were great novels, and exceeding scandalous to the body of the jews: wherefore, though some better learned among them, and more religiously affected, might understand the Prophets speaking of those points; yet were they far from the common reach, & persuasion of that people of the jews from these points, that the jews believed all that Christ taught, and all that he commanded his Apostles to deliver to all nations.  
M. Abbot runneth like a wandering Planet to a third; that all which the Apostles taught, they committed to writing, which is notwithstanding as false as any of the former: for many of them who never ceased to preach, left not one sentence in writing behind them; and he that wrote most, did not write the hundredth part of that which he taught by word of mouth. We know well, that they left the Gospel in writing, and many other most divine and rare instructions in their Epistles; wherefore he needed not cite Ireneus to witness that, which no man is ignorant off: but that they wrote all which they preached, or all things necessary to salvation, Ireneus saith not a word, but plainly signifieth the contrary; where he most sagely counseleth all men, 
Euseb. hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 19  when any controversy in religion ariseth, to make their recourse to the most ancient Churches, where the Apostles had conversed, (amongst which he commendeth the Roman for principal of all the rest) and from them to take their resolution: he than was of opinion, that the decision of all controversies, were not to be searched out of the written word, but rather to be taken from the resolution of the Church. 
De Praescriptionibus.  Oh, but Tertullian saith, That believing this we desire to believe no more, because we first believe, that there is nothing else for us to believe. Believing this? believing what? the written word only? nothing less; for in that very Treatise, his principal drift is, to prove that Heretics cannot be confuted out of the written word, but by ancient customs & traditions, which he calleth Prescriptions: but (saith he) when we believe the whole doctrine of Christ, both written and delivered by Apostolical tradition, than we desire to believe no more of any upstart Heretics new devices. To S. Augustine I answer first, that those be not his formal words which he citeth. Secondly, admitting the sense (if it be rightly taken) I say, that these words; 
Gallat. 1.  If any man or Angel, shall preach any thing besides that which is written (where he alludeth to the Apostles like words) are to be understood, as S. Augustine himself expoundeth those of the Apostle, that is: If any man shall preach contrary to that which is written. For this is his own interpretation: 
Aug. lib. 17. cont. Faust. cap. 3.  The Apostle saith not more than you have received, but otherwise then you have received; for if he had so said, he had prejudiced himself, who desired to come to the Thessalonians, to supply what was wanting to their faith. He that supplies addeth that wanted, but doth not take away any thing that was before: so that you see, when he faith that nothing is to be preached besides that which is written, his meaning is, nothing which is contrary to it; allowing withal, that much more conformable to it, may be added for a supply to make it full and perfect.  
M. Abbot having in few lines run over 4. large questions, to wit: first, That the Prophets and patriarchs believed no principal points of the Roman faith; secondly, that Christ delivered nothing but what the jews before hand believed; thirdly, that the Apostles preached the same and no other to the Gentiles; four, that whatsoever they preached they afterwards wrote: he fifthly addeth, that the Protestants receive and believe all the written word. Whence he will have it to follow finally, that the Protestants are very good jews, and do jump just with them in all articles of faith; and consequently are true Catholics: so that in M. Abbot's reckoning, before you can be a true Protestant Catholic, you must first become a good honest jewe. Behold what a round this man is driven to walk, & how many brakes of thorns he is forced to break through, ere he can come to make any show of proof that the Protestants are Catholics, the matter is so improbable. I have already declared how false every one of his former four propositions be: the fift is as untrue, and more (if more may be) than any of the other; and he plays the sophister in it egregiously, to beg that which is principally in question. How proves he that Protestants receive and believe all the written word? hath he so little wit and judgement, as to think that we would freely grant him that? for to omit that they receive not, but reject divers books of the old Testament (because they were not in the Canon of the jews, or doubted off by some in the primitive Church, by which reason they might refuse as many of the new) do they rightly understand and believe truly, all that is written in that blessed book of God's word? nothing less. Do they give credit to our Saviour JESUS Christ himself telling them: 
a Math. 26. v. 27. & 28.  This is my BODY that shall be broken for you; this is my BLOOD that shall be shed for you. 
b johan. 20. vers. 23.  Whose sins ye shall forgive on earth shall be forgiven in heaven. 
c Math. 16. vers. 18.  Thou art PETER, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, etc. and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 
d Math. 20. vers. 8.  Call the workmen (that had laboured in his vineyearde) and pay them their hire. 
e jacob. 2. vers. 24.  Do you see that by works a man is justified and not by faith only? 
f jacob. 5. vers. 14.  Is any man sick among you? let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over them, anoiling them with OIL in the name of our LORD, etc. 
g Ibidem 16.  Confess therefore your sins one to another? these and an hundred more plain texts recorded in that fountain of life, wherein our Catholic Roman doctrine is delivered in express terms, to wit: The Real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament; That Priests have power to pardon sins; That Christ built his Church upon S. Peter; That good works do in justice deserve eternal life; That we are justified not by faith alone, but also by good works; That in extremity of sickness, we must call for the Priest to anoile us with holy Oil; That we must confess our sins, not to God alone, but also unto men: these and divers such like heads of our Catholic faith, formally set down in holy Scripture, the Protestants will not believe, though they be written in God's word never so expressly; but do ransack all the corners of their wits, to devise some odd shift or other, how to fly from the evidence of them. Whereupon I conclude, that they do not receive all the written word, though they profess never so much to allow of all the books of Canonical Scripture. 
Lib. 2. de Trinitate ad Const.  For the written word of God consisteth not in the reading, but in the understanding (as S. Hierome testifieth:) that is, it doth not consist in the bare letter of it, but in the letter and true sense and meaning joined together; the letter being as the body of Scripture, and the right understanding of it, the soul, spirit, and life thereof: he therefore that taketh not the written word in the true sense, but swarneth from the sincere interpretation of it, cannot be truly said to receive the written word as a good Christian ought to do. Seeing then that the Protestants and all other sectaries, do not receive the holy Scriptures, according unto the most ancient and best learned Doctor's exposition; they may most justly be denied, to receive the sacred written word of God at all, though they seem never so much to approve all the Books, Verses, and Letters of it; which is plainly proved by S. Hierome upon the first Chapter to the Galathians.  
Now to draw towards the end of this clause, not only never a one of M. Abbot's assertions (whereby he went about to prove themselves and their Church to be Catholic) is true, as hath been showed before, but over and beside, his very conclusion convinceth himself (even by the verdict of himself) to fall into the foul fault and error of the Donatists. Our faith (saith he) because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing, is the Apostolic faith, and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine, is prove to be an Apostolical Church, etc. and is the only true Catholic Church, etc. see you not how he is come at length, to prove their Church to be Catholic, 
Page 16. Line 5.  Ex perfectione doctrinae, By perfectness of their doctrine? which was (as he himself in this very assertion noted) a plain Donatistical trick, reproved by S. Augustine, whom in that point he then approved. What doting folly is this, in the same short discourse so to forget himself, as to take that for a sound proof, which he himself had before confuted as heretical? we like well of Tertullia's observation, That our faith ought to have consanguinity, and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine; but that is not the question at this time: but whether our doctrine or the Protestant be truly called Catholic, that is, whether of them hath been received and believed in all nations over the world? that is to be proved in this place. M. Abbot if he had meant to deal plainly and sound, should not have gone so about the bush, and have fetched such wide and wild windlasses from old father Abraham's days, but should have demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesiastical Histories, or of ancient Fathers (who were in the pure times of the Church, the most Godly and approved Pastors thereof,) that the Protestant's religion had flourished since the Apostles days, over all Europe, Africa, and Asia; or at least, had been visibly extant in some one country or other, naming some certain Churches in particular, which had held in all points their faith and religion: which he seeing impossible for any man to do, fell into that extravagant and roving discourse, which you have heard; concluding without any premises (saving his own bare word) that in the written word, There is no mention made of the Pope, or his Supremacy, nor of his Pardons, etc. Belike there is no mention made of S. Peter, nor aught said of his singular prerogatives. It hath not peradventure, That whatsoever be should lose on earth, should be loosed in heaven. The other points were touched before, and shall be shortly again. But I would in the mean season be glad to hear, where the written word teacheth us, that Kings and temporal Magistrates, are ordained by Christ, to be under him supreme Governors of Ecclesiastical affairs; because M. Abbot made choice of this head-article of theirs for an instance, that the written word was plain on their ●ide: he should therefore at least have pointed at some one text or other in the new Testament, where it is registered, that Princes are supreme governors of the Church. Nay, are temporal Magistrates any Ecclesiastical persons at all? or can one that is no member of the Ecclesiastical body, be head of all the rest of the Ecclesiastical members? or is the state Secular higher and more worthy than the Ecclesiastical, and therefore meet to rule over it, though they be not of it? to say so, is to prefer the body before the soul, nature before grace, earth before heaven: or is it meet and decent that the less worthy-member, should have the supreme command over the more honourable? where the Christian world is turned topsy-turvy, that may be thought meet and expedient, but in other places, that will not be admitted for currant, which in itself is so disorderly and inconvenient; without it had better warrant in the word of God, than that new position of theirs hath.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
NOw whereas he allegeth, that all his Majesty's most royal progenitors, have lived and died in that which he calleth the Catholic and Apostolic faith, 
Ambros. lib. 5. epist.  he playeth the part of Symmachus the Pagan sophister, who by like argument, would have persuaded Valentinian the Emperor, to restore their Heathenish Idolatry and abominations: We are to follow our Fathers (saith he) who with happiness and felicity followed their Fathers. 
Aug. psal. 54.  Thus men have hardened themselves in their heresies, saying: What my parents were before me, the same will I be. But his Majesty well knoweth, that in matter of religion, the example of parents is no band to the children, 
L. 2. epist. 3.  but the trial thereof is to return to the root and original of the lords tradition (as Cyprian speaketh) not regarding what any before us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ hath done, who is before al. It is not unknown to his Majesty, that there should be a time, when 
Apocal. 17. vers. 13.  the Kings of the earth shall give their power and kingdom to the beast, until the word of God be fulfilled, and with the whore sitting upon many waters, 
Vers. 14.  should bend themselves to fight against the Lamb. Wherein if any of his progenitors or Predecessors erred, he leaveth them to the counsel of God, but by the word of God, learneth himself to be one of them 
Vers. 16.  that shall hate the whore, and make her desolate, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire: Albeit it is utterly false which he affirmeth, that all his Majesty's progenitors, Kings of these Realms of England and Scotland, lived and died in the Romish faith, that now our Romish factors labour so much to set up. Indeed, he and his fellows are want to be very lavish in their speeches of this matter, as if from King Lucius of Britanny, and Donaldus of Scotland, the only religion that had been professed, had been that which now is practised by them: where as it shall afterwards plainly appear, that at the coming in of Augustine the Italian Monk, 400. years after the receiving of the faith in this Island, the Bishops and Churches of Scotland, joined with the Britanes against those new observations, which the same Augustine brought from Rome, and would by no means admit thereof; & for the space of an hundred years at least, refused to communicate with the English that had received the same. Yea, in the time of King Henry the third, 1200. 
Math. Paris. in Henrico 111. Anno 1238. & 1239.  years after the incarnation of Christ, when the Pope's Legate would have entered into Scotland, to visit the Churches there, the King of Scots Alexander the second, forbade him so to do, alleging that none of his Predecessors had admitted any such, neither would he suffer it; and therefore willed him at his own peril to forbear: so long was it before the Pope's authority could gain acknowledgement in that Kingdom, which his agents would make us believe, hath been in all ages universally and unquestionably received. But they care not indeed what they say or write, so that it may carry a magnifical and brave show, to dazzle the eyes of them, that are not well acquainted with their lewd and naughty dealing.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
PAGANS and Heretics do now and then, like Apes counterfeit true Christians: And no marvel, for their great master Satan 
2. Cor. 11. vers. 14.  doth transfigure himself sometimes into an Angel of light, and did always, and yet doth labour ¶ 
* Esai. 14. vers. 14.  to be like unto the Highest; but it is easy to espy their apish tricks, and to return their fond subtleties upon their own heads. Simmachus played but the part of a foolish sophister, when he pleaded so with the Emperor Valentinian, we are to follow our Fathers: for the emperors Father and nearest Predecessors were no Pagan Idolaters, but professed Christians, as all men know who are conversant in those ancient histories. To the point of the proof I answer in brief, that it is a most sound inducement among us Christians, and to be dearly regarded of all, To follow the footsteps of our forefathers in believing. if they before have not degenerated from their Ancestors. The base and ground of it is this: As God is more ancient than the Devil, and Christ JESUS then all Heretics; so was the true service of God and the right faith of Christ planted, sown, and took fast root, before Heresy and Idolatry sprung up: which hath firm testimony from our Saviour, who teacheth; 
Math. c. 13. vers. 24.  That the good seed was first sown by the Father of the household, and the cockle after, and oversowne by the enemy. Whence it followeth perspiculously, that they who do hold the same doctrine inviolably, which was embraced by them of that stock, who were first converted to the Christian faith, are true and sincere Christians. Those children then, who follow the holy steps of their Catholic Progenitors ascending from Son to Father successively, till they arrive at the first Christians in that country, are true Christians: and they that do not succeed their Predecessors in their faith and religion, but either are fallen themselves, or do follow others who before fell from the faith of their forefathers, are undoubtedly slipped into error and infidelity. By which discourse it is evident, that I tendered a most reasonable request unto his Majesty, that he would embrace and countenance that religion, which all his Progenitors even to the first Christian among them, had lived and died in; because they were all Catholic, and not one of them can be named, who changed the religion of his forefathers: yet this notwithstanding, Simmachus the Pagan using the like argument in show, was not to be heard; the difference is, because his forefathers for whose Idolatry he pleaded, had before forsaken the true and sincere worship of the one living God, and therefore their children were not to continue in their Idolatry, but to return unto their former Ancestors true piety. So were the Donatists' children (of whom S. Augustine cited by M. Abbot speaketh) not to follow their Fathers in that sect and heresy, but to leave their late corrupted parents in their new doctrine, and to look back unto their grandfathers ancient faith and religion, from whose integrity their Fathers were degenerated: Even as nowadays we exhort men that had or have Parents turned Protestants, not to be led away with their erring Parents opinions, but happily to receive their forefathers ancient faith, from which their Fathers revolted unadvisedly. And so shall they return unto the root and original of our lords tradition, as S. Cyprian speaketh; because they shall return to that faith which was received from hand to hand, even from the Apostles, our Lords most trusty and sacred messengers: and cleaving fast to that, shall not need to regard what any man hath thought fit to be dine or said against it  
Now to that point which followeth in M. Abbot: 
Apocal. 17.  There shall be a time, when the Kings of the earth shall give their power to the beast, and bend themselves to fight against the Lamb, which I do willingly admit; but when that time shall be, or what Kings, it is very uncertain: for there shall be also a time, 
Esai. 60. Psalm. 70.  When the Kings of the earth shall be as nurses to the true Church, and shall most humbly both obey it, and also enrich and defend it to the uttermost of their power. Now, by the very insinuation of the Text, and the uniform consent of ancient writers, the good Kings shall cherish, exalt, and magnify the Church, before those evil Kings shall arise, who falling away from their father's faith and from the Catholic Church, will lend their aid to her professed enemies, to work her overthrow: which is a shrewd presumption, that the Kings of former ages, stood far better affected to the true Church of God, than some of later times: Well, this I leave to understanding men's judgement. But I may not slip M. Abbot's exceeding gross oversight, or rather heinous crime, in ranking his Majesty among those Kings mentioned in the Apocalypse: for albeit 
Cap. 17.  they shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh, etc. yet they shall be most wicked and impious Kings, and shall adore the monstrous beast there described, and fight against Christ JESUS. These be the very words of the Text: And the ten horns, etc. be ten Kings, etc. these have one Council and force, and their power they shall deliver to the beast; these shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overthrow them, etc. 
Vers. 16.  And the ten bornes which thou sawest in the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and make her desolate and naked, etc. so that the very same ten Kings signified there by ten horns, that did give all their power to the beast, did hate the harlot. But how can it be saith one, that they who hate the wicked harlot, should join with the beast who was as wicked as she? Yes, that may well be: for it is no news that wicked men fall out among themselves, so that one ungodly and wicked Prince, doth sometimes with all his might aid another more wicked than himself; and at the same instant perhaps, or shortly after fight against a third the most wicked of all: they do fight against both good and evil, as their own rage, passions, or occasions carry them. Which I say to stop a starting hole of the Protestants, who to avoid this inconvenience say: that first these ten Kings were bend to all mischief's, and then helped the beast against the Lamb, but afterward repent them of their former iniquity then lo they hated the harlot, and persecuted her, which they would not have done, if they had been had Princes; this is a pretty shift. Well, say first that this sense could stand with the words of the text, yet they cannot be applied to his Majesty, who was not in his former time any aider of our religion, and now is fallen off from that to the Protestants: wherefore this devise (if it could stand with the text) will not serve their turn. But the spirit of God hath prevented and wholly cut off this vain imagination; for it saith in the next verse, That the ten Kings who hated the harlot, even then and after too, gave their Kingdoms to the beast, till the word of God be consummate, that is, till the end of al. Wherefore most manifest it is, even by the warrant of God's sacred word, that those Kings mentioned in the Apocalypse, were reprobates: such did they live, and such shall they die. Let then his most excellent Majesty censure, what reward they are worthy off, who fear not to thrust his Highness into that list of condemned castaways; and that too, after they had such fair warning, as in my answer to M. Perkins I gave them, to beware how they did his Majesty that shame and despite. If it please his Highness to take notice of it, I doubt not, but that he will con them little thank, for this their commendation of him.  
M. Abbot having acquitted himself so Clarke-like in the precedent part of his answer; That we are not to imitate our forefathers, descendeth to the subsequent, to wit; That his Majesty's progenitors, Kings of England and Scotland, were not of our Roman faith: which he will prove hereafter at more leisure, that is to say never. For he doth not deny but that the religious and holy man Augustine, sent into our country by Gregory the great Bishop of Rome, to convert our Ancestors the Saxons and English to the Christian faith, did then teach the same Roman faith which we now profess: so that above this thousand years by his own confession, his Majesty's progenitors have been of our Catholic Roman faith and religion, and very few Kings now living (I ween) can derive their pedigree much further. Afterward he doth rake out of the channels of Bale, 
Page 198.  jewel, Hollinshead, and such like late partial writers (which any man not past all care of his reputation, would be ashamed to cite for sufficient witnesses in matters of controversy, where in they themselves were parties) that there was great disagreement between Augustine the Italian Monk, (as he speaketh) and the Churches of England and Scotland: whereas venerable Bede a most approved author, and near unto those times, who did as most diligently trace out those matters, so record them most faithfully; he I say (whose authority is sufficient to put down an hundredth late writers interessed in the cause) affirmeth, that there was no variance betwixt them, in any one article of faith, but only in some few points of ceremony, namely in these two: 
Beda. lib. 2. histor. cap. 2.  Upon what day the feast of Easter was to be kept, and about the rites of Baptism. For S. Augustine offered them to bear with all other their different rites, if they would yield unto him in these two points:  Pascha suo tempore celebretis; That ye would keep Easter-day at the due time appointed by the Council of Nice, and minister the Sacrament of Baptism after the manner of the Roman and Apostolic Church. And concerning these two points, who can think, but that the Sacrament of Baptism, was like to be administered in those days, in the most renowned city of Rome, after a more decent and devout manner, 
Euseb. in vita Const. l. 3. 17. Epiphan. l. 3. Haeres. 70.  then among the Britan's, that lived in a corner of the world? now for the other of keeping the feast of Easter, the 14. day of the first Moon with the jews, It was many years before condemned in the first most famous general Council of Nice: and therefore it cannot be denied, but that those Britan's were either very ignorant in the Canons of the Church, if they knew not so solemn a decree; or else too too contentious and wilful in refusing to yield unto it. A third clause was added by S. Augustine, that the Britan's would join with him and his fellows, 
Beda ibidem.  in preaching the word of God unto the English nation; which also argueth yet more strongly, that they agreed together in all articles of faith, or else they would not have required their help, in instructing others in matters of faith. And this is not only registered by S. Bede, that holy Historiographer; but also reported by their own late writers Hollinshead, 
Volum. 1. page 103.  and 
* Page 6.  M. Godwine in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England. S. Bede also witnesseth further in the place abovesaid, that the same Britain Christians, even then confessed, that they did perceive that to be the true way of justice, which Augustine did preach. Furthermore, the principal Preachers and most Godly men, that lived not long before S. Augustine's arrival among the Britan's, as namely S. Dulcitius and S. David, were brought up at Rome, and one of them the Pope's Legate too, 
john Baal in their lives.  as the adversaries themselves confess. Whereupon it followeth clearly, that not only for these later thousand years, but also in the former hundreds, all his Majesty's Ancestors both English and Britan's, embraced and maintained the same Catholic Roman faith, which we now do.  
The same might as easily be proved of the Churches of Scotland, who acknowledge Palladius and Patritius, for two of the chief founders of the Christian faith in that country; who both were brought up at Rome, and sent into Scotland by Celestinus Bishop of Rome, to instruct the Scots in the doctrine of the church of Rome, even as Augustine was from S. Gregory into England, From which the Scots Church never swerved, until of late years, Knox, Buchanan, and such like giddy-headed and fiery spirited fellows, seduced them. And M. Abbot most ignorantly or impudently, affirmeth it to have been 1200 years after the incarnation of Christ, ere the Pope's authority could get any acknowledgement there: for in the very same hundredth year by him named, they were so far off from denying the Pope's authority over them in causes Ecclesiastical, that they did acknowledge him to be also their Protector in temporal affairs. For when King Edward the third, would have given them john Balial for their King, they answered him; 
Walsingham. in vita Edw. Anno 1292.  That they would not accept of him for such, without the Pope's consent who had their country in protection, as they then pleaded. And M. Abbot's argument to the contrary, is most frivolous: Alexander the King bade the Pope's Legate to enter his country at his peril: ergo, he did not acknowledge the Pope's authority. By the like argument one might prove, that King Philippe and Queen Mary did not acknowledge the Pope's authority; for they commanded a Legate of his, to stay at Calis, and to forbear entrance into this Realm at his peril. The Pope's Legates then, when they be sent about affairs that do seem to the Prince and his Council, prejuditious to the temporal state, may be refused, without disparagement to the Pope's supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical. And the King of Scots had reason to refuse that Cardinal Legate, whose special errand was, to collect money to maintain the wars of the holy Land, which was not to be spared in his country. Besides, the very entertainment of such a great State so accompanied, was reputed as needless, so over costly for that poor country. If M. Abbot have no better stuff than this to uphold his bad cause, he that best knew his own meaning and designment, hath to the life painted out himself, where he saith: They care not indeed what they say or write, so that it may carry a magnifical and brave show, to dazzle the eyes of them that are not well acquainted with their lewd and naughty dealing.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
BUT M. Bishop being out of doubt, that he should not prevail in this first part of his suit, therefore addeth the second: Or if you cannot be won so soon to alter that religion, in which it hath been your misfortune to have been bred and brought up, that then in the mean season, you will not so heavily persecute the sincere professors of the other. Where you see the presumption of a base and beggarly vassal, (I forget here that he is a Doctor of divinity, I consider him as a subject) thus to upbraid his Prince with misfortune in his breeding and bringing up: whereas his Majesty's bringing up, by the singular providence of almighty God, hath served to make him high & admirable among other Princes; and he hath learned thereby to be indeed a King, by casting off the yoke of bondage, whereby sundry other Princes are enthralled to a beast. Yea, and by his bringing up; is so well able to defend the religion he professeth, that M. Bishop must stand before him like a dumb Ass, able to say nothing, but only to repeat their old cuckoos song, The Church, the Church, The Fathers, the Fathers; albeit he can make nothing good, neither by Church nor Fathers. But his suit is, that his Majesty will leave off so heavily to persecute them, complaining before he have cause, and entreating his Majesty to leave off before he hath begun. And doth he like a dissembling hypocrite, talk of heavy persecution, only for an easy imprisonment and amersement of goods, when they in most barbarous and cruel sort, by infinite vexations and torments, by racks and strappadoes, by fire and sword, have spilled and destroyed the blood and lives of so many thousands of ours, only for the profession of the Gospel of Christ? but no otherwise do they complain of persecution, than did of old the Donatists, and runagate Circumcellions. And we say of them as S. Augustine did of the others: They suffer persecution, Sed pro fatuitate, pro vanitate, but it is for their foolery, 
Proverb. 22. vers. 25.  it is for vanity. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child (saith Solomon) but the rod of correction shall drive it away from him. Indeed they do for the most part play the children; it is but their will or rather wilfulness, for which they suffer; they can give no reason why they do so, but what ignorance affordeth them. They must follow the Church, they will do as their fathers and forefathers have done: it is fit that a child's stomach be subdued with a rod, and necessary that some course be taken, for the subduing and reforming of their wil   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
M. ABBOT concludeth this his cloudy and windy Section, with a storm of railing; calling me in it dumb Ass, dissembling Hypocrite, base and beggarly Vassal. This last name he giveth me, because I show myself sorry, for that it was his Majesty's misfortune, to be bred and brought up in the Protestants religion: great cause you see was given him, to burst out into so rude and bitter words. But to qualify this clownish trick, he addeth the excuse of a country Coridon, rather indeed accusing then excusing himself: for why did he forget that I was a Doctor in divinity? or how did he forget it, that even then so well remembered it? He would not (forsooth) respect it here, but by a metaphysical abstraction consider me only as a subject: wherein he discovereth a double folly; for first who seethe not, that any man of never so great worship or honour, may in like sort be called a base vassal, if his dignity and degree be excepted? Might not M. Abbot himself (if one should forget his calling and learning) be styled in like manner a base beggarly vassal? wherefore, this figure of his may rather be termed rustical then rhetorical. And had he not also forgotten himself to be a Doctor in divinity, yea a man of ordinary civility, he would not have played the part of a furnish and foul-mouthed butterwench, by falling into such rude terms of scurrility.  
His second oversight is more queasy and dangerous; for if I be a base vassal in that I am a subject, then is my Sovereign's honour called in question: for none be base in that they are subjects, unless their Sovereigns be so mean and obscure, that their royal estate cannot give lustre and dignity to those that serve and obey them; for Sovereign and Subjects be correlatives, and the splendour of the one doth dignify and ennoble the other. And to derogate from the subject, in that he is a subject, is to disparaged and to blemish greatly the Sovereign's Majesty. M. Abbot then showed himself a jolly wiseman, and very acute, when he would remove the cause of baseness, from my degree, and cast it upon the respect of my subjection, which is common to me with all other his Majesty's subjects, even of the highest dignity, and most honourable calling. I do not here forget, that there is incomparable difference between one subject and another, both in degree and quality: yet am I bold to say, that he who debaseth any one subject considered as a subject, (as M. Abbot speaketh) doth jointly offer great wrong and disgrace, not only to all the rest of the subjects, but even to the Sovereign himself.  
Here I hope, the courteous Reader will give me leave, to say something of the birth and degree of some Roman Priests, being by M. Abbot so often upbraided with beggarly baseness: neither will I report aught else, then that which by some honest men of great intelligence, is recorded for very true, to wit, that since these times of persecution, more Gentlemen borne have been made Roman Priests, then are to be found in all the English Ministry, though for every one Priest there be more than an hundredth Ministers. And touching M. Abbot himself, I am credibly informed, that he is by birth but a mean Tanner's Son of Gilford in Surrey, and was at his first coming to Oxford, but a poor Scholar, glad to sweep and dress up chambers, and to play the drudge for a slender pittance. Which I do not write as in contempt of such base beginnings, from which many have proved profound Clerks, and grown to great promotion; but only to admonish M. Abbot, out of the remembrance of his own condition, not to carry himself so contemptuously towards others, who were borne his betters far, and not brought up so beggarly, but that they had as good maintenance in the University, as those whose shoes he was glad to wipe, and to sweep their chambers: other wise that grave sentence of the wise Poet must needs be verified in him. Nil est asperius humili cum surgit in altum.  
None carry themselves more rough currish and haughty,  
Then these base companions once raised to dignity.  
But setting aside both right of birth, and degree of study, the very sacred order of Priesthood, (unto which albeit most unworthy, we are by the mere goodness of God called,) doth by the style of holy Canons, exempt us from the vulgar sort, and by virtue of that sacred calling adorn and dignify us: 
Distinct. 5. Can. den●que  Deniue Sacerdotes, etc. quos dignitas Ecclesiastici gradus exornat. Again, the most ancient and reverend Fathers, have always had the holy vocation of Priesthood in so high and singular estimation, that they have not feared to paraleel and compare it, with the greatest temporal Majesty on earth. The ground of their reason is this: Priests receive power from JESUS Christ, over the souls of men, and that in supernatural courses, tending to the most high end of everlasting bliss and glory; whereas the Princes of this world how puissant soever they be, have dominion only over our goods and bodies in civil causes, to the quiet & peaceable government of the affairs of this life. Priests then honoured with such high gifts, which were never bestowed upon Angels (to use S. Chrysostom's words) that is: that had 
* Lib. 3. de Sacerdot.  f●om Christ authority and power to 
a joh. 20.  forgive sins; to consecrate his blessed 
b Math. 26.  body; that are briefly 
c 1. Cor. 4.  the dispensers of Gods holy word and Sacraments; 
d Hebr. 5. ve●s. 1. &. 2.  taken from among men, and appointed for men in those things that appertain unto God, that they may offer gifts and sacrifices, as for their own, so for the sins of the rest of God's people (to use the Apostles words) if these men's heavenly function be base, beggarly, and contemptible, it is in the conceit only of blinded worldlings: 
e 1. Cor. 2. vers. 14.  That perceive not the things which are of the spirit of God, nor can judge of them, because they be spiritually to be examined. And M. Abbot (the best flower of whose garland is his Ecclesiastical calling) should have left the vilifying of the order of Priesthood, to some other of the laity: And so no doubt he would have done; had he been a true Clergyman in deed, and not so called by mere usurpation; for as you know, it is the part of an unclean bird to defile her own nest. But the wel-nurtured man, would perhaps out of his little good manners, have made exception of this also, as he did of my degree, if he had remembered it.  
Now to that which followeth, to show that he had some cause to burst out into those big words, he says: That I did upbraid my Prince with misfortune in his bringing up, which is false; for I mentioned it with compassion (as King Priamus calamities are by many remembered with sorrow,) yet with great affection to his person. I did not write a syllable that sounded to his Majesty's disgrace, but did rather excuse his failing in religion, laying the fault of it upon them, who in his tender years (when he was not able to judge) misinstructed him; signifying, that if it had been his blessed hap, to have escaped their seducing speeches, till he had come to riper age, he would rather have controlled and corrected them, then have given ear to their errors and follies. I willingly acknowledge a most rare readiness of wit in his Majesty, and firmness of memory both to attain to high literature, and to deliver it most eloquently: so much the more sorry I am, that these goodly and fair gifts of nature, wanted such supernatural aids and ornaments, as education in the Catholic Church, and among the best sort of Catholics, might and would most willingly have afforded him; for than no doubt he would have far outgone himself in all good literature, and proved most singular. Let the considerate reader (to judge the better of our spirits) compare my speeches to my Sovereign, with M. Abbots of the supreme Pastor of the Church as we believe, (whom the Protestants do not deny to be one of the chiefest patriarchs of the Christian world) I mean the Bishop of Rome; whom M. Abbot doth commonly rail upon in most vile and reproachful terms, styling him ordinarily nothing else, but The man of sin and perdition, the whore of Babylon, Antichrist himself, and such like: between whose supereminent dignity, and M. Abbot's mean place, there is no less difference then between a temporal Prince, and his subject of any good sort. If I then be rightly censured a base and beggarly vassal, for showing myself sorrowful for my Prince's misfortune, what style deserves he for such outrageous reproaches, bealched forth against the highest Bishop of Christ's Church? Now whereas M. Abbot boldly averreth, That thereby his Majesty hath learned to cast off the yoke of bondage, by which other Princes are enthralled to a beast, (saving his reverence:) I answer, that other Kings nourished in countries accounted as civil (to say the least) as Scotland, will not change that their bondage, with his Majesty's supposed liberty and freedom; because they hold it far better to enjoy the direction and assistance of the Bishop of Rome, for the uniform and peaceable government of their Clergy, according unto the ancient Canons of the Church; then either to take it into their own hands, or to commit it to the discretion of Consistory Ministers, or to any other sort of late devised Ecclesiastical platforms. Godly, wise, and understanding Kings will no doubt consider, that some who persuade them to cast off such yokes, are very false Parasites, no sound and true hearted subjects; because it is said of Kings out of ill counsel in the second Psalm: Let us break their bands, and let us cast from us their yoke; whereas contrariwise in the same place, the spirit of God speaks thus to Princes: Apprehendite disciplinam, Receive discipline, that is, observe all good orders and take correction, lest that our Lord wax angry with you, and then you perish from the right way. And if they themselves should so much forget their duty to God, and respect to his holy Church, as to seek the utter ruin and subversion of it; yet very reason teacheth them, that it is far more safe, orderly, and expedient, that there should be one only supreme Pastor, (assisted with the grave counsel of some of the wiser sort of every Christian country, as the Pope's holiness is with the counsel of his most grave, wise, and learned Cardinals) to control and correct them; then to be left to the mercy of the Ministers of every country, and to the tumultuous reformation of the rash and giddy multitude, who by the common consent of the best learned Protestants, must take their Prince in hand and belabour him, if he go about to oppress the Gospel, as hath been before proved.  
To proceed, is it not a rare prank of a parasite, to avouch that an ancient student in divinity, must needs stand dumb like an Ass before his Majesty, and not be able to answer him one word in his own profession, but the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers? I wish heartily, that his excellent Majesty would match me with no meaner a man then Doctor Abbot, (he that professeth himself able to stop all men's mouths) to allege not only the Church, and the Fathers, but the Scripture, the Scripture; and by his highness authentic judgement, approve him to have the better cause, that can pertinently cite most plain texts of Scripture for their religion: I make no doubt but the Protestant part (notwithstanding their common craking of the word of God) should go to the ground. Marry, when we avouch holy Scripture for us, in as express terms as can be devised, they will not yield, but devise most extravagant glosses, to fly from the evident testimony of Gods most holy word; whereupon we are compelled, to make recourse unto the definition of the Church of God, 
job. 16. v. 13.  Which is guided by the spirit of God unto all truth, and unto the learned commentaries of the most ancient, holy, and judicious Fathers who were for their times, appointed by the holy Ghost to rule and instruct the same his Church: that seeing how they understood the holy Scriptures, we may by their even and unpartial line and square, direct our judgement in the true sense of holy Scripture; which is the principal cause why we rely so much upon the Church and Fathers, and for which he so scornfully upbraideth us with the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers. And here to return one of M. Abbot's sharp words upon himself; what a dissembling hypocrite was he to say, that when all was done, we could not make any thing good by either Church or Fathers? 
Sect. 9 & 10.  when as he himself doth plainly confess, that S. Augustine, S. Hierome, Epiphanius, and divers other Fathers, be flat for us; and is driven roundly to deny their authority, and to prefer the opinions of condemned Heretics, jovinian, Vigilantius, and Aërius, before these most renowned Doctors and Pastors.  
As gross and palpable an untruth is that which followeth; That the Catholics be not heavily persecuted by the state: whereas all their goods and chattels be wholly confiscate, and two parts of their lands; their bodies at pleasure subject to prison, there to lie without bail or mainprize; their persons daily in danger of death for receiving or any way maintaining their Pastors; to omit all other their oppressions which be almost innumerable: but belike, because all Catholics be not by most cruel death suddenly made away, this Minister of blood, accounteth their persecution light and easy. And whereas he so enlargeth the short and small persecution of their brethren, I do offer to join with him in this issue: that more Catholic Priests, Religious men and others, have been tormented, murdered, and most despitefully slain by men of their religion, within the compass of two Realms, France, and England, during the only time of Queen Elizabeth her reign, than were of Protestants and men of all other Sects, for a thousand years before in those countries, yea & take to them also all Spain and Italy. The Donatists and all other sectaries, do suffer persecution (as S. Augustine truly saith) for their obstinate folly, what of that? ergo, whosoever suffereth persecution for his religion is a fool? what a foolish reason in this? then were the Apostles and all the best Christians fools?  
But M. Abbot saith, We be children and can yield no reason for that we suffer, but what ignorance affordeth us, to wit: we must cleave to the Church, and follow our forefathers: Surely that were a foul fault, that we as children should obey our Mother the holy Church, and follow the faith and religion of our forefathers. But first it is most palpably false, that we can yield no other reason for our religion, as our books evidently do convince. Then, if we had no other reason but that one, it alone were sufficient: for it is an article of our Creed, to believe the Church; and S. Paul assureth us, 
1. Tim. 3. vers. 15.  That the Church is the pillar and ground of truth: whereupon this is received as a principle of faith among the ancient Fathers, allowed even by Protestants themselves; That he that hath not the Church to his Mother, shall never have God to his Father: he therefore that cleaveth fast unto the firm pillar of the Church, and followeth her precepts as of a most faithful Mother, can never go astray. Finally, he doth absurdly apply S. Augustine's words spoken against the Donatists, to us; they will much better fit the Protestants, who imitate their errors in most points, as I have proved already: who also may be more aptly resembled to children, that stand in need of a rod, because their religion is every way childish; as being young and of late borne, fantastical, and without any sound ground of mature judgement, as changeable also as children, according to the divers humour of the state and time.   

SECT. 4. W. BISHOP.  
VERY many urgent and forcible reasons, might be produced in favour and defence of the Catholic Roman religion, whereof divers have been already in most learned Treatises tendered to your Majesty: wherefore I will only touch three, two chosen out of the subject of this book, the third selected from a sentence of your Majesty, recorded in the aforesaid conference. And because that argument is as most sensible, so best assured, which proceedeth from a principle either evident in itself, or else granted and confessed to be true; my first proof shall be grounded upon that your highness resolute and constant opinion, recorded in the said conference, 
Page 75.  to wit: That no Church ought to separate itself further from the Church of Rome, either in doctrine or ceremony, than she hath departed from herself, when she was in her most flourishing and best estate: from whence I deduce this reason. The principal pillars of the Roman Church in her most flourishing estate, taught in all points of religion, the same doctrine that she n●w holdeth and teacheth; and in express terms condemneth for error and heresy, most of the articles, which the Protestants esteem as chief parts of their reformed Gospel: therefore if your Majesty will resolutely embrace, and constantly defend that doctrine, which the Roman Church maintained in her most flourishing estate, you must forsake the Protestant, and take the Catholic into your Princely and Royal protection.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
YOU talk (M. Bishop) of many urgent and forcible reasons, but you talk as your fellows do, like mountebanks and jugglers: You have much prating and many words, but your reasons when they are duly examined, are as light as feathers before the wind; neither would they seem other to your own followers, but that you bewitch them with this principle, that they must read nothing written on our part for answer to them: we see your urgent and forcible reasons in this book, which you tell us is the marrow and pith of many volumes. I doubt not but by that time I have examined the same, your own pupils and scholars (if they read the answer) will account you a mere seducer, a cozener and abuser of them, and will detest you accordingly. But to begin withal, you offer three reasons to his Majesty in this your Epistle, for the justifying of your Romish religion, & for the impeaching of ours: Two chosen out of the subject of this book; the third selected from a sentence of his Majesty. Now if these reasons prove reasonless, than your reason (M. Bishop) should have taught you more manners and duty, than thus to trouble his Majesty with your reasonless reasons. To examine them in order, the first reason is grounded upon a principle, most judiciously & sound affirmed by his Majesty: That no Church ought further to separate itself from the Church of Rome, in doctrine or ceremony; then she hath departed from herself, when she was in her flourishing & best estate, and (which is subtly left out by M. Bishop) from Christ her Lord and head. For seeing it cannot be denied, that the Church of Rome was once sound and upright in faith, the Apostle bearing witness, 
Rom. 1.  That their faith was published throughout the world; it must needs follow, that what she hath not since that time altered, is still upright and sound, and therefore to be embraced. Now, from thence M. Bishop argueth thus: The principal pillars of the Church of Rome in her most flourishing estate, taught in all points the same doctrine, that she now teacheth, and in express terms did condemn of heresy, most of the articles of our religion, ergo, etc. but soft and fair M. Bishop, there is no haste, etc.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
TRUE, there is no haste indeed, for M. Abbot comes fair and soft to the matter. What a number of idle vaunting words and vain repetitions be here? as though any judicious man were to be persuaded by bare words and voluntary supposals, before he see any proof. S it I doubt not, but the indifferent reader will suspend his judgement, and deem near the worse of my writing, for your empty censure, till he see good reason to the contrary. Sure I am, that some Catholics having read your book, do like much the better of mine, and esteem yours a very fond piece of work, full of babble, lies, and foul words, void of found proofs, and far from common civility. Who are more circumspect than you yourselves, to keep your followers from reading our books? who first imprison any that will help to print them, then set fines on all their heads that shall keep them, and make very diligent search after them? so that all these common words, may most truly be returned upon yourself: Mutato nomine, de te narratur fabula. You note that I subtly left out of his Majesty's speech from Christ her Lord and head, but show no cause why; and no marvel, for none indeed can be showed: they are needless words, as being comprehended in the former. For if the Church of Rome departed not from herself, when she was in her most flourishing and best estate, she cannot departed from Christ her Lord and head: wherefore to note this for a subtle trick, giveth the reader cause to note you for a wrangler, and one that is very captious where no cause is offered. M. Abbot comes at length to my first reason, and goeth about to disprove it thus.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
WE hope you will not deny, but the Apostle S. Paul was one principal pillar of the Church of Rome, who there shed his blood. He written an Epistle to that Church, when the faith thereof was most renowned throughout the world. He written at large, comprehending therein (as 
* Theodor. in praefat. epist. Pat. li.  Theodoret saith) doctrine of all sorts, or all kind of doctrine: Et accuratam, copiosamue dogmatum pertractationem; An exact and plentiful handling of all points thereof. Now in all that Epistle, what doth he say either for you, or against us? nay, what doth he not say for us against you? he condemneth the 
Rom. 1. v. 23.  changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man, and worshipping the creature in steed of the creator. It is for us against you: for you by your schoole-trickes, doubt not to teach men, by the Image of a man to worship God; and by religious devotion of prayers and offerings, to worship Saints, and Saints Images in steed of God.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
WHAT a worthy grave Preface he useth, to assure men that we will not deny S. Paul, nor his Epistle to the Romans, which never were called in doubt by any man. But good S it, while you muse and busy your head so much upon babbles, you forget or wilfully mistake the very point of the question. Was the Church of Rome at her most flourishing estate, when S. Paul wrote that Epistle to the Romans? was her faith then most renowned over all the world, as you writ? nothing less: for not the ten thousand part of that most populous City, was then converted to the faith; and they that had received the Christian faith, were very novices in it, and stood in great need of the Apostles divine instructions. Any reasonable man would rather judge, that the Church of Rome then came first to her most flourishing estate, when Idolatry and all kind of superstition was put to silence, and banished out of her; when the Christian religion was publicly preached & countenanced by the emperors authority, which was not before the reign of Constantine the great, our most glorious countryman: wherefore M. Abbots first fault is, that he shooteth far wide from the mark which he should have aimed at principally. The second is more nice, yet in one that would seem so acute, not to be excused: It is, that he taketh an Epistle written to the Romans for their instruction and correction, as if it were a declaration and profession of their faith; when as all men know, such a letter might contain many things which they had not heard off before. Further yet, that you may see how nothing can pass his fingers without some legerdemain, mark how he englisheth Theodoret's words: Dogmatum pertractationem. The handling of opinions, is by him translated, all points of doctrine; whereas it rather signifieth some, than all opinions or lessons. But I will let these oversights pass as flea-bite, and follow him whither he pleaseth to wander, that every man may see, when he is permitted to say what he liketh best, that in truth he can allege out of S. Paul, nothing of moment against the Catholic faith.  
S. Paul (saith he) is wholly against you, and for us. Quickly said, but will not be so soon proved. First he condemneth the worshipping of Saints, and Saints Images, in that he reproveth the Heathens, for changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the Image of a corruptible man. O noble disputer, and well worthy the whip! because we may not make false Gods, or give the glory of God unto Idols, may we not therefore yield unto Saints their due worship? might not S. Paul whiles he lived, as all other most Godly men, be reverenced and worshipped for their most excellent, spiritual, and religions virtues, with a kind of holy and religious respect; even as Knights and Lords and other worldly men, are worshipped and honoured for their temporal callings and endowments with temporal worship, without robbing God of his honour? Is the Lord or Master dishonoured and spoiled of his due reverence and respect, if his servants for his sake be much made off and respected; yet with such due regard only, as is meet for their degree? This is so childish and palpable, that if the Protestants were not resolved to stick obstinately to their errors, how gross soever they be, they would for very shame not once more name it. To the next.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
PAUL saith and we say the same, that 
Ibid. vers. 17.  the righteousness of God is from faith to faith: you say otherwise, that it is from faith to works, that faith is but the entrance to works, and that in works the righteousness of God doth properly consist.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THE sentence of S. Paul is mangled, his words are: for the justice or righteousness of God is revealed therein, (in the Gospel) by faith into faith; which are obscure and subject to divers expositions. The most common is, that Christ (the justice of God) is revealed in the Gospel, by conferring the faith of them that lived before the Gospel, with their faith that lived under it,; the faith of them who live in the Gospel, giving great light for the clearer understanding of such things, as were taught of Christmore darkly in the law and Prophets. This being the literal sense of this place, what is here for man's justification by only faith? where only mention is made of God's justice, and not one word of the imputation of it to man, but of the revelation of it in the Gospel. What a foul mistaking is this? alas, his poverty of spirit, and want of good armour, compelleth him to lay hand on any weapons, how simple and weak soever. In the next verse, it is plainly showed, that God did grievously punish all them who lived wickedly, notwithstanding they held the right faith, for (saith S. Paul) 
Rom. 1. v. 18.  the wrath of God from heaven is revealed upon all impiety and unrighteousness, of those men that retain or hold the truth of God in injustice. Whence it followeth first, that men may have a true faith without good works, for they held the truth of God being themselves wicked. Secondly, that the same faith would not avail them aught, nor save them from the just wrath of God, if it were not quickened by good works.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
THE Apostle in express terms, affirmeth 
Rom. 4. v. 6.  imputation of righteousness without works: We do the same, but you professedly dispute against it.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
WE hold with the Apostle, that works be not the cause of the first justification, whereof he there treateth, nor to deserve it; though inspired with God's grace, they do prepare us and make us fit to receive the gift of justification: neither do the Protestants wholly exclude works from this justification, when they do require true repentance which consisteth of many good works, as necessary thereto. We hold that justice is increased by good works, which we call the second justification; against which the Apostle speaketh not a word, but doth confirm it when he saith in the same Epistle: 
Rom. 2. v. 13.  Not the hearers of the law are just with God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. Mark how by doing of the law (which is by doing good works) men are justified with God, and not only declared just before men, as the Protestants gloze the matter. Now, touching 
See the place. Rom. 4. v. 6.  imputation of righteousness, the Apostle speaketh not like a Protestant, of the outward imputation of Christ's justice to us, but of inherent justice, to wit; of faith which worketh by charity, which are qualities 
Rom. 6.  powered into our hearts by the holy Ghost▪ so that there is only a bare sound of words for the Protestants, the true substance of the Text making wholly for the Catholics.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
PAUL teacheth, that 
Rom. 6. v. 23. Page 98.  eternal life is the gift of God through JESUS Christ our Lord: but you M. Bishop tell us, That all who are of years, must either by their good carriage deserve eternal life; or else for their bad behaviour, be disinherited.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
IN the same place you had a large solution of this objection; but he that hath made a covenant with hell, will not look upon that which might help him to heaven. We teach with the Apostle, and with his faithful interpreter S. Augustine, That eternal life is the gift of God: both originally, because we must receive grace by the free gift of God, before we can do any thing that doth deserve the joys of heaven; and also principally, the whole virtue and value of our merits do proceed of the dignity of God's grace in us, which doth elevate and give such worth to our works, that they thereby deserve life everlasting. Notwithstanding, if we take not hold on God's grace, when it is freely offered us, and do not concur with it to the effecting of good works, we shall never be saved; and this our working with the grace of God deserves heaven: both which are proved by this sentence of the same Apostle. 
Rom. 2. vers. 6.7. & 8.  God will render to every man according to his works, to them truly, that according to patience in good works, seek glory, and honour, and incorruption, life eternal; to them that are of contention, and that obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation: where you may see in express terms, eternal life to be rendered and repaid for good works, to such men as diligently seek to do them; and to others who refuse to obey the truth, and rather choose to believe lies and to live wickedly, eternal death and damnation.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
HE telleth us again and again, that 
Rom. 7. vers. 7. & 8.  concupiscence is sin; to lust is to sin, and that by the law it is known so to be: we say the same, and you go about to make us believe that it is no sin.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THE Apostle telleth us again and again, that our Saviour Christ JESUS, was made 
2. Cor. 5, 21.  sin; and yet no Christian is so simple, as to take him to be properly sin, but the 
Rom. 8. v. 3.  boast or satisfaction for sin: so when the Apostle calleth concupiscence sin, we understand him with S. Augustine, that it is not sin properly; yet so called not unaptly: both because it is the effect and remnant of original sin, and doth also prick us forward to actual sin; but if by help of the grace of God we repress it, we are delivered from the infection and guilt of it. Which S. Paul in the very same chapter declareth; when he demandeth: 
Lib. 1. cont. duas Epistol. Pelag c. 10. & Lib. 1. de Nupt. & Concupis. cap. 23.  
* Ibid. v. 25.  Who shall deliver me from this body of death? he answereth presently, the grace of God by JESUS Christ our Lord. And again, that profound Doctor S. Augustine argueth very sound out of the same sentence, where concupiscence is called sin: (but now not I work it any more, but the sin that is in me;) that the Apostle could not mean sin properly, which cannot (saith he) be committed without the consent of our mind: 
Lib. 6. cont. julian. c. 23.  but that had no consent of the mind to it, because it was not the Apostle that did work it. Now how can that be the evil work of a man, if the man himself do not work it? as the Apostle saith expressly, not I do work it. Lastly, the same Apostle teacheth, that sin hath no dominion over them that are under grace; which were false, if concupiscence were properly sin: for that hath such dominion over every good body, that they cannot avoid the motion and sting of it. No not S. Paul could be 
2. Cor. 12. vers. 8.  clearly delivered from that prick of th● flesh, though he prayed most earnestly for it: wherefore by the testimony of S. Paul himself, concupiscence is not properly sin: no more is it to lust, if lust be taken for the first motions of concupiscence. But 
jacob. 1. vers. 15.  concupiscence when it hath conceived (as S. james speaketh) that is, by our liking beginneth to take hold on us, bringeth forth sin, yet but venial; marry, when it is consummate by our consent or long lingering in it, than it engendereth death, that is, mortal sin.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
S. PAUL saith of the spirit of adoption, the same spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the Sons of God: but you say we have no such witness, whereby we should believe that we are the Sons of God.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
AND that we say upon good consideration: for we must not believe with the Christian faith (which is free from all fear) any thing that is not assured and most certain. Now the spirit of God doth not bear us witness so absolutely and assuredly, that we are the sons of God, but under a condition, which is not certain, to wit, that we be the sons and heirs of God; 
Rom. 8. v. 17.  Si tamen compatimur, yet if we suffer with him, that we also may be glorified with him: but whether we shall suffer with him and constantly to the end bear out all persecutions, we know not so assuredly, because as our Saviour foretelleth; 
Luc. 8. v. 13.  There be some that for a time believe, and in time of temptation do revolt. Was it not then a trick of a false merchant, to strike off the one half of the Apostles sentence, that the other might seem currant for him? now no man doth more plainly or roundly beat down their presumption, who assure themselves of salvation, then S. Paul, as in many other places, so in this very Epistle to the Romans, in these words. 
Cap. 11. v. 20.  Well because of their incredulity they (the jews) were broken off: but thou (Gentil) by faith dost stand, be not to highly wise, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural boughs, lest perhaps be will not spare thee neither; see then the goodness and severity of God: upon them surely that are fallen, the severity; but upon thee the goodness of God, if thou abide in his goodness, otherwise thou shalt also be cut off. etc. Can any thing be more perspicuously declared, then that some such who were in grace once, afterwards fell and were cut off for ever? and that some others stand in grace, who if they look not well to their footing, may also fall and become reprobate? the Apostle directly forewarning those men, who make themselves so sure of their salvation, not to be so highly wise, but to fear their own frailty and weakness, lest otherwise they fall, as many had done before them. If this plain discourse, and those formal speeches, uttered by the holy Ghost, will not serve to shake men out of their security of salvation, I cannot see what may possibly do it.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
PAUL saith: the 
Rom. 8 v. 18.  sufferings of this time, are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed unto us; but you say they are worthy.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
I Say that M. Abbot hath gotten such a custom of abusing God's word, that he scarce allegeth one sentence of it, without one paltry shift or other. The words of S. Paul truly translated, are: Our sufferings are not worthy to the glory (or as our English phrase is) are not to be compared to the glory of, etc. that is, our labours or pains are not either so great and weighty, or of so long endurance, as be the joys of heaven: yet through the dignity which we receive by being made members of Christ, and by the virtue of God's grace, wherewith those works be wrought, and by the promise of God, both we are accounted worthy of heaven, according to S. Paul's own phrase; 
2. Thessal. 1. vers. 5.  Which (persecutions) you sustain, that you may be counted worthy the Kingdom of God: and our sufferings meritorious of life everlasting, which S. Paul doth very precisely teach, where he saith; that 
2. Cor. 4. vers. 17.  our tribulation, which for the present is momentary and light, yet worketh above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us, we not considering the things that are seen, but that are not seen: and else where is bold to say, 
2. Tim. 4. vers. 8.  That God had laid up for him a crown of justice, which our Lord will render to me in that day, a just judge; and not only to me but to them also that love his coming. If God as a just judge, render the joys of heaven as a crown of justice, than were they before justly deserved, and the sufferings of them that deserved them, were in just proportion worthy of them. Thus briefly any indifferent reader may perceive, how far S. Paul being rightly taken, is from affording any relief unto the Protestant cause. They do now, as many unlearned and unstable men did, even in his own time, (witness S. Peter) 
2. Pet. 3. vers. 16.  deprave and misuse certain sentences of his, hard to be understood, to their own perdition, and to the deceiving and undoing of their followers: for in all his Epistles (being understood as he meant them) there is not one word or syllable, that maketh for the Protestants or any other sectaries; and plenty there are of plain texts for the most points of the Catholic faith. A taste whereof I will give you, as soon as I shall have made an end of answering unto this his idle discourse.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
PAUL saith nothing for those points, for the denial whereof M. Bishop condemneth us. Nothing for the justification before God by works, nothing for free-will, nothing for Relics, nothing for the merit of single life, nothing for prayer for the dead, nothing for traditions, nothing for any of the rest. Now in this case M. Bishop, it had been fit, that you should by very good reason have satisfied his Majesty, how it should be probable or possible, that the Apostle writing at large to the church of Rome, should not once mention any of those main points, wherein the religion of the Church of Rome now wholly consisteth; if the Church of Rome were then the same that now it is. That he should say nothing of the prerogative of that Church, nothing of the Pope, of his pardons, of the Mass, of transubstantiation, of Monkish vows, of Images, of pilgrimages, of prayer to Saints, of all the rest of your baggage stuff; in a word, that he should be a Papist, & yet should write nothing, 
Rhem. Test. argum. of the Epist. in general.  but that in show at least serveth the Protestants turn: only we must be persuaded forsooth, that where anything soundeth contrary to the R●mish faith, we fail of the right sense. But undoubtedly M. Bishop, either S. Paul was a Protestant, or else he dealt very negligently in your behalf. S. Peter was another principal pillar of that Church, the founder and head thereof as you persuade us: what would he also forget his triple crown? would he say nothing for all these things? not a word: there is nothing hindereth in either of his Epistles, but that he also must be taken for a Protestant. Me thinks here you should far, 
Erasmus de ratione.  as in another case Robertu● Liciensis did before the Pope, you should spit and cry out, fie upon Peter, fie upon Paul, would they not think these trash and trinkets of ours so much worth, as to speak of them: Ah these Protestants, these Heretics, they say all for them, and nothing at all for us. But alas, Peter and Paul had not heard any of these things, and therefore no marvel that they wrote nothing of them. They read Moses and the Prophets, they preached as Christ did according to the Scriptures; the Catholic religion that had been from the beginning of the world, they continued: betwixt the old and the new Testament we see a wondered agreement, but concerning Popery we see nothing.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
WE have here a dainty dish of M. Abbot's cookery, a large rhetorical conclusion, deducted out of lean, thin, and weak premises. He assayed to make a show out of the Apostle, that there was not a little which would serve the Protestants turn, and cited to that purpose certain sentences out of him: but so properly, that some of them indeed seemed to sound for him, though they had in truth a far different sense; others had neither sense, nor sound, nor syllable for him. Nevertheless as though he had gotten a great conquest, he singeth a triumph, and striketh up a brave victory, that all in Peter and Paul is for the Protestant, nothing for the Papist. Afterward as it were correcting himself, he adds nothing, but in show at least serveth the Protestants turn: which is one of the truest words he there delivereth. The Protestants indeed be jolly nimble witted fellows, that can make any thing serve at least for a show of their cause, and when all other things fail th●m, 
2. Tim. 4. vers. 4.  A● fabulas convertuntur; they turn their ears away from truth (as the Apostle speaketh) and fall to fables; and one Robin goodfellow (I ween) for lack of a better, is brought upon the stage, to spit and cry out: Fie upon Peter, fie upon Paul, that had not remembered to say one word for Popery, but all for the Protestant. Fie (I say) upon such a cause, that must be under-propt with such rotten baggage stuff. What shadow of likelihood is there, that one should tell the Pope such a tale to his face, or that Erasmus (who was in most points a Catholic) should report it? or could there be any poor Robin (excepting M. Abbots himself) so simple and poore-blinde, that in all the writings of those blessed Apostles, he could not find one word, that gave any sound or show for the Catholic cause? you have heard already, that I have to every place picked by M. Abbot out of S. Paul in favour of their religion, opposed another out of the same Epistle, that speaketh more plainly against them for us: I will here out of the abundance of testimonies which the same S. Paul (whom the simple Protestants take to be wholly for them) beareth to our doctrine, set down some store even in defence of those very points, which M. Abbot hath made special choice off to object against us.  
To begin with the first, there is plain testimony, that we are justified before God by works, which I cited before: 
Rom. 2. v 13.  With God the doers of the law shallbe justified. There is much for free-will, witness this: 
Ibid 6. vers. 12. & 13.  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you obey the concupiscence thereof, but neither do you exhibit your members instruments of iniquitty unto sin; but exhibit yourselves to God, of dead men alive, and your members instruments of justice to God: for sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace. See how the Apostle maketh it in the power and will of every man endued with God's grace, either to do well, or to do evil: and that sin hath no such dominion over them, but that they may do well, if they will concur with God's grace. Item, that it is not grace which doth all, but a man must work with grace, and exhibit the powers of his soul as instruments towards the producing of good works; which is flatly our doctrine of free-will.  
And before we depart from this matter of justification, as M. Abbot doth very quickly, you shall hear more of it out of the same Apostle: he teacheth expressly, that a man in the state of grace may fulfil the law, in these words. 
Ibid. cap. 8. vers. 3.  For that which was impossible to the law, in that it was weakened by flesh, God sending his Son, in the similitude of the flesh of sin, even of sin, damned sin in the flesh, that the justfication of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. Which is seconded in the thirteenth chapter, where he concludeth 
Ibid. vers. 9 & 10.  love to be the fullness of the law, having before said, that he who loveth his neighbour fulfilleth the law. And as for that certainty of salvation, which many Protestants brag off, the Apostle doth wholly dispossess them of it: first in the place before cited, where he willeth 
Rom. 11. vers. 20.  them that stand right in the true faith, to beware that they fall not; and assureth them that they shall fall as others had done before them, if they did not diligently look unto it. Else where he adviseth us 
Philip. 2. vers. 12.  with fear and trembling to work our salvation. Mark how two points of the Protestant doctrine be wounded in one sentence, and two of ours confirmed: both that we must work our salvation, (it comes not then by only faith) and that with fear and trembling; we are not then assured of it before hand by the certainty of faith, which excludeth all fear and doubt of it. Now that we ought to have a firm hope of salvation, S. Paul teacheth us: 
Rom. 5. v. 2.  We have access through faith in to this his grace, wherein we stand and glory in the hope of the Sons of God. Also, 
Ibid. 8. v. 24.  For by hope we are saved. Item, we give thanks to God, etc. 
Colloss. 1. v. 5.  for the hope that is laid up for you in heaven. With whom S. Peter consorteth: 
1. Pet. 1. vers. 3.  Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord JESUS Christ, who according to his great mercy hath regenerated you into a lively hope, unto an incorruptible crown, etc. laid up in heaven. Not to prosecute all the particular points of justification, which have every one good ground in the Apostle S. Paul, as in that question may be seen; the very faith, whereby Abraham was and we are justified, is no such kind of faith, as the Protestants claim to be justified by, that is, by an apprehension and drawing of Christ's righteousness to themselves: but that faith whereby we believe all things to be true which God hath revealed, as S. Paul declareth in the fourth to the Romans, where he reporteth; 
Rom. 4. v. 19  Abraham to have been justified, by believing that God according to his promise would give him a Son, and make him the Father of many nations: so that finally there is not a word in S. Paul, which in his own meaning maketh for any one piece of the Protestants justification; but heaps of testimonies for every branch of justification as we believe it.  
Now I come to the other points named by M. Abbot. There is nothing (saith he) in S. Paul for the merit of single life. But he is greatly mistaken; for the Apostle saith: 
1. Cor. 7. vers. 32.33. & 34.  That the care of the single and unmarried is to please God, and their study to think upon those things that appertain unto God, and how they may be holy both in body and in spirit; which must needs be more acceptable in God's sight, then to be carping for this world, and caring how to please their yoke-mate. To this we add Monkish vows (of which if he were worthy to be a good Abbot, he would speak more respectively:) somewhat S. Paul hath of the vow of chastity, which is one of their principal vows, for he avoucheth 
1. Tim. 5. vers. 12.  certain widows worthy of damnation, because they broke the same former vow of chastity. And S. Paul himself 
Act. 18. vers. 18.  shore his head in Cenchris because he had a vow; which was the vow of a Nazarite, not much unlike for the time, though much inferior unto the vow of religious persons: see of that vow the sixth Chapter of the book of Numbers. There is nothing (saith M. Abbot) in S. Paul of prayer for the dead, which is not true: for he teacheth, that some of the faithful, who have 
1. Cor. 3. v. 13  built upon the right foundation, hay, stubble, and such like trash, shall notwithstanding at the day of our Lord be saved; yet so as through fire. Which the ancient 
* SS. Aug. in ps. 37. Hier. l. 2. cont. jovin. 13. Ambros. in hunc locum Gregor. in psal. 3. poenit entialem.  Doctors do take to be the fire of Purgatory. Now if many, while the dross of their works be purged, do lie in fire, it will easily follow thereof, that every good soul who hath any Christian compassion in him, will pray for the release of their Christian brother out of those torments.  
I come now to Images and Relics, of which he affirmeth that S Paul saith nothing: where was the goodman's memory when he wrote this? or remembering the matter well enough, was he so fiercely bend to deceive others, that he cared not what untruth he uttered? The Apostle maketh honourable mention of 
Hebr. 9 vers. 4. & 5.  the Images of the Cherubins, placed gloriously in the uppermost part of the Israelites Tabernacle, which for the holiness thereof was called Sancta sanctorum. Further, that within the Ark of the testament standing in the same place, were reserved precious Relics, as the rod of Aaron that blossomed, a golden pot full of that Angelical food Manna, which God reigned from heaven, and the Tables of the Testament: to which if you join the sentence of the same Apostle, 
1. Cor. 10. vers. 11.  That all happened to them in figure, and were written for our instruction; may not we then gather thereby, that Images are to be placed in Churches, and holy Relics in golden shrines? And the same Apostle in the same Epistle, declaring 
Hebr. 11. vers. 21.  that jacob by faith adored the top of joseph's ●odde, which was a sign of his power, doth he not give all judicious men to understand, that the Images of Saints for their holy representation, aught to be respected and worshipped?  
With as great facility and no less perspicuity, we do collect out of S. Paul, that the Saints in heaven are to be prayed unto: for he doth 
Rom. 15, 30. 2.  heartily crave the Romans to help him in their prayers, and hopeth by the help of 
Cor. 1. vers. 11.  the Corinthians prayers, to be delivered from great dangers. Whence we reason thus: If such a holy man as S. Paul was, stood in need of other men's prayers, much more need have we poor wretches of the prayers of Saints. S. Paul was not ignorant how ready God is to hear us, nor of the only mediation of Christ JESUS; and yet as high as he was in God's favour, and as well informed of the office of Christ's mediation, he held it needful to request other far meaner than himself, to pray for him. All this is good (saith a good Protestant) for to instruct us to request the help of other men's prayers, that are living with us, but not of Saints who are departed this world. Yes say we, because the Saints in heaven are more charitable and desirous of God's honour and of our spiritual good, than any friend we have living, and therefore more forward to assist us with their prayers: They are also more gracious in the sight of God, and thereby better able to obtain our requests. All which may easily be gathered out of S. Paul, who saith; that 
1. Cor. 13.8.  charity never faileth, but is marvelously increased in that heavenly country. Also, that 
Ephes. 2. vers. 19  we are not strangers and foreigners to the Saints, but their fellow citizens, and the household servants of God with them; yea, we are members of the same body: wherefore, they cannot choose but tender most dearly all our suits, that appertain unto the glory of God, & our own salvation. They therefore, have finally no other shift to avoid praying to Saints, but to say, that though all other circumstances do greatly move us thereto, yet considering that they cannot hear us, it is labour lost to pray to them. To which we reply and that out of S. Paul, that the Saints can hear us, and do perfectly know our prayers made unto them; For the Apostle comparing the knowledge of this life, with that of the life to come, saith: 
1. Cor. 13. vers. 9.10. & 12. De Civitat. Dei lib. 22. cap. 29.  In part we know, and in part we prophesy; but when that shall come which is perfect, that shall be made void which is in part. And a little after: We see now by a glass in a dark sort, but then face to face. Whence not I, but that Eagle-eied Doctor S. Augustine doth deduce, that the knowledge of the heavenly citizens, is without comparison far more perfect and clearer, than ever any mortal man's was, of things absent and to come: yea, that the Prophets (who were endued with surpassing and extraordinary light) did not reach any thing near unto the ordinary knowledge of the Saints in heaven, grounding himself upon these express words of the Apostle: We prophesy in part, that is imperfectly in this life, which shall be perfect in heaven. If then (saith he) the Prophets being mortal men, had particular understanding of things far distant from them, and done in other countries, much more do those immortal souls, replenished with the glorious light of heaven, perfectly know that which is done on earth, though never so far from them: thus much of praying to Saints.  
Now to the Mass. The same profound divine S. Augustine, with other holy Fathers (who were not wont so lightly to skim over the Scriptures, as our late new Masters do: but seriously searched them, and most deeply pierced into them) did also find all the parts of the Mass touched by the Apostle S. Paul in these words: 
Aug. epist. 59 ad Paulinun. Ambros. & Chrisost. in hunc locum. 1. Tim. 2. v. 1.  I desire that obsecrations, prayers, postulations, thanks-givings, be made for all men, etc. declaring how by these four words of the Apostles, are expressed the four different sort of prayers, used in the celebration of the holy Mysteries. By obsecrations, those prayers that the Priest saith before consecration: By prayers, such as be said at and after the consecration, unto the end of the Pater noster: By postulations, those that are said at the communion, unto the blessing of the people: Finally, By thanksgiving, such as are said after by both Priest and people, to give God thanks for so great a gift received. He that knows what the Mass is, may by these words of the Apostle, see all the parts of it very lively painted out, in this discourse of S. Augustine; who though he calleth not that celebration of the Sacrament, by the name of Mass, yet doth he give it a name equivalent: 
Epistola. 59  Sacri Altaris oblatio; the oblation or sacrifice of the holy Altar, in the solution of the fift question, at the exposition of these words Orationes. As for the principal part of the Mass, which is the Real presence of Christ's body in the blessed Sacrament, S. Paul delivereth it in as express terms as may be, even as he had received it from our Lord: 
1. Cor. 11. vers. 23.  This is my body which shallbe delivered for you, etc. and addeth, that he that eateth and drinketh it unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord. And in the chapter before makes this demand: The Chalice or cup of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? Moreover, he speaketh of the Church of Rome (being then but in her cradle) most honourably, saying: Your faith is renowned in the whole world, and after, 
Rom. 1. v. 8. Rom. 16. vers. 19  Your obedience is published into every place. But no marvel to the wise, though he did not then make mention of her Supremacy, for that did not belong to the Church or people of Rome, but to S. Peter, who (when S. Paul wrote that Epistle) was scarce well settled there; neither did that appertain to the matter he created of.  
Of pardons, S. Paul teacheth in formal terms, which both the Church of Corinth and he himself gave unto the incestuous Corinthian, that then repent: these be his words. 
2. Cor. 2. vers. 10.  And whom you have pardoned any thing, I also: for myself also, that which I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for you in the person of Christ, that we be not circumvented of Satan. What can be more manifest, then that the Apostle did release some part of the penance of that incestuous Corinthian, at other men's request? which is properly to give pardon and indulgence. And if S. Paul in the person of Christ could so do, no doubt but S. Peter could do as much; and consequently, other principal Pastors of Christ's Church, have the same power and authority.  
The last of M. Abbot's instances is, That S. Paul saith nothing of traditions: wherein he showeth himself not the least impudent; for the Apostle speaketh of them very often. He desireth the Romans to 
Rom. 16. vers. 17.  mark them that make dissensions and scandals, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them: but the doctrine that they had then learned, before S. Paul sent them this Epistle, was by word of mouth and tradition (for little or none of the new Testament was then written:) wherefore the Apostle teacheth all men to be avoided, that dissent from doctrine delivered by tradition. And in the Acts of the Apostles it is of record, how S. Paul walking through Syria, and Silicia, confirming the Churches: 
Act. 15. v. 41  Commanded them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and of the Ancients. Item, when they passed through the cities, they 
Act. 16. v. 4.  delivered unto them to keep the decrees that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients, which were at Jerusalem: and the Churches were confirmed in faith, etc. Where it also appeareth, that those decrees were made matter of faith, and necessary to be believed to salvation, before they were written. He doth also charge his best beloved disciple Timothy, 
1. Tim. 6. vers. 20.  To keep the depositum (that is the whole Christian doctrine, delivered unto him by word of mouth, as the best Authors take it) avoiding the profane novelty of voices, and oppositions of falsely called knowledge. Again, he commandeth 
2. Tim. 2. vers. 2.  him to commend to faithful men, the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses. Was not this to preach such doctrine as he had received by Apostolic tradition without writing? And further (which suppresseth all the vain cavils of the sectaries) he saith: 
2. Thessal. 2. vers. 15.  Therefore brethren stand and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether it be by word or by our Epistle: where you see that some traditions went by word of mouth from hand to hand, aswell as some others were written, and were as well to be holden, and stood too, as the written, proceeding from the same fountain of truth God's spirit. Thus much in answer unto the instances proposed by M. Abbot, which he very ignorantly and insolently avoucheth, to have no proof or sound of proof out of S. Paul.  
I could (were it not to avoid tediousness) add the like confirmation of most controversies, out of the same blessed Apostle; as that 
1. Tim. 3. vers. 15.  the Church is the pillar and ground of truth: wherefore any man may most assuredly repose his faith upon her declaration. That Christ gave 
Ephes. 4. v. 11. & 13.  Pastors and Doctors to the edifying of that his mystical body, until we meet all in the unity of faith, etc. Therefore the Church shall not fail in faith until the day of judgement, nor be invisible, that hath visible Pastors and teachers. Also 
Hebr. 5. vers. 1.  that Priests are chosen from among men, and appointed for men, in those things that appertain to God, that they may offer gifts and sacrifices for sin. That Preachers and 
1. Cor. 3. v. 9  Priests are Gods coadjutors and helpers, and not only idle instruments. That S. Paul and Timothy 
1. Cor. 9 vers. 23. 1.  did save other men, and therefore no blasphemy to pray to Saints, to help and save us. That S. Paul did 
Tim. 4. vers. 16.  accomplish those things that want to the passions of Christ in his flesh, for Christ's body which is the Church, therefore Christ's passion doth not take away our own satisfaction. That he 
a Colloss. 1. vers. 24. 1. Cor. 9 vers. 16.  gloried in preaching the Gospel of free cost, which was a work of supererogation. That 
b Ephes. 5. vers. 32.  Marriage is a great Sacrament. That 
c 1. Tim. 4. vers. 23.  grace was given to Timothy, by the imposition of the hands of Priesthood: whence it followeth, that Matrimony and holy Orders be true and perfect Sacraments. But what do I? I should be too long if I would prosecute all that which the Apostle hath left in writing in favour & defence of the Roman faith. This (I doubt not) will suffice to confront his shameless impudence, that blushed not to affirm, there was not a word in S. Paul that sounded for the Catholic, but all (in show at least) for the Protestant. As for S. Peter I will wholly omit him, because the Protestants have small confidence in him.  
Here I may be bold I hope, to turn upon M. Abbot this dilemma and forked argument, which S. Augustine framed against the Manichean Adimantus: 
Lib. 1. cont. Adimant.  Hoc si imprudens fecit, nihil caecius; si autem sciens, nihil sceleratius: If M. Abbot did ignorantly affirm S. Paul to have said nothing for the Roman Catholics, what could be more blind, than not to be able to discern any thing in such clear light? if he said it wittingly knowing the contrary, then did he it most wickedly, so to lie against his own conscience, to draw after himself, other men into error and perdition.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
WELL M. Bishop, let us leave Peter and Paul for heretics: let us see whether those that succeeded, did all teach the same doctrine, that the Church of Rome now teacheth. 
Hollinshead descript. of Britan. ca 7.  Eleutherius the bishop of Rome, being sent unto by Lucius king of this realm, for a copy of the Roman constitutions, for the government of this new converted Church, and of the imperial laws, for the better ordering of his common wealth, about 150. years after the death of Christ, for answer writeth unto him: 
Annals of England by john Stow.  That having received in his Kingdom the law and faith of Christ, and having now the old and new Testament, he should by a Council of his realm, take laws from thence to govern them by: that he was the Vicar of God in his Kingdom: that the people and nations of the Kingdom of Britain were his, even his children: that such as were divided, he should gather them together unto the law of Christ his holy Church, to peace and concord, and should cherish and maintain, protect, govern and defend them, etc. But now the religion of Rome hath altered that style, and telleth us: 
Sext. proem. in glossa.  That not the King, but the Pope is God's Vicar upon earth; his Vicar general for all Kingdoms. And as for the Church, the matters and government thereof belong not to the King, who if he make any laws concerning religion, He challengeth to himself another's right, that is, 
Distinct. 96. Si Imperator.  the Popes; because God would not have the work of Christian religion to be ordered by public laws, or by the secular power, but by Popes and Bishops.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
TRUE M. Abbot, you had need to leave Peter and Paul for heretics, who so plainly & plentifully confute your doctrine and establish ours; or else you and your fellows must needs be taken for heretics. And if you hope to find any of their Successors more friendly unto you, you will prove in the end as foully (if not more grossly) deceived then you were before. But how chanceth it, that you leapt from Peter & Paul unto one that was the thirteenth Pope after S. Peter? why did you over-skip all the rest? Was there not one of the other twelve, that would afford you some piece of a dark broken sentence, out of which you might pick some colour of cavil against us? If they would have yielded him any comfort, they should not have been forgotten, as we may see by Anacletus, who is afterwards haled in by the way, and yoked with another for want of some clear sentence of his own.  
Well let us come to Eleutherius, the man of whom you have made choice. First, you relate such a wise tale of so worthy a Bishop, so impertinent & ill hanging together, and so weakly verified, that no considerate person standing upright, can give you any credit therein. To begin with the Authors that report it, they be both professed Protestants, and come more than a thousand years to late for the relation of so ancient a matter, unless they had alleged other authentic Authors in confirmation of it. But Hollinhead reports himself to M. Fox, a crafty deceitful lying Minister of his own time: Stow to some motheaten monument lying in the Guild hall. Now, what credit is to be given to things so sillily confirmed, specially where there is far greater probability against it? for Eleutherius was Bishop of Rome, whose epistles and letters were registered there, and most diligently preserved in their treasury, among other monuments of antiquity: where one only epistle of his to the province of France is to be found. And if he had written another to a King of great Britain, no question but it would have been as carefully preserved there, as the other. Again, what likelihood is there, that any old writing of or to Lucius King of great Britain, should be preserved in the city of London, when all the Britons were driven thence by their enemies the Saxons, who were most like to make small store of such letters, specially which concerned the Christian religion, to which they were then enemies? And if they had reserved any such, should not venerable Bede (our most learned and industrious countryman, who made most diligent inquiry after all such, when our Ancestors were converted to the faith) have heard some news of this famous letter, who heard and writ as much of Pope Eleutherius, King Lucius, and the realms conversion, as he could discover, and find any ground for, out of any part of antiquity? the like may be said of all the rest of our ancient Historiographers, whether English or Britons; among whom there is not one to be found, that made any mention of this worthy letter: how then is it possible that there should be any such? beside, if you mark but the King's demand and the Bishop's answer, both being persons of great wisdom and gravity, such simplicity and incongruity appears, that any man of understanding will take it to be ridiculous and counterfeit. The King (forsooth) writeth to the Pope, for a copy of the Roman constitutions, and Imperial laws, for the government of his realm: the Pope writeth back ad correctionem Regis, to the correction and amendment of the King; which is an answer as just as Germans lips: goodly stuff surely, and fit to lie hid in dusty corners. Those words (for the Roman constitutions to govern the Church) are deceitfully shuffled in, besides the purpose; as may appear by the answer. And the King sent before, and received by the Pope's messengers, full instruction of all points concerning the Christian religion: wherefore he then wrote only for the Imperial laws, to direct him how to govern his temporal estate. To which the letter maketh the Bishop to answer very childishly, that he had the old and new Testament, and willeth him to fish out thence the civil government of his realm, which never any Christian King, either before or sithence ever did. Add finally, that the letter beareth date in those authors cited by M. Abbot, 169. years after the passion of Christ, which is at least twice seven years after the death of Pope Eleutherius. But all these impertinences and improbabilities being set aside for the while, let it be granted that the letter were true, and not feigned, what hold can the Protestants take on it to serve their purpose? surely very weak, and such as may be most easily shaken out off their hands. The letter hath, That the nations and people of his Kingdom, were even his children. Be it so, a good King is Parens Patriae, & Pastor populi; The Parent of his country and foster-father of his people: followeth it of this, that he is their chief head in spiritual causes? then were the Heathen Roman Emperors supreme head of the Church; for they were parents of their country, that is nourishers, defenders, and rulers of the common weal: this than will help the Protestants nothing. Neither will that which followeth in the letter, that they are Gods Vicars in his Kingdom, and should gather his people unto the law of Christ; for the Roman Catholics do allow Kings to be God's Vicars, not only in all the temporal affairs of their realms, but also that they should by counsel, countenance, example and authority, draw all their subjects to the true faith of Christ, and seek to call home, all them that are gone astray, and divided from the Catholic Church, and to establish peace and concord among them: and finally to govern them so happily united, in all such things as appertain unto their Kingly vocation, and to the public tranquillity of the common weal. Now let the indifferent reader consider, whether there be any one word in this supposed letter, that carrieth meat in mouth (as they say) to feed the Protestants faith: so that here is an ancient and reverend Father's letter cited to no purpose.  
But M. Abbot saith, that nowadays not the King, but the Pope is God's Vicar, and his Vicar general for all Kingdoms. True it is, the Pope is God's Vicar in all Christian Kingdoms, 
Sext. proem. in glossa.  (though there be not one word of any such matter in the gloss cited by him) but that is in Ecclesiastical matters; which nothing hindereth, but that the King is also God's Vicar in temporal affairs: for he may be called a Vicar, that doth Vicem gerere alterius, that is another man's Deputy, Lieutenant, or Substitute. One King may have many Vicars, that is substitutes or deputies, to whom he committeth some principal charge. King Henry the eight for example, having given him by the Parliament, supreme power in both Ecclesiastical and Temporal causes, had one Vicar for spiritual causes, and many other for the temporal: so God hath the Bishop of Rome for Christ's Vicar general in causes of the Church, and Kings in the administration of the common weal. And the very Canon cited by M. Abbot, would have taught him so much, if he had read it with a mind to learn the truth, rather than to suck out some matter of cavil out of it: 
Distinct. 96. Si Imperator.  for therein be these words; The Emperor hath the privileges of his power, which he obtained of God for the administration of public laws. Mark here the Pope acknowledgeth the Emperor, to be God's Deputy and Vicar in the administration of the common laws; which in the Canon that goeth next before is confirmed: for there Gelasius an ancient Pope speaketh thus to Anastatius the Emperor; 
Ibidem duo sunt.  There be two things (o Sacred Emperor) wherewith this world is principally governed, to wit, the holy authority of Bishops, and the power of Princes. These two then be both God's Substitutes and Vicars; the one for spiritual causes, the other for temporal: wherefore M. Abbot reasoneth very childishly, when he goeth about to prove that we deny the King to be God's Vicar, because we teach the Pope to be God's Vicar; for we hold that they both be Gods Vicars, though in distinct and different matters. Neither lastly can he take any advantage of the word govern, if it be in that letter; for King Lucius demand was, for the Imperial laws to govern the temporal state of his realm: wherefore it is evident that he spoke there of temporal government, and not of spiritual. Now because the main question is, whether Kings have authority over Bishops in Ecclesiastical causes, or Bishops over Kings, let us hear some two or three of S. Peter and S. Paul's Successors, M. Abbots own witnesses, deliver their knowledge thereof. The first shall be the same learned and holy Pope Gelasius last named: he affirmeth in the same Epistle which was written to the Emperor himself, that the authority of Bishops in spiritual causes, doth extend itself over Kings and Emperors, these be his words. 
Distinct. 96. Duo sunt.  Thou knowest (o Emperor) thyself to depend on their judgements, and that they cannot be reduced to thy will and pleasure; therefore many Bishops fortified with these ordinances, and with this authority supported, have excommunicated, some Kings, others Emperors. And if a particular example be demanded of the persons of Princes, blessed Innocentius the Pope did excommunicate the Emperor Archadius, for consenting unto the deposition of S. john chrysostom. And blessed S. Ambrose, though a holy Bishop, yet not Bishop of the universal Church, for a fault that to others did not seem so grievous, excommunicating Theodosius the great, did shut him out of the Church, etc. Is not this plain enough, and directly to the purpose, that Bishops have power over Princes in Ecclesiastical causes? and the authority of Gelasius is of such weight with M. Abbot shortly after, that here he cannot gainsay it with any honesty. I will join to him Anacletus (whom M. Abbot also noteth the next) who succeeded immediately after Clement S. Peter's Scholar: he saith expressly, 
Epistola 1. prope finem.  That the Church of Rome received by our Saviour Christ's order, the primacy and pre-eminence of power over all Churches, and over the whole flock of Christian people: If then M. Abbot will allow, that Kings be any of Christ's people, the Pope hath authority over them. S. Clement himself (one of S. Paul's 
Philip. 4. v. 3.  coadjutors, and whose name is in the book of life) hath left this written among the constitutions of the Apostles: 
Lib. 2. c. 11.  Wherefore (o Bishop) endeavour to excel in sanctity of works, knowing thy place and dignity; thou art God's Lieutenant, and placed over all Lords, Priests, Kings and Princes, Fathers, Sons, Masters, and all Subjects joined together. 
Ibid. cap. 33.  And in the same book, touching by the way the dignity of Bishops, repeateth these memorable words out of holy Scripture, spoken to Moses as a King & Bishop: 
Exod. 7. v. 1.  Ecce constitui to Deum Pharaonis; Behold I have created thee the God of Pharaoh, who was King of the land of Egypt, where both Moses and all the children of Israel then lived: see the dignity of a Bishop above his own King. And the 38. chapter of the same book of Clement is formally entitled, That Priests are more excellent than Kings and Princes. And finally, that the government of the whole Church, was committed to Bishops, that vessel of election S. Paul is a sufficient witness, who saith: 
Act. 20. v. 28.  Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. If then M. Abbot will allow that Kings be any of Christ's flock, and that he purchased them with his blood, they are to be ruled by Bishops, who are placed by the holy Ghost to rule the whol● flock of God's Church. Hitherto comparing the Bishop of Rome with temporal Princes, I have proved the prerogative of Ecclesiastical government, to appertain to the Bishops.  
Now a word or two of the pre-eminence of the Church and See of Rome over all other Churches; which shall be briefly verified, even by the testimony of some of the most ancient, and most holy successors of S. Peter and S. Paul, to whom M. Abbot attributes so much. The afore named Anacletus, who succeeded next after their own Disciple S. Clement, having showed that all Ecclesiastical causes belong to Bishops even as temporal causes do to the temporal Magistrate, 
Epistola 1. ad omnes Ecclesias.  addeth: that if more difficult questions shall arise, as the judgements of Bishops, and greater causes: let them (if any appeal be made) be referred unto the See Apostolic. Because the Apostles, by the commandment of our Saviour, have ordained, that questions of greater difficulty, shall always be referred unto the Apostolic See, upon which Christ built the whole Church, saying unto blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles: thou art Peter, & upon this rock will I build my Church, etc. Anacletus his immediate successor Evaristus Pope & Martyr, writing unto the Bishops of Africa, 
Epistola. 1. ad Eccles. Africanam.  speaketh thus: Truly your charity following the rule of the wise, hath chosen rather to refer unto the See Apostolic, as to the head, what ought to be observed in doubtful matters, then to presume yourselves by usurpation: and writing to the brethren in Egypt, 
Epistola 2.  doth command certain Bishops (whom he resembleth to adulterers, because they had intruded into other Bishop's Cities) to be cast out of those places, and to be made infamous, and deprived of all Ecclesiastical honours; adjoining, That if (after these things so dispatched) they should have further complaint against them, that matter were to be inquired out, and to be determined by the authority of this holy See. Note how these holy Popes, that were so nigh unto the Apostles, taught it to belong unto the See of Rome, to determine of the causes of the Bishops of Africa and Egypt, most remote from them. And because the Apostle S. Paul willeth 
2. Cor. 13. vers. 2.  every word to stand in the mouth of two or three witnesses, I will take for the third, Alexander the first, Pope and Martyr, who succeeded unto Evaristus; he is as plain and formal in this cause as any of the rest: these be his words. 
Epist. 1. omnibus orthodoxis.  It is related unto the primacy of this holy and Apostolic See (unto which the disposition of the highest cases, and the affairs of all Churches, are by our Lord committed as to the head, etc.) and a little after, Our Lord here appointed this holy See the head of the whole Church I omit here the verdict of all others herein, because this very matter must be spoken off hereafter again and again: these three most ancient grave and Godly Martyrs, (all successors of S. Peter and S. Paul, upon whose authority M. Abbot here only insisteth) will suffice to certify the indifferent reader, that even from the Apostles days, the Bishop of Rome hath been taken for supreme judge in all Ecclesiastical causes, aswell in the East as West Church. To finish this passage, thou mayst gentle reader by this little, see what shameless shifts M. Abbot is forced to use, to make any colourable show out of antiquity, for the lay Magistrate's superiority in spiritual causes. He is first driven to cite an unlearned, an unlikely, and an Apocryphal letter of 1400. years old, upon the credit of men of our own age, and those most partial too on his own side, the letter bearing date also, many years after the death of him that is supposed to be the author of it: and when all is done, in the same worshipful letter there is not one pregnant proof for any part of their doctrine; lastly, that his own chosen witnesses, do deliver up most clear evidence against himself: he therefore that will give judgement on his side, must needs show himself exceeding partial.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
ANACLETUS Bishop of Rome, 
Dist. 1. Episcopus & 2. peracta.  and after him Calixtus ordained, that consecration being done, all should communicate or else be excommunicated: For so (say they) the Apostles did set down, and the holy Church of Rome observeth. But the Church of Rome that now is, maketh it lawful for the Priest to receive alone, the people in the mean time standing gazing and looking on, and the fight only must suffice them.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
HERE is nothing in manner worth the answering, only the cozening deceitfulness of the man is to be displayed. First, Anacletus hath only, 
De consecrat. dist. 1. Can. Episcopus.  that Deacons, Subdeacons', and other Ministers, that in solemn feasts attend in holy vestments upon the Bishop whiles he doth sacrifice unto God, should in the same solemn feasts communicate, or else be debarred of their Ecclesiastical places: where is not one word of the lay people's communicating. And therefore that Canon is wholly besides the purpose, saving that it doth teach, that then Bishops used to offer sacrifice unto God, and that the Clerks did in holy vestments serve them at Mass: See the Canon and wonder at the folly of the man. In like manner doth the second Canon of Calixtus speak of Ecclesiastical persons that serve at Mass: for so saith the Collector, 
De consecrat. dist. 2. Can. peracta.  Ecclesiasticis liminibus careat Minister; Let the Minister or he that serveth, want Ecclesiastical place. With which agreeth the gloss upon the same Canon, which also is evident by the very Text: for the punishment set down is, Ecclesiasticis carere liminibus, To be shut out of the Ecclesiastical men's seats and places; which were no punishment to a lay man, that was not before admitted into any such room. And as it may be seen in the said distinction Cap. Etsi non frequentius. 
De consecrat. dist. 1.  and Cap. Secularis. Lay men were commanded about those times, to communicate but thrice in the year, at Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas. Briefly, here is nothing against the modern practice of the Church of Rome; for both they that solemnly serve at Mass on festival days do receive, and no lay man is denied to communicate on any day, either on those feasts or at any time else, when he will prepare himself thereto. But to debar Priests from serving God in that most high degree, (be their devotion and preparation never so good) until they can get some company of the laity to communicate with them, is without just cause to rob God of his sovereign honour, to extinguish the working of his holy spirit in devout souls, and to defraud the whole flock of the benefit of many most holy and effectual prayers, not only of the Priests but also of the people; who do not with us stand gazing on at the time of communion as M. Abbot profanely conceiteth, but humbly kneeling do then pray most devoutly, and do in spirit and desire communicate also. Briefly, there is not one syllable in those Canons sounding to the Protestant sense, that Priests should not communicate, if the Clerk or people join not with them; but only that the indevout and slugglish Clerks should be deprived of their places, if upon high feasts they did neglect to communicate with the Bishop or Pastor.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
JULIUS the Bishop of Rome, disallowed intinctam Eucharistiam, 
De consecrat. 2. cum omne.  the dipping of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Christ's body in the cup, Because no witness thereof was brought out of the Gospel; but there is mentioned the commending of the bread by itself, and the cup by itself: but now by the Canon of the Mass the Priest must dip the third part of the consecrated host into the Sacrament of the blood, and there prayeth that this mixture may be heathful to himself, and all the receivers unto everlasting life.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
I Cannot easily judge, whether this man were more fiercely bend to deceive others, or more foolishly set to shame himself with lying, that durst adventure upon this Canon of the ancient and most learned Pope julius; for besides that it hath nothing for the Protestants purpose, it doth in sundry points notably confirm the Roman doctrine: thus beginneth the Canon. When every crime and sin, is purged and blotted out by sacrifices offered unto God, what shall hereafter be given to God for the purgation of our sins, when error is committed in the oblation of the sacrifice itself? (note how often he repeateth and recommendeth the divine sacrifice of the Mass.) For we have heard of some men possessed with schismatical ambition, who contrary to divine order and the institution of the Apostles, do in the divine sacrifice, offer milk in steed of wine: others also for a complement of communion, do give the dipped Sacrament to the people, etc. Then confuting these opinions he saith: When the Master of truth did commend to his Disciples the true sacrifice of our salvation, he gave to none of them milk, etc. let therefore milk be no more offered when we sacrifice. Then come in the broken words of M. Abbot thus: But for that of the dipped Eucharist, which for a complement of communion they deliver to the people, they have not received any testimony brought out of the Gospel, where our Lord commended to the Apostles his body and blood; for there the bread is mentioned apart, and the commendation of the Chalice apart: where M. Abbot first left out the commending of Christ's body and blood to his Disciples, because those words would have scalded his tongue. Secondly, this Canon hath nothing against that which is now done by the Priest in the Mass: for the Priest doth not dip any part of the Host into the Chalice, to be afterwards taken out and given to the people, which is that which Pope julius doth disprove. Neither do our Priests (to speak properly) dip any part of the Sacrament into the Chalice; for dipping in, importeth as much as the putting in and taking forth again, which we do not: but only for a holy signification we do put into the Chalice, one little par●● of the Host, there to lie and not to be taken out again, but to be received by the Priest together with the blood; and therefore we call it not the dipping in, but the mixture or mingling together of the body and blood of Christ: wherefore M. Abbot erreth in the main point of his reprehension. For Pope julius reproved only the giving of the dipped Host unto the people, which we do not, nor hold it any way necessary; because we teach them, that the holy Host of Christ's body, contains in itself (being a living body) as well Christ's blood as his flesh: now, we do only put a little piece of the sacred Host into the Chalice, there to be received with the precious blood, not of the people, but by the Priest alone. That this is no new devise of the Church of Rome, may be well gathered out of the same distinction, and in the very next leaf to that of Pope julius cited by M. Abbot, in the Canon Triforme, 
De consecrat. distinct. 2.  where Pope Sergius of more than 800. years standing, doth expound this very ceremony, of putting one part of the host into the Chalice. It was then a known used ceremony of the Mass in his days, and no late invention, as M. Abbot dreameth. I may not here forget, that in the very Canon of Pope julius, which M. Abbot allegeth, there is most express and very earnest commandment, of mingling water with the wine that is to be consecrated; Because (saith that blessed Pope) our lords Chalice according unto the precepts of the Canons, must be offered, the wine being first mingled with water. Finally, we have in this Canon (alleged by M. Abbot) a confirmation of a propitiatory sacrifice, of the real presence of Christ's body and blood, (two principal points of our doctrine) and of mingling water with wine in the offertory; and not one direct word for the Protestants. And because this resolution of julius, seemeth to be taken almost word for word, out of Pope Alexander's first letter, who was but the fift Pope from S. Peter; I will acquaint the reader with his words: these they be. 
Alexand. in epist. omnibus orthodoxis. De consecrat. dist. 2. Can. 1.  In the oblations of Sacraments which are offered unto our Lord at the solemn time of Mass, the passion of our Lord is to be blended; that his passion may be celebrated, whose body and blood is made and consecrated: so that superstitious opinions being banished, bread alone and wine mingled with water, be offered in the sacrifice. For as we have received from the Fathers, and very reason doth teach, in the cup of our Lord only water, or only wine ought not to be offered, but both of them mixed together. And a little after: Crimes and sins are blotted out, when these sacrifices are offered; therefore the passion of our Lord, whereby we were redeemed is to be remembered: with such sacrifices our Lord is delighted, and shall be appeased, and will pardon huge offences. For among sacrifices, nothing can be greater than the body and blood of Christ. Neither is there any oblation better than this, but this surpasseth them all, etc. Where you see the present Roman religion delivered in as formal terms as may be. There is also much more to the same purpose; but I am the briefer in these authorities, and do allege them more sparingly, because Protestants (seeing them to be beyond all other exceptions) do flatly deny, almost all the Epistles and Decretals of the most ancient Popes: nevertheless they must needs be effectual, and have good place against M. Abbot, that doth take upon him to establish their doctrine, & put down ours, by the testimony of these, the lawful heirs and successors unto the Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul; alleging many testimonies out of the very same Epistles. Wherefore, seeing he hath appealed to them, he must needs stand to them; for this sentence of the Precedent Festus hath his ground in very reason itself: 
Act. 25. v. 12.  Hast thou appealed to Caesar? to Caesar shalt thou go. M. Abbot judged those Pope's sentences of sound authority for confirmation of their religion, he may not therefore deny them being brought in against him. The same Pope julius, (to omit many other clear testimonies, taken out of his own letters, because the Protestants do cavil at them) doth most evidently confirm, the sovereign power of the See of Rome over all the East Church, even by the witness of most approved authors. For upon the suit of divers Bishops of the East, he did solemnly summon S. Athanasius, that most learned and valiant Patriarch of Alexandria, to appear at Rome before him, there to answer unto such crimes as were indeed most wrongfully objected against him: 
Lib. 4. hist. Tripart. c. 6. Nicephor. lib. 9 cap. 6.  thus saith the holy History. The Pope following the law of the Church, commanded them also to come unto Rome, and according to the rule of the Canons, cited the venerable Athanasius to judgement. Athanasius obediently appeared; but his adversaries knowing that their lies in that place would soon be discovered, durst not appear: whereupon Athanasius was purged of those imputations, 
Ibid. cap. 12.  and restored to his Bishopric. Unto the same julius not long after, Athanasius (being pitifully abused by the Arrians) repaired the second time for aid, where he found divers other Bishops of the East, namely Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus Bishop of Ancony, Asclopas Bishop of Gaya, and Lucianus Bishop of Adrianople, all Eastern Bishops; and yet appealing to julius Pope of Rome, for remedy of the wrongs done them by the Arrian Heretics: which doth most manifestly testify, that in the primitive Church, all other Bishops acknowledged the Bishop of Rome for the supreme Pastor of Christ's Church, which also Zozomenus doth confirm, showing how julius restored them all: Tanquam omnium curam gerens, 
Zozom. l. 3. hist. cap. 8.  propter propriae sedis dignitatem; As one that had care over them all, for the dignity of his own See. And julius his own words recorded by no meaner a man then S. Athanasius, do declare the same: for blaming the Bishops of the East, he saith; 
Athanas. in Apolog. 2.  Why did you not write unto us, especially you of Alexandria? are you ignorant that the custom is, that we should first be written unto, that from hence it might be defined what was right? therefore if you have any quarrel against any Bishop, you ought to have referred it hither to our Church, etc. And shortly after: I signify to you such things as were received from the blessed Apostle S. Peter, etc. where M. Abbot may see, that one of S. Peter's successors, of great worth and authority, doth tell the Bishops of the East Church, that by order set down by S. Peter himself, Bishops causes of all countries, aught to be referred unto the definition of the Bishop of Rome; he therefore is their superior. I add hereunto (because it belongeth both unto Pope julius, and this present purpose, of their supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes) this sentence taken out of the Ecclesiastical history: The Council holden at Antioch was not good, 
Hist. Tripart. lib. 4. cap. 9  for that julius Bishop of Rome was not there present, nor sent any Legate in his place; because the Ecclesiastical Canons do command, that Counsels ought not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
GELASIUS Bishop of Rome saith as we say; 
Gelas. count Eutich. & Nestor.  That in the Sacrament is celebrated the Image or resemblance of the body and blood of Christ, and that there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine: But now the Romish religion maketh them Heretics, that say the Sacrament is the Image or resemblance of the body & blood of Christ, and not the body and blood of Christ itself; or will not believe, that the bread and wine are substantially and really turned into the same body and blood. Albeit they believe with the same Gelasius, that the Sacrament is a divine thing, and that thereby we are made partakers of the divine nature, even of Christ himself really and substantially, but yet spiritually with all his riches becoming ours, and being eaten of us; not by our teeth into our bellies, but by faith into our hearts unto life everlasting.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
FIRST I say, that M. Abbot having his eyesight sore troubled with a gross defluxion of salt rheum, taketh a Rowland for an Oliver, that is one Gelasius an unknown Grecian, for Gelasius an African borne, yet Bishop of Rome. That he was not Gelasius the Bishop of Rome, appeareth plainly out of that very treatise cited by M. Abbot; for that Gelasius professeth to allege the testimony of all the learned Fathers who wrote before him, & yet he maketh no mention of the most renowned authors in the Latin Church, as of S. Hillary, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, and of Pope Leo: all which wrote before Gelasius the Bishop of Rome, and were had in very great estimation by him, as may be seen by his declaration of the Canonical Scriptures, & of the most approved father's works. 
Dist. 15. Sancta Romana Ecclesia. Ibidem.  Again, that Gelasius citeth often, and relieth much upon the authority of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea; whereas Gelasius the Pope, hath noted his works for little better than Apocryphal: so that nothing is more like, then that the good man hath mistaken his mark and is fallen from the successors of S. Peter and S. Paul, upon I cannot tell whom; yet because he is an old writer (though of what credit it be uncertain) I will not refuse him. And to the former part of his sentence (that in the Sacrament there is an Image or resemblance of Christ's body) I answer, that we Catholics do say as much in effect: for every Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible and holy thing; and so Christ's body under the form of bread and wine, is a resemblance of his body parted from his blood on the Cross: and the body of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, as it is in the Sacrament, is a picture also, or resemblance of the union of his mystical body in faith and charity; even as the bread is made of many grains of corn, and the wine pressed out of many clusters of grapes. The later part of his sentence may also have a good meaning, and stand well with our doctrine; for the nature of bread doth not wholly cease to be in the blessed Sacrament, because the form, savour, and taste of bread, (which be natural qualities thereof) do still remain, though the whole inward substance be turned into the body of Christ; which that Gelasius doth in the same place signify, when he there saith: The same bread to be changed into the divine substance, (that is, into the substance of Christ) by the operation of the holy Ghost, whereby the receivers are made partakers of the divine nature. And M. Abbot's gloss upon these later words, is very extravagant: for we cannot in property of speech, be said to be partakers of Christ's nature really, by being made partakers of his riches; for it is one thing to be partaker of a man's nature really, & another far different to be partaker of his goods and benefits. And as for the receiving of Christ spiritually by faith, that may be done without receiving any Sacrament at all; but Gelasius either speaketh of receiving Christ in the Sacrament, or else M. Abbot doth fond allege his words against the real presence: wherefore his later paraphrase is a mere trifle and a vain shift. See more of this man and matter in the question of the real presence. Let us proceed.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  

De consecrat. dist. 2. comperimus.  THE same Gelasius, when he understood that some receiving only the portion of the sacred body of Christ, did forbear the cup of his sacred blood, did forbid that superstition, and willed that either they should receive the Sacrament whole, or be kept from the whole; because the dividing of one and the same mystery, cannot come without great sacrilege. But now the Church of Rome is so far off, from acknowledging the dividing of that mystery to be sacrilege, as that she pretendeth to be moved with just causes & reasons, 
Concil. Trid. Sess. 5. Can. 2.  (such as Christ and his Apostles and the primitive Church, had never the wit to consider off) to administer the Sacrament to the people only in one kind; and pronounceth them accursed that say she erreth in so doing.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
NOW we come to Gelasius the Pope indeed, and by his very phrase related by M. Abbot, you may plainly perceive, that he believed firmly, the sacred body of Christ and his precious blood, to be really present in the blessed Sacrament: for thus he speaketh. We have found, that certain men having received the portion of the sacred body, do abstain from the Chalice of the sacred blood. Neither do his words fit M. Abbot's turn, for the people's receiving under one kind; for he speaketh of Priests that do consecrate both together, who therefore must receive both together that he may be partaker of the sacrifice which he himself hath offered. For as it is said in the Canon next before: 
De consecrat. dist. 2. relatum est.  Quale erit illud sacrificium, cui nec ipse sacrificans particeps esse dignoscitur? what kind of sacrifice is that, whereof he that sacrificeth doth not participate? Wherefore, it is by all means to be observed, that how often the Priest doth sacrifice the body and blood of our Lord JESUS Christ upon the Altar; so often he exhibit himself a partaker of the body & blood of our Lord jesus Christ. These words (taken out of the Council of Toledo) go immediately before those words which M. Abbot citeth, and do evidently show, that they are to be understood of the Priest only that consecrateth the Sacrament; as also the very title would have told M. Abbot, if he had been disposed to take them right: It is, that the Priest ought not to receive the body of Christ without his blood: So that here is not a word against the giving the blessed body of Christ alone to the people. But M. Abbot is forced like an evil Apothecary, to take quid pro quo (as they say) one thing for another, or else he should not be able to furnish his poor erring customers, with any sort of pleasing drugs, to feed their corrupt taste and gross humours.  
He doth by a parenthesis interlace, (That Christ nor his Apostles, nor the primitive Church, had ever the wit to consider any just cause of giving the Sacrament in one kind to the people:) which is spoken too too like a blasphemer, to touch our Saviour Christ jesus with lack of wit, skill, or due consideration, who (as divers ancient Doctors do testify) ministered the blessed Sacrament himself, to two of his Disciples at Emaus, under one only kind of bread. 
Luc. 24. vers. 30.  He took bread, and blessed and broke, and did reach it to them, and their eyes were opened; and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight: where the circumstances, 
August. lib. 3. De consensu evang. c. 25. & Epist. 59 ad Paul. q. 8. Hier. in Epitaph. Paulae.  of blessing, breaking, and giving bread, (as he did at his last supper) and the marvelous operation of it, do very probably prove it to have been the blessed Sacrament; after which given in one kind, JESUS vanished out of their sight. 
* Isichius lib. 2. in cap. 9 Beda in Theophil. in e●m locum Lucae. Opus imperfectum in Mat. homil. 17.  In the Apostles time also very usually the Sacrament was administered in one kind: They were persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and in communication of the breaking of bread and prayers: where breaking of bread, being joined with preaching, and prayer, doth convince it to be spoken of the blessed Sacrament. Again saith S. Luke: In the first of Sabaoth, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul disputed with them etc. This assembly upon a Sunday, furnished with S. Paul's sermon, must needs be to be made for the receiving of the blessed Sacrament, as 
a August. Epist. 86. & Beda in illum locum.  S. Augustine and venerable Bede do testify. In all which places, following the express letter of the Scripture, and the interpretation of many holy Fathers, we have warrant for the administration of the Sacrament to the people under one only kind: they then (I hope) wanted not wit, to know a cause of giving the Sacrament in one kind. Lastly, that in the primitive Church, the Sacrament was received under one kind, is most manifest by the testimony of 
b Tertull. lib. 2. ad Vxor●m. Cyprian. sermone de lapsis Ambros. de obitu Satyri.  Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, and many others: who declare how the Christians in those times of persecution carried to the sick, and reserved in their own houses, the blessed Sacrament, viz. under the form of bread, to receive it when they were in danger of torments or death, for their more comfort and strengthening against those assaults. Thus much by the way, of administering the Sacrament under one kind unto the laity, out of the practice of the primitive Church, the Apostles, and our Saviour himself, in answer unto M. Abbot's parenthesis.  
Now ere I take my leave of this holy and most reverend Pope Gelasius, I will note briefly some branches of the Catholic faith, which he doth formally deliver, to counterpoise those frivolous objections, which M. Abbot haileth in obtorto collo (as the Latin phrase is) by the heels, out of his writings. First, I have declared out of him already, 
Epist. ad Anast. Imperat. In Epist. ad Episcopos Da●daniae.  how that Bishops have power and authority over Kings and Emperors in Ecclesiastical causes, so far forth as to excommunicate them when urgent cause so requireth. He saith further, That the Canons of the Church do ordain, that from any part of the world, appeal may be made to the See of Rome, and that from it no man is suffered to appeal. Again, That every Church in the world doth know, that the See of blessed Peter the Apostle, hath right and power to lose and unbind, that which is bound by the sentences of what Bishop soever, as that See which hath lawful authority to judge of all Churches. Item, 
In decreto de libris sacris & Ecclesiasticis, tom. 2. Concil. Distinct. 15. Sancta Romana, etc.  That the See Apostolic takes great heed, that it be not stained with any touch of perversity, or any kind of contagion. Finally, Gelasius assisted with scutcheon other B shops, doth declare the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and of the Maccabees, to be Canonical Scripture; and the Epistles Decretals of the ancient Bishops of Rome, to be of sacred and sound authority, and to be received with reverence: all which the Protestants deny.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
LEO Bishop of Rome speaking of the Martyrs, saith: 
Epistola 81.  That although the death of many Saints hath been precious in the lords sight, yet the death of no innocent person, hath been the propitiation of the world: that the righteous received crowns but gave none; and that the fortitude of the faithful, have grown examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness: that their deaths as they were several persons, were several to every of themselves, and that none of them by his death, paid the debt of any other man; because it is only our Lord jesus Christ, in whom all were crucified, all dead, all buried, all raised again from the dead. But now the Church of Rome hath changed that language, and telleth us, that there are superabounding passions, and satisfactions of the Saints, 
Bellar. de Indulg. l. 1. c. 2. Rhem. Annot. in col. 1. v. 24  wherein they have suffered more than is due for their own sins, which do serve to supply the necessity and want of others: and that they do thereby pay the debt of other men, that hereof is grown a treasure in the Church of Rome, which is to be dispensed and disposed by the Pope; and that hence his Indulgences and pardons have their ground.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
HERE are many words of a right reverend Father cited to small purpose; for the Church of Rome hath not yet changed one syllable of the same her old language. She doth maintain with S. Leo; That no man (how holy soever he were) hath by his death or otherwise, paid the ransom of any other man's sins, or satisfied God for any one mortal sin, either of his own or of any other man's: but that it is Christ alone, who with the price of his precious blood, hath fully satisfied his Father's justice, for all and every such deadly offence, and for the eternal punishment which was due to the same; and this is all that S. Leo teacheth. Nevertheless, we hold (and that with S. Leo) that after the guilt of such sins is through Christ released us, yet are we on our own parts to endure some temporal punishment for the same offences, by Christ's order and appointment: both to apply unto us the virtue of his own sufferings; as also to make us (that are members of his body) like unto him our head. Whereupon the Apostle saith; 
Rom. 8. v. 17.  That we be the sons of God, and coheirs with Christ: Si tamen compatimur ut conglorificemur; If yet we suffer with him that we may be glorified with him: of this matter see more in the question of satisfaction. This to be our doctrine M. Abbot could not be ignorant, 
Page 118.  because it is word by word delivered, even by M. Perkins himself in that place. Now that S. Leo was well acquainted with such satisfactions, as we on our parts are bound to make, his learned works do yield plentiful testimony. I will cite but a place or two: thus he answereth unto Nicetus, who did write unto him to know how he should deal with some Christians, who being taken prisoners of the Infidels, had there among them polluted themselves with eating of meats offered up to Idols. 
Epist. 77. c. 5.  Let them (saith Leo) be purged with satisfaction of penance, which is not so much to be weighed by length of time, as by compunction of the heart. And again, speaking of certain Priests that were doing of penance, he saith; Wherefore such men as these who have fallen, 
Epist. 99 ad Rusti. cap. 2.  must relieve themselves in private: Ad promerendam misericordiam Dei, To deserve the mercy of God:  illis satisfactio si fuerit digna, sit etiam fructuosa; That the satisfaction may be fruitful to them, if it be worthy, that is, if it be correspondent to their faults, alluding to that of S. john Baptist; 
Math. 3.  Do fruits worthy of penance: so that by the judgement of S Leo, and the ancient practice of his time, men that truly repent them of their sins, whereby the guilt and eternal punishment was abolished, were afterwards put to penance, and to do worthy satisfaction; and that not only to satisfy the congregation or other men, (as the Protestants fable, who have a greater care to please men then God) but to be purged of their fault, and to deserve mercy at God's hand, as S. Leo doth plainly teach.  
Now that this temporal punishment which is due to every Christian, after the eternal is through Christ forgiven him, may be released and pardoned by the governors of the Church, and principally by the Pope as chief Pastor thereof under Christ, and that through the superabundant sufferings of some others, is a matter so well known to Antiquity; that he must needs confess himself a very puny therein, that thinketh it to be a new devise of the late Church of Rome. For that S. Gregory the great, who lived above a thousand years past, 
D. Tho. & alij in 4. sent. dist. 20.  instituted Stations to divers Churches in Rome, and granted great Indulgences and Pardons, unto all that with due preparation visited the same, is so well known, that few learned Protestants do doubt of it, or dare deny it. S. Leo himself who was S. Gregory's Ancestor more than an hundred years, in the said Epistle to Nicetus, doth plainly signify as much: for he leaveth that enjoined penance of the converted party, 
Epistola 77. number. 6.  to the discreet moderation of the Bishop, to be shortened and released as he shall see cause; which is properly a Pardon or Indulgence. Moreover, Pope Silvester who was S. Leo his Predecessor by more than an hundred years, 
Antiodor. l. 4. summae cap. de relapse.  at the request of S. Helen (Constantine the great his mother) consecrated a Chapel in Rome, called Sancta Croce in Jerusalem: the which he did both beautify and enrich with divers Relics of Saints, and granted large Indulgences to all that should with devotion visit the same, as the ancient Records of the same place do testify. And that the Pastors of other Countries, yet more ancient than the former, were very well acquainted with this language of this superabundant passions and satisfactions of some Saints, let that most learned Archbishop of Carthage in Africa, & glorious Martyr S. Cyprian bear witness. He instructing the Christian prisoners and most noble Confessors (for whose triumphant sufferings the use than was, to grant Indulgence and release of penance unto other penitent persons that had fallen) adviseth them to be very circumspect, 
Lib. 3. epist. 15. quaest. 11. apud Pamelium.  before they granted the participation of their passions unto others, and to weigh well the measure of their offences, that sued unto them for such pardon, and to commend unto their Bishop and Clergy such only, and that by their proper names; Quorum poenitentiam satisfactioni proximam conspicitis, Whose penance you see almost ended, and very near to due satisfaction: whence an understanding man, may fully gather our whole doctrine of satisfaction and indulgences. First, that due penance is to be enjoined by the Ghostly father, after humble and hearty sorrow, and acknowledgement of the fault. Secondly, that the same penance may be abridged and released by the Pastors of the Church. Lastly, that such favour, indulgence and release, is made at the contemplation of other men's superabundant passions. And he addeth further in the same book, That without doubt, 
Epistola 18.  those penitents are m●ch helped towards the release of their sins with God, (and not only with the congregation) by that communication of the martyrs sufferings to them. And to mount yet higher, this doctrine of Satisfaction and Indulgence, is confirmed by that glorious Doctor of the Gentiles S. Paul; who first adjudged the incestuous Corinthian to a most grievous penance for his sins, afterward struck off some part thereof by a special pardon, saying: 
2. Cor. 2. vers. 10.  And whom ye have pardoned any thing, I also in the person of Christ. And else where he declareth plainly, that he himself had a part of those superabundant passions, which might be communicated to others, saying: 
2. Tim. 2. vers. 10.  I suffer or sustain all things for the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ JESV, with heavenly glory. And yet more, that 
Colloss. 1. vers. 24.  he did fulfil in his flesh, those things that wanted of the passions of Christ, for his body the Church. Seeing the blessed Apostle S. Paul doth so plainly teach, that his own sufferings were available to other men's salvation, and that he fulfilled in his own flesh, that which was wanting unto other Christians, must he not be a rank Infidel, that will not believe any man's sufferings saving Christ's, to be able to help another, or to supply the want or necessity of others? And if it needed I could yet ascend to the old ancient days of that blessed man job, who had good store of those superabundant passions, as the holy Ghost speaking by his mouth doth testify: for he saith; 
job 6.  Would to God my sins by which I deserved wrath, were weighed, and the calamity which I suffer, in a balance: this calamity of mine would even like the sands of the Sea, appear the heavier and more weighty. Now good reader judge, whether it be such strange news to hear of superabundant passions and satisfactions in the treasury of God's Church: and whether it be unfit or unlikely, that the Bishop of Rome chief governor thereof, should carry a special hand in the disposition of the same. It is not then the Church of Rome that hath changed her ancient language: but I could heartily wish that M. Abbot would learn once to change his usual language, and evil custom of calumniating her, and of misconstruing the holy Father's words, which by the grace of God he may the sooner be persuaded to do, if he will weigh well, that 
Apocal. 12. vers. 9 DIABOLOS calumniator.  the great Dragon and old Serpent cast out of heaven, is called Satan and the Devil, for calumniating and misreporting of others: wherefore if he will not be taken for one of the devils disciples, he must needs give over this shameful practice of falsifying the ancient Doctor's sentences, and of cavilling against that doctrine which they taught, under colour of some of their dark speeches.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
THE same Leo did not take upon him to call general Counsels, but when occasion of the heresy of Eutiches so required, 
Leo Epist. 9.23.24.31.42 47.48.49.  Made request to the Emperor Theodosius, that he would command a Council, and after entreated, that he would appoint the same in some place of Italy; which notwithstanding the Emperor would not, but commanded it to be holden at Ephesus: and Martianus after that at Chalcedon. And that when Leo again would have had it deferred to a better opportunity: As in deed the affairs of the Church, 
Socrat. lib. 5. hist. in proem.  after that the Emperors were Christians seemed to depend upon their will, and at their liking the greatest Counsels were assembled, as Socrates witnesseth; Secundum sanctionem Imperialem, per Imperialem sanctionem, 
Synod. 6. Constant. art. 1. 4. 6.  as the sixth Council in Trullo often repeateth: yea, and so as the Emperor at his pleasure, was Precedent of the Council, as in that sixth Synod was Constantius the fourth. But now the calling, and presidency, and confirmation of Counsels, is defended to belong wholly to the Pope: as for Christian Emperors and Princes, they have nothing to do, but to send when he calleth, and to receive what he confirmeth. The same Leo professed 
a Leo Epist. 16. & 17.  his obedience to the emperors appointment and will, to Theodosius and Martianus. And Agatho the Bishop of Rome, 
b Agath. Epist. ad Const. Syno. 6. ar. 4.  his due obedience to Constantius the fourth: and what your Majesty's clemency hath commanded (saith he) our service hath obediently performed; the Emperor being honoured according to the ancient doctrine of the Church, 
c Tertull. ad scop. & Apolog. cap. 30.  as next to God, and inferior to God only. But since that time, the Romish doctrine is, that 
d Decr. Greg. de maiorit. & obed c. solite.  look how much the Moon is less than the Sun, so much is the Emperor inferior to the Pope: and therefore they have written him 
e Catol. test. ver.  the Pope's man, and made him to hold his stiroppe, and appoint him to hold the basin to him, and to do sundry other offices of service. And to make all sure, the Pope hath made him to swear fidelity and allegiance to him: 
f Clement. de appellat. cap. Pastoralis.  There is no doubt (saith the Pope) but we have superiority over the Empire; who doubteth but that Priests are the Fathers and Masters of Kings and Princes? 
Distinct. 95. quis dubitet. Distinct. 96. Si Imperator.  Is it not miserable madness, for the children to go about to subject their fathers, or scholars their masters? and therefore Christian Emperors must subject their executions to the Ecclesiastical Prelate, and not prefer them.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
LET it first be considered, what blunt and weak tools the poor Protestants are forced to use, for want of better weapons to wound simple souls withal. This (and it please you) is one of their mightiest proofs for the Prince's supremacy: the Emperors some times called general Counsels: ergo, they were supreme governors in causes Ecclesiastical: a doughty argument, as you may perceive by the like. A Lord calleth for his tenants being carpenters to build him a house; ergo, that Lord is the chiefest carpenter in the country. If that Lord be not taken for supreme judge in the carpenters occupation, though he had full power to assemble the carpenters together; why shall the Emperor be esteemed chief governor in Ecclesiastical causes, for that he hath authority to call Ecclesiastical persons together? Again, all men know, that Ecclesiastical persons are in all temporal causes subject unto temporal Princes, who therefore may command them to meet together, to compose contentions risen about spiritual causes, whereby the temporal peace of his country is also much hindered; and this may be well done, without any pretence unto sovereignty over them in spiritual matters: so that if it were granted, that the Emperor had authority to call general Counsels, yet it would not follow thereof, that he were supreme head in Ecclesiastical causes; much less can he be taken for supreme governor, because the Popes gave unto the Emperors, the common and usual words of courtesy, as M. Abbot afterward very childishly reasoneth.  
But let us come to the groundwork of the question: I affirm then, that though Emperor or King, for the temporal command he hath over his spiritual subjects, may call them together when there is just cause; yet the sovereign summoning of all Bishops & Ecclesiastical persons to a general Council, doth not properly or principally belong to the Emperors, but unto the chief Pastor among them: for very reason teacheth every judicious man, & by induction through all societies it is most manifest, that the chiefest member of any corporation or assotiation, hath by instinct of nature, that privilege of calling together the rest of that company and corporation; wherefore the lay Magistrate, that is no proper member of the Ecclesiastical congregation, cannot in natural reason and equity, have that power of assembling the Clergy together. Besides, no Christian Emperor had ever yet so much as temporal dominion over all Christendom: those Christians then that were not his subjects at all, could not be called together by his authority. That their Empire when it was at the largest, was not so large as the bounds and limits of Christian religion, S. Leo himself is witness in these words: 
Sermon. 1. in Nativit. SS. Apost. Petri, & Pauli.  Rome being made head of the world by the Chair of S. Peter, doth rule over more Countries by heavenly religion, then by earthly dominion. Again, since the Emperors became Christian, not one hundred years together scarce, did one Emperor command over all the Empire, but lightly one governed in the East, another over the West: I would then gladly know, to whether of them it belonged to call general Counsels; or whether the Church of God must be destitute of such Counsels, until that matter were agreed upon? Further, the calling of national & provincial Counsels, doth (according unto S. Augustine and Antiquity, 
Aug. Ep. 217. Cal. lib. 4. Instit. c. 7. n. 8.  allowed therein by M. Caluin, and the great hundred of 
* Centur. 4. c. 7. col. 534.  Magdeburge) appertain unto the Primates and Metrapolitans of the same nation and province: therefore by the like proportion, it doth not appertain to the Emperors, but unto the chief Patriarch of the Church, to call a general Council. That S. Leo, (on whose authority M. Abbot here doth stand) took S. Peter first, and after him the Bishops of Rome to be such, I will briefly prove; thus he writeth: Out of the whole world one Peter is chosen, 
Serm. tert. de Assumptione sua.  to have chief charge of the vocation of the Gentiles, and is placed over the other Apostles, and all the Fathers of the Church; so that albeit there be among the people of God, many Priests and many Pastors, yet doth Peter peculiarly govern them over whom Christ doth principally reign: so that all temporal Princes, who will not deny Christ to reign over them, must by S. Leos verdict, acknowledge themselves subject in spiritual cases, to S. Peter and his successors. The same he doth confirm at large, in an Epistle to the Bishops of the province of Vienna, where he concludeth in these words: To which S. Peter, whosoever doth deny the primacy, 
Epistola 87.  he cannot in any sort diminish his dignity, but puffed up with the spirit of pride, he doth drown himself in the gulf of hell. Now lest any man should take exceptions against S. Peter's successors the Bishops of Rome, though he would grant the supremacy unto S. Peter, I add; that S. Leo in that second place, doth rather speak of his own authority under the name of S. Peter, (impugned then by Hilarius Bishop of Vienna) then of S. Peter's own time. Yet for more clear demonstration of it, 
Sermon. 2. de anniversario. Assumptionis suae.  take these his words: The disposition and order of truth doth continue, and blessed Peter persevering in the fortitude of a rock, hath not forsaken the government of the Church, which he undertook; Peter (I say) doth to this day hold on and continue still, and liveth in his successors: which he confirmeth in an hundredth places of his Epistles, by me for brevities sake omitted, contenting myself with that which he writeth in one letter unto Anastasius Bishop of the Thessalonians; to whom you shall see what authority he gives. 
Epist. 82. ad Anastasium.  Like as (saith he) my predecessors have given to your predecessors; even so do I following their example, delegate unto your charity, the room or charge of my government: that you imitating our mildness, may help us in the care which we own unto all Churches, by the institution of God principally; and that you may in a sort represent the presence of our visitation, unto provinces far distant from the Apostolical See (of Rome.) For by reason of your dearness to them, you may more readily see, what matters and in what manner, either you yourself may by your diligence compose, or else reserve unto our judgement: where going on, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers, made by the spirit of God (to use his own words) he gives to that Bishop of Thessalonia, dignity and authority over many metrapolitans of divers provinces, That none be chosen without his privity, but all confirmed by his authority. 
Canon. 6.  Item, That if among the Prelates, there happen to be question of greater affairs (which God forbid) that cannot be ended by the provincial Synod, the Metrapolitan shall then provide, to instruct your brotherhood of the state of the whole business; and if the parties being present, it cannot be appeased by your judgement, let it whatsoever it be, be referred to our knowledge: 
Canon. 7.  where he giveth him Authority to call Bishops before him, and a Council also if any greater cause arise; and divers such other plain and clear marks of superiority, that even M. Abbots bad eyes may easily serve him to discern them. Seeing then S. Leo thought himself and his predecessors, to have full authority (and that by the holy Canons, made by divine inspiration) to delegate over the Churches of the East (where was most doubt of his authority) such power unto others: Can it be doubted, but that he was most certainly persuaded, that the Bishop of Rome hath and always had supreme command, in Ecclesiastical causes all the world over? And that you may see that S. Leo was not only of that opinion, but that the best & most learned of the East Church of that time, were also as fully persuaded of the Church of Rome's authority over all the world, I will adjoin hereunto the sentence of Theodoretus, one of the soundest Catholics, and one of the most learned and famous authors of those days. He being Bishop of Cyrus in Asia, doth write unto Renatus a Priest of Rome, thus: 
Theodoret. Epistola 2.  The Heretics have spoiled me of my Priestly function and seat, they have cast me out of the cities, having no respect unto my grey hairs, nor regard of my time spent in religion: wherefore I pray you, that you will persuade the most holy Archbishop Leo, that he will use his Apostolic authority, and command us to come to your Council; for that holy See, doth hold the stern of government over all the Churches in the world. Another Epistle this holy Father did write unto Leo himself, wherein he saith: I do expect the sentence of your Apostolic See, and do humbly beseech your Holiness, to secure me appealing to your just judgement, etc. And that you may yet further perceive, that S. Leo his sentence was of force to restore him, being a Bishop in Asia, to his former dignity and seat, these few words out of the Council of Chalcedon will sufficiently prove: thus speaketh the Council. 
Actione 1.  Let the most reverend Bishop Theodoret enter in, that he may be partner of the Council, because the most holy Archbishop Leo, hath restored him to his Bishopric.  
Now I come to answer M. Abbot's goodly proofs, and wise glosses to the contrary: S. Leo (saith he) would not take upon him to call general Counsels. That is false, for he did call a general Council in the West, witness these his words unto Tuilius the Bishop of Asturicensis. 
Epistola 91. number. 17.  I have sent letters to our brethren and fellow Bishops of Carthage in Africa, Tarragone, in Spain, Portugal, and France; Eisque concilium Synodi generalis indiximus, And have summoned them to meet at a general Council. And that could not escape S. Leo his knowledge (who was most skilful in all Antiquity) which by tradition descended unto one of his successors Pelagius the second, who was S. Gregory the great his predecessor, to wit: 
Epistola 1 ad Orientales.  that the authority of calling general Counsels, was through the privilege of S. Peter, given unto the See Apostolic. But he made request (saith M. Abbot) unto Theodosius first, and after unto Martianus the Emperors, that they would command a general Council to be holden in Italy, which they would not do, but chose rather another place. Be it so, for sometimes such mighty monarch take more state upon them, than Christian duty doth permit. And as for Theodosius the younger, though he were a good Emperor at the first, yet afterward it is evident that he assisted the Heretic Eutiches & his Patron Dioscorus too far, in that wicked assembly at Ephesus, 
See Actionem primam Concil. Chalced. & Liberatus. cap. 12.  the place by him assigned for that general Council. The reason that moved S. Leo to request those Emperors to call a Council, was not for that he doubted of his own authority therein; but for divers other good respects. First, because (as I before signified) the Bishops to be assembled, were for the most part the emperors subjects in temporal affairs, and therefore were not without his privity, to be called so far from their residences. And for this cause, the Kings of every country being advertised by the Pope's Holiness, of a general Council, do to this day (as it appeared in the last general Council of Trent) summon the Bishops of their Realms to the said general Council, and command them to make choice of some to send thither; which doth nothing derogate to the Pope's general summoning. Besides, the Heretics of those times would not obey the Pope, nor their lawful pastors command, no more than these of our time: wherefore the emperors power which they dreadded, and stood in more awe off, was to be joined with the Pope's authority; wherefore he had good cause to request it.  
Yet that the understanding reader may perceive, how S. Leo even then did foresee, that some inconvenience might hap to follow, of his condescending so far unto the emperors pleasure, about the place and time of that Council; he as it were to prevent it, doth yield his consent in such sort, that no great advantage can be taken of it: 
Epist. 41. ad Martian.  thus he writeth to the Emperor Martian. I required indeed of your most gracious clemency, that the Synod which you thought necessary to be assembled, as we also required, for the restoring of unity in the East Church, might be for a time deferred; that the minds of men being more settled, those Bishops which for fear of enemies are stayed at home, might also meet: but for that you do zealously prefer God's cause before the affairs of men, and are wisely, and Godly persuaded, that it will further the wealth of your Empire, to have the Priests of God in unity, and the Gospel preached without dissension; Ego etiam vestris dispositionibus non renitor, I do not withstand or strive against this your ordinance. Here you may see, that he did not yield upon obedience, unto the emperors order, but moved upon good consideration would not contend against it: his very words yet giving, that he might have withstood him, if he had thought it more expedient for the common good. Again, in his letters to the same Council of Chalcedon he putteth in a caveat, by which they might understand, that this his condescending to the Emperor, should not be taken for a prejudice against the authority of the See of Rome, for calling of Counsels: these be his words. 
Epistola 45. ad Synod. Chalced.  I had wished indeed (most dearly beloved) that all the Priests of God did agree in one profession of the Catholic faith, etc. but because many things are done, of which we often repent, etc. the religious advise of our most gracious Emperor is to be embraced, moving your holy brotherhood to assemble yourselves together, for the overthrowing of Satan's sleights, and for the restoring of unity in the Church: (Beatissimi Apostoli Petri sedis jure atque honore seruato; the right and honour of the See of the most blessed Apostle Peter being preserved) inviting us also by his letters to assist in person at this reverend Council, which neither the necessity of the time, nor any custom could permit; howbeit in our brethren Paschasius and Lucentius Bishops, Bonifacius and Basilius Priests, your brotherhood hath me Precedent in your Synod, etc. these words of S. Leo overthrow at once, all M. Abbot's weak forces for the emperors supremacy. First he declareth, that he liked of the Emperors (not commandment but) counsel and advise, of calling of a Council; marry so to, that it be not taken to derogate aught from the right & honour of the See of Rome, without whose sentence (according to the ancient Canons) no Council could be celebrated: then that the Emperor had no power to command him to come to that Council: and lastly, that he in his Legates (and not the Emperor) was Precedent in that general Council.  
But to stay yet a while in this matter of calling the Council, for further assurance that the Pope's letters and authority, did principally move all Catholic Bishops to meet in general Counsels, take first their own declaration, thereof in formal terms: thus spoke the Fathers assembled in the second general Council, which was the first holden at Constantinople, in their letters to Pope Damasus. 
Theodoret. hist. l. 5. c. 9  By the commandment of letters sent the last year, by your reverence, unto the most royal Emperor Theodosius, we undertook the journey, even to Constantinople. And in the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishops of Maesia writing unto the Emperor Leo, do say; That many holy Bishops met together in the City of Chalcedon, 
Habetur inter Epistolas pertinentes ad Concil. Chal.  Per jussionem Leonis Romani Pontificis, qui verè caput est Episcoporum; By the commandment of Leo Bishop of Rome, who is truly the head of Bishops. join hereto the testification of the Emperor Martianus himself, being one of M. Abbot's own witnesses: thus writeth that Godly Emperor. 
In Epist. eius praefixa Concil. Chalced. ad Leon. Pont.  Being called by the providence of God to the Empire, etc. we for the venerable Catholic religion of the Christian faith, etc. have thought good in the beginning thereof, to speak by our letters to your Holiness (who hold the principality in the Bishoply function of the same Godly faith,) requesting your Holiness, to remember in your prayers the good estate of our Empire: and that also for the extirpation of all wicked error, we may fully purpose to restore unity and concord among all Catholic Bishops, in celebrating of a Council, (Te authore) by your authority, or you being the Author thereof. What can be more manifest, then that this most Godly Emperor did agnize and confess, the principal authority of calling general Counsels, to appertain unto the Bishop of Rome? whom he professed also, to be the supreme Pastor of the universal Church: to whom afterward he sent the same Council when it was ended, to have his confirmation of it, as you shall hear anon. 
Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 13. Zoz●m. l. 3. cap. 9 Tripart. l. 4. cap. 9 Niceph. l. 9 cap. 5.  All which is exceedingly fortified by an ancient Canon of the Church, urged by Pope julius (who lived an hundred years before S. Leo) and is recorded by all the approved Ecclesiastical Historiographers, for a most ancient and inviolable rule in Christian religion, to wit: that no general Council be holden, Praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis; besides or without the consent and sentence of the Bishop of Rome: thus far about the authority of calling general Counsels.  
Now to that which followeth in M. Abbot, Who was Precedent in those general Counsels. M. Abbot affirmeth the Emperor to have the Presidency thereof, and for proof allegeth only the example of Constantius the fourth: Who (saith he) was Precedent of the sixth Synod holden in Trullo. To which I answer, that the penurious man showeth himself very naked and needy of some proofs, that is compelled to overleape five of the first general Counsels, and to fall to the year 675. after Christ, before he can find out one Emperor that did obtain the name of Precedent in a Council. To which also I pick an answer, out of the Epistle of the Chalcedon Council (which was more than two hundred years ancienter than the other) unto Pope Leo: thus it is there. Quibus tu quidem ut caput praeeras, in his qui tuum tenebant ordinem: Imperatores verò decentissimi ad ornandum praesidebant, etc. Over which Bishops there assembled thou (o Leo) wast (by them that held thy rank) Precedent, as the head is to the rest of the members, etc. but the Emperors were Precedents most comely, to adorn that assembly. Where you see two kind of Precedents in the Council: the Pope in his Legates, as the head is over the members; the Emperor to honour and grace the Assembly: And therefore to the Pope's Legates it did appertain principally, to propose, argue, determine, and define the questions there debated & discussed; to which also they did set their hands in the first place; To the Emperor it did belong, to see due order kept in the Council, where were many wily and unruly Heretics, that all things might be examined quietly, and without perturbation or tumult determined: who also in the end subscribed after all the Bishops and their Substitutes, consentiens, consenting, embracing, and approving the same; not determining or defining, as may be seen in the 18. Action of the said sixth general Council, cited by M. Abbot.  
To make this distinction more perspicuous and certain, let us hear some Emperors of those days, declare themselves what they did at those general Counsels. Theodosius the younger, sent (for his Legate) unto the third general council holden at Ephesus, the Earl Candidianus: what? to be Precedent there in his place? nothing less, no not so much as to intermeddle in any Ecclesiastical matters, but only ad Synodi defensionem, to defend the Council. 
Ex eius Epist. ad Synod. Ephes. In oratione sua ad Synodum.  The Emperor Martianus was present in his own person, at the fourth Council kept at Chalcedon, where he showeth what is the proper office of a good Emperor: Our endeavour must be (saith he) to apply the people to the one right Church, being first persuaded the true and holy doctrine; And therefore let your reverences, expound and declare the true and Catholic faith, according to the doctrine of the Fathers, in all unity and concord, etc. Valentinian the elder, being requested to be present at a Council holden between the Catholics and the Arrians. answered: 
Hist. 1. Tripart. lib. 7. cap. 12.  That it was not lawful for him being but a lay person, to examine Ecclesiastical matters; but the Priests to whom they did belong, might meet together among themselves when they pleased, and determine of them. Of Constantine the great I shall speak more at large presently. This therefore may suffice, to satisfy any indifferent reader, how the first Christian Emperors were Precedents at Counsels: that is (as may be gathered out of their own words) first to honour that assembly with their presence; then to see that all things there be peaceably and orderly handled; thirdly, to learn the true Catholic faith, by the definitions of those learned Bishops there assembled; four, to recommend the same to all their faithful subjects; and lastly to defend it against all obstinate Heretics. All which put together, doth not come near any probable proof, that they are supreme governors in Ecclesiastical matters, but rather that they are in them to be governed: For they neither argue, determine, nor define them; but only do receive, approve, and defend them, being before decided and defined by the Fathers assembled in the Council, by the Bishop of Rome. Indeed Constantius an Arrian Emperor, was persuaded by the Arrians, to take upon him the supreme judgement in Ecclesiastical causes; but he was very sharply reprehended therefore, by that most valiant champion of Christ's Church, Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria: If (saith he) the judgement of these matters belong to Bishops, 
In Epist. ad Solitar. vitam agentes.  what hath the Emperor to intermeddle with them? where he relateth what that blessed Father Hosius (who was Pope Siluesters chief Legate in the first Council of Nice) spoke of that usurpation of Constantius: Who (saith he) seeing the Emperor, 
Ibidem prope finem.  in decreeing to make himself Prince of the Bishops, and Precedent over their Ecclesiastical judgements, may not worthily affirm him to be that abomination of desolation, which is foretold of Daniel? In a word then, the Protestants treading in the steps of the condemned Arrians, would have the lay Magistrates such Precedents of Counsels, as have supreme authority over the Bishop's judgements: which we Roman Catholics, with the consent of all ancient and holy, both Bishops and Emperors, do think to be very preposterous, incommodious, and intolerable.  
Now to that trash, which M. Abbot chaps in by the way, by broken and half sentences: the same Leo (saith he) professeth his obedience to the emperors appointment and will, to Theodosius and Martianus; for proof he quoteth Leo: where we may gather, that a false merchants fingers are to be looked unto. For in the first place there is express signification of S. Leo, 
Epist. 16. & 17.  not fulfilling the Emperor Theodosius request, which was to have him present at the second Council of Ephesus; and there was no reason for it: these be his own words. Albeit no reason doth permit me, 
Epistola Leon. 16.  t● meet at the Episcopal Council appointed by your piety, because I have no precedent for it, by the example of any of my predecessors, and the necessity of the time will not suffer me to leave the city, etc. yet so far forth as our Lord will vouchsafe to help, I have applied my endeavour, that the decree of your clemency may in some sort be obeyed, by sending hence some of my brethren, who shall supply my place, etc. Do you see what profession of obedience S. Leo made to the Emperor Theodosius, whom he telleth plainly, that no reason will permit him to obey his appointment and will? Is not this trow you honest dealing? deserves not this man to be well credited, when he citeth the Fathers, when as he blusheth not to allege them, and to quote the place distinctly, which if you will but turn unto, you shall find him to be a man that hath a seared conscience, and cares not what he saith, so he may deceive his simple reader? Now to the second place: there indeed S. Leo hath, that the emperors piety, and most religious will, 
Epistola 57  is to be obeyed by all means; but he doth not make profession of his own obedience to the Emperor, but speaketh indefinitely, obediendum est: and that not to his appointment and will, as M. Abbot fableth; but unto his Godly and most religious will, that is, when he commandeth or desireth any thing according unto the will of God. Now if you will but look into the circumstances of this obedience, you shall yet further discover the deceit of M. Abbot; for the Emperor Martianus did write unto Pope Leo, that he would confirm the Council of Chalcedon with his own sentence, which was before subsigned by his Legates present thereat, and that in the first place: the Emperor being persuaded, (as it is set down in the same Epistle) that the Council should have greater force, to suppress all Heretics, if it might be taught throughout all Churches, that the definition there of did please the See Apostolic. Here you may see, that the Emperor demanded no obedience of S. Leo, but showed himself to have so great opinion of his judgement & authority, that it would greatly countenance, and commend that general Council, which was by all the Bishops, and the Emperor himself before subsigned. A reasonable man can desire no more, to prove S. Leo his supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes, than the testimony of this godly Emperor Martianus. 
Tom. 1. Concil. in Prologue. Concil. Chal. epist. 1. Martian. ad Leo.  For first he acknowledgeth him to hold the principality among all Bishops. Secondly, he acknowledgeth him to be the author of calling general Counsels: these two points have been before rehearsed. Thirdly he promiseth S. Leo, to assemble the Bishops of the East, that they might declare those things that be agreeable unto the Catholic faith, and Christian religion, even as your Holiness hath according unto the Ecclesiastical Canons defined: 
Ibid. epist. 2.  Sicut sanctitas tua secundum Ecclesiastic as regulas definivit. And lastly all things being so defined, he doth send unto S. Leo to confirm the general Council. Doth not this acknowledgement of the Emperor (that the Pope is the author of calling general Counsels, that he is to direct and instruct them assembled, what they are to define, and lastly to confirm and ratify that which is defined) evidently prove, that the supreme managing and authorizing of the highest Ecclesiastical affairs, do belong unto the Bishop of Rome?  
Now to return to M. Abbot; he shows the like words of Pope Agatho his due obedience to Constantius the fourth. I find no such words in that place quoted by him: true it is, that I have not his whole letter, but the abridgement of it as is stands in the Sum of the Counsels; 
Epist Agath. ad Constant. in Synod. 6. art. 4.  where he thus beginneth. That we may briefly intimate to your piety, what the vigour of our Apostolic faith doth contain, which we have received by tradition from the Apostles, Apostolic Bishops, and holy Counsels, by which the foundations of the Catholic Church of Christ, are fastened and fortified, etc. Out of which words we may gather, that Pope Agatho was ready to satisfy the emperors request, in certifying and instructing him, what was the true Apostolic faith, about the questions then handled. But forsooth, because he did (belike) use these courteous words of obedience, M. Abbot that lieth at the catch and wants better stuff, is constrained to lay hold on them: by which manner of arguing he might prove, every Pope to profess due obedience to every private servant of God, because his ordinary style is; servus servorum Dei, The servant of God's servants. Now if one had so little wit, as hence to argue and gather, that the Pope professed obedience, or were inferior to all other servants of God, (for if he be their servant he is bound to obey them:) would not all the world wonder at his folly? And yet this admirable combatant and champion of the host of Ishmael, is feign to fly to the like miserable shifts, and to employ perforce, words that are uttered of custom and courtesy in all Countries, for sound proofs. If all Italians and French men, that will say they are your servants; Seruitore di vostre Signoria: Monsieur je suis vostre treshumble seruiteur; should be taken short at his word, and thereby be pressed to your obedience & service, you might soon become a great Signior over many stately servants, that would do what they list. But that you may see, how M. Abbot can scarcely borrow one weapon out of the true armoury of Antiquiry, which will not serve to wound himself, I will here acquaint you, with some words out of the very same Epistle, of Pope Agatho to the Emperor Constantius the fourth; which do demonstrate the Church of Rome never to fail in matter of faith.  
Did you mark before in those few words, how he esteemed Apostolic tradition, and the definitions of Counsels, and of the See Apostolic, to be the firm foundation of the Church of Christ; which alone is sufficient to batter and beat flat to the earth, that chief fortress of the Protestants, of the all-sufficiency of the written word: then having delivered the true faith of the blessed Trinity, he annexeth these words. This is the Apostolical and evangelical Tradition, which the Apostolic Church of God (the Mother of your most happy Empire) doth hold: this is the pure confession of piety: this is the rule of the true faith, holden aswell in prosperity as in adversity by the Apostolic Church of Christ; which is proved by God's grace never to have strayed from the path of Apostolical Tradition, nor ever was corrupted with Heretical novelties, because it was said to Peter: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren. Here our Lord promised, that the faith of Peter should not fail, and willed him to confirm his brethren: which the Bishops my predecessors, as is well known to all men, have always done confidently; and I though much inferior to them, yet for the person that by God's goodness I sustain, do desire to follow them at the heels: this out of Pope Agatho by the way, in favour of our cause, because M. Abbot would have gladly begged an alms of him, to relieve his miserable want.  
Now that which followeth in him out of Tertullian: That the Emperor is honoured according to the ancient doctrine of the Church, as next unto God, & inferior unto God only. If the good man would have bethought himself a little, what kind of men the Emperors were in Tertullia's time, and before; he would not (I think) for very shame, have once offered to prove those emperors supreme authority in causes Ecclesiastical: for they were all of them Heathen Idolaters, and professed enemies to the Christian religion. If then they were next under God supreme governors of Ecclesiastical causes, it would follow thereof (see the good effect of M. Abbot's argument) that the Christian religion was to be forsaken of all men, and Idolatry to have been embraced: for that was these Emperor's supreme judgement in spiritual matters. What meant M. Abbots (a God's name) to persuade Christians, that Heathen and Idolatrous Emperors (such as those were in Tertullia's time) were to be honoured & followed in matter of religion, before Bishops and Archbishops, and next unto God? If those be Tertullia's words, every man can apply them better than M. Abbot doth, to wit: that Emperors in temporal causes, and in the civil government of the common weal, are under no man, but next unto God; but in Ecclesiastical causes those Emperors had nothing at all to do.  
Now to those words which he proposeth as very odious: That how much the Moon is less than the Sun, so much is the Emperor inferior to the Pope. They be not precisely the words of the Canon, but these: That how much difference there is between the Sun and the Moon, so much is there between Bishops and Kings. The sense he doth not much alter, but only sets it out more disdainfully; we allow of the sense being rightly taken, to wit, that the authority of Bishops, is properly to be compared to the brightness of the Sun, because it is wholly conversant in spiritual causes, which depend upon the brightness and light of faith, and do formally appertain to the heavenly Kingdom of the Sun Christ jesus: Now who sees not, that the emperors power being properly to govern the temporal state, by the light of natural reason (which is very dim and obscure, if it be conferred unto the light of grace) may aptly be resembled to the Moon light; the light of heavenly affairs, as far passing in clearness the light of worldly businesses, as doth the brightness of the Sun at noon days, pass the Moonshine at midnight? Now if we would search higher towards the most pure Antiquity, we shall find far greater comparisons between the spiritual power of Bishops, and the temporal of Emperors: I will for a taste, cite only the sentences of two most authentic Doctors. S. Ambrose an ancient and most grave Father, saith: brethren, the honour and sublimity of a Bishop, 
Ambros. initio sui Pastor. citatur dist. 96. cap. Si duo. Greg. Oratio. ad populum perturb.  cannot be equalled with any comparison. The Majesty of Kings, and Diadems of Princes, if they be compared to it, are far more inferior, then if the metal of lead should be compered with gold. And S. Gregory Nazianzene maketh no less difference between them two, then there is between the soul & the body, the spiritual power of Bishops, as much in his judgement, excelling that of Princes, as the soul in dignity doth surmount the body: so that the Pope's comparison (alleged by M. Abbot) is very temperate, in respect of these of the ancient Fathers, which notwithstanding were made upon great judgement.  
The lies and toys that ensue in M. Abbot's text, are not worth the answering. First, 
Catal. Testium.  he that reports the Emperor to be the Pope's man, is an heretical and lying companion; and therefore no sufficient witness. Secondly, if any Emperor or King, out of his own profound humility, or abundance of zeal towards his spiritual Pastor, would of himself do any such lowly service, as to hold the basin, etc. that is not to be imputed to him that suffereth it against his will, as a mark of pride. To say that any Emperor or King, contrary to his will was enforced to do it, is a very fitten, as every child may perceive: for who either would or could force so mighty a Monarch, to so base a service, unless he himself desired it? As for that oath of fidelity, which the Emperor maketh to the Pope's Holiness, I find it not either in the 69. or 96. Distinction, but in the 63 and it is only: that the Emperor shall not do any harm, unto the Pope's temporal state in Italy; and if he chance to come to Rome, that be then shall carry to him and the Church of Rome, such respect as is meet. I would gladly be informed what allegiance may be picked out of this, and whether it be not expedient, (the Emperor being to be confirmed by the Pope) that he should take such an oath of him for his own safety. The next text cited out of the Clementine, De appellatione, is a mere fiction: 
Can. Pastor.  for there is no such chapter nor matter. That Priests be spiritual Fathers and Masters, in matters of religion, to Kings and Princes, who can doubt, unless they would have Kings, neither baptised nor instructed in Christian religion by Priests? And let the Protestants paint it out all they can, a monstrous thing it must needs appear unto all men of upright judgement, and the Christian world to be there turned topsy and turvy, where children shall take upon them to rule their fathers, and scholars to teach their masters. Thus much in answer unto all that is objected out of S. Leo: to which I will join that, which M. Abbot in another place pleadeth for the same matter, out of the example of Constantine the great; because it doth principally appertain thereunto.  
I having in my Epistle to his Majesty said, that he being at the Council of Nice, would not sit down before the Bishops beckoned to him so to do; and that he there did profess, that it did not belong to him to judge of Bishops, but was rather to be judged of them: M. Abbot answereth (clean contrary to the emperors open confession) that he was judge over the same Bishops. 
Page 191.  Whether will you believe sooner, either the Emperor speaking for himself, or M. Abbot speaking he knows not what of his secret thoughts and intentions? specially when that which I affirmed of the Emperor hath plain testimony out of the best approved Authors, nearest to that time; and M. Abbot's proofs to the contrary do consist merely upon his own surmises and collections. 
Ruffi. lib. 1. hist. cap. 2. Socrat. lib. 1. hist. cap. 5.  Ruffinus and Socrates I then cited, who in express terms delivered so much as I said: to whom I add for further confirmation, first the irrefragable record of the most famous Doctors, that were present at the same Council. Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain, the Pope's principal Legate in that Council of Nice, affirmeth as is afore rehearsed; that one may worthily call that Emperor the abomination of desolation, foretold by Daniël, who presumeth to make himself Prince of Bishops, and Precedent over Ecclesiastical causes: which he would not have done, if he had been persuaded, that the Emperor Constantine (whom he took to be a most virtuous Prince) had been judge over Bishops, & their spiritual causes in that very Council, where he was there also present. Secondly, Athanasius who was a principal agent in the same Council, avoucheth: that it cannot be called a Synod and Council, 
Apolog. 2.  Where not a Bishop, but some temporal Magistrate is Precedent. He then took not Constantine for Precedent of the Nicene Council, which he esteemed so highly off, and was indeed the pattern of all other Counsels. Thirdly, S. Ambrose who lived shortly after, in formal terms doth say: that Constantine the great, was not judge in the Council of Nice, but left the judgement free to Bishops. And writing unto the Emperor Valentinian, addeth: When have you heard most gracious Emperor, 
Ambros. l. 5. Epist. 32.  that lay men did judge over Bishops in cases of faith? surely if your Majesty please to peruse the course of holy Scriptures, or of former times, you shall find none that deny but in matters of faith, in matters I say of faith, Bishops were wont to judge over Emperors, not Emperors over Bishops. S. Gregory the great in express words witnesseth, 
L. 4. epist. 31.  That the Emperor Constantine durst not judge Bishops though they themselves wished and desired it. By the record therefore, of these most ancient, holy, and learned Prelates, neither Constantine the great, nor any other Catholic Emperor, was or could be judge in Ecclesiastical affairs over Bishops: whence it followeth most perspicuously, that Constantine's own words (confessing that it did not belong to him to judge Bishops and their causes) are to be taken plainly as they signify, and were not spoken by him (as M. Abbot speaking by guess affirmeth) of modesty only, as though he meant himself to be their judge, in all causes aswell Ecclesiastical as Temporal. But let us hear what moved M. Abbot to hold that strange opinion, so contrary to the Emperors own confession, and the declaration of the worthiest men of that age. His first conjecture is, that though Constantine sat not down until the Bishops beckoned on him; yet he sat in the highest place, on a seat of gold: which if it were true, 
Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 3. cap. 10.  as it is false, yet would it not prove Constantine to be the Precedent or judge of that assembly. For as Theodoret doth expressly note, the place that he there had, was by permission of the Bishops at his suit, and not properly belonging to him; these be his words. Then the Emperor sat down, 
Theodor. l. 1. histor. cap. 7.  in a little chair set in the midst (istud enim sibi permitti ab Episcopis postulaverat) for he had requested the Bishops to permit him so to do. It being then a place by permission of the Bishops, it rather argueth that he acknowledged the Bishops of whom he requested that place, to have been the Precedents and commanders there. Secondly, the Tripartite History doth manifestly declare, that Constantine sat below the Bishops: 
Lib. 2. Hyst. Tripar. ca 5.  these be the words taken out of Zozomenus. The Emperor Constantine entered into the Council house after all the Bishops, and had his seat beneath them all, neither would he sit down before the Bishops commanded him. 
Theodor. l. 1. Histor. cap. 7.  And the words of Theodoret may also import as much: He sat in a little seat, placed in the midst amongst them. And falsely or craftily, doth M. Abbot report out of Eusebius; That he sat in the highest place: for Eusebius saith not so; but that passing through the midst of the assembly, he came to the uppermost place of it, where he stood on his feet; and when a little seat of gold was set for him, he would not sit down, before the Bishops beckoned to him so to do. Where Eusebius saith indeed, that he passed unto the uppermost end of the Hall; but doth not say, that when he came thither he was placed in the highest seat: and one may well sit in the highest end of a large Hal, and not in the highest place thereof. But in the uppermost part of the Hall, a little chair was placed for him, beneath the benches whereon the Precedents of the Council, and chiefest patriarchs did sit: for so the other Ecclesiastical historiographers do intimate. Further, having after one of the Bishops, made an Oration to the Council, 
Ibidem.  As a most loving Son unto the Bishops and Priests his Fathers, as Theodoret writeth: not as a Precedent of a Council to his inferiors. 
Euseb. de vita Constant. lib. 3. cap. 13.  Moreover, having finished his said speech, Sermonem omnem Concilij Praesidijs reliquit (as testifieth Eusebius) he left all the communication and discussings of matters, unto the Precedents of the Council. Out of which words we gather evidently, that the Emperor was not the Precedent of the Council, but there were other Precedents thereof, unto whom the Emperor referred the decision of the questions then in controversy. Finally, the Emperor Bazilius delivereth in the end of the eight general Council, That Constantine subscribed the Council, after all the Bishops there assembled; whereas the Precedent and chief judge of the Council, subscribeth in the first place. Seeing then that Constantine the great confessed, that it appertained not to him to judge Bishops, but to be judged of them; and that therein he is seconded by Hosius, Athanasius, S. Ambrose, and others, all most ancient and renowned Prelates of Christ's Church; And being most probable, that he had no place in that Council, but by permission of the Bishops, at whose beck he sat down, in a little seat a part, and did not speak to them, in other manner then a child doth to his Father, leaving unto the Precedents of the Council, the discussion of the matters there proposed: what upright weigher of such serious affairs can doubt, but that he was nothing less than the chief Precedent and moderator there? True it is, that he out of his own zeal & grave wisdom, did first attentively hear them, than sometimes spoke himself specially to appease the contentious wranglings of the Arrian Heretics, and their favourites of whom many were there present, and the over forward and fervent zeal of some Catholics: but this argueth no superintendency or presidency, but only Christian discretion and charity, to help forward an orderly examination, and peaceable determination of those controversies. But (saith M. Abbot) the Bishops acknowledged him to be their supreme judge, in that they referred their controversies and quarrels to be ended by him. Nothing less; for we refer many babbling matters, to be ended unto our honest neighbours: And as M. Abbot himself rehearseth out of Eusebius, about the Bishops of Egypt, That Constantine interposed himself as an arbitrator of their controversies, not as judge; even so did some of the Council refer their quarrels to him as an arbitrator. And most like that they who so did, were unruly Arrians or very undiscreet Catholics: whereof who but an indiscreet person or wrangling Heretic can take hold? Again, where Eusebius reporteth, that Constantine did as an arbitrator, seek to make atonement between the Egyptian Prelates, he addeth: that he did it with very great respect: Eos ut Patres, imò ut Dei Prophetas omnino honorifice reverens; Reverencing them very honourably as his Fathers, yea more, as the Prophets of God; not domineering over them as his inferiors: and prescribed to them some such thing, as did belong to the good of God's Church, to wit, that they would leave off their dissension, and quietly obey unto the decrees of the Nicene Council.  
Lastly, M. Abbot perceiving very well that he had hitherto but trifled, and spoken little to the purpose, he addeth: And that M. Bishop may know, that Constantine held himself the supreme judge over Bishops, let him hear Constantine himself concerning them. 
Theodor. lib. 10. cap. 19  If we have holy Bishops of right belief, and men endued with humanity, we shall be glad; but if any audaciously and unadvisedly, shall grow unto the commending of those pestilent heresies, his insolency shall be repressed by the execution of God's servant, even by me. These words of the Emperor, (supposing them for the time to be spoken to Bishops) though they come nearer to a probable show of some kind of supremacy, than his sitting in the upper end of the Hall in a golden Chair, and his courteous exhortation to peace, and now and then helping out this man or that man with his matter; yet do they not reach home. For the execution of punishment inflicted upon Bishops, by the decree of Counsels or the ecclesiastical Canons, may be, and to this day is committed unto the lay Magistrate, without any fear of making him thereby the supreme judge in causes Ecclesiastical: It rather proves him to be the minister or servant of the Church in those cases. But what will you say, if those threats of the Emperors were not given out against Bishops or any Clergymen at all, but only against laymen? then M. Abbot must needs confess, that he gives not M. Bishop to understand, that the Emperor is supreme judge over Bishops, but that M. Abbot is one of the most audacious, perfidious, and cozening writers that ever set pen to paper; who blusheth not, even thereto vaunt of his forces, and to assure even his adversary of an invincible argument, where is no shadow in the world of any probable proof for his part: let any indifferent man but turn to the place, and he shall find without any doubt, those words of threat to be spoken only to the citizens of Nicomedia. Their Bishop Eusebius, and Theognis Bishop of Nicaea, were (for being though wily, yet obstinate Arrians) by the decree of the Nicene Council deposed from their Bishoprics, and other chosen in their places: whereupon the most Christian and wise Emperor, writeth unto his subjects the citizens of Nicomedia (whom he heard to be too much addicted to their Arrian Bishop and his heresies) to beware of him; and having touched his faults, and just punishment inflicted upon him therefore by the Council, cometh to the words which M. Abbot perverteth. The words of the Emperor are these: I am vestrum est, ea fide in Deum aciem mentis vestiae intendere, in qua vos semper mansisse constat, etc. Now it is your parts (O ye citizens of Nicomedia) to serve God in that faith, in which you have always continued, and to perform all offices of Godliness. And if it so happen, that we may always have Bishops excelling in integrity of life, in sound doctrine and charity towards all, we ought truly to rejoice: but if any man among you, be so hardy and audacious, that he shall enterprise to commend and praise those plagues of the Church (Eusebius & Theognis) his insolency shall presently be punished, by the work and diligence of God's servant, even by me. This is word for word out of the Author: so that the emperors threat of punishment, was only to the citizens of Nicomedia, not to any Bishop or Clergyman. Which if it be compared with M. Abbot's corruption, either you must take him for a very gross pate and more than poore-blinde, that could not discern to whom, or of whom the Emperor spoke; or else so fervently set to deceive others, that he cared not to strain courtesy with his Authors, and to bely them a little, so that he might for a while, till it were discovered, be taken for one that had found out some special proof, that made much to the purpose.   

ROBERT ABBOT. Page 192.  
THEREFORE Constantine accepted of Appeals, when they were made to him from the judgement of Bishops, and either heard matters himself, or appointed those that should hear them; And so we find that Foelix a Bishop, 
August. Epist 162.  By the commandment of the same Emperor, had his cause heard, and was acquitted before his Proconsul or Lieutenant. And where the Donatists said, That a Bishop should not have his purgation before the Lieutenant, S. Augustine answereth: As if (saith he) the Bishop himself had so taken course for himself, and the Emperor had not commanded that the matter should be inquired off, to whose charge (whereof he was to give account to God) that matter did specially belong. And so doth he send for the Bishops, 
Socrat. lib. 1. Hist. cap. 22. Zozom. lib. 2. cap. 27. Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 2.  that by his commandment were assembled in a Council at Tyrus, to give account to him, of that they had done there, and in his hearing to show him, how truly and sincerely they had carried themselves in their judgement: whereby as by many other arguments, it is manifest to all men, that Constantine held himself to have a supremacy over Bishops, and to be judge of their judgements, and that M. Bishop seeketh merely to abuse his Majesty, in alleging the example of Constantine against him.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
LIKE will to like quoth the Devil to the Collier, as it is in our old Adage. M. Abbot is so blindly bend to his errors, that for want of more worthy Precedents, he will not stick to fly for succour, to both Donatists and Arrians, old rotten and reprobate Heretics. Who were they that appealed from the judgement of Bishops, to the Emperor Constantine? were they honest Godly men, whose example a good Christian may follow? nothing less. Hear S. Augustine, 
August. Epist. 166.  out of whom you craftily cull certain words to deceive your reader. Your Ancestors (saith S. Augustine to the Donatists) brought the cause of Cecilianus before the Emperor Constantine: put us to proof of this, and unless we prove it do with us what you can. The Donatists then, were the men that appealed from the Bishop's judgements to the Emperor: but though they were otherwise wicked Heretics, yet in this point perhaps they did not amiss saith M. Abbot, a dear child of the Donatist. Yes marry did they: witness first Constantine himself, who hearing of the Donatists appeal, was marvelously moved with it, as testifieth Optatus Bishop of Milevitan, that lived in the midst of them; these be his words: 
Lib. 1. cont. Parmen.  Donate the fire of the Donatists, thought good to appeal from Bishops to the Emperor, etc. to which appeal the Emperor Constantine answereth thus. O rabida furoris audacia, sicut in casu Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem apposuerunt! O mad pang of fury, they have put in an appeal, as the Heathens are wont to do! Observe how this good Emperor liked of their appeal, esteeming them mad men and like to the Pagans, that did make it. Another witness shall be S. Augustine, and in that very Epistle out of which M. Abbot doth suck his poison: for he doth most sincerely deliver the whole circumstance of this matter; 
Epist. 162.  these be his words. Constantine the Emperor gave the Donatists another hearing or judgement at Arles in France; not that it was then needful, but condescending to their perverse stubborness, and coveting by all means to suppress their impudence. Neither durst the good Emperor so admit of their seditious & false complaints, that he himself would judge of the sentence of those Bishops, who sat at Rome; but assigned them other Bishops (as I said) from whom they yet again appealed to the Emperor himself: Wherein how be detested them you have heard, and I would to God they had at last, upon his judgement made an end of their most outrageous animosities. And as he yielded to them so far forth, as to judge of that cause after the Bishops (a sacris Antistibus postea veniam petiturus, minding afterwards to ask pardon of the holy Bishops; because he did it that the Donatists might have no excuse left them, if they did not obey unto his sentence, unto whom they themselves appealed) so they would once at the length yield to the truth. There you see first, how the Donatists contrary to law and custom, appealed to the Emperor: which S. Augustine doth in other places also most formally teach. Secondly, that the Emperor did vehemently dislike of their appeal, and put it off from himself to Bishops, of whose causes and after whom, he knew & did profess, that it did not appertain to him to judge: Yet finally, to stop the impudent mouths of the Donatists, and to leave them clean without all excuse of their obstinate stubborness, he condescended to hear the cause himself after the Bishops; not that he thought himself to have any right so to do, but meaning to crave pardon of the sacred Bishops, for that he had intermeddled in their matters, further than he ought to have done. All this is taken out of S. Augustine word by word, in that very place which M. Abbot allegeth for himself. Is not he then a very conscienslesse, and most perfidious man, that would thus under the colour of some broken words, bear his reader in hand, that the Emperor Constantine took himself in his own right, to be the supreme judge of Bishops, and that even by the testimony of S. Augustine, who so plainly in the same place relateth the clean contrary? But Foelix (saith he) a Bishop, by the commandment of the same Emperor, had his cause heard, and was acquitted before his Lieutenant. True, but how came it to pass, that the good Bishop was convented before them? not by any his own seeking or liking, but through the most important suit of the Donatists, 
August. ibid. & Epist. 166  Qui quotidianis interpellationibus, taedium Imperatori fecerunt, dicentes illum esse traditorem: Who with their daily out cries, were tedious to the Emperor, affirming Foelix to be a traitor. Whereupon, because the Donatists would not admit of any ordinary judge of Bishops, within or without Africa, the innocent Bishop was content to refer his cause to be heard by any whomsoever; for so it followeth in the very next words of that same Epistle of S. Augustine. For they (that is the Donatists) had made the Emperor arbitrator, and judge of that cause, who first sued to him, afterwards appealed unto him, and yet in the end would not stand to his judgements; but seeing that he gave sentence against them, they like frantic fellows, cried out against the same as unlawful, which was their own seeking, and then affirmed contrary to their former opinion and practice, that a Bishop was not to have his trial and purgation before a secular judge. Whereupon S. Augustine inferreth: If he be blameworthy, whom a temporal judge acquitted, when he himself sought after no such judge; how much more are they to be blamed, who would needs have an earthly King to be judge of their cause? judex eligitur Imperator: The Emperor was by the Donatists chosen for their judge, but the Emperor giving sentence against them, he was by them condemned: thus S. Augustine. Are not these shuttle and giddy headed Heretics, sure cards for M. Abbot to build the Prince's supremacy upon? a sandy and slippery foundation, yet meet for such a piece of work. But S. Augustine doth say, That the Emperor caused the matter to be diligently inquired of, to whose charge (whereof he was to give account to God) that matter did specially belong. I answer, that the Emperor having taken the matter into his hands, by the importunate suit of the Donatists, and by the consent of the other party, was afterwards bound in honour and conscience, to see it thoroughly sifted out, and most uprightly determined. But this furthereth nothing M. Abbots pretence of the emperors supremacy; when first the Emperor himself acknowledgeth most ingeniously and perspicuously, that he judgeth in such cases against his will, and as it were under the correction of the Bishops. And S. Augustine as manifestly teacheth; that neither Foelix nor any other Catholic Bishop, required the Emperor for their judge of their own free choice, but that being thereunto constrained by the impudence and headstrong wilfulness of the Donatists, who would be judged by no other: Neither yet would they finally yield to the Emperors own judgement, which they so earnestly sued for, against the Canons of the Church. Were not these headstrong Donatists a most perfect pattern of heretical obstinacy, and fit men to be propounded for an example to follow by M. Abbot? if any man desire to see more of S. Augustine's mind in this matter, let him read his 48. and 166. Epistles, and the first Chapter of his third book against julian the Pelagian; where he cutteth those Pelagian Heretics short, who having been once condemned by a Council of Bishops in Palestine, would have appealed to the Emperor, and did then allege the Example of the Donatists for their Precedent, 
Lib. 3. cont. julian. cap. 1.  as M. Abbot now doth. Not so (saith S. Augustine) your cause hath bad a competent and sufficient trial before many Bishops, neither are you to be dealt withal any further, concerning the right of examination and trial; it only now remaineth, that you quietly accept of the sentence pronounced of this cause: so that in S. Augustine's judgement, the competent, lawful, and ordinary trial of Ecclesiastical causes, is before Bishops, from which none but Heretics do appeal and fly. And touching the Donatists, whose example the other Heretics alleged, 
Ibidem.  this holy Father saith: They were so violent, and withal so strong, that we were forced to follow them appealing to the Emperor: for they ranged and raged with such fury, almost all Africa over, that they would not suffer the Catholics to preach, or to live in peace by them; but by fire, sword, and forage, put the whole country in garboil and combustion: wherefore the Bishops were compelled for the suppressing their fury, and for to bring them to reason, to confer with them before the lay Magistrate. Thus much of M. Abbot's former instance of the Donatists. Now to his other borrowed from the Arrians, who were assembled in a very wicked conventicle at tire, to condemn the most innocent Prelate and Saint of God, Athanasius; who beside also was Patriarch of Alexandria, the chief seat of all the East, and therefore rather to judge over them, then to be judged of them: yet those most malicious Arrians, to wreak their teen on him, invented most strange crimes of Rape, Murder, and Treason against the man of God, and had false witnesses in readiness, to testify what they would desire; yet were they so prudently encountered, and all their most wicked plots so plainly discovered, by the grace of God, and S. Athanasius most vigilant industry, that they fell at last to conspire his death by open violence. All which being related to the Emperor, he wrote a most sharp letter to those bloody conspirators, and willed them to come to the place, where he than made his abode, there in his presence and hearing, to show whither that which they had done there, were equal and just. He doth not say (as M. Abbot falsely reporteth) that the Bishops were to give him account of that they had done; but according to Athanasius request, 
Socrat. lib. 1. Histor. c. 22.  which was as it is set down in the same letter,  eo accederetis, quo nobis praesentibus, de injuria qua passus fuerit, (necessitate coactus) posset expostulare: That the Council might be removed to the emperors Court, to the intent that Athanasius (compelled by necessity) might expostulate and complain in the emperors presence, of the injury done unto him. First note, that the holy Patriarch compelled by necessity of the Arrians fury, repaired to the Emperor. Secondly, that he desired the matter might be heard, though in the emperors presence; yet by the Bishops assembled in that conventicle: for he had reason to think, that they would not for very shame suffer the matter to be so partially and furiously handled, if that good Emperor were present and did but look on them. Thirdly note, that there was no matter of faith in question, but capital crimes and temporal affairs of the state objected against Athanasius, wherein the lay Magistrate hath more special interest. Briefly, here is no mention of the emperors judging over Bishops, but only of a sending for them to come to him, & to handle so weighty a matter before him, which any temporal Prince (for aught I see) may demand and also command, of Bishops that be his own subjects, when cause of the temporal state is touched.  
Out of the premises it followeth most evidently, that M. Abbot hath not one plain word, to prove the Emperor Constantine to be supreme judge in Ecclesiastical causes, but relieth wholly either upon the example of reprobate Heretics, or upon his own inferences and enforcements, drawn out of some dark sentences, so shamelessly alleged for the most part, that they are clean contrary to the plain testimony of his own authors in the very same place; whereas we have that most renowned Emperors own formal and express words, professing himself to have no power to judge over Bishops and Church affairs; and that also fortified by the sound record of most grave, holy, and learned Fathers, who lived some in his own days, and some very near thereunto. Let then any man judge (if he be not too too partial) whether I gave his Majesty wrong to understand, when I informed him, that Constantine the great (that glorious ornament of our country) would not take upon him to be supreme governor in causes Ecclesiastical: Or whether M. Abbot, do not go about exceedingly to abuse his most excellent Majesty, that with such babbles, foul shifts, and manifest lies, would persuade him the contrary. Hitherto of the emperors authority in calling of Counsels, and over Bishops, so far forth, as M. Abbot's objections out of S. Leo ministered just cause.  
Now ere I pass unto the next Successor of S. Peter and S. Paul. which M. Abbot would force to speak in defence of their new Gospel, I must according to custom show in part, what this Author of his S. Leo, doth teach in favour of the Catholic cause; that the indifferent reader may judge, whether he were rather a Protestant or a Papist, as they term us. And because S. Leo is both ancient (for he lived about 1200. years passed) and was also a most holy man, by whom God did miraculously work, even in his life time: Again, for that he was very skilful both in the holy Scriptures, and all learned Antiquity Greek and Latin, as may be seen by his Sermons and Epistles, specially by the last Epistle written for the instruction of the Emperor called also Leo; where he citeth S. Hillary, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, Latins; S. Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyrillus patriarchs of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzene, S. Basil, and S. john chrysostom, Greek Doctors: And finally, for that his works be without all exception, even by the consent of the Protestants, yea of such credit with them, that they are glad when they can snatch a broken sentence out of him, in favour of their doctrine; I will therefore somewhat more largely cite his sentences, in defence of the present Roman religion, because they cannot choose but be of great value with all even-minded men. And the better to satisfy M. Abbot's demands, I will frame the order of S. Leos testimonies much thereafter. Of the Pope and his Pardons, S. Leo taught very much and most plainly, as hath been related in the beginning of this matter. Of the Mass and of Transubstantiation he speakeh as perspicuously in very formal terms, commanding; 
Epist. 79. ad Dioscor. n. 2.  That two Masses be said every festival day in great parishes, where the people cannot conveniently meet all together at one: Ne quaedam pars populi sua devotione privetur, si unius tantum Missae more seruato, sacrificium offerri non possit, nisi qui prima diei part convenit; Lest some of the people be deprived of their devotion, if the custom of one Mass a day be observed, and the sacrifice may not be offered, but at their meeting that come first in the morning. In those days when all men were so devout to hear Mass, that no body would willingly omit to hear one Mass at least every holy day, there was (I ween) no hundred marks to be forfeited for every Mass they heard. And were they then true Protestants (think you) who so zealously coveted to be present at the sacrifice of the Mass? Moreover, S. Leo was so well assured of the Real presence of Christ's blessed body in the Sacrament, and knew it to be so clearly acknowledged, even of the vulgar and common sort in those days, that he took it for a ground to confute the Eutychian heresy. For having first declared, that those Heretics (by affirming our Saviour not to have taken the true flesh of man) did destroy his passion and resurrection, he adjoineth: 
Epist. 22. ad Clerum.  In what darkness of ignorance, in what drowsiness of sloth, have these Eutychians (I might as well say Protestants) lain, that they could neither by hearing learn, nor by reading understand, that which in the Church of God, is so uniformly voiced and spoken off by every man, that it is not withholden from the tongues of Infants? to wit: the truth of the body and blood of Christ among the Sacraments of the Christian faith, etc. the substance and sum of S. Leos reason is, that our Saviour gave his true flesh in the holy Sacrament to be eaten of us; therefore he took the true flesh of man, otherwise he could not have given it us to eat: ergo, Eutiches was deceived, who denied Christ to have taken the true flesh of man, affirming him to have taken only some shadow or similitude of it. And because I am in the matter of Sacraments, I will join S. Leos testimony for the virtue of Baptism, In quo (saith he) foluitur quicquid peccati est, 
Epist. 84. ad Aquileiensem Episcopum.  cum quo nascitur: Therefore is one baptized, that whatsoever there is of sin in him, it may be loosed. And after in the same Epistle: Infants do die to original sin, and elder folks to all manner of sin in Baptism; which confutes the Protestants opinion, that original sin liveth and reigneth in all men after baptism. Now for the Sacrament of Confession and Satisfaction, he is so formal, that he hath left no evasion, to the most nimble-witted Protestant. Public confession, by reason of some inconveniences that thereupon ensued, he prohibited; but private and that which the Protestants call auricular confession, he alloweth and commendeth: 
Epist. 78. nu. 2. ad universos Episcopos Campaniae.  these be his words. I decree, that this manner of penance which is so exacted of the faithful, that a prefession of every kind of sin be written in a role, and rehearsed publicly, be wholly abrogated; when as it is sufficient, that the guilt of consciences be in secret confession declared to Priests alone. For albeit that fullness of faith seem laudable, which for fear of God do not stagger to blush before men: nevertheless seeing that some men's sins be such, that it is not expedient they should be published, lest their enemies should take hold on them, and prosecute them in law; let that custom be abolished, lest many be thereby frighted from the remedies of penance: for that confession is sufficient, which is tendered first to God, then also to the Priest, etc. Again, in another place: 
Epistola. 89.  The manifold mercies of God, doth so secure man's frailty, that not only by the grace of baptism, but by the medicine of penance also, the hope of eternal life is recovered; that they who had lost the gift of regeneration, condemning themselves by their own judgement, might attain unto remission of their sins: the aid of God's goodness being so disposed, that pardon from God cannot be obtained, but by the supplication of Priests. For the Mediator of God and Man, the man JESUS Christ, hath given this power unto the Prelates of the Church, that they may both enjoin satisfaction to the penitent, and that they may also admit them, being by the same wholesome satisfaction purged, through the gate of reconciliation, unto the communion of the Sacraments. Where he further teacheth; That they who die without this gift of pardon, shall never be saved: and doth also greatly blame them who defer their confession till toward the point of death: when (saith he) there is scarce space either for the confession of the penitent, or for the reconciliation of the Priest. It was not then (undoubtedly) treason in S. Leos days, to be reconciled by a Priest; seeing he so often and so much recommended it to all Christian people, and held it the only gate to re-enter into God's favour, for all such Christians as were fallen from the grace they had before received in the Sacrament of Baptism. That Bishops, Priests, Deacons, yea and Subdeacons' should not marry, and if any married man were chosen a Subdeacon, that he should refrain from the company of his wife, S. Leo is very plain: thus he decreeth. 
Epist. 82. ad Anastasium Thes. num. 4.  It is free for men that be not of the Clergy to marry, but to show the purity of perfect continency, carnal copulation is not granted, so much as to Subdeacons': that they who have wives, be as though they had them not; and they who have them not, do continue single. And if in this order, which is the fourth from the head (with the Protestants it is no order at all) it is meet that chastity be kept; how much more is it to be observed in the first, second, and third? that no man be esteemed worthy, either of the place of a Deacon, or honour of a Priest, or excellency of a Bishop, who is discovered not to have yet bridled himself from the pleasure of wiving: This of the continency of Priests. Will you hear S. Leos opinion of the Vows of religious men and women, which the false Father Abbot scornfully termeth Monkish? 
Epist. 90. ad Rusti. Norb. cap. 12.  The profession of a Monk (saith he) undertaken by a man's own free choice and desire, cannot be forsaken without sin; because that must be performed, which we have vowed to God. Wherefore, he that forsaking the profession of a single or solitary life, is turned soldier, or fallen to marriage, is to be purged publicly by the satisfaction of penance: for albeit warfare may be harmless, and marriage honest; yet is it a transgression and offence to have forsaken the better choice. It followeth in the next number: 
Ibid. ca 13.8.  Maidens who not constrained by their parents command, but of their own accord have made profession of Virginity, and received the habit; if afterwards they desire to marry, they do sin, though they were not yet consecrated: 
Ibidem 14.  but if after both profession and consecration, they should fall to marry, it cannot be doubted but that they should commit a very heinous crime. For if man's decrees, cannot be infringed without punishment, what shall light upon them, who have broken the covenants of the divine mystery? How forcibly doth this chaste doctrine of S. Leo, batter and beat flat to the earth, the voluptuous looseness of runagate votaries, and gives checkmate to the Protestants, for upholding the same as well done? That you may yet further perceive, what an evil Protestant and a perfect Papist S. Leo was; he commendeth highly the Emperor Martianus his virtue and Godliness, for receiving with worthy honour the holy Relics of blessed Flamianus departed, who a little before was Patriarch of Constantinople. And for praying to Saints you have heard before, 
Serm. 5. de Epiphania.  how he encouraged all men, Eorum ambire suffragia, earnestly and as it were ambitiously to sue for the aid of their prayers. Again, he exhorteth his auditors, to celebrate with him the Saturday following the Vigils of the most happy Apostle S. Peter: 
Ser. 8. de jejunio decim.  Who (saith he) with his prayers, will vouchsafe to help our prayers, fastings, and almsdeeds. Behold he made no question, but that S. Peter both knew their desires and deserts, and would also further them with the aid of his effectual prayers. In brief then we have, that the most learned and holy Pope S. Leo the first, taught praying to Saints, and worshipping of their Relics: the vows of Monks and professed Virgins: that Priests and all in holy orders should not marry, but live continently: that Priests have power to reconcile and to forgive sins: and that every man who hopeth for any pardon of his sins at God's hands, must particularly confess them in private to a Priest, and by due satisfaction purge himself from them: that in the Sacrament there is the same true flesh of Christ which was crucified, and did arise from death: that Mass is to be said every holy day, wherein the sacrifice of Christ's body is offered: that S. Peter was the supreme Pastor of Christ's Church, and that the Bishop of Rome is his lawful successor therein, having supreme authority over both East and West Church. These with such like points, (which may by diligent perusing his most eloquent and divine works, be gathered,) do most perspicuously demonstrate, the Church of Rome in his time (which was near 1200. years ago) to have held the self same language, concerning matters of faith, which the same Church of Rome at this day speaketh. And that M. Abbot in seeking to prove the contrary, did but show himself either very ignorant in his works, or over studious, not to take his Author right as his manner is, but to pick some matter of cavil out of him, thereby to blind and deceive the simple reader. Now to the next.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
PELAGIUS the Bishop of Rome, the first of that name, admitted a married man to be Bishop of Syracuse, only putting in a caution, that he should not dilapidare the Church goods, and transfer the same to his wife and children: 
Dist. 28. de Syracusana.  The danger whereof he signifieth, was the cause of that constitution, which did forbid a man having a wife and children to be preferred to a Bishopric; otherwise a man is not repelled for having wife & children (saith the Gloss) because the Apostles permitted the same. But now the Church of Rome, 
Glossa ibidem.  will by no means admit men to be Bishops or Priests: not for that they would avoid the dilapidating of the Church goods (for that is a thing common with the Popes themselves, 
Platina in vita johan. 16.  To apply all to satisfy the greediness and covetousness of their familiars, their brethren, their nephews, under which name commonly go their bastards:) but because they ascribe to marriage, as the old Heretics did, 
Bellarm. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 19  pollution and uncleanness, which cannot stand with the sanctity and holiness of the Priestly function.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
IF M. Abbot did not every where almost, show himself to be a shameless man, and one that careth not how corruptly, so he may somewhat colourably cite the ancient Father's sentences; this passage were alone more than sufficient, to prove him to be no better than a cozening counterfeit. In these few lines there are four evident untruths uttered by him. The first is, that a man is not repelled from being a Bishop for having wife & children, but only for fear of dilapidation of the Church goods. This is most evidently false: for though the fear of spending the Church goods upon profane uses, be one cause why it is not expedient that a Bishop or Priest should be married; yet the more principal reason thereof, is the purity of the single life, and the freeness of it from all such worldly affairs and temporal troubles, as are necessarily linked with the care of provision for wife & children: This you heard before out of S. Leo, who was predecessor to Pope Pelagius the first, by more than an hundred years. These be also the reasons of S. Augustine and S. Hierome, who written thereof whole volumes against the Heretic jovinian: and were given first by S. Paul himself, when he teacheth; that 
1. Cor. 7. verse 31.  he who is without a wife, is careful for the things that pertain to our Lord, how he may please God: but he that is with a wife, is careful for the things that appertain to the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided. And 
Vers. 32. Vers. 34.  the woman unmarried and virgin, thinks on the things that pertain to our Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. See the more special grounds of the single life of clergymen: whereupon even by the confession of M. Abbot himself, 
Page 42.  A law was made in the Church of Rome by Pope Siritius (who was 150. years before Pelagius,) that all Priests and Deacons should either be chosen single men, or else promise to abstain wholly from the company of their wives; which is also decreed in the second Council of Carthage, holden about the same time, where the holy Bishops there assembled do say: 
Canon. 2.  That we may keep that which the Apostles did teach, and Antiquity herself observed; giving all men to understand, that the single and chaste life of the Clergy, was taught by the Apostles, and observed in most pure Antiquity. It being then so notorious and well known a thing, that whosoever would be a Bishop must needs refrain from the company of his wife; no caution was required for that by Pope Pelagius, because there was no question or doubt of it: And M. Abbot dealeth deceitfully, to argue out of the not mentioning of that, which was understood of all men as necessary to be presupposed, and is in most of the Canons of the very same distinction, 
Distinct. 28.  expressly delivered; and also in two other whole distinctions going next before. His second false trick is in the citation of the gloss, and that a very foul one; for he chaps it off in the midst, leaving out that which will mar all his market. The gloss saith (upon that caution against dilapidations) that it is to be understood, when be that is chosen to be a Bishop, doth love his wife and children so tenderly, that it is to be presumed he would for their sakes, dilapidare the Church goods, etc. otherwise a man is not repelled for wife and children, to wit, for that point of dilapidations whereof the gloss there speaketh: This to be the sense, any understanding man would easily perceive, if the gloss had gone no further. But it addeth (as it were to meet with M. Abbots cavil) Dum tamen longa continentia praecesserit: A man that hath a wife may be admitted to be a Bishop, putting in good surety that he will not dilapidare the Church goods; yet with this proviso, That he hath long before lived continently, that is, refrained wholly from the company of his wife; as it is before said in the Canon Priusquam, of the same distinction: See how expressly the gloss excepts that which M. Abbot avoucheth it to affirm. His third false tale is, That the Church of Rome now, will by no means admit married men to be bishops & priests, which is not true: for in those very cases wherein they were at any time admitted before, they would be admitted now, that is; If there were want of other able men, and some such eminent learning and virtue in a married man, as were not to be found in a single, than he might be made both Priest & Bishop, so that he and his wife would liu● continently: for there is no Canon of the Church to the contrary. His fourth lie is a luculent and bright one, That we (forsooth) ascribe pollution and uncleanness to marriage, as the old Heretics did: for neither Cardinal Bellarmine whom he quoteth, nor any other Catholic, doth teach the act of matrimony to be the work of the Devil, or damnable sin, as the Manichees and some other Heretics did. Nay, he declareth there plainly, that it may be without any sin at all, though most commonly concupiscence bear to great a sway in it; both preventing the rule of reason, and somewhat exceeding the measure of it, as 
a Lib. 14. de Civitat. c. 17. Item, lib. 5. cont. julian. cap. 8. & 10.  S. Augustine testifieth: and doth make a man more dull and heavy to spiritual exercises, and not so pure & holy as the office of a Priest doth require, as 
b Hier. lib. 1. cont. jovinian.  S. Hierome and 
c Chrysost. l. 6 de Sacerdot.  S. chrysostom do witness. And that a man thereby is made less holy and pure, both in body and spirit, S. Paul's own words do intimate; 
¶ 1. Cor. 7. vers. 34.  The woman unmarried, thinketh how she may be holy both in body and spirit: so that within the compass of not many lines, M. Abbot let's fly two cast of lies, and yet as it were not content with so few, he interlaceth three other lies to furbish and smooth up the rest.  
The first is, that now a days married men are not repelled from Bishoprics to avoid dilapidations: which is false. For that is one cause as I showed before, and is also touched even by that most renowned Father Bellarmine, even in the same place cited by M. Abbot, 
De Clericis lib. 1. cap. 19  in his fifth reason: where he teacheth; That the marriage of Bishops and Priests, doth hinder much that hospitality and tender care of the poor, which men of the Church ought to have: for the care of providing for wife & children, doth wholly extinguish or greatly diminish their good housekeeping and providing for the poor, as the lamentable experience of our very time doth sufficiently instruct us. What if some Popes or other Clergymen, have been too forward to satisfy the greedy covetousness of their carnal friends, that is their own fault, contrary to the provident order and law of the Church? and if the corrupt nature of man, be so inclinable to favour them that be next in blood to them, was it not right wisely ordained by our Church, that Clergymen should have no wives and children? for that men naturally do love them most dearly, and use all means to provide for them. But how carelessly herein do the Protestants carry themselves, who do encourage, and as it were push their Clergymen forward, to have wives and children? who being thereby clogged with the cares of this world, bid adieu to all courteous and plentiful hospitality, and leave the poor to shift as they can for themselves: for they have more then enough to do, to provide for their own wives and children. The second lie is shuffled into the parenthesis, taken out of Platina, to wit: That under the name of nephews, commonly go their bastards; which is not in his author, but a most malicious slander devised of his own head, and avouched without any testimony; and therefore to be contemned. The third is, in that he maketh Platina, to affirm it to be a common thing with the Popes, which he only noteth for a special fault in some few. Is this man worthy (think you) the sacred title of a Divine, or of the common name of an honest man, who doth in manner nothing else, but sow lies together, and that sometimes so thick, that for every line near hand, there is only or other? was his meaning (trow you) to give instruction to the ignorant, and satisfaction to the learned (as often he vaunteth,) or rather to blind the simple, and to feed the vain folly of the over credulous Protestant? 
Proverb. 10.  Qui nititur mendacijs (saith the wise man) hic pascit ventos, Idem insequitur aves volantes: He that relieth on lies, doth feed the winds, that is, may please vain and light heads; He doth also follow birds flying in the air, that is, doth feed the humour of haughty, wavering, and unsettled spirits; but can never give contentment or satisfaction, to any grave, modest, and discreet man, who doth fly from a crafty and subtle liar, as from the very offspring of that Serpent, which with lying deceived our first mother Eue. But go on with your lies, seeing it will be no otherwise.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
THE Emperors of Rome Theodosius and Valens, according unto the doctrine of the ancient Church of Rome, 
Petri Crinit. de honest. disciplina. lib. 9 cap. 9  Upon care of preserving the religion of the high God, did forbid the making, graving, or painting of the Crucifix: and commanded it upon penalty to be abolished, wheresoever it was found. But now, not the making ●nly, but also the worshipping of the Crucifix, is a matter of high religion in the same Church of Rome.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
VERITAS non quaerit latebras: Truth is not ashamed of herself, nor coveteth to hide her head in corners, when she may with safety be suffered to show her face publicly. That decree of the Christian Emperor Theodosius is extant, and to be seen in the very corpse of the civil law: what needed then M. Abbot to run unto a late obscure author called Petrus Crinitus, Peter with the long hair, to seek that which is of so good record, in so famous a volume? think you that it is without some mystery, that he being thirsty, would leave the fresh fountain, and run to drink of the dirty puddle? Latet anguis in herbae, There is a pad in the straw. A strange longing he had, to find out some cavil against any part of the doctrine of the Church of Rome; and because that could not be, by the true and full report of the Catholic Emperors decrees, he would needs fly to some broken relation of he cared not whom, to blind his unwary reader withal. The decree then as it was made by the Emperor, and standeth Authentikely in the Code, maketh much for the honour of the Cross: for he commanded, That the sign of the Cross should not be engraven, 
Lib. 1. Codi. tit. leg. Cùm sit nobis.  or painted on the pavement: Ne sacrum signum pedibus calcaretur, that the holy sign of the Cross might not be trodden under feet. Which said decree of Theodosius the elder, the Emperor Tiberius the second (one of his Godly successors) understanding well, when he espied a Cross cut in marble lying on the ground, he commanded it to be lifted up, saying: 
Paul. Diaconus, lib. 18. Rerum Romanarum.  We ought to bless our forehead and breast with the Cross of our Lord, and we tread it under our feet. In what high estimation, the sign of the Cross was, with that most bright mirror of Emperors Constantine the great, and how gloriously it was placed in their Diadems, Palaces, and public places, no man can be ignorant that is acquainted with their Histories. And somewhat I have said thereof already, in the question of Images; therefore I do here omit to speak any more of a matter so evident. I might here by the way, blame M. Abbot, not only for his deceitful dealing; but also because he forgetteth whereabout he goes: for his drift here is to teach, that S. Peter and S. Paul's successors the Bishops of Rome, did of old teach another doctrine, than these of later years do now; of which number of Bishops, Theodosius the Emperor was none: but many such faults as this, I let pass wittingly, or else I should never make an end. And whereas he addeth; That these Emperors did forbid the making of the Cross, according unto the doctrine of the ancient Church of Rome: Observe first, that it is so said only, without any proof; and beside, it is avouched very impudently, as being flat repugnant, unto the known and notorious practice of Constantine the great, their late and most famous predecessor. Now to the next.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  

Greg. lib. 9 Moral. ca 1. & 14.  GREGORY Bishop of Rome taught: That all the merit of our virtue, all our righteousness, is but vice and unrighteousness, if it be strictly examined; it needeth therefore prayer after righteousness (saith he) that whereas being sifted it would quail, it may by the only mercy of the judge stand for good. 
Bernard. in Annot. 1. De lib. Arbit. & Grat. In fine. Trident. sess. 6 cap. 16.  Yea and Bernard, by the same doctrine of the Church of Rome, saith; That men's merits are not such, as that eternal life is due unto them of right, or that God should do wrong, if he did not give the same: they are the way to the Kingdom (saith he) but not the cause of obtaining the Kingdom. But now the 
* Rhem. Test. Annot. in 2. Tim. 4. v. 8. ad Hebr. 6. vers. 10.  Church of Rome, attributeth so great perfection of righteousness to good works, as that they fully satisfy the law of God, and worthily deserve eternal life: yea, they affirm them to be so far meritorious, as that God should be unjust, if he rendered not heaven for the same; charging the justice of God, not in respect of his promise, but in respect of the merit and desert of the works.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
NOW that M. Abbot is driven to fly to that most holy and renowned Pope S. Gregory the great, for defence of their doctrine, he is like to speed well (no doubt:) for he was the first founder of the Catholic religion amongst us Englishmen, and a great maintainer of it all the world over, as shall appear to the eye of every unpartial man, that will but read that little, which shall by me hereafter be produced out of him. First touching the merit of works, we believe the same that S. Gregory taught, to wit; That all the merit of our own virtue, all our own righteousness (that is, all that virtue and righteousness, which we have by our own nature or strength) is rather vice and iniquity, than virtue: And therefore that we had need most humbly to sue and pray to God, for mercy and forgiveness of our sins and for the assistance of his heavenly grace, which is the root and fountain of all good works and merits. M. Abbot therefore mistakes S. Gregory grossly, if he think him to deny any true merit or righteousness to be in a virtuous Christian: for though he say that our own (to wit, that which we do by virtue of our own natural power) be nought worth; yet he teacheth most expressly, that good works done by the help of God's grace, do merit life everlasting. Thus he hath left written upon that verse of the Psalm: I have meditated in thy works. 
Gregor. in Psal. 141.  He that acknowledgeth the riches of this world to be deceitful, and doth through the love of heavenly things, contemn earthly; that man doth meditate upon good works: which when this life doth pass away, shall remain, & yield the reward of eternal life. For we live not here profitably, Nisi ad comparandum meritum, quo in aeternitate vivatur: But to get merits, by which we may live eternally. And upon these words of the 101. Psalm: Their seed shall be directed for ever. Our works are therefore called seeds (saith he) because like as we gather fruit of seed; even so do we expect reward of our works: for the Apostle saith, 
Gallat. 6.  Whatsoever a man will sow, that shall he reap. He therefore that in this life soweth the seed of good works, shall in the life to come reap the fruit of eternal recompense. And in the same book of his Morals, (out of which M. Abbot snatched his dark words) S. Gregory declareth clearly: 
Greg. lib. 4. Moral. c. 42.  That as there is among men a great difference of works in this life, so in the next there shall be as great distinction of dignities: that how far here one man exceeds another in merits, so much shall be there surmount the other in rewards. If then according to S. Gregory's plain doctrine, (grounded upon the Royal Prophets, David, and the Apostle S. Paul,) good works be the seeds, which bring forth life everlasting: If the merit of this life, be that, wherewith we must live eternally hereafter: If according to the difference of merits in this life, we shall receive distinct dignities in the life to come; can any man of judgement doubt, but that he most perspicuously taught, both that there be true merits in virtuous and good works; and also that according unto the different degree of merits, distinct dignities of glory shall be rendered in heaven?  
The most sweet and religious father S. Bernard, is haled into this rank of S. Peter's successors, against all due order; because he was no Bishop of Rome: but our profane Abbot saith, that the holy Abbot Bernard herein agreeth with the ancient Church of Rome. How may we know that? Is it because that godly and devout man, did in all points embrace and follow the ancient Roman faith? 
L. 2. de Cons. ad Euge. In Vita. lib. 2. c. 3. & 6. Item lib. 4. cap. 4. Lib. 3. cap. 5. & Serm. 66. in Cant. lib. Sententiarun non procul ab initio.  then it is a clear case, that the Bishop of Rome is supreme governor of Christ's Church: that the sacrifice of the Mass is a most true & holy sacrifice, and that the same body that was borne of the blessed Virgin Mary, is really and substantially there present: that it is flat heresy to deny either prayer to Saints, or prayer for the dead: that every one must confess his sins to a Priest: that the vows of Monks and religious persons, are most precious jewels and ornaments of a Christian soul; whereof he was so earnest a Patron and persuader, that in his 
* In Vita.  lifetime he instituted 160. Monasteries. Briefly, there is no branch of the present Roman faith, which may not be confirmed out of his godly and learned works: Wherefore, if S. Bernard agreed wholly with the doctrine of the ancient Church of Rome; so doth the Church of Rome that now is. But if M. Abbot will say, that in this point of merits only, he jumpeth with the ancient Church, though in none of the rest; should he not rather have proved it to be so, then to have taken it as granted? Yes verily, unless he would be esteemed for such a trifler, as ordinarily doth petere principium, beg that which he should principally prove. To the purpose than I say, that neither the ancient Church of Rome doth deny the merits of good works, as may be seen in that question, nor yet S. Bernard: for when he saith, That our merits do not in justice deserve heaven, he understandeth that, of our merits taken by themselves, without God's promise and appointment of heaven for the reward of them; the which secluded & excepted, God should not do any body wrong, if he gave not heaven for the same: but God's ordinance & promise presupposed, and the grace of Christ, by which the merit is wrought, than it doth even in S. Bernard's opinion, of right deserve heaven, and God should do wrong not to repay it with heaven. And this in effect doth S. Bernard himself teach, in the second place cited by M. Abbot, where he saith: That it is just that God pay that which be oweth, 
De Lib. Arbitrio, In fine.  but he oweth that which be promised; the promise was indeed of mercy, but now to be performed of justice: which justice, though it be also principally Gods, because it proceeds from his grace; yet it hath pleased God, to have us to be partners of that his justice, that he might make us merit ours of his crown. In eo enim sibi justitiae consortem, & coronae statuit promeritorem, cum operum quibus erat illa repromissa corona, habere dignatus est coadjutorem: For therein did God appoint man to be copartner of his justice, and meritour of the crown, when be vouchsafed to have him coadjutour of those works, unto which that crown (of glory) was again and again promised. So that God is the Author of merits, both by giving man grace to do them, and by ordaining them to such a reward: Otherwise (saith S. Bernard) those which we call merits, might be more properly called the way to the Kingdom, not the cause of reigning. Observe that he saith, unless you take them otherwise then he had before spoken of them. But we must bear with M. Abbot, for snatching here and there a sentence out of the Fathers so abruptly; otherwise he could make no show for his part out of them, because they were so full and wholly Roman Catholics.  
Besides, the misconstruing of S. Gregory's words, and the corrupting of S. Bernard's, M. Abbot falsifieth both the Council of Trent, and the Annotations of the Rheims Testament: for the Council of Trent hath not simply, that good works do fully satisfy the law of God; but with this qualification, Pro huius vitae statu: As far forth as the state of this life doth permit. And whereas M. Abbot fableth, that in those Annotations the justice of God is charged, not in respect of his own promise, but in respect of the merit and desert of the works; it is a palpable untruth, as every man may see, that will but turn to the place: for there are these express words. 
Annot. in 2. Tim. cap. 4. vers. 8.  Heaven is the goal, the mark, the price, the hire, of all striving, running, labouring, due both by promise, and by covenant, and right debt: where you see as well Gods promise and covenant, as the worth of the works to be mentioned. Which is also set down distinctly in that very Chapter of the Council of Trent, which M. Abbot cited, in these words: Eternal life is to be propounded to them that work well, 
Concil. Trid. sess. 6. c. 16.  and trust in God, both as a merciful grace promised to the sons of God through Christ; and as a reward or hire by the promise of God, to be rendered to their good works and merits. Thus you see, how roundly and familiarly M. Abbot is wont to avouch untruths, and that (which testifieth a good conscience in the man) even clearly contrary to his own knowledge: for in the very same both Chapter of the Council, and Annotation upon the Testament, which he allegeth, there is to be seen the plain affirmation of that which he denieth, which doth convince him, to be one of the most careless men of his credit, that ever set pen to paper.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  

Citat. in Orthodoxo consensu de sacra Eucharistia, cap. 1. ex Lyturg. Georgij Cassandris.  THE same Gregory affirmeth, that Missa the Mass, was so called, for that they were to be dismissed or sent away by the Deacon, that did not receive the holy communion; for that they that should not be present at the celebration of the Sacrament, were commanded to go forth: therefore saith he, unless at the voice of the Deacon, after the manner of our Ancestors, they that do not communicate, be willed to go forth, the service which is called the Mass, is not rightly performed. But now the Romish Mass is thought to be rightly performed, albeit no man communicate but the Priest, and without any dismissing of them that do not add themselves to the communion, the people (as was said before) being only the spectators and lookers on.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
M. ABBOT is very penurious, and wants matter, that comes forth with such idle stuff as this, not taken out of S. Gregory's own works neither, (for no such fond and unlearned thing is there to be seen,) but on the report of one George Cassander, a man of small credit, and therefore deserveth no answer. Besides, these words, Ite Missa est, are not pronounced in the Mass by the Deacon or Priest, until the communion be wholly past, even at the very end of the Mass, when the people are licenced to departed; as may be seen in all Mass books, and the ancient expositors of the Mass: wherefore they could not serve to dismiss any before the holy communion. Lastly, why (on God's name) must they all be sent away, that will not communicate themselves? shall they receive any harm, by their beholding either the blessed Sacrament, or others receiving of it devoutly? were it not better they assisted the communicants there, continuing in prayer, then to walk abroad idly? or is there any reason why the communicants should be offended with their presence, that no way seek to disquiet them, but rather honour them, for their greater fervour in devotion, and assist them with their prayers? Idle and irreverent gazers on, we allow not off, nor like of their presence at any time of the Mass; but I see no cause at all, why other orderly and devout people, should be driven out of the Church at the time of communion.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
THE same Gregory affirmed, That whosoever called himself, 
Gregor. lib. 6. Epist. 30. Item, lib. 4. Epistola. 32.36.38.  or desired to be called the universal Bishop, was the forerunner of Antichrist, and did propose to himself to follow him, who despising the legion of Angels, that were placed in society with him, did endeavour to grow up to the top of singularity, that so he might seem to be under none, and himself alone to be above al. He calleth it a new name, a name of error, a fond name, proud, perverse, rash, wicked, profane: which (saith he) none of my Predecessors consented to use, by which no man hath presumed to be called, that was in truth a holy man. 
Decret. Gregorij de foro comp. c. Licet.  But soon after the time of Gregory, the Bishop of Rome took upon him that hateful name, and hath since continued the same, challenging the whole world to be his diocese, and is grown to that height of pride, as that he doubteth not to proclaim: 
Extravag. de Maio. & Obed. ca unam Sanctam.  That it standeth upon the necessity of salvation, for every soul to be subject to the Bishop of Rome.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THIS is a precious argument with the Protestants, and though it hath been an hundred times (I ween) sufficiently answered by ours; yet they do as freshly propose it, and as eagerly follow it, as if it were not to be satisfied: whereas in truth it is but a mere sophistication, A vocibus ad res (as the learned term it) from the word universal, unto the supreme authority of government, thus: The Patriarch of Constantinople cannot be called an universal Bishop, nor any Bishop of Rome hath consented to take that name of universal Bishop upon him: ergo, no Bishop of Rome hath been supreme governor of Christ's Church. To which fallacy it is most easy to answer: First, that albeit the Patriarch of Constantinople, could not so call himself in a lawful & good meaning, but proudly and wickedly; (because he had his jurisdiction limited within the bounds of his own Patriarkship, & had nothing to do with any other churches that were without it, so that his power was in no sense universal, that is, spread over all the world): yet this name might in some good sense notwithstanding, have been given unto the Bishop of Rome, as S. Gregory himself in one of the same Epistles which M. Abbot citeth, doth intimate. For writing to the Patriarch of Alexandria he saith: 
Lib. 4. Epist. 36.  Your Holiness knoweth, that by the Council of Chalcedon, (which was one of the four first general Counsels, most highly esteemed off by S. Gregory) this name of universality was offered to me, as Bishop of the Apostolic See; for (as he testifieth Epist. 32. of the same book) that name was in honour of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, attributed by many in that Council, unto the Bishop of Rome: yet (saith he) none of my Predecessors consented to use it; because verily if one Patriarch be called universal, the other are made no patriarchs at al. Briefly then to dispatch this great matter: that name universal (as it was challenged by john Patriarch of Constantinople, who had no right to it in any good sense) was presumptuous, perverse, and profane; in which consideration S. Gregory so termed it. Neither would he, nor any of his predecessors use that name, though in that sense, that they had charge and command over the universal Church, it might have been attributed to them: yet because it was subject to another construction, to wit, that the Bishop of Rome was the only, truly, & proper Bishop of every Diocese, and other named Bishops were not true and proper Bishops there of, but the universal Bishop's Vicars, Suffragans, and Substitutes; therefore they utterly avoided that name, as matter of jealousy and scandal, choosing the humble style of servus servorum Dei: The servant of God's servants. For the further satisfaction of the learned reader, I will prove out of S. Gregory, in the very same place quoted by M. Abbot, both that he wrote against the name of universal Bishop in the later sense: And that notwithstanding he refused that name, yet that he acknowledged and taught, the Bishop of Rome to have supreme authority over all the Church of Christ.  
Touching the first, the words before alleged out of his 36. Epistle, 
Lib. 4. Epist. 36.  do demonstrate so much, to wit: If one Patriarch be called universal, the other are made no patriarchs at all; which can have no other sense, then that the calling of one Patriarch or Bishop Universal, doth signify him so to be a Bishop in every place, that no other besides him, can be truly and properly called Bishop, but must be his Vicar and Subdelegate. The like saith he in his 34. Epistle to the Empress: 
Lib. 4. Epist. 34.  That his brother and fellow Bishop john, strived to be called Bishop alone. And in the 7. book, and 69. Epistle to Eusebius he saith: Si universalis est, restat ut vos Episcopi non sitis; If one Bishop be universal, it remaineth that you be no Bishops. This then is most certain, that S. Gregory spoke against the name of Universal Bishop, taken in this sense; that he was so a Bishop, as no other but he could be Bishop in any place: Marry, if we understand by it, one man to have the general charge of all the Churches in the world, yet so as there be also Bishops and Archbishops his brothers, who have the particular and proper government of their several Diocese; then S. Gregory telleth us plainly, that S. Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome, were such: these be his words. 
Lib. 4. Epist. 76.  It is manifest to all that know the Gospel, that the charge of the whole Church, was by our Lords own mouth committed to S. Peter, Prince of all the Apostles. And again in the same Epistle: Behold, Peter received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; the power of binding and losing is given to him; the charge and principality of the whole Church is committed to him: which is also repeated in one of the Epistles cited by M. Abbot. 
Lib. 4. Epist. 32.  And that by S. Peter, this universal charge and authority was left unto the Bishops and See of Rome, no man can witness it more manifestly, then S. Gregory hath done. First, having proved out of the word of God S. Peter's supremacy, he adjoineth: 
Lib. 6. Epist. 201.  Therefore though there were many Apostles, yet for the principality itself, the only seat of the Prince of the Apostles hath prevailed in authority. As far as the See Apostolic is evidently known to be set over all Churches, by the authority of God: So far amongst other manifold cares, that doth greatly occupy us, when for the consecration of a Bishop our sentence is expected. Again, 
Lib. 2. Epist. 69. Lib. 7. Epist. 64.  For whereas he (the Patriarch of Constantinople) acknowledgeth himself to be subject unto the Apostolic See (of Rome) I know not what Bishop is not subject unto it. Moreover, What thing soever shall be done (in that Council) without the authority and consent of the See Apostolic, it is of no strength and virtue. Whereas on the other side he saith: Those things that are once ratified, 
Lib. 7. Epist. 69.  by the authority of the See Apostolic, need no further strength or confirmation. If any man desire to see, how S. Gregory himself practised that sovereign authority over all the parts of the Christian world, let him but read his Epistles, and he shall find it most perspicuously; 
Magdeburg. Centur. 6. In Indice verbo Gregorius.  even as their own great writers of the Centuries do testify, directing them to the places in his works, where they shall find the same. How devoid then was M. Abbot of all good conscience and honest dealing. that would under the colour of his writing against the name of universal in that sense, persuade the simple, that S. Gregory utterly misliked of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome? Now because that S. Gregory hath been always highly esteemed, and greatly respected of both Latin and Greek Church, for his singular holiness and learning; and was beside the principal cause under God, of the conversion of us Englishmen unto the Christian faith; I will note out of his works summarily, what was his opinion of many of the questioned points of faith, between the Protestants and us, because M. Abbot citeth him against us: that every one may see, what religion was first planted amongst us Englishmen, and continued for a thousand years.  
Of the Supremacy, and Merit of good works, hath been spoken already. Concerning the sacrifice of the Mass, it was daily offered up to God in his age, by most holy Personages: witness these his words. 
Homil. 37. in evang.  Most dear brethren, many of you have known Cassius the Bishop of Maruiensis, whose custom was to offer up to God daily sacrifice, so that almost no day of his life passed, in which he did not offer to God almighty the propitiatory Host, whose life also was very conformable thereunto; and then declareth, how in a vision he received a commandment from God, to hold on and to continue to do as he did: And at the feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, thou shalt (saith God) come to me, and I will repay thee thy reward. Again, he relateth of the most blessed Pope Agapitus, that having a dumb and lame man presented unto him by his friends, who professed their confidence in the power of God, and authority of S. Peter, he presently bend himself to prayer; And beginning the solemnities of Mass, 
Lib. 3. Dialog. cap. 3.  he offereth up sacrifice in the sight of almighty God: which being ended he went from the Altar, took the lame man by the hand, and the people beholding of it, he presently set him upright upon his feet; and putting the body of our Lord into his mouth, his tongue that before was dumb, then began to speak. Besides, of himself thus S. Gregory saith: 
Homil. 8. in evang. Lib. 4. Dialog. cap. 55.  Because we are (by God's grace) this day (of Christ's Nativity) to celebrate Mass three times, we cannot long speak of the Gospel. And further, He caused the sacrifice of the Mass to be offered thirty days together, for the soul of one justus a Monk, until he was by the oblation of that comfortable saving Host delivered from pains. This may suffice for his testimony of the sacrifice of the Mass, that it is a true propitiatory sacrifice, and to be daily offered both for the quick and the dead.  
Now touching the Real presence, of which S. Gregory writeth in this manner: Christ living now in himself immortally, 
Dialog. lib. 4. cap. 58.  is yet sacrificed for us in this mystery of the holy oblation: for his body is there received, his flesh is distributed to the salvation of the people; his blood is not now shed by the hands of Infidels, but is powered into the mouths of the faithful. Item, he saith upon these words: 
Homil. 14. in evang.  (A good shepherd gives his life for his sheep) Christ is that good Pastor, who gave his life for his sheep, that he might turn his body and blood into the Sacrament, and fill those sheep which he had redeemed, with the food of his own flesh. Moreover, expounding these words of job: Who will grant us that we may be filled with his flesh? The jews (saith he) and the believing Gentiles, do both desire to be filled with Christ's flesh: the obstinate jews in striving to extinguish it, by spilling of it; but the good Gentiles in coveting to feed their hungry minds with his flesh in the daily sacrifice. This I hope be plain enough for the Real presence.  
Now to the Inuocaton of Saints, and the worshipping their Relics and Images. S. Gregory persuades us to pray to the Saints, both because they are patrons very gracious with our judge JESUS Christ, and we very sinful creatures, that without the favourable help of others, are most like to be condemned. 
Hom. 32. super evang. In fine.  Wherefore (saith he) sue to those blessed Martyrs, that they may help you with their prayers; get them to be Protectors of your guiltiness: They look to be requested, and as it were seek that they may be sought unto. In the same place he showeth, what miracles were wrought at their tombs, and what gifts God bestowed on them that came to pray there: The sick men (saith he) do come and are cured; perjured persons presenting themselves there, are vexed by the Devil; men possed with evil spirits, be there delivered: How gloriously then do they live, there where they live, (that is in heaven) if they live so miraculously here where they are dead? He propoundeth this question, how it comes to pass, that Martyrs do many times show greater favours, and work greater miracles, in places where their bodies lie not? and answereth in these words: Where holy martyrs rest in their bodies, 
2. Dialog. cap. vlt.  no doubt but that they can do many miracles, as they do unto them that with a pure mind seek for them; but because weak minds might doubt whether they be present to hear, there where their bodies be not, it is necessary that there they work greater marvels, least weaklings should doubt of their presence: but they whose minds be fastened upon God, have so much the more merit, for that they know them not to lie there in body, and yet not to fail to hear them. Do you note how he reputeth it to be a weakness of faith, to doubt whether the Saints in heaven do hear our prayers or no? which very doubt he resolveth in proper terms in another place, where treating of the knowledge which the souls departed have, doth say of the blessed souls in heaven: 
12. Moral. cap. 13.   that the souls of the Saints do inwardly behold the brightness of God almighty, we must in no case believe, that there is any thing without it, which they are ignorant off.  
That Churches were dedicated in the honour of Martyrs, and holy days kept in remembrance of their deaths, he witnesseth in twenty places. That Mass was also said daily in eorum veneratione, to their worship, Lib. 7. Epist. cap. 29. That Candles were lighted in the honour of S. Paul, to testify that he with the light of his preaching filled the world, Lib. 12. Epist. 9 See the last Epistle of the same book, where he ordaineth that lights be taken to serve the high Altar of S. Medard. Now for the love and reverence, which we ought to carry to their holy relics, let this serve. A most religious Princess who had in her own Palace built a Church in the honour of S. Paul, made suit unto S. Gregory, to have S. Paul's Head, or Handkercheefe, to sanctify and enrich the same: to whom S. Gregory written this answer; 
Lib. 3. Epist. 30.  that he was very willing to pleasure her, yet as sorry that he could not do it in that sort. For (saith he) the bodies of S. Peter and S. Paul, do in their Church glister and lighten with so many miracles and terrors, that no man dare approach near them, not so much as to worship them, without great dread: but he trusted she should not want the virtue of those holy Apostles (whom with all her heart she loved) to protect her. And touching the handkercheefe which she demanded, it did lie with the body, and could not be touched more than the body itself: yet that her most excellent grace might not be wholly frustrate of her religious desire, he would send her some part of those chains, which S. Paul carried both about his neck and hands, and by which many miracles were wrought, if with filing be could get off any thing. For when many that come hither do crave that blessing, that they might have of that dust, which is filled off those chains; the Priest coming with the file● doth for some presently get off something: whereas for other, he drawing the file on the chains a long time, nothing at all will off it. Further, to a Noble man of France he sent the blessing of S. Peter, and a little Cross, within the which was enclosed some such filing of S. Peter's chains; Which for a time (saith he) bound S. Peter's neck, 
Lib 2. Epist. 72.  but shall lose your neck from sin for ever. Some relics also of S. Laurence Grid-yron were enclosed in the four corners of that same Cross; That by the help of that whereon his body was broiled, your mind (saith he) may be kindled in the love of God.  
Touching the Images of Saints, he not only approveth them to be made, but teacheth them to be set in Churches, 
Lib. 7. Epist. 119.  that they who cannot read, may by beholding of them, learn to imitate some of their virtues. Moreover, he exhorteth all men to worship them, by kneeling before them; yet with this caveat, that they do not yield them any such adoration as is proper to God. What a protector he was of Purgatory & prayer for the dead, 
Lib. 7. Epist. ad Secundin. Lib. 4. Dialog. cap. 20.  may be seen in these places where he saith; that we must believe that there is a Purgatory fire, to cleanse lighter offences after this life, before the day of judgement: And proves it both by Christ's words, 
¶ Math. 12. vers. 32.  If any man blaspheme against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come; And out of S. Paul, 
1. Cor. 3. vers. 15.  He shall be saved, yet so as by fire. And in the beginning of the third penitential Psalm, expounding these words of the Prophet; O Lord rebuke me not in thy fury, neither chastise me in thy wrath, he adjoineth: This is as much as if David had said, I know that after this life some shall feel the fire of Purgatory, others shall receive the sentence of eternal damnation: But because I esteem that transitory fire of Purgatory, to be more intolerable than any tribulation of this life, I do not only wish not to be reproved in the fury of eternal damnation, for I fear also to be purged in the wrath of thy transitory correction. In this exposition he agreeth with S. Augustine upon the same Psalm, even as he did in the first with the same profound Doctor Lib. 21. de Cinit. cap. 24. Et lib. 6. contra jovintanum. cap. 9 Further he teacheth to pray for the souls departed, Lib. 4. Dialog. cap. 50. And to offer sacrifice for them, Ibid. cap. 55. and else where in many places.  
To speak a word of the single and chaste life of the Clergy. S. Gregory saith, None ought to be admitted to the ministry of the Altar, 
Lib. 1. Epist. 42. L. 12. In fine, In decretis.  saving such whose chastity hath been approved before they were made Ministers. Again, If any Priest or Deacon do marry, accursed be he. How well he liked of the vows and holy profession of Monks and Nuns, may appear by that, that he himself was one of them. And he relateth, 
Homil. 11. in Ezechiëlem, & Hom. 40. in Euangel.  that there were 3000. Nuns of name, in his time within the walls of Rome; whose life was so holy, and so much exercised in fasting, prayers, and tears, that he did believe, (had it not been for them) none of the rest had been able to have subsisted so many years, amongst the sword of the langobards. He then did not as the Protestants do, think religious persons unprofitable members of the common weal, by whose holy lives and devout prayers, he esteemed the City to have been preserved.  
For the sprinkling of holy Water in Churches, erecting of Altars, placing thereof Relics of Saints, see Lib. 9 Epist. 71. For Pilgrimage to holy places, Lib. 4. Epist. cap. 44. Homil. 37. in evang. & Lib. 2. Dialog. cap. 17. Finally, if I would stand to rehearse all that S. Gregory hath written in the defence of the Catholic Roman faith, I should make a whole volume. And this brief extract out of his own authentic works, will suffice (I hope) to demonstrate, what a jolly patron he was of the Protestants doctrine, and with what good conscience M. Abbot and his fellows do allege him, as a favourer of their errors; which he disproved, confuted, and condemned so fully and particularly, little less than a thousand years, before they were hatched and thrust into the world. And must it not needs work in all considerate English-mens hearts, a very vehement inclination to embrace the now professed Roman religion, to see the same point by point, professed, taught, and practised, a thousand year gone, by so wise, holy, and learned a Bishop, who was also as I noted before, the chosen instrument of God, principally to procure our reclaiming from Idolatry, and the serving of false gods, unto the true and sincere faith of JESUS Christ? That faith which he taught, was planted first amongst us Englishmen, 
See the Catholic Apology out of Protestants.  as the most learned among the Protestants do confess; the same hath also ever since (until of late) been wholly retained of all our most holy Ancestors: is it not then a great shame for us to degenerate so far, and to fall so fond from it? I trust in the mercies and goodness of God, that we shall once have grace to perceive, understand, and amend it.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
GREGORY the ninth, Bishop of Rome, though living in later time of great corruption; yet by the ancient doctrine of the Catholic Church could say: that 
* Greg. Ep. ad Germ Archi-Episc. Constat. apud Math. Paris. in Henrico tertio.  the not knowing of the Scriptures by the testimony of the truth itself, is the occasion of errors; and therefore that it is expedient for all men to read or bear the same. But now the doctrine of Rome is, that it is pernicious for the people to meddle with the Scriptures, that reading and knowledge thereof, is the breeding of error and heresy; and as dogs from holy things, so the people must be secluded from the reading and use of them.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
M. ABBOT seems to be fallen into a dangerous consumption, and to draw fast upon a desperate estate, or else he would never use such silly salves as this, to prolong the life of his forlorn cause. From Gregory the first he leapeth over the heads of an hundred Popes his Successors, and lighteth next upon Gregory the ninth, that lived above six hundred years after him, whom also he citeth not out of his own works, but from the report of another; and when all is done, he hath not a word out of him that will greatly help their cause. For what saith he, that we say not? we hold with him that the want of knowledge of the Scriptures, is the cause of heresy: for he that knoweth and understandeth well the holy Scriptures, can never fall into error or heresy. Besides we deny not, but that it is expedient for all men, either to read the Scriptures, or to hear them: to read them themselves if they be men of judgement, and endued with a lowly spirit, carrying with them this rule of S. Peter; 
2. Pet. 1. vers. 19  That the Scriptures as they were not written by a private spirit, so they must not be understood by a private interpretation: wherefore in all dark and doubtful places, they must not trust to their own wit, but make their recourse unto the Catholic Church, (
Ioh 14. v. 26. joh. 16. v. 13. 1. Tim. 3. vers. 15.  Which is directed by the spirit of God into all truth, and therefore called the pillar and ground of truth) for the true sense and meaning of them. All the rest, both Men, Women, and Children, we would have to hear the holy Scriptures read unto them, and expounded by their lawful Pastors, and approved Preachers, who are chosen and sent to feed their souls, with that heavenly food of the word of God: So that Gregory the ninth, differeth nothing from Paul the fift, the present Pope of Rome, who is fully of the same opinion: And M. Abbot's audacious assertions to the contrary, are but mere slanders. For we hold it not pernicious for all sorts of people to read the Scriptures, unless it be in such false translations, as the Protestants have made; but have ourselves translated them into the vulgar tongue, that all Godly well minded people, of any reasonable capacity, may diligently and devoutly read them at their good opportunity.  
M. Abbot was wont heretofore, to allege some author or other, to give the better countenance to his lies; but now he is feign to face them out himself, without the help of any other: and having put his special confidence in lying, as they did of whom the Prophet speaketh; 
Esai. 28.  Posuimus mendacium spem nostram, We have put our hope in lying, he thrusteth them out lightly by huddles. False then it is first, that we teach the people to be secluded from the reading of Scripture, as dogs are from holy things: for we would have none other debarred from reading of them, but wavering, wilful, and perverse fellows, 
2. Pet. 3. vers. 16.  Who (as S. Peter teacheth) abuse the holy Scriptures, to their own destruction, and to the seducing of others. Secondly, it is a lie in grain, to avouch that we teach the knowledge of the Scriptures to breed error and heresy, unless he mean the corrupt and perverse knowledge of them, which is rather to be termed the ignorance of them: for the true knowledge of them delivereth us from all error and heresy, and settleth us in the sound doctrine of the Catholic Roman Church. True it is that many nowadays, who have some smattering in the words and verses of the text, having itching ears and wavering minds, are the sooner lead away through their little skill in the Scriptures, and overgreat presumption of their own wits: for hearing Heretics cite for proof of their heresy, some texts of Scripture which they know to be God's word, and having neither sufficient learning to answer them, nor grace to ask counsel therein of the true Pastors of Christ's Church, who would rightly inform them, become a prey to the ravening wolves. Again, the very experience of this age doth sufficiently inform an understanding man, that the over common reading of God's word by the more rude and unruly sort, hath rather engendered a corruption of manners, then bred any amendment thereof: for every peevish scripturist, puffed up with the opinion of his own learning, will rather take upon him to be a teacher of others, than a practiser of them himself. And often very preposterously, Women will teach Men, Children their Fathers, Sheep their Pastors: in a word, many will be jangling about matter of religion, and very few studious to live religiously. These disorders I grant do not spring directly out of God's word, but out of our corrupt nature, too too prone to presumption on our own skill: And therefore, let any reasonable man judge whether they did not more wisely, who used to bridle this itching appetite of reading in the curious, and thought it better to bind them to follow the advise of their spiritual guides, which have charge of their souls; then our new brethren, who allow every Man, Woman, and Child to read what books of Scripture they list, and to wrangle about them so commonly? S. Paul insinuateth, that all places of Scripture are not fit for all sorts of men; but in some parts, 
1. Cor. cap. 3. vers. 2.  There is milk for sucklings; and in others, Strong meat for the more perfect: And our Saviour Christ JESUS spoke much in parables, which are not for every ones capacity. A sword is a good weapon, but put it into the hand of a mad man, it will do more harm then good: so if some men get a smattering in holy Scriptures, they will use it full madly. Wherefore the Catholic Church, though she wish every child of hers to know so much of the Scriptures, as will do them any way good: yet she knows it to be wholesome and very necessary, that a moderation be used therein, according to the discreet advise and judgement of Godly and prudent Ghostly Fathers.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
HIEROME and RUFFINUS by the doctrine of the Church of Rome, 
Hier. in Prologue. Galiat. & in Praefat. lib. Salomonis. Ruffin. in expositione Simboli.  excluded from Canonical Scripture the same books that we do; the books of judith, Tobias, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the rest: they say plainly, Non sunt in Canone, non sunt Canonici; They are not Canonical, nor in the Canon. The Church readeth them for instruction of manners, not to give any authority to any Ecclesiastical doctrine. But now the Church of Rome, will have them to be received and believed for Canonical Scriptures, and of equal and like authority withal the other books.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
I Observe first, that M. Abbot forgetting himself (which is a foul fault in a liar) and leaving his own prescript order, is now fallen clean from S. Peter and S. Paul's successors, the Bishops of Rome. Secondly, that he nevertheless holds his old custom in lying. I wink at that petty lie, that he thrusteth in Baruch among the rest, which his Authors do not; but may not dissemble this greater: for whereas he saith, Hierome and Ruffinus by the doctrine of the Church of Rome, exclude from Canonical Scripture the same books that we do; therein he fableth: for though they so did, yet did they it not by the doctrine of the Church of Rome. For Innocentius the first, Pope of Rome; whom S. Augustine allegeth, styling him a Saint, and ranking him with S. Ireneus, S. Cyprian, and S. Ambrose, in these words: 
August. lib. 1. cont. julianum, cap. 4.  Cùm hijs etiam ipse considet, etsi posterior tempore, prior loco; In time somewhat after some of them, but in dignity of place before them. This holy and learned Bishop of Rome I say, who flourished in S. Hieromes days, (or else S. Augustine who was in manner his equal, 
Epist. 3. ad Exuper. cap. ultimo.  could not have cited his testimony) doth expressly declare those very books to be Canonical Scripture. I trust his declaration that ruled that See of Rome, will rather be taken for the doctrine of the Church of Rome, than any other man's beside. Again, Pope Gelasius the first, who lived not long after him (which also is one of M. Abbot's chosen patrons) did in public assembly, 
In Decret. de Libris sacris in 2. tomo Conciliorum.  (assisted also with 80. other Bishops) define the same books to be Canonical Scripture: who can then doubt, but that the Church of Rome, in S. Hieromes and Ruffinus days, took those books to be Canonical Scripture? wherefore it was but M. Abbot's addition to the text, to affirm that Hierome and Ruffinus, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome did so say. Besides, the third Council of Carthage holden at the felfe-same time, 
Concil. 3. Carthag. cap. 47.  doth declare the said books of Tobias, Ecclesiasticus, etc. to be Canonical Scripture; affirming also, that therein they followed the sound judgement of their Ancestors. 
Lib. 2. de Doctrina Christ. cap. 8. & Lib. 18. de Civitat. cap. 36.  S. Augustine in sundry places of his works, doth by name declare the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, judith, and the two books of the Maccabees to be Canonical Scripture; and seemeth to expound S. Hieromes sentence in these words: The books of the Maccabees, the jews indeed do not receive; but the Church of God taketh them for Canonical Scriptures. Whence we after the ancient, 
Lib. 7. Etimolog. cap. ●.  learned, and holy Bishop Isidorus, do collect this distinction: The Canon of the Scriptures is twofold; the one of the Hebrews, the other of the Christians: that of the Hebrews was compounded long before Christ's days, in which these books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, etc. are not comprehended, because they were written in later times, and not in the Hebrew tongue. 
Prologue. Galiator.  Of this Hebrew Canon speaketh S. Hierome in that Prologue, as it will be manifest to all that shall but read it; for he saith first, That the Hebrews have but 22. letters, and according to the same number but 22. books in their Canon: then reckoning them up by name, inferreth; therefore the book of Wisdom, etc. be not in the Canon, to wit, that Canon of the Hebrews whereof he there spoke: which also appeareth more evidently by his answer to Ruffinus, who objected against him as a shameful reproach, that he rejected certain Chapters of Daniël, because they were not in the Hebrew, though they were in the Septuaginta. S. Hierome excuseth himself, saying: 
Lib. 2. cont. Ruffinum, versus finem.  That therein be showed the opinion of the Hebrews, but did not deliver his own sentence. And as he there saith, That he who would calumniate that his doing, should show himself a sycophant: so he doth thereby give all others to understand, that he who would after that fair warning, build any Catholic conclusion upon his relation of the Hebrews opinion, should prove himself a fool, in trusting to so sandy and slippery a foundation. And yet further, in his Preface upon the book of judith he teacheth, That the Hebrews did not take that book of judith for Canonical; yet the first Nicene Council (which is the most authentic of all general Counsels) did account it in the number of holy Scripture: so that in S. Hieromes opinion also, though these books were not in the Canon of the Hebrews; yet they may be very sincere Canonical Scripture with the Christians, who have the spirit of discerning and judging of such Canonical books, as well as the ancient Hebrews had. But S. Hierome saith in the later place, That the Church doth not use them to establish Ecclesiastical doctrine. I answer, that the Churches of Africa did use them even in his own time, and the Church of Rome, (which is the principal of all Europe at the least) as hath been proved before: so that his words must needs be restrained unto some Churches in Asia, where he lived for the most part; or it may be said, that the Church had not then when S. Hierome so wrote, generally declared them to be Canonical, though very shortly after, even before his dying day, they were in the most principal places of the Church, both declared and received for Canonical. That the Church had sufficient authority, by declaration to make books of Scripture Canonical, that before were not generally taken for such, the Protestants themselves must needs confess; because they take for Canonical, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and divers others, with the Revelation of S. john, which were doubted off by many of the learned Christians in the primitive Church, 
Lib. 3. Hist. Eccles. c. 10. & 19  as witnesseth Eusebius.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
VIGILIUS borne at Rome, and Bishop of Trent, according to the doctrine of the Church of Rome that then was, affirmeth: That the body of Christ when it was upon the earth, 
Vigil. count. Eutich. lib. 4.  was not in heaven, and that now because it is in heaven, it is not upon the earth. But now the Council of Trent and Church of Rome persuade us, that the very body of Christ though it be in heaven; yet is really and substantially here upon earth also, upon the Altar, and in the Pix, and in the Priest's belly, and in the bellies of as many as are partakers of the Sacrament.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  

In vita S. Sisinnij.  THIS large amplification is shortly answered. Vigilius though a holy Catholic Bishop, as his praying to Saints doth demonstrate; yet was none of S. Peter's successors: neither doth he speak any thing against Christ's real & substantial presence in the Bless. Sacrament, if his words be taken in his own meaning, to wit; that Christ since his ascension is not here in that manner and fashion, as he did converse upon the earth with his Disciples, that is in the form of man. Which I gather out of Vigilius his own words; for he saith, that Christ is departed from us in the form of a servant, and so according unto that form of a servant, in the habit and likeness of a man he is not present with us: but the very same body under the form of bread, is in as many places, as the blessed Sacrament is consecrated. See for this more in the question of the Real presence.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  

Hier. in Catalogo.  TERTULLIAN being for envy of the Clergy of Rome, fallen into the heresy of Montanus, and thereupon oppugning the same Church, declareth what the said Church then taught concerning fasting, 
Tertul. de jejun. adversus Psythicos.  of purpose to dispute against it. They say (saith he) that men are to fast indifferently at their discretion, not by commandment, every one according to his own time and occasion; that the Apostles did so observe, imposing no yoke of standing fasts, and such as should in common be kept of all, etc.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
FROM the Pastors of the See of Rome, M. Abbot is declined to the enemies of the same Church: doth he not fairly observe his own order and promise? But well M. Abbot, if Tertullian for envy of the Clergy of Rome fell into heresy, let your charity towards the Roman Clergy, help to draw yourself out of the same sink of heresy. But where was your judgement, to cite an author writing out of the corrupt humour of envy (as you confess yourself) for an upright & indifferent reporter of his adversaries cause? Did ever envy yet learn to speak well? Why did you not rather allege some sound Catholic Author, for the reporter of Catholics opinions? What? is it because as Vultures and Ravens do rather fly to rotten carrion and dead stinking carcases, then to any sound bodies; so they that seek to devour poor sinful souls, do make choice of tainted and corrupt authors, out of their contagion to infect and destroy others? Simile simili gaudet, Like will to like. Nay what if M. Abbot be not satisfied with the bad words of Tertullian (which proceeded out of envy and malice) but doth yet by chopping and changing of them, make them far worse than they be in the author? is he not then to be esteemed as a most corrupt mangler of antiquity? Tertullian to make his own error seem the less, proposeth odd trifling arguments against it, which he could answer with more ease, and that after an odious manner, as the adverse party is wont to do; that he might make the Catholics out of love with them: yet doth M. Abbot relate the same in great gravity, as the most sincere & substantial proofs of the contrary party, saving that now and then (after his old fashion) he falsifieth his author too.  
Now to the words of Tertullian: the first are craftily cropped off by him; for Catholics never said so absolutely, That they were to fast at their own discretion, and not by commandment: for Tertullian confesseth there, that Catholics held themselves bound to fast the Lent, and on Wednesdays and Fridays; therefore they could not say that they were to fast only at their own discretion. True it is, that they answered him and the Montanists, that they were not bound to keep any of their new devised fasting-days, nor to fast after the manner that they prescribed, and that by the commandment (as they said and lied) of the Paraclete or holy Ghost; from such fasts they proclaimed themselves free: whereupon he maliciously reported, that they said they might fast when they list, and were not bound to fast by any commandment. Secondly, whereas Tertullian saith in the name of Catholics, That the Apostles imposed no yoke of standing fasts, and such as should be commonly kept of all; Nisi eo tempore quo oblatus est sponsus (by which he meaneth specially the Lent, wherein the memory of Christ's death is celebrated:) and afterward mentioneth the Catholics halfe-fasts, (as he termeth them) of Wednesdays and Fridays; M. Abbot to make them speak like good Protestants, dasheth all that clean out of the text, leaving them to say, that the Apostles appointed no fasting days at all, neither Lent nor Fridays: So what by Tertullia's odious relation, and M. Abbot's false addition or substraction, there is a pretty piece of cozenage, to gull the simple and unwary reader. The words then of Tertullian, being first such as proceeded from envy, and then also much mangled afterward, and peeced together at M. Abbot's pleasure, I hold it not necessary to stand upon them; but do come unto M. Abbot's inferences, and goodly buildings upon such a deceitful foundation.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
SEE (M. Bishop) how like a Protestant, the Church of Rome spoke in those days: would you not think that Luther, or Caluin, or Beza were the Author of these words? How lightly do you regard these arguments from us, which the Church of Rome 1400. years ago, used to the very same purpose that we now do? But the Church of Rome hath learned now to sing another song: she condemned the heresy of Montanus then, but now she maintaineth it. I avouch it M. Bishop, that concerning fasting, neither you nor all your fellows, are able to acquit the Church of Rome of the heresy of Montanus.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
I See (M. Abbot) how like the Protestant humour is, unto the distempered spirits of old time. I think verily, that Luther, Caluin, Beza, and such late plagues of Christendom, do yet more deceitfully and falsely report Catholics opinions and arguments, than ever Tertullian did. How lightly these arguments which you afterward enforce, are to be regarded, shall shortly appear. The Church of Rome hath not changed one note of her old song concerning fasting, neither shall you with the help of all your companions, prove us to be Montanists in this point of fasting. I being the simplest of a thousand amongst the learned on our side, will quickly clear our party from that imputation: And contrariwise I doubt not, but to prove you and yours, to be the disciples of lovinian and Aërius, old condemned Heretics in this point of fasting. Let us lay words aside and come to arguments.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
THE Montanists appointed certain and standing days for fasting, and for the forbearing of certain meats: so do the Papists. The Montanists did not take any creature or meat to be unclean, but did only by way of devotion as they pretended, forbear at certain times: and the Papists also do the same. The Montanists being urged with that place of S. Paul to Timothy, of them that commanded to abstain from meats, answered; that that place touched Martion and Tatianus & such others, who condemned the creatures as evil and unclean; not them, who did not reject the creatures, but only forbear the use of them at sometimes: the same answer give the Papists. The Montanists took that their fasting to be a service & worship of God: so do the Papists. The Montanists thought that their fasting did merit at gods hands, that it was a satisfaction for sin, that emptiness of belly did much avail with God, and made God to dwell with man: the same effects do the Papists teach of their superstitious fasts. Look what arguments the Papists use for their fasting; the same Tertullian used for the Montanists. Look what cavils and calumniations the Papists use against us, of feasting in steed of fasting, of Epicurism and pampering the belly; the same Tertullian being a Montanist, used against the doctrine of the Church of Rome: whereas neither that Church then, nor we now, do reject the true fasting which the Scripture teacheth, but only those opinions of fasting, which the Montanists first devised, and the Papists have received against the Scripture; to forbear continually by way of religion, such and such days, from such and such meats, with a mind there in and by their very forbearing, to do a worship to God, to satisfy for sin, to merit and purchase the forgiveness thereof, and to deserve eternal life.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
BEFORE we come to join issue, let this maxim of arguing be observed: He that will prove one to be the proper disciple of any Sect-master, must do it by producing the proper and peculiar doctrine of the same sect, and not by alleging such points of doctrine, as are common to that sect with many others. For example, if I would prove a Protestant to be an Arrian, I must not think to perform it, by proving that they believed in one God as the Arrians did, or that they fly to the touchstone of the Scriptures, as the Arrians did, refusing Traditions; and that they relied much on the power of temporal Princes, setting the Bishop of Rome's authority at nought, etc. for none of these be proper branches of the Arrian sect, but common to them with others. Marry, if I could prove them to affirm the Son of God touching his divinity to be lesser than his Father, or after his Father, or not of the same substance with his heavenly Father; I must needs be taken then to speak to the purpose: Even so, if M. Abbot do insist upon those points of the Montanists errors, which were proper to themselves, and not common with others, proving us to maintain the same; I then will grant, that he acquitteth himself like a brave champion. But if he do make all his instances, in such general circumstances of fastings, as the Catholic Church then did maintain, as well as the Montanists; Yea that the Protestants themselves do in part uphold and defend, as well as the Catholics: then every man must needs acknowledge and take him for a wrangling Sophister, and a vain bragging writer, that cracks of wonders and performs nothing. Let us now descend to his particulars, and try what sharpness of wit, and soundness of judgement he showeth therein.  
The Montanists (saith he) appointed certain and standing days for fasting, and forbearing of certain meats: so do the Papists. I grant: what? be they therefore Montanists? then the Protestants be also Montanists, because they appoint certain and standing days of fasts, as Friday, Saturday, the Imber, and Lent-fasts, and many feasts eves; which days they appoint for the forbearing of flesh. Is not this a proper piece of montanism, that is common to so many? Nay, the Apostles themselves did the like, as Tertullian in the same place granteth: were they also therefore Montanists? see how M. Abbot beginneth to shame himself? To the next. The Montanists did not take any creature or meat to be unclean, but did only by way of devotion forbear at certain times: and the Papists do also the same; which I also grant. And do not the Protestants agree with them in the former part, thinking no meat to be unclean? Now in the later they do worse; for they forbear flesh at certain times, not of devotion to chastise their bodies, and to please God, as the Montanists pretended: but for worldly policy, of favouring the increase of flesh, for the upholding of the trade of fishermen, and to please their Prince. Here let any Godly man be judge, whether of these two ends of pleasing God or the Prince, be more Christianlike, and whether of them do more savour of the spirit of God? he shall no doubt find, that herein it is much better to concur with Tertullian, then consort with the Protestants. And that the best learned in the primitive Church so thought and so taught, I have proved in the Question of fasting. The Montanists being urged with that place of S. Paul, that it was the doctrine of Devils, to command to abstain from meats, answered; that it touched Martion and Tatianus, who condemned meats as unclean in their own nature: the same answer do the Papists give; which I acknowledge willingly. What? are they thereby become Montanus disciples? then was S. Augustine, as a great Papist, so no small Montanist: for he doth in most express terms so expound that place; these be his words. The Apostle doth in these words properly point at, 
Aug. cont. Adimant. Manichaeun, c. 14. 1. Tim. c. 4.  not them who therefore abstain from such meats, that they may thereby bridle their own concupiscence, or spare another man's weakness: but those, who think the flesh itself unclean. Do you see how S. Augustine interpreteth those words of S. Paul, even as we do? who also answereth to every of the Protestants objections against set fasting above a 1000 years before they troubled the world. In like manner doth S. Hierome, in the very words that M. Abbot sets down for ours: thus he writeth. 
Lib. 1. cont. jovin. ca 41.  The Apostle doth condemn them that forbid to marry, and command to abstain from meats, etc. true, but he aimed at Martion and Tatianus, and such other Heretics that command perpetual abstinence, as though the creatures of God were abominable: but we commend every creature of God, and do only prefer fasting before fullness, etc. So that by this exposition of S. Paul's doctrine, we are not proved Montanists, but do imitate therein the principal pillars of the ancient Roman Church, S. Augustine and S. Hierome; and do therein also, wipe away a sluttish imputation of jovinian, revived and set a foot again by the Protestants: that forsooth, 
Lib. 1. cont. jovin. cap. 3.  We teach the doctrine of Devils condemned by the Apostles, and do fall into the opinion of the Manichees, because we command to abstain on fasting days, from some kind of meats, which God created to receive, etc. but of this more exactly in the Question of fasting. Now to the rest of M. Abbot's text. The Montanists took that their fasting to be a service and worship to God: wherein they were not deceived; for it is written in the word of God, 
Luc. 2.  That Elizabeth a blessed widow, departed not from the Temple, by fasting and prayer serving night and day: serving, in Greek Latrevousa, that is, doing service and worship to God, as by prayer, so by fasting. Again, by fasting, watching, and other bodily austerities, we do (according to the common exposition of the ancient Fathers) 
Rom. 12.  exhibit our bodies to God, a living boast (as the Apostle speaketh) holy & pleasing God, and a reasonable service: It must needs then be a very holy, and most acceptable service and worship of God, that is resembled by S. Paul, unto a living and pure sacrifice. 
Canon. 5.  And in the Council of Nice it is said, That we may offer to God the pure and solemn fast of Lent: they thought then it was a service of God. I omit here to bring any further proofs, because this is not the place to stand upon the matter of fasting, but only to answer to M. Abbot's naked objections: whereof the fift is (as M. Abbot saith) that the Montanists thought by their fasting to merit at God's hand. Good reason had they for that, if they did so teach, and that the rest of their doctrine had been answerable to it; for our blessed Saviour doth teach the very same expressly in these words: 
Math. 6.  When thou dost fast anoint thy head and wash thy face, that thou appear not to men to fast, and thy Father who seethe thee in secret will repay thee. Whereupon that grave and holy Father S. Ambrose saith: Where be these new Masters that do exclude the merit of fasting? 
Epistola. 82. ad E●cl.  Here, here Sir, saith M. Abbot. If they were new sect-masters in S. Ambrose time, that denied the merit of fasting, then surely the ancient Church of Rome did maintain the merit of fasting. Again, Epiphanius (a more credible reporter of Montanus errors, than his own disciple Tertullian) hath left written: 
Haeres. 48. cont. Montan.  That many of the Montanists, did remove the reward of virtue, and crown of glory from fasting: where fore M. Abbot doth wrongfully attribute that unto them. Besides, S. Augustine doth affirm: 
De Ecclesiast. dogm. ca 68  That to equal marriage with virginity, and to believe that they who do abstain from wine and flesh to chastise their bodies, do thereby merit nothing, is not the part of a Christian, but of a jovinian. It is then more than manifest, that the ancient Church of Rome did uphold the merit of fasting, and that they were of old, esteemed no better than Heretics that denied it.  
To come now to the last feigned concord between us and the Montanists: They taught (as he avoucheth) fasting to be a satisfaction or expiation of sin, and a special means to appease God's wrath towards us; which if they did, they had good warrant in the word of God for it For the children of Israel 
1. Reg. 7.  fasting with Samuël, appeased God, and obtained victory of their enemies: so did they again and again, in the time of 
Hester. 4. judith. 4.  Hester and judith. The 
* jonae. 3.  ¶ Ninivites turned away the wrath of God by fasting: Daniël also (as 
a Ser. de laps. Lib. de Vtilit. jejunij, ca 3.  S. Cyprian witnesseth) by fasting promeruit Deum, appeased his wrath & did win his favour. S. Augustine proposeth the delicate Protestants objection, & shows us how to answer thereunto: What (say they) is God so cruel, that he taketh pleasure to see thee torment thyself? Answer, (saith that most learned Doctor) I put myself to pain, that God may spare me; I punish myself that he may secure me, that I may please his eyes, that I may delight his sweetness: for the Host is hampered and vexed, that it may be laid upon the Altar, etc. Briefly, we have by the evident warrant of God's word, and by sound testimony of the Nicene Council, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine (no Montanists, but most holy & judicious Prelates of the ancient Catholic Church); that by fasting God is truly served, his just indignation against us is appeased, satisfaction is made for the temporal pain due to sin, and the increase of his grace and heavenly glory, is thereby also merited. Whence it followeth finally, that when M. Abbot assayed by these common accidents and circumstances of fasting, (which were as well defended by the ancient Church of Rome, as by the Montanists) to prove the present Church of Rome to be turned Montanist; his soar eyes were piteously troubled with such a defluxion either of envy or ignorance, that had well-nigh blinded him. But if the discreet reader for his further satisfaction, desire to know wherein lay the proper error of the Montanists concerning fasting (for they held beside, divers other points of erroneous doctrine) I answer in brief, out of the Ecclesiastical history: 
Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 17. Epistola. ad Marcellum de fide nostra & dogmate haeretico.  Montanus decreed new laws of fasting, which did consist partly in the time, and partly in the manner of fasting. S. Hierome recounting the principal points of Montanus heresy: as that they held but one person in the Deity, and that all second marriages were wicked; cometh to the third point of fasting, and saith: We Catholics do fast one Lent or forty days once in the year, according to the tradition of the Apostles, at a convenient time: They (that is the Montanists) make three Lents in the year, as though three saviours had suffered for us; not that we may not fast any time in the year, except between Easter and Whitsuntide, but that it is one thing to do so voluntarily, and another upon necessity: So that the fi●st novelty of their fast was, that every man was bound to fast three Lents every year. Other days perhaps they might have proper to themselves, which I have not read off; but the manner of their fast, Tertullian in the place before cited, doth signify: that it was to hold out their fast until the Sun were set, without tasting of any thing, and then to use that Cherophagia mentioned by M. Abbot, that is; to eat only dry meats that had no juice or nourishment in them: All which must needs be done according to their doctrine, by the commandment of the Paraclete or holy Ghost, which dwelled in Montanus; and was powered out upon his disciples (as they fabled) far more pientifully, then upon Christ's Apostles. These indiscreet laws then of fasting, that few were able to endure, enacted also by him that had no authority to make laws; and peremptorily published in the name of the holy Ghost, to be observed of all under pain of damnation, were Montanus errors touching fasting. Let M. Abbot if he can, show out of Philastrius, Epiphanius, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, or any other approved Author (who have registered Montanus heresies, either in his own name or under the name of Cataphriges, because he was a Phrygian borne, and there his heresy did most rage) that his errors about fasting were, That he thought fasting to please G●d, to be meritorious or satisfactory; and then he shall begin to speak to some purpose. But any ancient sincere Author truly taken and reported, will not serve his turn: they must be Heretics or writing at least in an heretical vain, as Tertullian then did, or else, they will ●fford him no help or comforr. The Montanists indeed, the more easily to entrap Catholics in their snares, might perhaps pretend the same end and spiritual fruits of fasting, which the Catholics liked well off, as all Heretics do mingle and blend many truths with their errors, the better to colour their trumpery and deceit: like unto Wolves that put on Sheepskins, that they may thereby the sooner catch them whom they seek to devour, before they be aware of them. But as S. Augustine adviseth very prudently, The sheep must not therefore cast off his own skin, because the wolf doth sometime put it on: no more must Catholics forsake any branch or good circumstance of fasting, because the Montanists used them.  
If any man be desirous to know the true founders of the Protestant doctrine against fasting, they are of record in right good authors, but noted by them for very wicked Heretics. Aërius (saith both Epiphanius and S. Augustine) unto the Arrian heresy added some other errors of his own, to wit: That we ought not to pray and offer sacrifice for the dead; and that certain standing fasts were not to be commanded, but that men might fast when they pleased, lest otherwise they should be under the law. Is not this the first part of the Protestant plea and opinion, that there must be no standing and ordinary fasts? join hereunto one branch of Iouinians heresy: 
Hieron. lib. 1. cont. jovin. cap. 2.  That there is no difference, between abstaining from meat, and receiving of the same with thanksgiving, that is, all is one before God: and no more merit or satisfaction in fasting then in eating; and than you have the full doctrine of the Protestants, patched up out of the rotten reproved rags of two old condemned Heretics, Aërius and jovinian. The old Roman faith, which to this day doth remain inviolable, walketh in the midst of these two extremities: she leaveth it not to every man's discretion, to fast when and how he pleaseth, as Aërius would have had it (for then there would be little fasting with many, as daily experience teacheth us;) but commandeth certain standing times of fasting, prescribing also one uniform manner to be observed of all, who be of age and in health; which is done according to the tradition of the Apostles, with that moderation of both time and diet, that she is as far on the other side, from the presumptuous and undiscreet prescription of the Montanists, as may be. We can better defend ourselves from Montanus' errors, than M. Abbot can do the Protestants from one principal point of them; which was (as S. Hierome reporteth,) that they at every sin almost, 
Epist. 49. ad Marcellum de dogmate Montani.  did shut up the Church doors, that is, did deny that there was in the Pastors of the Church, power to absolve them from those sins: And were so stern and rough (as S. Hierome saith) not that they themselves did not commit more grievous offences, but because there is this difference betwixt the Montanists & us, that they are ashamed to confess their sins as men; but we whiles we do penance, do more easily merit and deserve pardon: where you see, that the ancient Roman Church (of which S. Hierome was an eminent Doctor) did dissent from the Montanists about the Sacrament of confession. The Montanists then, as the Protestants now, did not believe that Priests had power to forgive many sorts of sin, and therefore would not go to confession: Contrariwise the Catholics then, believed as we do now, that Priests could pardon all sorts of sin, and therefore went to confession, and did such penance as was enjoined them, thereby to deserve pardon of their sins.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
TO this heresy of Montanus, the Church of Rome hath added the practice and defence of sundry other heresies, which were condemned of old by the same Church. 
Epiphan. Haeres. 78. Antid. Idem Haeres. 79. Collyrid.  The Collyridians' were adjudged Heretics, for worshipping the Virgin Mary, and offering unto her: Epiphanius calling it a wicked and blasphemous act, a Devilish work, and the doctrine of the unclean spirit, affirming that she was not given us to be worshipped: that because men should not admire or think to highly of her, therefore he spoke to her in that sort in the Gospel; Woman what have I to do with thee? that if God would not have the Angels to be worshipped, much less a woman: that the Son of God took flesh of the holy Virgin, but not that she should therefore be worshipped, nor to make her a God, nor that we should offer in her name: That she should be in honour, but yet let no man worship her (saith he) let them not say we do honour to the Queen of heaven. Yet the Church of Rome that now is, worshippeth the Virgin Mary, prayeth and offereth to her under the name of the Queen of heaven.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  

Hierem. 13.  WHEN the Aethiopian doth change his tanned skin, and the Leopard his speckled case, (as the Prophet speaketh) then (and not before I ween) will the Aethiopian black soul of this Tanner's son, leave off to abuse the holy Father's writings, and to deceive his credulous readers. Epiphanius a most holy man and a very learned Bishop, in recounting & confuting the heresies that were sprung up in and before his time, cometh at length unto the erroneous opinions, which some held of the most blessed Virgin Mary, the glorious mother of God: which were in two extremities. For some named Antidicomarianitae, that is enemies to the sacred Virgin, because they spoke against her perpetual virginity: whose blasphemy he checketh in the 78. heresy, which is the first chapter cited by M. Abbot. Wherein that holy Father doth most highly commend her, styling her an immaculate Virgin, worthy to be made the palace of the Son of God; A holy, precious, most excellent, and admirable vessel, comprehending him that is incomprehensible; The Princess of Virginity; The Mother of the living and the cause of life, preferring her before S. john the Evangelist, S. john Baptist, and Helias: Adding finally, That though she were a woman and not in nature changed, yet for her sense, understanding, and other graces, Honore honorata; which according to the phrase of Scripture signifieth, To be honoured with singular honour: yea, With as great as the bodies of the Saints, or what else he could name more to her glory; That it was affected madness, in am of worshipping that holy Virgin, and honourable vessel with Hymns and glory, to inveigh and rail against her. Where you see, that the reverend Bishop Epiphanius doth intimate, that it is the part of every sober Christian to worship the holy Virgin Mary, using these formal words: Virginem sanctam, & vas honoratum colere; To worship the holy Virgin, and honourable vessel. If M. Abbot then had not been stark blind with malice, and madly bend to delude and beguile his unwary reader, he would never have presumed to allege Epiphanius words, against his own declaration and meaning. But what then meant he, when he said, that the blessed Virgin was not to be adored? (which M. Abbot Englisheth always, was not to be worshipped:) marry you shall hear out of his own discourse. Even as some Heretics (saith he) declining on the left hand, blasphemed the Son of God, saying that he was not equal to his Father in nature; Other walking too much on the right hand, extolled him so far forth, that they affirmed him to be both Father and holy Ghost. In like manner, as there be some Heretics that dishonoured the holy Virgin Mary: so there were some other foolish women, that would have made her a God, offering up to her sacrifice, and instituting women Priests to do her service. Whose doting folly, Epiphanius reproveth in the next chapter, teaching first: that it was not lawful for any woman to offer sacrifice, or to baptize. Secondly, that neither the blessed Mother of God, nor any other creature was to be adored, that is, worshipped with that honour which is due to God alone: but he delivereth in most express terms, that she is to be worshipped with another meaner kind of worship, that is due unto excellent holy men, and the sacred servants of God. Most goodly (saith he) is the blessed Virgin, holy, and to be honoured, but not so far forth as to adoration: that is, she is to be honoured, but not with divine honour; which he otherwise repeateth thus: Let the holy Virgin Mary be honoured, but let the Father, Son, and holy Ghost be adored. And yet more plainly explicating himself by that term of adoration; Let not the Virgin be adored so, as we take her for a God, or offer up sacrifice in her name: Wherefore, nothing will appear more manifest to him that pleaseth to read that reverend Author, then that there he reproveth them only, who gave Divine and Godly honour unto the immaculate virgin Mary, making her a God, and offering sacrifice to her. But that she is to be worshipped with another sort of honour, due unto the best servants of God, he doth both in that and in the former Chapter, teach most plainly twenty times: which is the very doctrine of the present Church of Rome, which holdeth God alone to be worshipped with divine honour called Latria; but the Saints in heaven, and holy Personages on earth, with a holy worship due to their gifts and graces of heavenly Wisdom, Fortitude, and Holiness, which God hath endued them withal.  
This matter of worshipping Saints, S. Augustine that most learned Doctor, and firm pillar of the Roman Church, hath fully and distinctly delivered 1200. years ago, in these most memorable words: 
August. lib. 1. cont. justum Manich. cap. 21.  Christian people with religious solemnity do celebrate the memory of Martyrs, aswell to stir up an imitation of their virtues, as to be made partakers of their merits, and to be helped with their prayers; yet so, as we do erect Altars only unto the God of Martyrs, though in remembrance of the Martyrs. For what Prelate or Priest serving at the Altar, in the place of their holy bodies, hath at any time said, we offer unto thee Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? but that which is offered, is offered to God, who hath crowned the Martyrs, and is offered at the memorial or relics of them whom he hath crowned; to the end that by the admonition of those places, there may arise greater devotion to inflame our charity, both towards them whom we may imitate, and also towards him, by whose help we may be enabled so to do. Therefore we do worship the Martyrs, with that reverence and respect, with which holy men (whose hearts we think ready to suffer as much for the truth of Christ) are in this life worshipped; yet with this difference, that we do more devoutly worship the Saints, of whose virtues we are assured, and who do now triumph in heaven, than we do those that are yet combating in the field of this life: but with that worship which in Greek is called Latria, (and hath no one proper Latin word, it being a certain worship properly due unto the Godhead) neither do we worship, or teach to be worshipped, any other then God alone. And whereas the offering of sacrifice, doth properly appertain to this kind of worship, (whence their act that offer it to Idols is called Idolatry) we do not in any case offer any such thing, or command any such offering to be made unto Martyrs, nor to any other; and if any man fall into that error, he is reproved by this sound doctrine, that he may be amended or avoided: hitherto S. Augustine. Now let the upright reader consider well of this sacred and sound doctrine, delivered by the best learned in the pure estate of the primitive Church, and then judge whether the present Roman Church, doth teach any other worshipping of Saints at this day. We worship Saints in heaven, with a kind of holy and religious worship, for their holy and religious virtues: so did the good Christians in S. Augustine's days, With a religious solemnity, and with greater devotion, than they did the Godliest and most holy men alive. We do teach word by word after S. Augustine; that with that kind of worship which is proper to God alone, (which for want of a proper Latin word we call Latria) God only is to be worshipped. Another kind of worship, (which for distinction sake we call Dulia of Doulos, that in Greek signifieth a servant) we do exhibit as due to God's servants, which is infinitely less, then that which we give unto the sovereign Lord and Master of Men and Angels. Now because the worship due by sacrifice, is a recognizing of his sovereign dominion over us, to whom we do offer sacrifice, and of our subjection to him as to our sovereign Lord; therefore to God alone sacrifice is to be offered: Yet as you have heard out of S. Augustine, Sacrifice is principally to be offered at the relics and memorial of Martyrs and Saints, and in their remembrances; that we may thereby be made partakers of their merits, helped with their prayers, and also inflamed with a fervent desire of following their excellent virtues: Note by the way the antiquity of the Christians offering sacrifice, of communicating the merits of Martyrs to others, of the help of the S●ints prayers. Now if any would offer sacrifice to the blessed Virgin Mary, or attribute to her any other part of that honour, which is proper to God alone, we would be as ready to check and reprove them, as Epiphanius then was to confute the foolish female Collyridians'.  
To return to M. Abbot: where were his wits when he cited out of his author these words, The holy Virgin is to be in honour, yet not to be worshipped? for had he but marked well those words, he might easily have perceived, that Epiphanius did not mislike with all kind of worship that was given to that most blessed Virgin, seeing that he would have her to be honoured, which is a higher kind of reverence then ordinary worship is; for to be honourable, is more than to be worshipful, as every man meanly seen in titles doth know: wherefore M. Abbot cannot be excused from a foul fault, in that he hath translated the Latin word adorare and adoratio, into bare and naked worship; for in that place it is taken for Divine and Godly worship, as all the circumstances of the place do convince. And then yet more sottishly doth he ground all his objections, upon his own corrupt translation of the same word: for if he had englished the word adoratio sincerely, for divine honour, as in that place it signifieth, he had not had any colour of this slander; for than he must have said thus: The Collyridians' were adjudged Heretics for adoring or worshipping with divine honour the Virgin MARY, and so of the rest. But we Catholics do not give to her any divine honour, neither do we offer sacrifice unto her, or unto any Saint, as M. Abbot fableth, but to God alone: see more of this in the Question of the Sacrifice. True it is, that we call that blessed Virgin Queen of heaven, treading therein in the steps of the most ancient, learned, and Godly Fathers, S. Athanasius, S. Gregory Nazianzene, S. Bazil, S. chrysostom, and others, whose words I have cited in the Question of worshipping of Saints. And the reasons why she may be called Queen of heaven, be divers: first, she is Mother to the King of heaven JESUS Christ; and the kings Mother is ordinarily saluted Queen. Secondly, every true Christian endued with the spirit of God, 
Rom. 8.  Is Son and heir to God, and coheir of Christ: dying then in that happy estate, no doubt but they shall enter into possession of the Kingdom of heaven, and consequently be Kings or Queens thereof. Thirdly, the Spouse of the King of heaven may in good sense be called Queen of heaven; but every good soul (much more the most sacred Virgin of Virgins) is the Spouse of Christ: which is confirmed by the Royal Prophet, where he describeth as it were the blessed Virgin MARY, standing at the right hand of her Son in his Kingdom, and entituleth her Queen; 
Psalm. 44.  Astitu Regina à dextris tuis, The Queen did stand at thy right hand. Lastly, the principal and chiefest person of any honourable society, may according to the usual phrase of all men be styled Prince, or if it be a woman, Princess or Queen: wherefore the most holy and glorious Mother of God, holding the highest place in heaven of any pure creature, both according unto the ancient Father's judgement, and in very reason (the dignity of a mother, being to be preferred before any subject or servant) may very rightly obtain the name of the Queen of heaven. And thereupon also do we more specially reverence and respect her, and repose greater confidence in her burning charity, and in the help of her most gracious prayers; knowing also right well, and most willingly confessing, that as the Queen of any country receiveth all her grace, riches, and preferment from the King: so the blessed Mother of God, Queen of heaven, hath received through the merits of her best beloved Son, from the bounty of his heavenly Father, all her most singular privileges; and is therefore of all other pure creatures, most bound and beholding unto both Father and Son. With that Queen of heaven, 
Hierem. 44.  of which the Prophet Hieremy (cited by Epiphanius) doth make mention, the blessed Virgin hath no affinity or resemblance, besides the name; for with the Prophet it signifieth no living creature, but either the Moon or some eminent Star in the firmament, unto which certain doting Idolatrous women did offer sacrifice, in the Prophet Jeremy's days: See how faringly M. Abbot's pieces of comparisons, match the one with the other.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
CARPOCRATES and his minion Marcellina, 
Irenae. lib. 1. cap. 24. Aug. ad Quod vult. 39 Theod●r. in 2. ad Collossen.  were condemned for Heretics, for worshipping, as other Images, so namely the Image of jesus Christ: yet now the Papists do the same, and notwithstanding will be accounted Catholics. The Council of Laodicea approved by the old Church of Rome, did forbid to pray to Angels, or to worship them, and they that did so were accounted Heretics: But worship and prayer to Angels, is a part of the Catholic doctrine, with the Church of Rome that now is.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
M. ABBOT is such a trusty merchant, that nothing can be taken up upon his credit: therefore every wiseman had need to look to his fingers. Nay, he seldom dares put down the Father's sentences, as they lie in their own works; but culls certain words out of them, and patcheth them together after his own fancy, to collogue and deceive his trusty reader. These be S. Augustine's own words, in the place cited by him: Marcellina (not Carpocrates) did worship the Images of jesus, of Paul, of Homer, and of Pythagoras. And that you may certainly know, of what kind of worship he meant, he addeth; Adorando, & incensum ponendo, by adoring and offering incense to them, that is, by giving them divine honour: so that double was her foul fault and folly. For she both adored together the holy Images of JESUS and S. Paul, with the profane statues of heathen Poets; and again, gave to them godly honour: both which points we Roman Catholics do condemn. As also that third (condemned in the Council of Laodicea) concerning Angels; which was of leaving our Saviour Christ jesus, to commit Idolatry to the Angels, preferring the Angels before him: 
Canon. 35.  See the Canon, and you shall find M. Abbot's legerdemain.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  

Concil. Gang. cap. 4.  THE Council of Gangra approved likewise, condemned the Eustachians for Heretics, for taking exceptions against married Priests; and to that purpose set down this Canon: If any man except against a Priest that is married, as by reason of his marriage that he ought not to minister, and do therefore forbear from his oblation or celebration; accursed be he. But the later Church of Rome excepteth wholly against married Priests, and namely Gregory the seventh forbade all lay men, to be present at the celebration of any such Priest as were married: 
Math. Paris. in Willelm. 1.  An example very strange (saith Matthew of Paris) and very unadvised, as many thought.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
HATH not M. Abbot a prodigious strange eie-soare, that can never see the principal point of the matter which he allegeth? 
Council Gang. cap. 4.  these be the words of the Canon by him cited. Quicunque discernita Presbitero qui uxorem habuit, quod non oporteat eo ministrante, de oblatione percipere, Anathema sit: Whosoever shall except against a Priest who hath had a wife, holding that one ought not to receive of the oblation or sacrifice when such a one celebrateth, accursed be he. First, note how he mangleth the words, thrusting in (by reason of his marriage) and darkening the matter of the sacrifice, by adding to it celebration, which is signified in the other words, eo ministrante: but the principal verb upon which all dependeth, is egregiously perverted by his translation. For the state of the controversy betwixt us is, whether a Priest married and keeping company with his wife, is to be admitted to celebrate & minister the Sacraments? We say no, they say yea: and for confirmation of their saying do allege this Canon; which maketh nothing at all for them, because it speaketh only of a Priest that had a wife in times past: Qui uxorem habuit, that had a wife, not that hath a wife. Such men that were once married after their wives death, we do admit to be Priests, and to offer sacrifice; condemning the Eustachians, or whosoever else under pretence of their former marriages, doth seek to debar them from that sacred function: Marry, such sensual or weak men, that cannot, or will not refrain from marriage or company of their wives, we do wholly exclude from the celebration of the holy mysteries. And verily, ignorantly and saucily doth Matthew of Paris, or any other late writer, reprehend Gregory the seventh, for forbidding all men to be present at their Masses. For it argueth great and gross ignorance in all learned antiquity, to account it a strange thing, that Priests keeping company with their wives, should be repelled from the Altar: when not only Gregory the great, Leo the great, and Epiphanius, whose sentences I have before recited; but also even by M. Abbot's own confession, Pope Stritius with the Clergy of Rome, and S. Hierome, did teach the very same, little less than a thousand years before Matthew of Paris days, to omit sundry other ancient Fathers and decrees of approved Counsels: so that it was no strange example, or unadvised act, to forbid such fleshly fellows to celebrate Mass, neither could any but lose libertines be offended at it.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
THE Valentinian Heretics and Heracleonites, 
Irenae. lib. 2. cap. 18. Epiph. Haeres. 36. August. de Haeres. 16.  were condemned by the old Church of Rome, for using expiations and redemptions, by anointing men when they were about to die: yet thereof hath the Church of Rome, now framed to themselves their Sacrament of Extreme unction.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
HERE are but a few lines, and yet not free from some lies. The Church of Rome hath her Sacrament of Extreme unction, registered in the holy Scriptures (as M. Abbot knoweth well enough,) in these words. 
jacob. 5. vers. 14.  Is any man sick among you? let him bring in the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over them, anoiling them with oil in the name of our Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and our Lord lift him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be remitted him. Where we see a set holy ceremony, which was instituted by Christ, and published by his Apostle S. james, to be used ordinarily by the Priests for remission of sins; which doth convince it to be a true and proper Sacrament. A fond fiction than was it, to say that it was after the Apostles time invented by Heretics, and that the Church of Rome hath borrowed it of them; with which foolish devise of theirs it hath also very small affinity: for their dream was, that by the pronouncing of certain unknown Hebrew words, over the head of the sick, their soul was made invisible, and incomprehensible, 
Epiph. Haeres. 36.  even unto the infernal spirits, as M. Abbot's own author witnesseth. Briefly, they differed in form of words, in substance of matter, and in the state and intention of the Minister. They used certain Hebrew words; Messia, Vphared, and such like, which are set down by Epiphanius: We these, God of his most pitiful mercy, and by this holy anointing, forgive thee thy sins. They used oil or some other ointment mixed with water: We oil alone blessed by a Bishop. Any lay person of their brotherhood, might minister their drugs: Our Sacrament is to be administered by a Priest only. Their intention was to make the soul invisible to the infernal spirits: But ours is (according to the doctrine of the Apostle) to purge the sick from the relics of sin, and to give him comfort and strength to resist the assaults of the ghostly enemy. There being so great difference, in all the essential points of these two anoilinges, judge what a wonderful engineer M. Abbot did take himself to be, when he conceited, that he could (by his fine pen shall I say, or brazen forehead) make them seem all one to the simple.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
IT was heresy in the Pelagians with the old Church of Rome, to affirm in this life a possibility perfectly to fulfil the law of God; and S. Hierome as touching this point, 
L. 1 2. 3. adverse. Pelag.  expressly disputeth against them: but now it is heresy with the Church of Rome, to affirm and teach the same that Hierome did, as M. Bishop afterwards giveth us to understand. The same Pelagians were accounted Heretics, for saying that a man in this life might be anamarticos, without sin, and that by baptism he becometh so: but now the Church of Rome teacheth the same. And M. Bishop in plain terms telleth us, 
Page 32.  That there is no more sin left in the new baptised man, than was in Adam in the state of innocency: to which state of baptism, they also equal a man when he is shriven to the Priest, and of him hath received absolution from his sins. I reserve the Pelagian doctrine of free-will and Satisfaction, to their due place, where godwilling it shall appear, that therein also the now Church of Rome, approveth those points as Catholic and true, for which the ancient Church of Rome condemned them. Yea so far is the Pelagian heresy in request with the Papists, as that Faustus a Bishop of France, at that time a maintainer thereof, 
Bignae. Bibliot. sacrae Tom. 2. Osor. de Inst. lib. 9  is by some of them recorded for a Saint, and his book which he hath written in behalf thereof, is called Opus ensign, A notable work. And by some other the doctrine of S. Augustine against the Pelagians, concerning Predestination, is repugned; which of old was acknowledged by the Church of Rome, to be the Catholic doctrine of the Church.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
M. ABBOT comes now to make an end of his slanders and false imputations, against the present Catholic Roman Church, after the same sort as he hath heretofore used, to wit; with wrested and untrue reports of the old Heretics opinions, and the ancient Father's refutations of them. The Pelagians did teach indeed, that it was possible to keep God's Commandments, but therefore they were not accounted Heretics; for the same doth both S. Augustine and S. Hierome (that writ against them) approve and confirm in many places: I will touch some of each of them. S. Augustine having alleged certain texts of holy Scripture to prove the same, doth conclude thus: By these and innumerable other testimonies, 
De Peccatis, Meritis, & Remissione, lib. 2. cap. 6.  I cannot doubt, either that God hath commanded man, any thing that is impossible for him to do; or that it is impossible for God, to help man to fulfil whatsoever he hath commanded him: and therefore a man helped by God, may if he will be without sin. 
De Grat. & l. Arbit. ca 16.  And in another place: It is certain that we may keep God's Commandments if we wil Again, Grace is given us, not because we did good works before, but that we may be able to do them; 
De Spirit. & Litter. ca 10.  that is, (as he expoundeth himself) Non quia legem implevimus, sed ut legem implere possimus: Not because we did (before we received grace) fulfil the law, but that we may be able afterward to fulfil the law. Can any thing be more manifest, then that (according unto S. Augustine's opinion) a man endued with God's grace, may keep all his Commandments, and fulfil the law? The very same doth S. Hierome confess, in that very Treatise cited by M. Abbot, adding this reason: We confess that God giveth us Commandments possible to be fulfilled, lest God should be author of injustice, if be exacted of us to do that which cannot be done: so that the present Church of Rome, doth herein follow S. Augustine and S. Hierome, a noble pair of most learned patrons of the ancient Church of Rome: And doth nothing less than agree with Pelagius, in his errors about that matter, which were two. The first, That without the help of God's grace a man may keep all God's Commandments. The second, That a man could keep all the Commandments so perfectly, that be needed never to sin so much as venially. Which two erroneous branches of Pelagius doctrine, we do condemn as roundly, as did the most holy Fathers; and consequently that a man coming to years of discretion, is anamarticos, without sin: for if the justest man alive, say that he is without sin, (that is some venial sin) he is even thereby made a liar, (as S. john witnesseth) and therefore a sinner. All this Pelagian doctrine, the present Church of Rome doth as well reprove, as did the former: Marry, to affirm (as M. Abbot doth) that Pelagius was of old condemned, for affirming children to be made without sin by baptism, is (saving your reverence) a stark lie, confronted and confuted by S. Augustine in formal terms: these be his words. 
De Peccatis, Meritis, & Remissione, lib. 10. ca 9  They (that is the Pelagians) will not believe that baptism doth cleanse Infants from original sin: what a notable tale than was it to say, that the Pelagians were therefore accounted Heretics, because they held men by baptism to become without sin? when they flatly denied baptism to cleanse them from sin.  
That which I said of the state of man newly baptized, that there was no sin left in him, is S. Augustine's and S. Hieromes doctrine, word for word: thus saith S. Augustine. 
* Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 3.  Baptism doth wash away all sins, utterly all, of deeds, words, and thoughts, whether they were originally contracted, or afterward committed, either of ignorance or wittingly. The same he repeateth treating of the Creed: 
De Simbol. ad Catech. lib. 3. cap. 10.  Omnia prorsus delicta delet sanctum baptisma, & originalia, & propria, dicta, facta, cogitata, cognita, incognita, omnia dimittuntur: which he doth inculcate in many places. I will cite but one more, which containeth also an explication of that other Pelagian proposition, how a good Christian may be without sin: these be his words. 
L. cont. julian. ca 13 & 15. Cont. duas Epist. Pelag. lib. 10. c. 14.  Multi baptisati fideles sunt sine crimine, sine peccato autem in hac vita neminem dixerim, etc. Many of the faithful baptized, are without crime, (that is, without mortal sin) but I will say no man to be without sin, (to wit, venial) how much soever the Pelagians do rage against us for so saying: not that anything of sin doth remain, which is not forgiven in baptism; but because in us remaining in the frailty of this life, there ceaseth not to be committed something, that is daily to be pardoned to them that pray faithfully, and do the works of mercy. In this one sentence of S. Augustine, there is declared first: that all manner of sin is wholly pardoned in baptism, and that therefore a man newly baptized, is as free from all sin, as were our first parents in Paradise, as I said. Secondly, that though many of the better sort of the baptized, do continue without mortal sin, yet none at all without some kind of sin; the blessed Virgin MARY only excepted: 
De Natur. & Grat. cap. 36.  Of whom (saith S. Augustine) for the honour of our Lord, I will have no question when the matter of sin is handled. S. Hierome is as clear for the virtue and efficacy of baptism, as in many other places, so specially in his Epistle to Oceanus: wherein he proveth by many texts of holy writ, That all manner of sin is drowned in the water of baptism, 
Hieron. in Epistol. ad Oceanum.  not one being left to swim out alive: And doth call it the heresy of Cain, To hold the wounds of our sins to be so venomous and incurable, that the medicine of Christ in baptism cannot heal them. Thus much out of learned Antiquity, to show how ignorant M. Abbot is therein, who thought that he had hit me home, and given me some great blow when he produced these my words: M. Bishop in plain terms telleth us, that there is no more sin left in the newly baptized man, than was in Adam in the state of innocency: whereas you now see, that the best learned among the ancient Fathers, had 1200. years before maintained the same doctrine, against the Pelagian Heretics  
Concerning the Sacrament of Penance, we in deed teach the very same touching the full and absolute purgation from sin, and the eternal punishment due to the same, which every true penitent making his humble confession, doth obtain by the absolution of his ghostly Father: which is no late invention of ours, but we learned it out of these our saviours own words; 
job. 20. vers. 23.  Whose sins you forgive on earth, they shall be forgiven in heaven: All antiquity having understood thereby, that Christ gave to his Apostles as Pastors of his Church, full power to pardon sins, and by them unto all other Pastors that should lawfully succeed them, until the worlds end. This matter I have handled in a Question by itself, to which I refer the reader, that desireth to hear more of it in particular.  
As M. Abbot reserves the Pelagian doctrine of free-will and Satisfaction to their due place, so do I; where it shall appear, that therein the now Church of Rome, doth no more approve those points than it doth these, which he hath here touched: but that therein he is as foully deceived, and goes about to deceive others, as here he hath done. And if one D octor Bignee hath been so much overseen, as to commend a favourer of the Pelagian heresy, let it be inquired of the learned, what thank the present Roman Church doth yield him for his labour: for I have heard, that it hath laid a censure and touch of reproach, upon the same his work called Bibliotheca Patrum. Lastly, concerning the doctrine of Predestination, I read not that the Pelagians were called in question about it, nor yet for Satisfaction; wherefore, M. Abbot must first out of some good Authors, show their errors therein, before he go about to slander us with the imitation of them: but as I am well assured of the later, so I think he will not in haste perform the former.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
I Omit many other matters that might here be added, persuading myself that I said enough to trouble M. Bishop, in the proving of that that he hath so propounded, that the principal pillars of the Church of Rome, in her most flourishing estate, taught in all points of religion, the same doctrine that now she holdeth, etc. only for conclusion, let me ask him what Bishop of Rome there was, for the space of a thousand years, that practised or taught that concerning Pardons, which is now practised and taught in the Church of Rome, that the Bishop of Rome hath any authority to give such libels of pardon, or that it is in him to give faculties, and authority to others to grant the like, with reservation of special causes to himself? or that he can for saying such and such prayers, or for doing this or that, release a man from Purgatory, for so many hundred or thousand years? what Bishop of Rome was there, that did proclaim a jubilee, with promise that all that would come to Rome to visit the Churches that year, should have full and perfect forgiveness of all their sins? or that did charge the Angels, (as did Clement the sixth) that whosoever should die in his journey thitherward, they should bring his soul into the glory of Paradise? 
Balaeus in Clem. sexto.  which of them did take upon him to Canonize a Saint? who ever believed or taught, as it is now received in the Church of Rome, that the Bishop's blessing is the forgiveness of venial sins? 
Sextus in proem. in glossa. Rhem. Test. in Math. 10. vers. 12.  Other innovations I will pass over to further occasion; but concerning these matters in this place, I would pray M. Bishop to let us be satisfied, how the principal pillars of the Church of Rome, have in all points taught the same, that the Church of Rome teacheth now. The truth is, that as the name of Theseus' ship continued a long time, when as it was so altered by putting in of new planks and boards, as that it had nothing left of that that was in it, when it was first built by Theseus: so the Church of Rome still continueth her name, and would be taken to be the same, albeit by chopping and changing she is come to that pass, that she hath in a manner nothing left of that doctrine, for which she was first called the Church of Rome. But M. Bishop taketh upon him to prove the contrary, let us now examine what his proofs are.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
YOU do wisely to omit many other matters, that you might have added, if they be like unto these which you have already put down: for they are proved to be nothing else in manner, but falsifications of the ancient Father's writings, or fond illations of your own, bolstered out with a huge and shameless troop of untruths; the more one omitteth of such baggage and paltry stuff, the more it maketh for his credit: Wherefore, if M. Abbot had let all this alone, no doubt but he should have saved much of his reputation, which by such unchristian like and unhonest dealing, he is like to lose with the indifferent & judicious reader. If he persuade himself, that he hath put me to some pains and trouble, to trace out the untruth of his allegations, he is not deceived: for he produceth them so corruptly, with such additions, subtractions, misconstructions, and evil applications, that every place he cities, must needs be turned unto in the Authors own works, before a man can repose any trust in him, or shall know what answer to make. I pray you (good Sir) if there be any spark of Christian sincerity left in you, let this admonition serve to entreat you, not to put your adversary or reader to such trouble any more: Either for love of the truth, or for fear of God's judgements, and rebuke of honest men, forbear to misreport your Authors. If it be a shame to belly the Devil, what impudence and impiety is it to belly most reverend, holy, and learned Doctors; and which much increaseth that heinous crime, thereby to blind Christian people, and to draw them along with him to the bottomless pit of hell? It hath (I willingly confess) more troubled me to spend my spare time in discovering untruths, and dishonest shifts & tricks, than it should have done to have bestowed it in substantial arguing, and in round debating of questions in controversy, with short and sound arguments. But (I hope) by this, the upright reader hath seen, that M. Abbot was so far off from troubling me to prove, The principal pillars of the Roman Church in her most flourishing estate, to have taught the same doctrine that the present Church of Rome no teacheth; that he hath rather furthered it, by ministering unto me so fit an occasion: yea (omitting others which I could choose myself for my better advantage) I have not refused, to verify and make good the present doctrine of that Church, even by the testimony of those very authors, of which M. Abbot himself made choice, as of men that spoke most against it. If then by their verdict, who are thought by our adversaries, to be most estranged from us, our cause is confirmed and proved to be most just and veritable; who is so careless of his own salvation, that had rather follow a lying Master leading to perdition, then to embrace so manifest a truth drawing towards salvation? May I not here justly exclaim with the holy King and Prophet, and say: 
Psalm. 4.  O ye Sons of men, how long will you be so heavy hearted? why are you so far in love with vanity and seek after leasing? he that is the true light (
johan. 1.  who doth illuminate every man that cometh into this world,) of his infinite goodness and mercy, lighten your understanding and incline your hearts, that you may perceive and receive that engrafted word, that truth of Christ, preached by his Apostles, approved by the most honourable Senate of the ancient Fathers, believed all the world over; that hath also continued ever since inviolably: which only and none other can save your souls.  
Now for a conclusion and upshot of this matter, M. Abbot would feign know, What Bishop of Rome for a thousand years after Christ, had authority to give any such libel of pardons, as are now given; or that could grant to others any such faculty, with reservation of special causes to himself, etc. I answer, if these be the greatest difficulties, that withhold him from approving the doctrine of the present Roman Church, he may upon very small consideration be reclaimed, and brought to reform his errors. For to S. Peter himself, who was afterwards Bishop of Rome, was given even by our Saviour Christ JESUS, full power and authority to pardon whatsoever he saw fit to be pardoned: 
Math. 16. vers. 19  To thee I give (saith he) the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, whatsoever thou losest or dost pardon upon earth, shall be pardoned in heaven. And if S. Peter might lose any sin how heinous soever, much more might he release some part of the temporal pain which was due to sin, which is properly to give a libel of pardon: the like power had S. Paul, who did in the person of Christ, 
2. Cor. 2. vers. 10. Cyprian. l. 3. Epist. 15.  Pardon the incestuous Corinthian, by cutting off some part of his penance, which otherwise he had been to suffer for his former sins, which were then forgiven. S. Cyprian, and the Bishops and Clergy in those ancient days of the primitive Church, did use to pardon and release the penance enjoined to grievous offenders, after their repentance, at the intercession and request of the Confessors, and designed Martyrs, as hath been before declared. The most authentic Council of Nice doth declare, 
Concil. Nicen. cap. 12.  that it is lawful for Bishops to deal more mildly and favourably with them, whom they saw to perform their enjoined penance seriously; which was to grant them a pardon. 
Leo. Epist. 77 ad Nicetum, num. 6.  The very same doth Leo the great (who was Bishop of Rome above 1100. years passed) teach most plainly, willing the Bishop to release of the due penance enjoined, what he thought good; which is properly to give indulgence or pardon. I omit here Pope Silvester his predecessor, and S. Gregory the great one of his successors, because I have before alleged them: not doubting but that these few, so ancient, so grave, so learned, will suffice to satisfy and instruct him that is willing to learn. And as for communicating the same authority to others, who can reasonably doubt of it? considering that the power of absolving from sin, (which is far greater than the other) is imparted to all both Bishops and Parish Priests. I have also before proved most manifestly, 
Leo. Epist. 82 ad Anastat. Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 6. ad Episcop. Arelat.  that both S. Leo and S. Gregory most worthy Bishops, did, as delegate their authority unto other Bishops, so reserve unto their own hearing and judgement, the causes of greatest difficulty: wherefore, M. Abbot if he will hearken unto reason, cannot choose but hold himself therein fully satisfied.  
He recuiles back to Indulgences, and multiplieth his demands about one and the same matter; like to a Cook that having but one sort of meat to serve in, doth mince it into many mammocks, and then make thereof sundry dishes: Can the Pope (saith he) for saying such or such prayers, or for doing this or that, release a man from Purgatory, for an hundredth or a thousand years? What a question is this? if the Pope can distribute indulgences, as hath been before proved, no doubt but he can the rather do it, by enjoining the party that receiveth them, to say withal some prayers, or to do some other good works; for thereby the party doth the better deserve to be made partaker of the other grace: But can he release a soul out of Purgatory, for a thousand years? Yes marry can he, and that too not for some certain number of years, but for ever and ever. The reason is; for that the souls there, are members of the same body that we are, and there capable of the same graces of pardon, whereof also they stand in very great need, according to the truth of Christian doctrine, howsoever the Protestants do erroneously think the contrary: read the Question of Purgatory. And touching the present purpose, among many other pardons granted by S. Gregory the great, there is to be seen until this day, one Altar by him erected, in the Monastery of S. Andrew's in Rome, where he was himself first Novice and afterwards Abbot; where at whosoever said Mass for a soul in Purgatory, shall deliver one there-hence.  
Concerning the jubilee, which is free and full pardon granted once in five and twenty years, unto every one that shall visit seven Churches in Rome that year, some fifteen times or thereabouts; what new difficulty can there be about that? yea it is as the most renowned pardon that is granted, so the most reasonable: for it can be obtained but once in five and twenty years, and then exceeding hardly, by under going a long, costly, and painful journey to the city of Rome, and by exercising there all the works of piety and mercy; as fasting, praying, and giving of alms, making general confession, and receiving the blessed Sacrament, and often visiting of many Churches and Altars. Those most godly means of training men to true repentance and satisfaction for their former faults, and amendment of their lives, if the Protestant religion were acquainted withal, there would be among them some check and stop of their wicked courses. But if they will needs sin on themselves, and never give over nor amend until God's judgements fall upon them: yet let them not be offended at us, that do advise all men to labour in time for such indulgences, that they may escape the due punishment of their sins, either in this world or in the next. Is it not also most probable and likely, if those good souls (who to do some satisfaction for their former evil lives, and to serve God more devoutly in those holy places, where some of the holy Apostles, and an innumerable company of valiant Martyrs and holy Confessors lived and died) do die by the way in that Godly purpose, that they are carried by Angels to heaven, as Lazarus was into Paradise? we pray to God to command such by his holy Angels to be brought into Abraham's bosom, as may be seen in the Mass for the dead. But Balaeus in Latin, and Bale the Irish Apostata in English, M. Abbot's worthy author reporteth, that Clement the sixth himself, did command the Angels to carry them into Paradise. No great regard is to be had what such a lying lewd fellow relates, and so I think him unworthy any other answer. Touching Canonization of Saints we hold, that the Bishops of the provinces where their virtuous lives and most godly deaths (confirmed by miracles) are best known, did always from the beginning of christian religion, declare and testify to the Church, that they were to be esteemed of all men for Saints. Since, it hath been found most expedient, that the whole course of the life and death of such (being by most diligent inquisition tried out, and taken in the places of their abode) be afterwards sent to Rome, there to be also thoroughly examined first, and then accordingly to be declared Saints, by the highest Pastor of the Church; that no man of any other country, might afterwards doubt of their so approved sanctity. To M. Abbot's question I then answer; that even by the order of S. Peter and S. Paul, 
Clemens l. 8. Constit. c. 39  S. Stephen was Canonised for a Martyr, and a festival day kept in remembrance of his glorious death: The like order was observed for the Apostles and other Martyrs. And from that time down to this time, I could prove (if need were) Canonization of Saints, not only by the Bishops of Rome, but by the testimony and practice, of the best Bishops and Doctors of the Christian religion: what ignorance then in all antiquity, doth this man bewray, by this impertinent demand?  
More impudent yet is this his next: Who ever believed or taught, as it is now in the Roman Church, that the Bishop's blessing is the forgiveness of venial sins? He citeth in the Margin the Annotations in the Rheims Testament, upon the 10. of S. Matthew and 12. verse; which being looked into, doth convince M. Abbot of unspeakable impudence. 
Lib. 9 in Lucam. L. 22. de Civit. Dei, c. 8.  He saw there S. Ambrose alleged formally, to confirm that the Bishop's blessing doth remit venial sins. He could not choose also but see S. Augustine and others quoted in the Margin, in commendation of the Bishop's blessing, who else where (with the Council of Carthage) reproveth the Pelagian Heretics, 
Epistola. 90.  for holding that the Bishop's blessing was given to the people in vain. Seeing then, that both S. Ambrose and S. Augustine, with other more ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Church, did (grounding themselves upon Christ's own word and promise) teach that the Bishop's blessing was of great virtue; and that it doth namely forgive venial sins, by the verdict at least of S. Ambrose that most holy and learned Bishop, whose antiquity, gravity, and sanctity, is more to be respected, than a thousand of such light profane Abbots: was it not (I say) incredible and most shameful audacity to demand, who ever believed or taught that, when he saw before his eyes, such worthy Authors alleged for it? this passeth so far all ordinary audacious impudence, that I know not how to style it. Other innovations he will of courtesy pass over to further occasion, but for these jolly points (whereof the greatest is scarce worth a pin) he requireth satisfaction; which being so readily and easily given him, he will belike become a new man, if he could once be persuaded to give over lying, and trusting to his artificial colouring of lies: In the mean season, this which I have said, will (I hope) serve to satisfy the indifferent reader, that the principal pillars of the Church of Rome, in her most flourishing estate, have in all points taught the same doctrine, that the present Church of Rome doth now teach.  
And it is one of M. Abbot's truths (that is to say, a most bright glistering untruth) that as Theseus' ship was in continuance of time, by putting in of new planks wholly altered; so is now the doctrine of the Church of Rome. For I have before most evidently proved, out of authentic records of the ancient Bishops of Rome; that they believed and taught the Real presence, and sacrifice of the Mass, Praying to Saints, Worshipping of their Relics and Images, Purgatory and prayer for the dead, Auricular confession, Works of satisfaction and supererogation, Merit of good works, the Vows of religious persons, the Pope's supremacy: Briefly, all the points in controversy between the Protestants and us, as may more at large be seen, in the reformation of M. Perkins Deformed Catholic: wherefore, the similitude of Theseus ship (which M. Abbot borrowed of a Catholic, treating of another subject) will not serve his turn, but may be more aptly returned upon themselves; who brag and bear the world in hand, that they have reform all the errors of the Church, and brought it unto the purity of the Apostles times: whereas in truth, they have plucked up most of the planks and boards of Christ's ship, by oppugning most of the articles of the Christian faith: and do what in them lieth, to build up a rotten Thesean ship of old condemned errors, to steal away the golden fleece of Christ's true ship, that is: to pil and poll the true Catholic Christian, of that white fleece of innocency which he received in baptism, or recovered by reconciliation, to sail after Theseus towards Paganism, and the infernal gulf of hell.  
Now because M. Abbot hath here endeavoured, to stain the pure and clean sanctity of our religion, with the spots and yron-mooles of errors and heresy; I will to requite his pains, give a touch unto some special points of erroneous doctrine (noted by the best Authors for such, in express terms) which the Protestants have as it were raked out of the dunghill of rascal and reprobate miscreants, and do now afresh deliver the same nothing in manner disguised, unto their miserable followers, for the purity of the Gospel. Yea some of the same are so evident and clear, that they are constrained to defend the authors of them for learned and godly men, though by all antiquity they were condemned for ignorant and infamous Heretics; and to note the most holy, and best understanding and judicious Fathers, as less skilful than these other erring companions. For example, Aërius (both a known and professed Arrian Heretic, and also unknown to the world for any monument of learning or virtue, and therefore likened by Epiphanius to a Beetle and Horse-flie, only notorious for these his errors) taught first: That we ought not to offer sacrifice, or to pray for the souls departed. Secondly, That we ought not to keep any set times, or appointed days of fasting, but when any man will, then let him fast, that we may not seem to be under the law. For these two points specially, that Arrian Aërius was Chronicled for a notorious Heretic, both by Epiphanius, a most holy, learned, and ancient Grecian Bishop, and by S. Augustine, one of the most famous lights of the Latin Church; the later of whom lived 1200. years past: Nevertheless, the Protestants prefer the odd inventions of that contemptible, obscure, and blind Arrian, before the judgement of these most renowned Doctors of Christ's Church. Must he not then be a very simple, or rather senseless creature, that understanding so much will notwithstanding follow them?  
Again, jovinian was so mean a scholar, that he was not able to write his own mind in good and congruous latin; wherefore S. Hierome was feign to help him out with it, and doth (as he termeth it) out of his dark works, cast serpents (as it were) out of their holes into the light, 
Lib. 1. cont. jovin. cap. 1.  that they may be seen and slain. What were these venomous blinde-wormes trow you? you shall hear in that most zealous and learned Doctors own words. jovinian saith first; 
Lib. 1. cont. jovin. cap. 2.  That Virgins, Widows, and married Women baptised, if they differ not in other works, be of the same merit: and therefore Priests and religious persons, might aswell marry as live continently. Secondly, He laboureth to prove, that the Devil cannot overcome them that be regenerated in full faith. Thirdly, He putteth no difference between abstinence from meat, and eating of the same with thanksgiving. Fourthly, That all who have kept their baptism, shall have the same reward in heaven, and not any one a greater than another. These (saith S. Hierome) be the hissings of the old serpent; by these sleights the Dragon cast man out of Paradise. And do our Protestants by hearkening unto these serpentine voices, think to recover Paradise again? do they not believe just with jovinian; that it is of no greater merit, to live a professed Virgin, then to live married, saving that they are so much worse than jovinian was, as to deny the best Christian to have any merit at all, by any state or work soever? Be they not secondly well assured in their own opinion, that the Devil cannot subvert them, and put them by their places in heaven? do they not thirdly, in proper terms teach with jovinian, that fasting is no more acceptable to God then eating? And they that hold one simple justification common to all, without any kind of merit, must needs consequently hold, that all in heaven have the same reward; which was the fourth point of Iouinians heresy. They then be so formal Iouinians, that they cannot deny it; but are driven to maintain, 
M. Abbot's Page 56.  that jovinian was a right honest man, and understood Paul better than any of them all: Hierome with all his Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, was no body in comparison of him. But what say they then to Augustine, 
Lib. 2. Retract. cap. 22.  another professed adversary of that jovinian? who styleth him for his ignorance joined with impudence, and for the lewdness of his doctrine, a very monster: And further telleth us, that the old holy Church of Rome, did most faithfully and most valiantly, resist him and his errors. So did also that most grave and holy Bishop S. Ambrose, 
Ambros. lib. 3. Epist. 81.  with many other worthy Prelates his neighbours; condemning jovinian and his complices for false teachers. Besides, he is yet further ranked in the rew of damnable Heretics by the ancient, learned, and Godly Author Vicentius Lyrinensis: 
In Commonit. cap. 15.  neither can the Protestants name any one approved author, for a thousand years after his days, that held him for any better; And yet such goslings do they make of their followers, that they must rather follow jovinian, than Hierome, Augustine, Ambrose, and the old Church of Rome, and whatsoever else. He that will take no warning, but longeth to be gulled, let him hardly hearken unto them.  
In like manner do they uphold the Heretic Vigilantius: 
Hieron. count Vigilant.  Who denied the Relics of Martyrs to be worshipped, and wax candles to be lighted before them at noon day: and said; That whiles we lived we might one pray for another, but no man's prayer after his death will help any other Out of which it followeth evidently, that it is in vain to pray to Saints, that can do us no good. Thirdly he taught: That they did better who use their own goods, and do of their revenues give piece-meal something to the poor, than they that sell all away, and give it all at once to them, and become Monks and Religious. Fourthly, That Clergy men should marry. For these points expressly, Vigilantius was reproved by S. Hierome, as an unpure and an ungodly Heretic; and in one night's work, was so taken down, and (as it were) crushed in the head, that he never after durst once quack or reply one word. S. Hierome is therein also seconded by Gennadius, a famous Author of a thousand years standing, and by S. Thomas of Aquine with others, without any contradiction at all, until Luther's unhappy days: And yet the Protestants his disciples, having put on their brazen faces, 
M. Abbot's Page 68  do not only paraleel and equal him, but also prefer him before S. Hierome, one of the best learned among the Christians, that lived since the Apostles days. M. Abbot very shamefully saith; 
Page 67.  that Hierome himself commended this Vigilantius for a holy Priest: And to make his lie the more luculent, he puts it in the superlative degree, sanctissimum. S. Hierome doth indeed commend one Vigilantius, for a holy Priest: but were there no more of that name besides that wicked Heretic, whom he calleth rather Dormitantius then Vigilantius? Are there no more Abbots but one? any man that hath but half an eye, may see if he will view that Epistle, that S. Hierome spoke there off a far honester man than the other was, whom he calleth neither sanctissimum nor sanctum; but a man replenished with an unclean spirit, 
Hieron. count Vigilant.  very unlearned, and more fit to keep an Alehouse, then to serve in the Church. To return then to my purpose: whereas he can be no true Catholic, (according to S. Augustine's rule and the common opinion) that believeth any one point of heresy; 
Ad Quodvult. In fine.  The Protestants do hold nine points of heresy, condemned in three notable Heretics, Aërius, jovinian, and Vigilantius: And that so openly without any kind of cloaking or colouring, that they are compelled to defend the authors themselves for honest men, who notwithstanding by the verdict of all approved Antiquity, lay condemned as wicked Heretics, for more than a thousand years together.  
Now I will proceed to some of the rest of their erroneous opinions, which though they embrace, yet they dare not defend the authors of them for godly men; but with us do condemn their authors, though they uphold some of their errors. It is noted by the blessed Martyr Ireneus, that one of Simon Magus errors was; That men were saved by grace, 
Lib. 1. cont. Haeres. c. 20.  and not for good and just works: the Protestants agree with him in this, that salvation and heaven are not given for good works. For though they teach that good works be necessary, as signs and fruits of our faith: yet they will not in any case, admit them to be any cause of salvation, but make their justifying faith, the only and whole cause thereof, by which they fall also into the heresy of Eunomius, related by S. Augustine in these words. Eunomius is reported to have been an enemy to good works, 
August. ad Quodvult. Haeres. 54.  so far forth, that he avouched the committing of what sin soever, and the continuance in the same, to hinder no man, so that he were a partaker of that faith which he taught. Doth not the new devised faith of Protestants, give them the like assurance of salvation, though they be no less sure to commit and to continue in mortal sin, even until their dying day?  
The Novatians were branded for Heretics, 
Euseb. 6. Histor. cap. 35. Socrat. 1. Histor. cap. 7. Zozom. 1. Histor. cap. 21.  by the best Historiographers and other approved authors of the ancient Church: for denying Priests to have power to forgive some sort of the more heinous crimes. Our Protestants exceed the Novatians therein: for they hold that Priests have no power to pardon any sin at all either little or great, but only to pronounce them absolved, for the satisfaction of the congregation. And M. Abbot doth upon mere surmises, go about very ignorantly to colour their deceit; 
Page 187.  in saying that the Novatians denied absolution, not from any sins, but only from the sentence of excommunication: 
Ibidem.  for both Socrates and Sozomene do affirm in plain terms, the Novatians to have taught; that it lay not in the power of a Priest, but in God alone, Illud genus peccati ignoscere; To pardon and forgive that kind of sin. And again, That hope of pardon was not to be expected of the Priests, but of God who could remit sins. And there is no mention of any sentence of excommunication pronounced against them; but that the offenders through the enormity of their sins, had deprived themselves of the benefit of the Priest's absolution. And because M. Abbot saith yet further, that Novatus denied absolution to one only kind of sin, let us hear how formally that most grave Doctor S. Ambrose hath 1200. years before confuted him: these be his words: The Novatians say, 
Ambros. de Penitent. cap. 2.  that excepting some of the grievous sins, they do give pardon unto the lighter offences. But S. Ambrose replieth thus: So did not Novatianus the author of your error. For he held that penance was not to be enjoined to any sin at all, upon this consideration: that he would not bind that which afterwards he could not loose; least by binding, he might put them in hope of losing. Therefore do you condemn the sentence of your own Master, because you put that difference between sins, that some of them may be forgiven; and other some you think remediless. But God maketh no such distinction, who hath promised his mercy unto all, and hath given licence unto Priests, to pardon without any exception. Observe how directly that ancient Father doth cross our new Masters, in witnessing; that both Novatianus himself denied Priests to have power to pardon not only the greater, but any sin at all: And on the other part, that God gave unto Priest's authority to pardon all sorts of sins, without any exception of the most grievous. 
Hieron. 〈◊〉 Epist. de errorivus Montan. Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 43. Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. Guido de lacobis cap. 2.  The Montanists also as I rehearsed before out of S. Hierome, did jump with the Novatians in this point. Afterwards (as heresies in tract of time grow more formal) about the year of Christ 600. there sprung out of that corrupted root, certain lewd imps called jacobites, who did teach in terminis, That it was not necessary to confess our sins to a Priest, but it would serve to confess them only to God: Do our Protestants differ from them any one jot therein?  
That the Manichees among many other errors, did deny free-will, all Antiquity doth confess: The same do the Protestants, though not altogether after the same manner, nor upon the same grounds. For the Manichees denied free-will aswell to sin, as to do well: 
Aug. 1. Retract. 15. & de duobus naturis, cont. Manich.  for they dreamt that there was in a man both a good soul (which they supposed to be a part of the good God); and an evil soul descended of the nation of darkness: Out of the forcible operation of the one of these two souls, they imagined all good and bad deeds of man to proceed, without the free choice or consent of his own wil M. Abbot craftily, to clear their party from the infamy of the one branch of the Manichean heresy, doth deny that they do agree with them in the other. True it is, that the Protestants do not deny us free-will to do evil, as the Manichees did: yet do they agree with them in the other part, attributing the whole working of good unto grace, as the Manichees did to the good soul, without any free choice or consent of ours. And albeit S. Augustine in refuting them, do most commonly insist upon their denial of liberty to do evil, 
In disput. count. Fortunatum, in acts cum Foeli●e, cap 12.  as being the more evident & eminent absurdity: yet doth he in sundry places intimate, that the Manichees held it absurd, to affirm that we had free will to do good.  
The Donatists were of opinion, that the visible Church of Christ was perished in all other parts of the world, and only remained undefiled in those coasts of Africa, where their heresy bore the sway, 
August. ad Quodvult. & alibi.  and were therefore by the verdict of Antiquity, declared blind Heretics. The Protestants as obstinately and more blindly do avouch, that the visible true Church was for 900. years together, banished out of the world, and was of late restored from that long exile, by Friar Luther and his followers; and doth yet remain only undefiled in those corners of Europe, where their new Gospel doth domineer: they are therefore in that point Donatists.  
It was a very preposterous & shameful invention of the Arrians, (yet of necessity embraced afterwards by other Heretics) to appeal from the judgement of their spiritual Pastors, unto the lay Magistrate: thus writeth S. Ambrose of the Arrian Bishop Auxentius. He being brought unto an exigent, doth fly unto that subtle trick of his predecessors, to draw us into the emperors displeasure; 
Orat. tertia cont. Auxentium.  affirming that he (being but a youngman, and a Novice in the faith, ignorant also of the holy Scriptures, as commonly other Princes are) must notwithstanding in his Consistory determine this Ecclesiastical cause: so did the Donatists appeal from the judgement of Bishops unto the Emperor, 
Epist. 48. & 162. Lib. 3. cont. julian. cap. 1.  as witnesseth S. Augustine; And so the Pelagians would have done, if they could have prevailed therein, as the same most grave Father hath also recorded. And is not this (as it were) the foundation and shot-anker of all the Protestants superstitious proceedings?  
Another rotten twig of the same Pelagians heresy it was, 
Aug. de Peccat. & Merit. lib. 1. cap. 9  To deny children to be purged from original sin by baptism, attributing that rather to a covenant, made long since to old father Abraham; most learned Protestants be of the same mind: And all of them agree with Proclus the condemned Originist, 
Epiph. Haeres. 64.  who taught Original sin to be so in seperably joined with our mortal bodies, that till death it is not clearly purged of it.  
The Antidicomarianitae (that is, 
Epiph. Haeres. 78.  enemies of the blessed Virgin Mary) were scored up for Heretics, for denying that most holy Mother of God to be worshipped and honoured: yet do the Protestants stiffly maintain the very same error.  
Iconoclastae (that is, such men as denied the Images of our Saviour and his Saints, to be set up in Churches, yea that broke them down and cast them out thence) were by 600. Bishops assembled out of all parts of Christendom, in 
* Nicenum Concil. 2.  a general Council adjudged Heretics: what be then our Protestant's?  
If I would descend lower, I should light upon Berengarius, the great Grandsire of those, that deny the sacred body of our Saviour to be really and substantially in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar: but because he lived not much above 500 years ago, I do here stay, and demand: what proper points of doctrine can be left unto the poor Protestants, if all these articles condemned in the forenamed Heretics, were taken away from them? Remove from them the errors of the Antidicomarianitans, Iconoclasts, and Vigilantius; and you shall bereave them of their invectives against praying to Saints, and honouring them, their Relics and Images. Lose them from the chains of that vile Arrian Aërius; and they will cease to rail against offering of Sacrifice, and praying for the faithful souls departed. If they would shake hands and departed from the Novatians, they would immediately give over to speak against confession of our sins to Priests. If they could be cleansed from the muddy dregs of Iouinians lose and lewd opinion, then would they blush to plead so earnestly for the marriage of Priests, and other religious persons: And be ashamed to affirm it, to be as acceptable to God to feed our rotten carcases, as to fast; and to solace them with the company of a yoke-fellow, as to live continently. Their new doctrine about original sin, free-will, and the merit of good works, should fall to the ground; If they would once give over to participate therein with the Originists, Manichees, Eunomians, and Simon Magus. Untie them from the yoke of Donatists, and they will follow no longer a scattered uncertain and invisible congregation; but shall happily return unto the unity of that Catholic Church, which hath always been visible, and hath spread her branches all the world over. Finally, strip them off that paradox and absurd position, borrowed from the Arrians, Donatists, Pelagians, and many other Heretics, That (forsooth) the temporal Prince and lay Magistrate, is supreme judge in Ecclesiastical causes; and you utterly undo them, spoiling them of the only assured prop and pillar of all their religion.  
Now the case thus standing, that most of the articles of the Protestant faith be such old reproved errors, if too too many be found so destitute of all grace, that they will nevertheless wilfully continued still in them, and most obstinately defend them till death, though it cost them hell fire for their pains; yet my trust in Gods infinite bounty and goodness is, that many considerate and religiously disposed people (being more careful to please God then men, and more willing to look unto the salvation of their souls, than the preservation of their goods) will now at length upon this fair warning, prefer light before darkness, and approved verity before condemned heresy. They cannot but remember that which is every Sunday read in their own service, out of Athanasius Creed: Unless they hold the Catholic faith entire and whole, without violation of any one article off it, they shall without doubt perish everlastingly. Of the same judgement was that very judicious Doctor, and most vigilant Pastor of Christ's flock S. Augustine, who having numbered up many of the same, and such like heresies, doth conclude thus: Whosoever holdeth any one of these, he shall be no Catholic Christian. 
Ad Quodvultdeum, In fine.  Woe then be unto all Protestant Christians, who believe not one or two of them and the like, but more than twenty of them together; the whole frame of their new Gospel, being principally reared and grounded upon nothing else, as hath been even now verified. I hope then, that many of my most dear Countrymen, will (by the forcible working of God's grace) give ear unto the wholesome counsel of that most reverend, holy, and prudent Father S. Ambrose, 
Ambros. lib. de Fide. ca 1.  who forewarneth all Christians; To stand upon their guard most watchfully, and in no case to suffer such pestiferous and venomous errors to be powered into their souls or senses: one drop whereof (saith he) will infect and poison the pure and single Tradition of our Lord, and his holy Apostles.  
That which followeth in the first part of M. Abbot's book, because it is nothing else, but as it were a flourish and light bickering against some such points of doctrine, as are afterward in their due places severally and more largely discussed; I will remit unto their proper Questions, there orderly to be handled with the rest of the same kind. I will here before I end this part, touch two extraordinary matters, which cannot without great digression, be taken into other Questions. The one is, my mistaking of Proclus an Heretic, for Methodius a most Catholic Bishop, as M. Abbot affirmeth: the other, of my discovery of a great secret of the Papists conspiracy against his Majesty.  
These be my words of Proclus.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
ONE Proclus an enormous Originist, taught that sin was not taken away in baptism, but only covered, as it is recorded by Epiphanius: 
Haeres. 64.  M. Perkins affirmeth in like manner, that it remaineth still in the regenerate, though it be not imputed unto them.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  

Page 49.  HERE M. Bishop unwares, hath sheathed a sword in his own side, citing under the name of Proclus the Heretic, the words of Methodius a Catholic Bishop, against the heresy of Proclus. He saw in Epiphanius, Sequuntur verba Procli, Here follow the words of Proclus: and his lips hanging in his light, he could not see but that all the discourse following, was the words of Proclus; whereas the words of Proclus are but a few lines in the beginning, and then followeth by Methodius, a large confutation thereof. Now M. Bishop acknowledgeth, that this author did teach the same that M. Perkins doth: it followeth therefore by his own acknowledgement, that our doctrine is approved by Methodius Bishop of Tyrus, and also by Epiphanius.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
I Cannot well perceive, how M. Abbot's ignorance may serve him for a sorry excuse of this foul oversight; else I would rather impute it thereunto, then charge him (as I otherwise must needs do) with very shameless audacity. I know that he would not be esteemed ignorant, and he seems to have read both Proclus and Methodius words; but he jumbleth them together as though they were own text, though they stand in several divisions with Epiphanius, and some of them four or five great leaves from the other. And yet me thinks, he should not be so simple and shallow witted, as to have read them both over, and not to discern where Proclus speech endeth: for Epiphanius doth most distinctly point out the beginning and the end of Proclus discourse, with such a beginning of Methodius confutation of it, that any man understanding the Latin tongue, and enjoying the right use of his eyes, cannot choose but perceive it. For Epiphanius having (under this title: Now follow the words of Proclus, which Methodius doth also rehearse, as he had done before the words of Origen) put down Proclus discourse at length, doth at the end of it make a distinction, with this admonition: Sequuntur deinceps ipsius Methodij verba, Now follow the words of Methodius himself; thitherto then went the words of Proclus, wherein all M. Abbot's help and relief is comprehended: therefore Proclus the heretic by his own acknowledgement is his author, and not Methodius the Catholic Bishop. Again, the very beginning of Methodius discourse (if there were not so distinct a separation and admonition of Epiphanius set down) would convince, that all before was Proclus discourse, and that there he first began his own: these be his words. Cùm igitur vix desijsset Proclus, etc. Therefore when Proclus had scarce finished, and the auditory was long silent, as very much inclined to give credit to Proclus speech: I seeing them so still, began to lift up my head fair and soft, and to take breath as men at the Sea use to do after the tempest is past; and trembling as something seasick (for I must needs confess myself to have been strooken with the vehemency of his Oration) I turn myself to Auxentius and say. O friend, it was not in vain said by the Poet: If two go joined together, for our adversaries be two; wherefore I crave your help in this combat, that we may be also two to resist them, lest that Aglaophon armed with the persuasive speeches of Origen and Proclus, do wrest out of our hands the true resurrection. Go to then, let us range our battle against their sophisms, nothing appalled at those encounters, wherewith the fearful are daunted: and so goeth on with his preamble, preparing towards the confutation of Proclus. And being ready to give the onset, asketh his partner Auxentius whether it please him to begin: Vtrum igitur (Auxenti) tu huius viae dux esse velis, and ego praecedam? Whether will you be the guide of the way, or shall I go before? Who answered him, That it was meet because he began the speech, that he should also march before. Go to then (saith Methodius) let us for our part examine that matter even from the beginning forward: hitherto Methodius. Do not all these circumstances most evidently convince and demonstrate, to him that is not more than poore-blinde, that unto the beginning of those his speeches, Proclus former Oration continued? note the words, When Proclus had scarce made an end. Again, Methodius would not begin to contend against two, that is, Origen and Proclus, till he had gotten Auxentius to join his forces with him, that they might be two to two. Moreover, after many other compliments, Methodius would have had Auxentius to have made the first sally forth, and to have given the first charge upon Origen and Proclus, which he refusing to do, Methodius began. Now let any man judge, whether my lips hanged in my light (as M. Abbot's civility lead him to speak) or whether his soar eyes rather, were not strangely distempered, that he could not see Proclus discourse to have lasted until that reply of Methodius; being so distinguished by Epiphanius, and by such apparent signs of distinction marked out by Methodius himself? If need were, I could prove by the coherence and correspondence, of the beginning and ending of Proclus speeches, that they lasted not only for a few lines in the beginning, as M. Abbot fableth; but until the end of five full leaves. For Proclus purpose was to prove, That the Resurrection could not be in the substance of this mortal body, wherein we live; which (saith he) cannot remain for ever without change and be immortal; but the Resurrection must be in a spiritual and immortal body, which yet should have the same outward shape and proportion that our mortal bodies have, even as Origin hath taught: This I affirm to be the opinion and proposition of Proclus; where unto M. Abbot also consenteth. Now this very same is his conclusion five leaves after, where he endeth his discourse, with a fond comparison of our mortal bodies unto a beasts-hide filled with water. Which skin (saith he) though the water be often changed, doth nevertheless remain like itself; so (saith that wise author) though that which under a man's outward shape and form, doth increase and diminish and be often changed; yet the outward form itself of a man, always continueth one and the same. Then doth he concludeful sound; That like as now when the body is not the same, yet the same shape of outward proportion, is always preserved: Even so in the Resurrection, the same body in inward substance not remaining, notwithstanding the same outward form shall remain increased to a greater glory, and shall be showed (saith he) not in a corruptible, but in a spiritual body, free from all corruption, like to that of JESUS himself in his Transfiguration: then concludeth thus. These things hitherto are thus to be considered: And this is in brief the sentence of Origen. Do you not see, how the same that Proclus propounded in the beginning with Origen, the same he concludeth in the end? wherefore, all that whole discourse between those places was his own, and no word in it of Methodius. Yea, he addeth after the conclusion (because he had made mention of Christ's body in the Transfiguration) an objection out of it against his own opinion: That as Christ's body did rise again with the same flesh and bones it had before; Even so should every other Christian man's body do. Nay (saith he) not so: for Christ's body was not conceived in sin as ours are, but of the holy Ghost and of a Virgin; but our bodies are sleep, pleasure, and filth: and therefore (according to the saying of wise Syrach) to be devoured of worms, and consumed: So that to the very last words before (Now follow the words of Methodius) there is no sign of a confutation, but a plentiful confirmation of Proclus error, which was; That the same body of ours, according to the inward substance of it, shall not rise again in the general resurrection, but only according to the outward shape. Now, one reason among the rest, that moved that doting Originist to believe, that the same body of ours in substance should not rise again, was forsooth: That original sin had so infected this body of ours, and was so fast riveted or rather incorporated with it, that it could never be cleansed and rid clean out, unless the body also itself, were utterly destroyed and extinguished with it: which he assayeth to confirm with that sentence of the Apostle (so common in the Protestants mouths) There is not in me (that is, in my flesh) any good. Now to the Minor proposition of Proclus: but in the Resurrection there must be a pure body, most clean from all contagion of sin; wherefore not this body of ours (which cannot be without sin) must needs be utterly consumed, and a new spiritual body framed. This was one principal foundation of Proclus enormous opinion, in which the Protestants jump with him; that whiles this body of ours liveth, sin is never rooted out of it: It may be (say they, as also Proclus there said before them) checked or cropped in us, or not imputed to us: but it cannot whiles we live be clean purged and rooted out. Finally, this very argument of Proclus, which M. Abbot would father upon Methodius, is in the ensuing discourse of Methodius towards the end crossed and confuted: where he teacheth out of the same Apostle, That by the law of the spirit of God, and through the virtue of Christ's grace, that sin which was in our bodies, is condemned to death; that is, overcome, vanquished, and killed.  
These arguments taken out of the most material circumstances of this discourse (as of that which goeth before it, and doth immediately follow after, with the principal assertion in itself, set down both in the beginning and ending of it) must needs persuade any indifferent reader, that M. Abbot was wonderfully careless of his credit, to thrust out such an impudent assertion, so contrary to all likeness of truth, that any man that will but have the patience to read over so long chapters, may most easily discover the falsehood of it. One poor colour M. Abbot found out to deceive himself and others, that it was no continuation of Proclus speech: Because (forsooth) Proclus seemeth to confute origen's exposition of the coats of skin, which God made for Adam. Origen took them to signify this body of ours; Proclus not so, but only to notify the same bodies to be then first made mortal: but this shadow of a reason is so simple, that it will not fray a babe. For it often falleth out, that the scholar of an erroneous teacher, will not wholly agree with his master; but though he follow him in the main point of his doctrine, yet he will have some one trick or other of his own above him: so Proclus, albeit he stood stoutly to Origen, in the denial of the Resurrection of the same body in substance, which was the head controversy; yet did he dissent from him in the exposition of the coats of skins, which was but an appendix to the other. But this proves not Proclus discourse to be that of Methodius; nay it plainly disproves it: for Methodius giveth a third interpretation of those skins, differing from both the other, which is also far more literal than the other two; to wit, That the skins were made by God for our first parents, to cover their nakedness, and to keep them from the cold.  
To conclude this Section; seeing there be so manifold great and plain reasons against M. Abbot, and he having no better shelter for his surmise, than that silly shift which you have heard, of the divers interpretation of the skins; seemeth he not to be past all shame and worthy to be thrust into an Ass' skin, that hereupon takes an occasion to insult against me, as though he had gotten a mighty victory? 
Page 52.  these be his words. Now where were M. Bishop's wits, that could think that these were the words of Proclus? Surely be read the place very early in the morning, before he had his full sleep; or late after supper, when he should have been in bed; or else he borrowed them from some of his Masters the jesuits, who make as little conscience what they say, as he doth. We must be content with such stuff as he can yield us: The broker can afford no other wares, than he himself had received of the merchant. See how pleasant and plentiful the man is, upon very small advantage, nay upon no advantage at all; but only upon the displaying of his own gross ignorance, or too too great oversight. I am so far off, from taking this upon the bare report of others, that besides the diligent reading of the Latin translation of Epiphanius, I have looked also into his own Greek text: where I find the same distinctions. First, Proclus words with this title, Proclou tou Autou; the words of Proclus himself: and after them an entire continuation of the same, without any sign of interruption, for more than four full leaves. And then in another distinct separation, Loipon tou Methodiou, the rest, or that which followeth is of Methodius. Between which two partitions, all the discourse is of Proclus own devise, out of which M. Abbot draweth for their defence some sentences; and being ashamed (as good cause he had) of such a shameful Patron, he would gladly have fathered that bad discourse upon Methodius, a reverend Catholic Bishop: see, and wonder at the blind folly of Protestants, that blush not to maintain Heretics opinions very stoutly, and yet are ashamed of the name and company of the Heretics themselves. Either let them hardly avouch those authors worthy to be respected, embraced, and followed; or else heartily and happily give over, forsake, and detest those their damnable opinions, which made them unto all holy and learned Antiquity, exceeding odious. Otherwise they maintaining the very self same errors, must needs in the end prove unto all upright and well understanding men, in like manner infamous; and be no less hated and avoided of all good Christians, than their founders and masters were before them. Thus far of Proclus the Originist, whom M. Abbot would by a strange metamorphosis, have transformed into Methodius an ancient Catholic Bishop.  
Now I come unto his 34. Section, where to trounch me, and upon occasion of my speeches to traduce all English-Catholikes, he poureth out a foul turbulent flood, of vain and currish eloquence. These are my words upon which he runneth a very rude and jarring descant.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
AND when they shall see no hope of remedy, the state being settled, 
Page 225.  and a continual posterity like to ensue, of the same nature and condition: God knows, what that forcible weapon of necessity may constrain and drive men to, at the length.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
IN this period, M. Bishop thought to show himself a politic wiseman, and contrary to his own expectation, 
(a) Who told him so?  all his fellows condemn him for a fool: they had but one special secret amongst them, and he hath played the part of Tom-tel-trouth to reveal it. What M. Bishop? are you such a blab, that you cannot keep your own and your fellows counsel, but must needs out with it? And had you no other body to whom to discover it, if you must needs so do●, but thus bluntly to blunder it out to the King? But be of good cheer man, let not this discomfort you too much, satisfy your friends, and assure them 
(b) Which they esteem as much as of a straw.  upon our word, that we knew your minds before, we knew you were no changlinges, but what you have been, the same you continue still: 
(c) God be thanked his tongue is no slander.  treacherous, falsharted, faithless, waiting but for time and opportunity if power would serve, to compel his Majesty to your order. The state is now settled (you 
(d) I said not so, but when they shall see etc.  say) and a continual posterity like to ensue of one nature and condition. O this is it that grieveth you, this is it that maketh you gnaw your tongues for anger, and to far like men at their wit's end, that know not what way to take. The unsettledness of the state, was the common trap wherein they catched men, to be devoured of the Pope: what a trouble is it now for you to cry out? O spes fallaces! O false and vain hope!   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
THIS light scoffing invective of his, most fit for the gravity of such a jolly Preacher and a Doctor, I would have buried in deep silence, as unworthy any serious answer, had he not all his book over been glancing and girding at those few words of mine, as though they contained no less than high treason; huddling also with them many odious imputations, and spiteful slanders of us and our doctrine. The discreet reader will (I hope) bear with me, if I do answer the man somewhat suitable to his own style. The general scope of my Epistle was, to move his Majesty to favour the Catholic religion, at least to mitigate the rigour of his highness laws enacted against Catholics. Among sundry other reasons which I produced to that purpose, it was one; to insinuate an inconvenience that might happen to follow, upon the severe execution of the said extreme penalties: wherein I cannot conceive, how M. Abbot should think that I meant to show my self a more wise politic man, then in the rest; were it not that I find him commonly to mistake matters very grossly, or else to speak by contraries. For who almost, is so little acquainted with the dispositions of great states, but that he knoweth, how they desire rather to hear of present applaudites, praises, and congratulations, then of any future perils, troubles, and disquietness? wherefore this infelicity is esteemed by the wise, to be linked with the flourishing and most fortunate place of Princes; that they shall find very few ready to admonish them of things distasteful, which may hap rather to engender melancholy, then to purchase any commodity: most men being very covetous to wind themselves into their good liking (from whom descend so many promotions and profits,) by presenting unto them pleasant and delightful objects. It had then rather been a point of human policy, to have abstained from the mention of such an ungrateful matter, and to have tendered only pleasing arguments, as M. Abbot and his pewfellows are wont to do; gaping after preferments, temporizing, and accommodating themselves to their humour, that say: Loquere nobis placentia. Nevertheless, he is not presently to be condemned of presumptuous folly, much less to be holden for a disloyal subject; who out of his duty to his sovereign, care of his country's good, and affection towards men of his own religion, doth in time and place, put his Prince in mind of a mischief, which may fortune to arise out of some severe course intended: or else all loyalty, and true fidelity, were to be banished out of the Court and Country. This than should in equity and due construction, have rather been well taken, as proceeding at least from a good meaning, then either to have been scoffed at, or drawn unto a most odious signification?  
But my fellows (saith M. Abbot) do condemn me for a fool and a blab, because I have revealed the only special secret, that lay hidden among them. I marvel what fellows of mine he is so familiar withal, that he hath their opinion at his finger's ends so perfectly. But give him leave to feign of my fellows what him list, so that he will stand stoutly to his own assertion; That this is the only secret that lieth hidden amongst us, and that there is no other to be feared then this, which I have here uttered. This purgation of ours proceeding from so bitter an adversary, may serve to convince himself and his fellow Preachers, of a thousand slanderous lies, coined by themselves or by men of their own sect, and then thundered out of their Pulpits, as strange projects of the Papists. But the Lord be praised, I need not crave any pardon of my fellows, for the discovering of this deep secret of ours: for the courteous and comfortable Gentleman M. Abbot himself, will on his true word quite clear me of it. In what sort I pray you? Marry (saith he) it was no secret at all, but aswell known unto all Protestants, as the moonshine is in water. Now good Sir, though you have made me not a little beholding unto you, for freeing me from so mighty an imputation of a fool and a blab: yet you must give me leave to admonish you in the Lord, that it becomes not a man of your coat, so suddenly to cross and contradict himself. First you say, that I bluntly blundered out the only special secret amongst us: and shortly after you say again, that it was no secret at al. The Apostle saith, that in all his preachings there was not to be found, It is, and it is not, that is, he did not first affirm any thing, and afterwards deny the same: And in another place affirmeth, 
2. Cor. 1. vers. 17. Gallat. 2. vers. 18.  If I build that which I destroyed before, I make myself a prevaricatour. But M. Abbot that was want to speak out of the Apostles affection, now clean forgetting his rule, and being more mindful to display the colours of his rhetoric, then to mark what he himself said; in one period flourisheth upon one thing, and in the next enlargeth as freely upon the flat contrary: he must therefore by the sentence of S. Paul, be taken not for a true Preacher, but for a false cozening Prevaricatour. Let any indifferent reader judge, what credit one may give to his words, when it is so apparent, that he not only maketh no conscience to misreport me, my fellows, and all sort of authors; but also cares not greatly to give himself the flat lie, within the compass of few lines, so he may make a fair show of a number of vain words.  
True it is, that we Catholics are no changelings in matters of faith, and in rite of Sacraments. The same which our forefathers and eldest ancestors, embraced and held even from the Apostles days; that, and no other, do we inviolably observe and maintain unto this day: And what is taught among us in one country for matter of faith, the same is generally received, by men of our religional the world over. We be not (God be thanked) herein like the Protestants; who, as though they had taken their name of Proteus, are as changeable in articles of faith, as he is feigned to have been various in the transforming of his countenance: In Germany believing one thing, in Helvetia another; at Geneva turning the third way, in Holland wandering the fourth. How many countries they infect with their new and profane Gospel: so many divers professions of faith, and distinct forms of Church government they have. These changlinges that are so far degenerated from their predecessors piety, and do disagree so much one with another: Yea; that do in the same country often chop and change their own religion; are of all constant Catholics to be avoided, as unstable and wavering souls, carried about with every blast of new doctrine. But concerning dutiful obedience unto the Prince, who is God's Lieutenant general in temporal causes, Catholics if they be compared to Protestants, will be found an hundred times more loyal and constant: which point because I have touched in my answer unto M. Abbot's Epistle in the beginning of this book, I need not here again handle it at large. And although some men of our religion, have now and then (as frail and sinful creatures) forgotten their duty both to God and their King: yet they have been so few, and that so seldom in comparison of the Protestants, that for one of ours, more than a thousand of theirs, have within this hundred years failed therein; though we be in number, a thousand of our religion for one of theirs, if you take all Christendom over.  
And albeit the state seem now to be settled against the religion of our forefathers, and not unlike so to continue, until it shall please God of his infinite mercies to alter and amend it; which notwithstanding (as all the faithful know) may be very shortly, because his divine power is infinite, and no man able to resist his will: yet we shall be by the assistance of God's good grace, so far off from biting our tongues, or the lip either thereat as M. Abbot fond imagineth; that we will rather pray to God to open our lips, and to lose our tongues to magnify his holy name, that he hath given us that true Christian happiness and honour, not only 
Phillip. 1. vers. 28.  to believe aright in Christ JESUS, in these days of infidelity; but also to suffer disgrace, and to sustain persecution for the constant profession of his holy name, and only true Catholic, Apostolic & Roman faith. They who make profession of religion to please the Princes of the earth, to heap up honours and to rake riches together, have great cause of grief, when they find themselves therefore by the present state discountenanced, impoverished, and utterly rejected: But others who know our blessed Saviour as all Christians ought to do, and the true honour, virtue, and riches of his Cross; do more regard of his love, yea of one good look of his, then of all earthly kings countenances, favours, and preferments: And do make a higher estimate of bearing his Cross after him, and of suffering persecution for his glorious name sake, then of all worldly ease, honours, and commodities; Imitating therein that generous and most noble minded Moses, 
Hebr. 11. vers. 25.  Who chose rather to be afflicted with the people of God, then to have the pleasures of temporal sin, esteeming the reproach for Christ greater riches, than the treasures of the Egyptians. It doth not therefore so much trouble us, to behold the state settled against the Catholic religion, for our own temporal interest; who have thereby so manifold occasions to mortify our evil passions, to fly the temptations of the wicked world, and to endear ourselves unto our most loving redeemer. But very great sorrow and continual sadness of heart have we to consider, that Christian religion first planted in our country, and ever since until our father's days most constantly continued, is now banished thence; and with it all honesty of life, all good and charitable dealing with our neighbour, is utterly decayed and banished out of the City and Country: And in place thereof, swearing, and forswearing, drunkenness, dishonesty, and all manner of deceit and knavery, openly practised, countenanced, and without blushing professed. That the goodly, fair, and stately Churches (built by our Catholic Ancestors, for Catholic assemblies at the blessed sacrifice of the Mass, and for the due administration of the holy Sacraments, and true preaching of God's word) be now profaned and turned to places of dishonouring of our sovereign Creator, and of seducing his poor creatures. That the famous Universities and other Schools founded for instruction principally of Catholic doctrine and devotion, be now made shops of new errors, lose manners, and impiety. Upon these and such like spiritual considerations, finding our poor country deprived in manner of all God's blessings, and our dear countrymen made slaves of the Devil, and fuel for the flames of hell fire; we Catholics are exceeding pensive, yet do we not therefore far like mad men, nor gnaw our tongues for anger, as M. Abbot scornfully writeth: but do in bitterness of soul most earnestly pray unto the Father of mercies (in whose hands are the hearts of all Kings) to inspire our dread sovereign King JAMES, and the Lords of his most honourable Council, with the true knowledge of his sacred will and word: and to kindle in them so fervent a zeal of the Catholic Roman faith, as that they may employ those very rare and singular gifts of nature, art, and experience, which God hath plentifully powered upon them, towards the reclaiming of our country from the new profane heresies, and most wicked conversation of these miserable times, unto our Ancestors sound faith, sincere honesty, and most charitable, and upright dealing: (This chief is the heap of our heaviness, this is all the harm we wish them, this is all the treason that can be justly laid to our charge.) That with the abundance of such honour and prosperity as this vale of misery affordeth them, they might also be heirs of eternal happiness, glory and felicity. And albeit for this inestimable heavenly bliss, which we most heartily desire unto our native soil and best beloved country, we be styled a thousand times traitors, and every way used most unkindly; yet we shall not surcease by God's grace to pray for them continually, who do day and night persecute us: yea over and beside, be ready also by the assistance of the same his grace, not only to bestow our best and most serviceable days to do them good; but also the dearest blood in our bodies, if it shall please our blessed Saviour so to dispose of us.  
And is it likely? that men thus by the grace of God affected, should cry out (as M. Abbot maliciously surmiseth) O fallaces spes! O deceitful hopes! doth he not here rather notably discover the baseness and corruption of his own mind? as exceeding far dissenting from the right temper and disposition of a sound and noble Christian, who should be nothing daunted, for seeing the worldly state settled against him; because our great Master Christ hath assured us of that long before hand, saying: 
johan. 15. vers. 19  If the world hate you, know ye that it hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would have loved her own: but because you be not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember my word that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his Master: If they have persecuted me, you also will they persecute. Had not M. Abbot foully forgotten this worthy lesson, which Christ willed all his so well to remember, when he imagined that there was no other remedy, but that we must needs tear our tongues for anger, and far like mad men, when we saw the state settled against our religion and us? If he had not been such a mercenary temporizer, that esteemeth the highest and greatest happiness of Priests and Preachers, to consist principally in the favour of great personages, in fat benefices, and bodily pleasures; he would never have thought (much less have written) that the settling of the state against us, was like to cast us into such a desperate & bloody agony. S. Paul surely was of a far other mind, when he exhorted the Thessalonians, not so much as to be moved in tribulations: 
1. Thessal. 3. vers. 3.  For yourselves know (saith he) that we are appointed to this; as if he had said, it is incident to the true state of a good Christian, to live in the disgrace and hate of worldlings. Vndoubtly then, M. Abbot was greatly overseen, when he supposed the discountenance of the state to be able to put good Catholics to their wits end. May he not therefore be saluted with these words of S. james? 
jacob. 4. vers. 4.  O adulterers (O base and bastardly minded Ministers) know ye not that the friendship of this world, is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore willbe a friend of this world, he is made an enemy of God. Let them therefore, that prefer the friendship of this world before the favour of God, esteem as highly as they list of worldly cherishings and preferments: we by the help of God's grace, will be so far off from tearing our tongues, so long as they please to persecute us; that we will rather (after our blessed saviours counsel) 
Math. 5. vers. 12.  rejoice & be glad when we be reviled untruly, and persecuted for his sake: For howsoever our good meaning and desert be mistaken in earth, yet therefore very great shall be our reward in heaven. Finally, leaving the falseness and vanity of hope, unto them that by pleasing worldly men seek after vanity and false felicity, and who are not unlike so to far (as M. Abbot writeth) if according to their bad deserts, they were by our Saviour Christ whipped out of his Church: we Catholics following the Apostles instruction, 
Rom. 5. vers. 2.  Do glory in the true hope of the glory of the Sons of God. The testimony of an upright conscience, is to us here as it were a continual banquet: And the assured hope which we have, to enjoy hereafter the perpetual glory of God's dear Sons in his heavenly Kingdom, do yield us more quietness of mind and true hearty joy, in one day, than most of the Ministers receive by their worldly prosperity, all their lives long.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
AND now that there is no hope of remedy, God knows (you say) what that forcible weapon of necessity may constrain and drive men to at length. 
(*) Behold the fair flowers of his sweet eloquence.  False Traitor, Base fugitive: dost thou take upon thee to threaten thy Prince? what? of a preaching Priest have we now a Herald at arms, if he cannot persuade religion, to denounce war? is this the Catholic religion that you commend to us? did Peter and Paul deal in that sort, to tell Princes that if they would not give them way, God knows what that forcible weapon of necessity might constrain and drive men to at length? was this the language or style of the first Church? but what do I ask you of Peter and Paul, or the first Church? God knows they are strangers to you, and you to them, you love to talk of them, but little do you care to be guided by them. The first Church could say to their Persecutors: 
Tertul. Apolog. ca 37.  If we would deal with you not by secret revenge but by open enmity, do we want thereto either number or strength? we are foreigners to you, and yet we have filled all places of yours; your Cities, islands, Castles, boroughs, meeting places; your Tents, Tribes, Bands, Palaces; your Senate and Court: what war were we not fit for, though unequal in power, who so willingly yield ourselves to be slain? but that with us, more tolerable it is to be killed, then to kill. And so Augustine speaketh thereof: That the City of Christ, 
August. de Civitat. Dei, 22. cap. 6.  albeit it had troops of mighty peoples, yet did not fight for temporal life, but for the obtaining of eternal life: It did not resist; their fight for life was nothing else, but for their saviours sake to despise life: thus they were able to rescue themselves and their religion; yet no forcible weapon of necessity could move them to rebel, & to take arms against them by whom they were oppressed. And this was then thought to be the proper condition of the faith of Christ.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
FALSE Traitor, Base fugitive, etc. Fair words courteous Sir, if not for honesties sake, yet for the honour of the Ministry. This man (to say the least) was surely some passionate woman's son, he is on the sudden so mutable into strange passions. This passage he began gravely, playing both the Politician and Prophet; then counterfeiting an over-kinde Proctor, he cleareth me of that I never offended in, though he therewith condemned himself of forgery: so fast a friend would he then needs show himself to me. And presently after, upon no other occasion but the very recital of the same words again, he is in a moment so transported with choler, that he seems to far not much unlike one of those sober fellows in Bedlam, that have their heads bound up in a clout, and crieth out, false traitor, base fugitive. Can I then in better fashion encounter him, then with these verses of grave Seneca.  
Pone vesanos precor,  
Animi tumores, teue pietati refer.  
Assuage I pray you the swelling waves of your mind.  
Recover your wits, and stray not so far out of your kind.  
Gentle Sr. Robert, if you please to pacify a little your distempered humours, you shall not only avoid the obloquy of the weak brethren, that may hap to be scandalised, to behold so sage a reputed Doctor, and sober Preacher, to let fly such base and barbarous words: but having purged your brains from the foggy mists of those gross exhalations, you also shall be able to discern more clearly what my words signify, for you have not forgotten (I ween) the old verse: Impedit ira animum, ne possit cernere verum. Well then, supposing that upon this fair admonition, you be waxen for the while more calm, and contemning the indignity of that vile term (base fugitive) as most untrue; because (God be thanked) I was neither basely borne, nor ever any fugitive or turncoat: Let us patiently examine, where this treason lieth, that he speaketh off; and what those threats be, wherewith I menace my Prince. These be all the words I wrote: God knows what that forcible weapon of necessity may constrain and drive men to at length. Is there in this sentence any one syllable that soundeth of treason? or savours of any undutiful demeanour towards his Majesty? do I persuade, counsel, or encourage any reasonable creature to take arms against my King and Country? nothing less: for I only intimated to my sovereign Lord himself, that it was not in man's judgement unlike, but that upon the severe execution of those rigorous laws enacted, some overgreat inconvenience might happen to ensue. And my humble Petition unto his gracious H●ghnesse to prevent the same in due season, doth without further purgation, sufficiently clear me with all understanding men, from the imputation of any such thing, if it should chance to follow.  
Neither do my words in any ordinary construction, insinuate any deep secret hidden amongst us; (as M. Abbot wavering like a weathercock first affirmeth, and after denieth:) but do demonstrate a certain fear of mine own, grounded, not upon any privy plot then in hand (according to M. Abbots most malicious slander,) but upon that common maxim known to all men: Durum telum necessitas; Necessity hath no law, as in plain words I then and there expressed. Which is also confirmed in holy writ: Multi propter necessitatem deliquerunt; Many men through necessity have offended. This forewarning then given to my Prince, of some offence that might happen to be committed, if he out of his Princely clemency and wisdom, did not moderate the extremity of those laws; was rather a loyal office performed to my King, than any kind of encouragement to his subjects to fall into a mischief. And (which makes my words much more sufferable) I do not affirm absolutely, that any evil at all would follow upon that rigour; but say only, that God knows whether it will or no; leaving it (as it was uncertain) unto his Majesties more mature consideration.  
Neither do I talk of rebellion, or Herald-like denounce war to my Prince; but barely insinuate, that it may procure some manner of mischief, one or another: And that rather unto some heady hot executioner of that severity, then unto any other greater parsonage; And that too, when? what presently? not so neither, but at length (may drive men at length) that is after a long time, if the persecution be still followed. Which may perhaps not touch his Majesty's reign, but be extended to a succeeding age. I then letting slip out of my pen, but an uncertain conjecture of some manner of inconvenience, which might at length, God knows when, happen unto some body: was there any spark of Christian charity, nay any spice of moral honesty in M. Abbot, thereupon to infer that I like a false traitor did proclaim open war against my King and Country?  
Let it be duly also considered by the discreet reader, that the prodigious mystery of concealed and smothered iniquity, whereon he harpeth and warbleth all his book over, is nothing else but his own spiteful wresting of one poor line of mine. Doth not his great and often threats upon so small an advantage, sufficiently witness; that he lacked not good will, but convenient matter to run upon, and therefore was glad to snatch at any shadow? well, the old Adage therefore must needs touch him to the quick: Parturiunt montes, prodijt ridiculus mus; The mountains were long in labour, at length they brought forth a ridiculous mouse.  
And if it please you further to confer this my sentence, with the assertions of the grand Rabbis of the new Synagogue, you may better understand, in whose bosoms lurketh the spirit of disloyalty and rebellion. 
a Luth. ad Elect ●. Saxon. & L●ntgra.  Luther defineth, That subject to offend God very grievously, that doth not for the defence of his religion, rise in arms against his Sovereign. 
b Lib. 4. Epist. Zwing. & Oecolamp.  Zwinglius declareth, That if the Emperor oppress the Gospel, his people must by force of arms withstand him, or else they sin as heinously as the Emperor himself. 
c Caluin. in Daniel. ca 6. v. 22. & 25.  Caluin yet more hotly and impudently affirmeth, Those Kings that go about to suppress the Gospel, to be rebels to God, and unworthy the name of men: And that their subjects, must rather spit in their faces then obey them. I omit our own countryman Goodman, who held his Princess government to be monstrous: And Buchanan, and an infinite rabble of such rebels, who in most clear and plain terms deliver; that it is lawful for all subjects, to rise in arms against their Sovereign, if he go about to fight against God, and to supplant his holy religion. These goodfellows and their followers, may justly be styled Heralds at arms, that do denounce open wars to all Kings and Princes, that resist the errors and heresies of these new furious and mad Gospelers. As for me, I only (out of my bounden duty towards my King and country, and affection unto men of mine own religion) did humbly request his most excellent Majesty, to behold with the eye of pity, and to weigh in the balance of equity; whether the rigorous execution of such extreme laws, were not like to drive some of his frail impoverished subjects, unto desperation, and so consequently unto some great inconvenience, if God of his infinite goodness and mercy did not prevent it. Why this manner of speaking should dislike Peter and Paul, or any of the first Church, M. Abbot hath not showed any shadow of a proof, unless outrageous railing and reviling, must needs stand in his plea for sound reasoning. He that will make a true Christian interpretation of my words, shall find them not to differ much in effect, from these words of S. Paul; 
Ad Ephes. 6. vers. 2.  Fathers provoke not your children to anger: The reason whereof is, lest those children being put in passion, should forget their duty to their Parents, and thereupon fall into some inconvenience. Every good King is as it were, Pater patriae, & omnium subditorum pius parens: The Father of his country, and the kind Parent of all his people. My humble petition then unto his Highness was, that he would out of his exceeding clemency towards his people, mitigate the rigour of his laws, and not suffer his subjects (who never had offended him) to be oppressed under the intolerable burden thereof, and thereby be moved to anger and indignation; lest that should breed overgreat impatience, and so grow to a further evil: which is so conformable to the Apostles admonition, that he must needs be much troubled with passion, that cannot perceive it.  
Now to that which he saith, that this is a threat. If every kind of signification of future danger, in how fair manner soever it be delivered, may be called a threat; then every friend that in the kind of dissuasion mentioneth any such inconvenience like to ensue, must be taken no longer for a loving friend, but for an unkind menacer that useth threats: which in all men's judgements that understand that matter, must needs be condemned for most absurd. My words then, were very absurdly noted for a threat, because they contained a certain signification of some future incommodity.  
Now whereas M. Abbot demands, Whether this were the style of the first Church? and to disprove it, allegeth one sentence out of Tertullian, who albeit ancient, yet is he to short of the first Christian Church by two hundred years; and which is far worse, he was no sound member neither of the same Catholic Church at al. I answer, that the first Church might have used the like style very authentically: for the Prophets inspired by the holy Ghost, uttered far more rough speeches to their Kings, which are warranted for loyal and dutiful subjects in the holy Scriptures, and therefore may be very lawfully imitated. I will omit the words of that Prophet, who anointed 
4. Reg. 9 vers. 7.  jehu King of Israel: And of the Prophet Ahias unto the 
* 3. Reg. 14. vers. 12.  Queen jeroboams wife, because they are exceeding stern and boisterous, and fit not our purpose. Let that mild judge and Prophet Samuël his speeches to King Saul be scanned, who being one of Saules best and most loving subjects, yet was bold to tell him to his face: 
1. Reg. 13. vers. 24.  That his Kingdom should rise no further: 
* Ibid. ca 15. vers. 23.  And that God had chosen another man to be governor of his people: And that God had cast him off, and that he should not be King no longer. If some flattering Parasite standing by, would therefore have challenged the Prophet Samuenl for a false traitor, that durst so boldly menace his King, with no less a punishment then deprivation from his Kingdom; had he not been a fit pattern of M. Abbot's patience? that Prophet's admonition, as any man may see, was exceeding vehement and plain in comparison of mine: yet I rehearse it, that my reader may see, how the best subjects may without touch of disloyalty, admonish their Prince of some evil hanging over their heads. Nathan the Prophet his words come nearer to my purpose: he took it to be no treason, nor any point of disloyalty, to tell his Prince (who was no meaner a parsonage then that most puissant and holy King David,) plainly and roundly; 
2. Reg. c. 12.  That the sword (that is, bloody strife and contention) should not departed from his house and progeny for ever: That God would raise up out of his own house, evil against him. What? is this holy man of God to be styled a false traitor for his labour? is he of a Prophet become a Herald at arms, that durst threaten his Prince with open war and rebellion? either he must be taken for such a disloyal person, or else I that do not approach near unto the sharpness and roundness of his words, am most wrongfully burdened therewith. But let vain men either of malice towards their adversary, or of flattery to their Prince, spit out their venom, and bark against innocents never so currishly: yet his most excellent and mild Majesty, will I doubt not, rather imitate that holy and noble King David, who took it in very good part; then lend his highness gentle cares unto such venomous declaimours, that care not how vilely and wrongfully they gall and slander their adversary. To conclude this point, if the very nature of dissuasion (according to the approved rules of all men that writ thereof) do allow me to signify that inconvenience in such modest sort as I delivered it: if the same be also fortified by the examples of men inspired with the holy Ghost, and warranted by the record of God's word; was not M. Abbot in a frantic humour (trow you) when he burst out so furiously against it? was he not strangely transported with blind malice all his book over, when as in every Section thereof almost, he glanseth and girdeth at this, as if it were some horrible bugbear and heinous crime.  
Now I come to Tertullian and S. Augustine's words, which we receive with reverence and great approbation. For first, We willingly yield ourselves to be slain for our religion, and think it not only more tolerable (as Tertullian speaketh) but a thousand times more honourable, to be killed in that holy quarrel, then to kill or slay any man: Yet will I be bold to say, if I should have used the like words, I doubt not, but they should have been much more racked and tormented, than those which I uttered. For ●f I had said as Tertullian did: If we would deal with you, not by secret revenge, 
In Apolog. cap. 37.  but by open enmity, we want neither number nor strength; what war were we not fit for? etc. who sees not, but such a quarreler as M. Abbot is, would have taken that strait for a terrible threat indeed, and for an open denouncing of war? We moreover, like very well of S. Augustine's discourse, and do accordingly exhort all Catholics, valiantly to contemn this transitory life, for the obtaining of eternal life. See our Epistles of comfort to the afflicted Catholics, and other like Treatises written to that purpose: you shall not find one word in them, encouraging any man to seek remedy thereof by taking arms, but to endure patiently whatsoever it shall please God to permit the state to lay upon them, until it be his holy will to redress it. And though this be our accustomed style, when we writ or speak to our afflicted brethren: yet pleading unto my Prince in their behalf, I might very dutifully remember his clemency, of the ordinary mischief, which too too commonly waiteth at the heels, upon overmuch severity. Neither was S. Augustine when he counseled all men to patience, ignorant of that uproar which happened at Milan in his own time or not much before, even among the best affected subjects, for the defence of S. Ambrose, against the Emperor his Sovereign. The like shortly after happened at Constantinople, in the behalf also of their most glorious Patriarch S. john chrysostom, against the Emperor Archadius. Now, albeit none of these most holy Bishops, would have had their flock taken arms in their defence, but misliked that as much as any other: yet no question, but that they might very well without suspicion of disloyalty, have humbly requested the said Emperors to have used more lenity in their proceed, for fear of such an after-clap. And he that should therefore have styled them either false traitors, Heralds at arms, or menacers of their Prince; would of all sober men have been esteemed to rave, rather than to enjoy the right use of his wits. Let it be then well weighed, whether M. Abbot's case be not the very same.  
Now to that which followeth.   

ROBERT ABBOT.  
WHERE we are to note the singular impudence and impiety, of the Traitor Father jesuit; who seeing the example of the first Christians, to be contrary to their practice now, colourably mentioneth it, and by mere falsehood seeketh to avoid and shift it off. 
Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. cap. 7.  That Christians (saith he) of old deposed not Nero, julian the Apostata, Valens and such like: the cause was, for that they wanted power, and if they had had power they would have done it; directly contrary to that which they themselves testify of themselves: That they had power sufficient, but held it unlawful to rebel. And thus here the young Crab, goeth according to the gate of the old Crab; and telleth his Majesty, that if they can get strength, they will perforce win that, that his Majesty by entreaty will not yield: And biddeth him in effect, 
Ibidem.  look for the practice of their rule; If Princes go about to turn the people from the Roman faith, by all their consents they may, and aught to be deprived of their Dominions.   

WILLIAM BISHOP.  
HERE we are rather to note the ignorance shall I say, or impudence of a shameless railing Minister, that catcheth at all occasions to cavil at our doctrine, how little congruity soever there be in the coherence of his own speeches: for small reason had he, to leap from my words of so modest signification, unto those of the right famous Cardinal Bellarmine, with which they have no affinity or resemblance. For I only insinuate an inconvenience that may proceed, out of the frailty and corruption of some impatient men: whereas he seemeth to teach what may be done upon good advise justly. And that you may understand the weakness of M. Abbot's judgement, who would make the Cardinal's words directly opposite to Tertullia's doctrine, observe; that they be not so contrary, as he (through the fault of his soar eyes) doth mistake them. For Bellarmine saith not, that Nero's and julian the Apostates subjects, and such like, would have deposed their Princes if they had had power: But that they might lawfully have so done. Now if you mark well Tertullia's words, he seemeth not to dissent much therefrom: For (saith he) with us it is more tolerable to be killed, then to kill. Out of which words it may rather be gathered, that he held it also tolerable for those Christians, to make war against their persecuting Emperors; though he thought it more tolerable to endure even death itself, for their religion. Neither can I persuade myself, that the Cardinal meant that of Heathen Princes, over whom the Church hath no power to judge; but of such Princes only, who had before made profession of the faith, and therein promised obedience unto Christ's Spouse the Church, as he doth there in his fourth reason declare expressly. Now I intermeddle not at all, with any such question: wherefore, he too too crabbedly and crookedly, doth resemble things so unlike together.  
That which followeth in this his Section, is but a most malicious exaggeration of their heinous crime, that plotted about the gunne-powder-treason: of which I have spoken so largely in my answer to his Epistle (where he first enforced it) that I need not now again stand about the confutation of it. He after his old manner dilating his lies, maketh it not only a common conspiracy of all Catholics in England, but addeth: That it was also the effect of a consultation held at Douai; but when, or by whom, he cannot well tell, I ween. For all the kings Majesties most learned Council, having used all the diligence, that was possible for men to do, to bolt out all the complices and circumstances of that most odious enterprise, could tell no tidings of any such consultation held at Douai, as all the records thereof do testify. Was it not then great pity, that they had not sought unto this holy Minister, for their better instruction in so weighty a business, who could have given them greater light therein, (as he seemeth to insinuate) than all the world beside? Marry if one should appose him, how he came by the knowledge of that secret, he would answer (I trow) that he had it by revelation, from the spirit that possesseth his heart, to wit, the father of all lies, that old Serpent and calumniator Satan. Out of whose false figures, he hath taken this more than poetical fiction which followeth in his text: O, if the Protestants (saith he) had used any such practice in France, in Spain, or any where else, what hideous noises and exclamations would these men have raised thereupon? how would they have traduced our religion? how would they have bend all their force, withal extremity to extirpate utterly, not only the persons guilty, but all that carried the name of that profession? what a senseless and most wicked fiction is this? most wicked, for that it would enforce the slaughter and utter ruin of many thousands of innocents and guiltless persons, for the guilt of a dozen offenders. For he saith, They would utterly root up, not only the guilty, but all that are of the same profession, how innocent soever: And no less senseless is the same his assertion, and repugnant to most evident truth. For in France, (which is the first country that he doth give instance in) the Protestants have not only plotted and gone about, but have put in practice, and actually done the uttermost of their power, to depose, and overthrow, and ruinated, not only their lawful King, and most of the blood Royal; but also the Catholic Peers, Princes, Dukes, Lords, Gentry, and Yeomanry, Clergy, and Laity. To the effecting whereof, besides their own strength, and the help of their neighbours, they called into the bowels of their own country, two mighty armies of Germans, with help whereof, they have sacked many a noble City, Castle, and Town; and blown up most stately Churches, and other fair buildings, with fire, gunpowder, and Canonshot. They have rifled, spoiled, and ruinated many great Provinces of that goodly Country: they have cruelly butchered, slain, and been the cause of the unjust death, of many hundred thousands of Men, Women, and Children; as not only their own Histories testify, but many thousands of yet living eye-witnesses can verify. And notwithstanding all this mischief really acted and done, be all that bear the name of that profession, utterly extirpated and rooted out of that country therefore? nothing less: nay they have not only toleration of religion, but free exercise thereof, openly allowed, and granted them. Was this man then well in his wits, or did he know what he said? when he preferred that horrible conspiracy of the gunne-powder-treason, before all the enormous crimes of Protestants, both in France and all other countries? or was there ever such a shameless writer as M. Abbot, that blusheth not to set out in print, such monstrous and notorious lies; that in falsehood exceed all fictions of Poets and Painters, and in malice do match with any devilish devise whatsoever. Oh, into what lamentable calamity is our poor Country fallen, that must have such cozening Companions, such false Hypocrites, and most impudent Liars, for the guides of their souls to salvation, and for the only teachers of all spiritual doctrine! Can any man that enjoyeth the right use of his senses, give credit and trust unto them, who make no conscience, but a common custom to lie all manner of lies? nay such a one (if they be wise) they should not believe when he telleth them a truth, which they do otherwise know. For Demetrius Phaleius being asked what evil did follow a liar? Marry (saith he) that no man afterward believe him, when he telleth truth: And good reason, for how knoweth he, whether he do not lie then, as he was accustomed to do before? He therefore that will be sure not to be deceived, must neither give credit unto M. Abbot, who is plainly convicted to have told very many gross and palpable lies. Any plain honest man, must needs much marvel to behold or hear, that he who maketh profession of God's pure word, and the truth of the Gospel, should take such a special delight in lying; but he must remember, that all is not gold that glisters. All be not true Pastors of Christ's flock that come in sheepskins. All be not sincere teachers of God's word, that take upon them to be Preachers. And no one more assured touch of counterfeit coin: no plainer proof of a ravening wolf and false teacher, than such often and evident lying. For as God is the truth itself, and all his doctrine most true: so are they with truth alone to be upholden and defended. 
job. 13. v. 7.  What? (saith holy job) hath God need of our lies, or that we should speak deceitfully in his cause? no verily: for the truth is strong enough of itself, to confound falsehood; Fortis est veritas, & praevalet. But the devils cause it is, that needeth to be bolstered out, and underpropped with lies: 
johan. 8. vers. 44.  For he is a liar, and the Father of lies. And without lying, no falsehood can be deceitfully coloured, and made to appear and seem truth. He than that will be fed with lies, let him take the Devil to his Father; and M. Abbot, or some other such like of his lying Ministers for his Master.  
A certain Minister being told, that M. Abbot was reputed much to blame, and very hardly censured by many discreet persons, for that he had used so much deceit and leasings in his writings; answered (forsooth) in his defence, that he could not belly the Papists and their cause, too much. What can be said unto such shameless persons? surely nothing else, but that the new light of their Gospel is now grown to his perfection; when as the brochers of it do not only underhand colourably paint it out with lies, but are not ashamed openly to maintain, that they cannot lie to much in that cause. O holy cause, that needeth the help of lies! But good master Minister, be better advised I pray you, and rather hearken unto the grave counsel of the ancient Preacher: 
Eccles 4. vers. 26.  Ne accipias faciem adversus faciem tuam, & adversus animam tuam mendacium; take not falsehood (that is the face of the Devil) against truth, (which is the true face of every reasonable creature made after the Image of God) and do not admit lying against thine own soul: 
Sapient. 1. vers. 11.  For the tongue that lieth, killeth the soul. Yea, it doth not only kill his own soul that lieth, but the others also that believeth his lies; blinding him with errors, and so leading him blindfold into hell fire: 
Math. 15. vers. 14.  For when the blind guideth the blind, they both fall into the ditch. Wherefore good Sir, if you will not yet a while, make open profession to cast away your own soul wilfully, and to lead all your followers after you to eternal damnation; do not for very shame, uphold and maintain open lying. But if it be Gods good pleasure, that you yourselves shall make kowne to the world, that ye do not only use lying, but also defend it as lawful & necessary to underproppe your bad cause: then my trust in Gods infinite goodness and mercies is, that the Moonshine of your obscure Gospel, waneth apace; and the days of your deceit, draw towards an end. For howsoever you like iniquity and allow of leasings; 
Psal. 5. v 6.  God (as the Prophet David teacheth) doth hate all them that work iniquity, and will destroy all them that speak lies: by bestowing upon his faithful and prudent servants, such heavenly light and grace, as they may easily discern the juggling and false tricks of Protestant teachers. 
2. Tim 3. vers. 9  For not their folly only (as the Apostle speaketh) but their falsehood also and treachery, are now sufficiently discovered and made manifest, unto all men of any reasonable capacity and study. Wherefore, all that have tasted of the true gifts of Christ's spirit, will follow them no longer, in their most dangerous and damnable courses; but fly as fast and as far from such false Prophets, as poor sheep do from the jaws of ravening wolves, and with speed return happily unto the only true fold of Christ's flock, the holy Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church: there to learn and embrace that sincere ancient faith, and pure religion, which only can save their souls; and which being planted by Christ and his Apostles, hath ever since continued, and brought forth abundance of divine fruit all the world over. Which God almighty of his incomprehensible bounty, grant through the inestimable merits of JESUS CHRIST our most gracious Lord and Saviour: to whom with the Father and the holy Ghost, be all honour, praise, and glory, for now and ever.  
AMEN.   
PRINTED ANNO DOMINI, M. D.C.VIII.   

A BRIEF ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
I Have hitherto set down M. Abbot's own text word by word, that the judicious reader comparing it with my answer, may truly discern what substance is in his writing: And how far forth he is to credit him in the rest, that hath in the first and best part of his book, behaved himself so insufficiently, in matter of learning; and dealt so dishonestly, in the manner of handling of it. There remains behind in this answer unto my Epistle, some light skirmishes and vain frivolous bravadoes, upon those points of controversy; which I in one sentence only touched in the same Epistle, excepting much foul speech, and many slanderous lies, which he plentiful poureth out by the way: in both which masteries, I willingly leave to him the bucklers. Now because those his discourses, are (as it were) scopae dissolutae, not arguments sound knit together, and set in any good array, but a feeble, lose, idle, and disordered kind of wrangling; beside also, the very same questions be afterwards handled again distinctly and particularly: I have judged it far better, to handle thoroughly every controversy in his due place, then first lightly to skim them over in haste, as he hath done; and afterward like unto one, that had either forgotten or over-shotten himself, to recoil and turn back again, to treat of the same matter more orderly and substantially: which course I hope will not be misliked of the wise. Take (courteous Reader) this that is already finished in good part: If thou find any thing in it to thy liking, give the glory to God: And if thou be Catholic, help me with thy good prayers, that he who hath given me grace to begin, may increase his blessings upon me, to bring it to a good and perfect end.  
The end of the first Part.  
FINIS.   

courteous READER, I must needs acquaint thee with a notable legerdemain, which by perusing the Author I found out, after the rest was printed. M. Abbot to prove that the Pope had no authority in Scotland 1200. years after Christ, averreth: 
Page 117.  that Alexander the second utterly forbad the Pope's Legate to enter within his Kingdom; which is not true. For his Author Matthew Paris declareth: 
In Henrico 30 page 667.  that the King indeed did at the first oppose himself against that visitation of his Kingdom, to be made by the said Legate: not for that he did not acknowledge the Pope's supreme authority in those Ecclesiastical causes; but because it was needless, the matters of the Church being (as he said) in good order, and for fear of overgreat charges. Nay further, the said King did write a large letter unto the Pope himself, as the very same Author recordeth: where he first acknowledgeth, 
In Henrico 30 page 873.  that very person to be his Holiness Legate, as well in Scotland as in England and Ireland. Moreover the King confesseth, that he himself, his heirs and subjects, were and would be obedient unto the Pope's jurisdiction and censures, with much more to the same purpose. Which alone is sufficient to convince M. Abbot, to be so perfidious and without all conscience in alleging ancient Authors, that no man who will not willingly be blindly led by him, can repose any trust in his allegations.  
Good Reader bear with faults in printing, which besides false pointing, be not many. The principal that I remember are these:  
Page 169 line 21 For Constantius the fourth, read Constantine the fourth; and so in all that matter following treating of Pope Agatho his obedience to the said Emperor. Page 170 line 32 though Emperor, read although an Emperor. Page 186 line 21 for Concilij Praesidijs, read Concilij Praesidibus. page 198 line 8 in the allegation of S. Leo, there wants in the margin, the quotation of his 23. Epistle to Martianus Augustus, for the worship of Relics. Pag. 213 lin. 27 for passed, read possessed. pag. 261 line 25 for and ego, read an ego. page 272 line 16 for Vndoubtly, read Undoubtedly.