THE TRUE ANCIENT ROMAN CATHOLIC. BEING AN APOLOGY OR COUNTERPROOFE AGAINST DOCTOR BISHOPS REPROOF of the defence of the Reformed CATHOLIC.  
THE FIRST PART.  
Wherein the name of Catholics is vindicated from Popish abuse, and thence is showed that the faith of the Church of Rome as now it is, is not the Catholic faith, nor the same with the faith commended in the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul, and that confirmed by the testimony of the ancient Bishops of Rome, and other Writers of that Church.  
By ROBERT ABBOT Doctor of Divinity, Master of BALIO●● College in Oxford.  August. count Faust. Munich. l. 29. c. 2. Maneat nobis adversus ill●s potius pro veritate certamen, quàm cum ill●s in falsitate concordia. 
LONDON, Printed by William Stansby for Ambrose Garbrand, and are to be sold at the sign of the Windmill in Paul's Churchyard, 1611.   

TO THE RIGHT HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE HENRY, PRINCE OF WALES, DUKE OF CORNWALL AND ROTHSAY, EARL OF CHESTER, Knight of the most Honourable Order of the GARTER.  
MOST gracious and renowned PRINCE, such is the malice and fury of Antichrist, 
Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 38.  and his army of Priests as Gregory calleth them, in oppugning the religion and faith of Christ, as giveth cause to us that fight for Christ, to stand continually 〈◊〉 our guard, and to be ready still in arms, to entertain the assaults that are continually made against us. They carry themselves now towards us the more eagerly and angrily, for that they see themselves deceived of the prey which they long hoped for, imagining before this time out of the troubled waters of this State, to have fished somewhat for advantage to themselves▪ Which expectation being by the mercy of God wholly frustrate, they imitate the Dragon in the ● Revelation, casting out of their 
Revel. 12. 15.  mouths, by calumniations and slanders, and all outrage, and importunity of malicious contradiction, even floods of waters to carry violently away, and to drown, if it were possible, the woman, even the Church of Christ amongst us, that hath escaped their cruel and bloody hands. But thanks be to God, that hath given us means to set mounds and banks against these raging floods, that howsoever they threaten, yet they hurt us not, nor endanger any, but such as rashly adventure to swim in unknown waters, or being desirous of curiosity and foolish humour, to see their own shadow in the river Tiber, whilst they admire themselves, cast themselves headlong to be drowned therein. Now in that service of the Roman Antichrist Doctor Bishop, our Countryman, hath very industriously done his part, and hath laboured, if not to excel, yet to equal almost any of his fellows, in the subverting of wayward and unstable souls, and in animating of men to obstinacy against the truth of God. Who having to the Kings most excellent Majesty disgorged against us, the venom and poison of his corrupt and wicked heart, and being by me duly chastened for his disloyal and traitorous attempt, to delude by false suggestions, his Liege and Sovereign Lord, seeing his impostures and frauds most plainly discovered and laid open, hath since added drunkenness 
Deut. 29. 19  to his thirst, and sought to fill up the measure of his former iniquity, by wilful railing at those things which he knoweth to be true, and having no other way to revenge the impeaching of his credit, greatly touched, as he conceived, by the answering of his book, hath in a latter book run upon me furiously, and laden me, so much as in him lieth, with odious imputations of abusing, falsifying, misconstruing, misapplying, both Scriptures and Fathers, like the ungracious Thief at the bar, who convicted by most clear and apparent evidence, yet still impudently crieth out that all is false. But by an Advertisement written for the time concerning that book of his, I have made it manifest that that cry of his is but a cry of course, the breath of an obdurate and evil conscience, by which he standeth condemned in himself, desperately 
Tit. 3. 11.  bend against his own knowledge to pervert, to forge, to face any thing to serve his turn; which plainly appearing so to be, little reason had I to trouble myself to give any further answer to it. Nevertheless, because the further answer of the chief part of it, hath fallen within the compass of my intention; of describing the true ancient Roman Catholic, and no difference there is but that whereas I might otherwise have walked at mine own liberty, I now tie myself to follow him, I have yielded so much to him, that whereas by comparison I formerly showed that the new Church of Rome in faith and religion, is far estranged from the old, it may now more fully appear that so it is, and that M. Bishop contending for the contrary hath done it only for his belly and for his credit's sake, having made the deceiving of souls his occupation to live by, and being ashamed at these years to confess that he himself hitherto hath been deceived. Which work I most humbly desire, may go forth under the protection of your Highness, whom according to that eminent wisdom and knowledge wherewith God hath endued these your younger years, I make the judge of this quarrel, and therefore the first part thereof I now tender at your highness feet for a testimony of my loyal and dutiful affection, and for acknowledgement of my devotions unto almighty God, for the preservation of your Highness, and the continuance and increase of his graces and blessings towards you, that your Princely name may more and more grow great, and may be a terror to that selfe-exalting Kingdom and Monarchy of the great Capitolian Priest, at length to work the utter ruin and confusion thereof. Which as we believe not to be far of, so we hope that in that glorious revenge of the cause of almighty God, your Highness shall have a chief and an honourable part, and that God will strengthen your arm, and give edge to your sword to strike through the loins of all them that are the supporters of that Antichristian and wicked state. Which with all other additions of honour and renown, both with God and men, I will never cease to further by my prayers unto almighty God, so resting always,  
To your highness service most humbly and affectionately devoted. R. Abbot.   

TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.  
Thou hast here, good Christian Reader, the first Part of the work which I promised, The true ancient Roman Catholic. Thou mayest remember that in my answer to Doctor Bishop's Epistle to the King, I challenged the name of catholics from the Popish abuse thereof, and showed out of the true explication and use of the word Catholic, that neither the Church of Rome can be called the Catholic Church, nor the faith of the Roman Church that now is can be called the Catholic faith, and therefore that very fond, and by a mere usurpation they take unto them the name of Catholics. After this I entered by occasion to a comparison betwixt the new that is, and that that of old was the religion of the Church of Rome, consisting specially of three parts. In the first I showed that neither the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans, which is the brief of the religion which they at the first received, and containeth as I showed out of Theodoret, all manner doctrine of faith, nor yet the two Epistles of S. Peter, whom they make the founder of their Church, do contain any defence of the doctrine now taught at Rome, but do teach only our religion. In the second I set down sundry definitions and doctrines of the ancient Roman faith, delivered by the Bishops of Rome and other Authors, that have witnessed the doctrine of that Church, wholly consonant and agreeable to that that we teach, and altogether impugned by the Roman Church that now is. In the third I declared that there were sundry heresies, condemned of old by the Roman Church, which the Church of Rome now embraceth and defendeth. The points of this comparison I then set down only positively, the occasion requiring no more, not respecting what cavillations the adversary might bring for oppugning thereof; the matter being by that light that I gave very clear, that the Church of Rome is not now the same that it was of old. This matter I afterwards thought worthy of a larger treatise, and purposed when opportunity should serve a more full prosecution of it, thinking it would be a great comfort and establishment to the consciences of many men, perhaps to some an occasion of better mind, when they should see in that Church of Rome, that now is such a plain repugnancy to that that of old was, which notwithstanding taketh upon it impudently to have been always the same, and to be the only certain rule and oracle of true faith. In this mean time Doctor Bishop fearing lest his silence should make his cause suspicious, and therefore thinking it necessary, whether right or wrong, to say somewhat, publi●●eth A Reproof of the defence of the Reformed Catholic, setting under this title a Gorgon's head to affright all men concerning me, as having abused Gods sacred word, mangled, misapplied, and falsified the ancient Father's sentences, so that whosoever hath any due care of his own salvation, can never hereafter credit me in matter of faith and religion. Concerning which hideous outcry of my falsifications, I refer thee to the Advertisement, which I have added to my third part of the defence of the Reformed Catholic, where thou shalt see that as he hath laid himself open, so I have scourged him accordingly. But in that Reproof of his, very little is it that he hath said for justifying what he himself had before written, not being able indeed to defend any one point thereof: only he found somewhat whereof to cavil concerning my debating of the name Catholic, and the comparison which I made betwixt the old and new Roman Church, and thereof, as touching the matter of substance, he hath framed his book. To this therefore I have addressed my description of the ancient Roman Catholic, forbearing that more orderly course which I had intended, for the performance of this work, and choosing rather to follow him step by step, as formerly I have done; only beginning where he cometh to the purpose, and leaving all his vagaries and affected discourses to be more briefly touched in the end of all. Of this work I have yet finished but only one part, wherein I have at large discovered their vain ostentation of the Catholic name and faith, and showed plainly that the Romish religion now accordeth not with S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, no, nor with his other Epistles, which M. Bishop calleth to assist him, because he findeth nothing to help him in that Epistle to the Romans. In all which I have been careful, gentle Reader, to give thee satisfaction by the clear testimony either of some learned Bishops of Rome, or of some other famously approved and commended in that Church. Being now required a service of another kind, so that I cannot yet go forward with the rest, I have thought good to publish this in the mean time. If I have promised any thing in this that is not here performed, expect it in that that is to come. Assist me, I pray thee, with thy prayers unto almighty God, by whose grace I hope in due time to supply that that is wanting now▪   

The Contents of this Book.  

CHAP. I. THat the Church of Rome doth vainly and absurdly challenge to itself the name of the Catholic Church, and hath no privilege from God, either of superiority in government or stability in faith.  
CHAP. II. The comparison betwixt the Papists and the Donatists, is justified and enlarged.  
CHAP. III. That the name of Catholics is abused by the Papists, and is in their abuse a donatistical and hateful name, of faction and schism: that being in that sort substantively and personally understood, it was not used for three hundred years after Christ, and therefore being abused may be left again: that Popery properly so called, is nothing but additions of latter time to our religion.  
CHAP. FOUR That the Church before Christ even from the beginning was a part of the Catholic Church, and that the faith and religion of the new Testament differeth not in substance from the old. M. Bishop's proofs for Popery out of the old Testament are showed to be ridiculous and vain. In the end is a brief defence of the King's supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical.  
CHAP. V That faith and religion cannot be safely grounded on the example of Fathers and forefathers, and that the Popish agents and factors do in this pretence also abuse the credulity of ignorant men.  
CHAP. VI That the reasons of Popery where there is not a mind prejudicate, are not urgent or forcible, and that M. Bishop was justly censured for that in repeating a rule delivered by the King's Majesty, for judgement of true religion, he left out some words thereof.  
CHAP. VII. Of the flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome, and of the testimony of Theodoret, concerning fullness of doctrine, contained in the Epistle to the Romans, and that the Apostle there condemneth Popery of idolatry, in worshipping Saints and Images.  
CHAP. VIII. That justification before God consisteth not in proceeding from faith to works, but in the continuation of faith to faith, and that this faith notwithstanding cannot be separated from charity and good works.  
CHAP. IX. That the justification of man before God, is the imputation of righteousness without works.  
CHAP. X. That eternal life is merely and wholly the gift of God, and cannot be purchased by merit or desert.  
CHAP. XI. That concupiscence or lust is sin, even in the very habit and first motions of it.  
CHAP. XII. Of the spirit of adoption, giving witness to the faithful, that they are the sons of God.  
CHAP. XIII. That the good works or sufferings of this life, are not meritorious, or worthy of the bliss of the life to come.  
CHAP. XIIII. That the Epistles of St. Paul are loosely and impertinently alleged by the Papists, for proof of their Popery, as namely for justification before God by works, for Free-will, against certainty of salvation and particular Faith, for the Merit of single life, for Monkish vows, for Purgatory and pr●yer for the Dead, for Images and invocation of Saints, for the Mass and Real presence, for the Authority of th● Church of Rome, for Pardons, for Traditions, for the perpetual visibility of the Church, for Satisfactions and works of supererogation, for seven Sacraments, etc.    

THE TRUE ANCIENT ROMAN CATHOLIC.  

CHAP. I. That the Church of Rome doth vainly and absurdly challenge to itself the name of the Catholic Church.  
Answer to Doct. BISHOP'S Epistle. Sect. 3.  
HEre M. Bishop propoundeth briefly to his Majesty, the sum of his Petition, etc. to, It is therefore a mere Usurpation, etc.  

Doct. BISHOP'S REPROOF. Pag. 89. §. 1.  
MAster Abbot is now at length come from his extravagant roving 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he 〈…〉ed of himself, on whether his special skill and force die not rather lie in r●●ling at us, and in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reader, then in any sound kind of re〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of St. Aug 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the ●ord Catholic, we ●●llingly ●●mit 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 into 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 all. 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 Mr. Abbot saw this to be impossible, he gave it the ship, 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?  

R. ABBOT.  
I Do not marvel that my narrations seem to M. Bishop to be extravagant and roving, who having set up his own mark, thinketh all to be extravagant and roving, that flieth not by his aim. Albeit he is beholding to me for those extravagant and roving narrations, because they have ministered him matter towards the making up of a pretty handsome book, which must have been much shorter if he had been tied to the substantial points of his own defence. As for the victory that I ominated to myself, thanks be to God, I have obtained it; being become Master of the field, and M. Bishop enforced to leave the main battle, contented now only out of a corner to thrust an ambush that he may make some show that he is not quite spent. I triumph over him in his own conscience, being privy to himself what desperate shifts he hath been feign to use, to how cruel a rack he hath been forced to put himself to make men believe that he hath strength enough left to save himself. It is but risus Sardonius, whereby he jesteth at the simple Minister driven to winding and turning and doubling; it is indeed for his behoof to have it taken so, but the Ministers proceeding is direct and orderly, familiar and sensible to every man's understanding, inferring by due course the very point that doth require proof. The Minister is not so simple but that he can easily discern the pitiful case of a Popish Massmonger, who being troubled with a vertigo or some other distemperature of the brain, thinketh all to be winding and turning about him, when there is no turning at all but in his own head. The issue betwixt him and me was, Whether his Majesty do 〈◊〉 and maint●ine the only true Catholic and Apostolic faith. To prove that he doth so, it was necessary first to explicate what is meant by the Catholic and Apostolic faith. Of the Catholic Church it is that the faith is called The Catholic faith. For there hath been one and the same faith from the beginning, as shall afterwards appear, but it could not be called the Catholic faith, till the Church became the Catholic Church. If of the Catholic Church the faith be called the Catholic faith, then to show what is meant by the Catholic faith I was first to show what is meant by the Catholic Church. This I did, and 〈◊〉 occasion thereof taxed, as due order required, the 〈…〉 of the Pope and his complices in usurping to themselves the name of the Catholic Church, and thence terming themselves Catholics; that having destroyed their ridiculous and foolish claim, there might be thereof no let to the collection whereat I aimed, that the Catholic faith is the faith of the Catholic Church; that the Catholic Church though becoming Catholic by being spread over the whole world, yet containeth as a part thereof (even 
* Aug. de Catechiz. rudib. c. 19 Velut totus hom● dum nascitur etiamsi manum in nascendo praemittat, tamen universo corpori sub capite coniuncta atque compacta est, quem admodum etiam nonnulli in ipsis Patriarchis in buius ipsius rei signum manu praemissa nati sunt, etc.  as an arm or hand come out of the womb before the rest of the body) the whole Church of God from the beginning of the world; that of this whole body of the Church from the beginning to the end there is in substance but one faith and religion towards God; that therefore what was the faith of the patriarchs and Fathers from the beginning, the s●me and no other is now the Catholic faith; whence it followeth, that seeing we retain the same saith and religion, whereby the patriarchs and Prophets and other Fathers from the beginning served God, which the Papists do not, as by instance and comparison I then declared and remaineth now to be made good; therefore not the Popish faith but our faith must needs be holden to be the Catholic faith. This process is clear, the Reader seethe in it neither winding nor turning: and therefore it was but a simple shift of so learned a Doctor against a simple Minister, to mock his Reader with a tale of flying the point in Question, where it hath so direct and express conclusion. He saith that they willingly admit of St. Augustine's doctrine that that religion and faith is Catholic which is spread over all the world, etc. but I brought nothing out of Austin concerning Catholic faith and religion; I only noted out of him why the Church is called the Catholic Church. And therefore preposterously and idly doth he here urge me in that sort; Prove (good Sir) that his Majesty embraceth and maintaineth that religion which is spread over all the world, etc. and then you may justly say that he upholdeth the Catholic religion. For of the Catholic faith and religion, the conclusion followeth after in due place; why then doth he thus prevent the time, and like Davus disorder all, but that he loveth to fish in troubled waters where his deceitful baits may be the less seen? But if we must needs speak here of Catholic faith, I will return to him his own question: Prove (good Sir) that the Pope embraceth and maintaineth that religion that is spread over all the world: that Christians throughout the world are persuaded of that which you call the Catholic faith. Bellarmine hath said it, and Bellarmine's ghost maintaineth it, that the supremacy of the Pope for the deposing of Kings and Princes, is 
a Bellar. epist. ad Archipre●b. apud Mat. Tort. unum ex praecipuis fidei nostrae capitibus ac religionis Catholicae fundamentis.  one of the chief points of your faith and of the very foundations of Catholic religion. Prove now (I pray you) and bring us hands and seals for it, that we may believe you, that the Christian Churches throughout Grecia, Armenia, Aethiopia, Russia, Palestina and such like, are all become drunk, and have entertained this for a point of Catholic faith. You will fall (M. Bishop) in this proof, and therefore why would you so much prejudicate yourself to require the same of us? But Bellarmine himself shall free us from any need to travel for this proof, who saith that 
b Bellar. de notis Eccles. cap. 7. Si sola una Provincia retineret veram fidem, adhuc vere & proprie diceretur Ecclesia Catholica dummodo clare ostéderetur ●am esse unam & eandem cum illa quae fuit aliquo tempere vel diversis in toto mundo.  Though one only Province or Country did retain the true faith, yet the same should truly and properly be called the Catholic Church (and therefore their faith the Catholic fa 〈…〉) so long as it could be clearly showed that the same is one and the same with that which at any time or times was over the whole world. To prove then that our faith is the Catholic faith, it shall be sufficient to prove that it is that which once was spread over the whole world. Now with the proof thereof M. Bishop is choked already, and all that we see from him now, is but a vain and bootless struggling to recover his breath again. But yet he saith, M. Abbot gave this the slip, and turneth himself to prove the Roman religion not to be the Catholic. And was not that (M. Bishop) a shrewd turn for you, to prove the Roman religion not to be the Catholic? and was it not very pertinent for me so to do, when you exhorted the King's Majesty to the Roman religion under pretence of that name? Yea, but he shuffles from the religion and faith, of which the question was, unto the Roman Church. But what, will he have us think that there is a Roman Church without faith or religion, that a man must shuffle from religion and faith to go to the Roman Church? forsooth he shuffles from the faith professed at Rome to the persons inhabiting the City of Rome, to prove that they are no Catholics, and that the Roman Church is not the Catholic Church. And doth not he shuffle amiss for you (M. Bishop) that can shuffle you from being Catholics, and the Roman Church from being the Catholic Church? And he that shuffleth you from being Catholics, doth he not also shuffle the saith professed at Rome from being the Catholic faith? Are these things so divided each from other as that they cannot in their order be incident to the same discourse? Surely M. Bishop my shuffling will yield but a bad game to you, unless you can cut more wisely for yourself the● hitherto you have done. If you have no better cards then yet we see, you will certainly lose all.    

W. BISHOP. §. 2.  
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 as 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 provely 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 Mr. 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 ●oth 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 Mr. Abbot speaketh) wherefore every true member of the Catholic Church m●y 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 Mr. Abbot acknowledgeth: and further also confesseth out of S. Augustine, that Christians were called Catholics, Ex communicatione totius orbis, By having 
Epistola. 48.  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 Oxthodoxe 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 is the Rock (according to the 
Math. 16. v. 18.  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, Whose faith 
Luc. 22. v. 23.  (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 
Lib. 3. cap. 3.  Church of Rome, for her more mighty principality. S. Cyprian Archbishop of Carthage in Africa, affirmeth: That perfidiousness and falsehood in matters 
Lib. 1. Epist. 3.  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 
De ob. Satyri.  with the Catholic, that is, with the Roman Church. So doth S. Hierome when he saith of Ruffinus: What 
Hieron. in Apol. 1, count Russi. c. 1.  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. Tertullian, Epiphanius, 
De Prascript. Epiph. hares. 27. Lib. 2. cont. Parmeni. August. Epist. 165  Optatus, S. Augustine, d●e 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, 
De util. cred. cap. 17.  That that chair obtained the top of authority, 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 what soever; and yield to it the prerogative of all singular titles, in a more excellent manner.  

R. ABBOT.  
WHereas M. Bishop made motion to his Majesty; to accept of the Catholic faith, I took occasion to note that the Catholic faith is so called of the Catholic Church, and consequently to show that the Catholic Church by the very signification of the word importeth the universal Church, so called as I noted out of Austin and Athanasius, 
a Aug. de unit. Eccles. cap. 2. Q●am maiores nostri Catholicam nominar●t ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent qui● per totum est. Athanas. quest. 71. Catholica propterea quòd per totum mundum diffusa sit.  Quia per totum est, because it is over all or through all the world, and is not tied to any Country, place, person, or condition of men: 
b Aug. in Psal. 56. Corput eius est Eccles●●, non h●c aut illa, ●ed toto orb diffusa; nec ea quae nunc est in hominibus qui pr●sentem vitam agunt, sed ad ●am pertinentibus ●●iam his qui fuerunt ante nos, & his qui fut●ri sunt post nos usque in sinem seculi.  Not this Church or that Church as S. Austin further saith, but the Church dispersed through the whole world, and not that which consisteth in men now presently living, but so as that there belong to it both those that have been before us, and shall be after us to the world's end. Now before I could conveniently make use and application hereof, I was to remove the stumbling block that lay in the way by the absurd presumption of the Church of Rome, which like 
c Anian. fabul.  the Ass in the fable of Antanus, that to make himself terrible put on him a Lion's skin; so being become the Ass to carry Balaam the false Prophet, who for 
d 2. Pet. 2. 15. Apoc. 2. 13.  the wages of unrighteousness hath set his heart to curse and scandalise the people of God, to take away the reproach hereof, and to gain to itself a sovereign authority over other Churches, hath laboured by all means to entitle itself to a propriety of the name of the Catholic Church, so as none should be taken to be a member of the Catholic Church, but only as he is subject to the church of Rome. Duraeus the jesuit out of the abundance of his Catholic wit, hath told us a tale, which the old Catholic Church never once dreamt of, that 
e Duraeus. count. Whitak. lib. 3. In nullam planè aliam Catholicae Ecclesiae nomen & quaecunque de Christi Ecclesia Prophetae praedixerunt quàm in Romanam convenire possunt.  the name of the Catholic Church and those things which the Prophets have forespoken of the Church of Christ, can agree to no other but to the Roman Church. Upon this mad conceit they have made of the holy Catholic Church, a holy Catholic Roman Church; and whereas the Nicene Council taught us to say, I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, they teach us to expound it, 
f Bristol, Reply to Doctor Fulke, cap. 10. dem. 6.  I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic, that is, Roman Church: and therefore bind men by a principle of Catechism 
g Ledesm. Catechis. translat. into English.  to believe all that the holy Catholic Roman Church believeth and holdeth. It is not enough for interpretation of the Catholic Church in the articles of our belief, to call it 
h Aug Hunae. proaem. Catechism. Catholica Ecclesiae nomine intelligo perspicuum & sensui expositum coetum illorum qui baptizativeram sinceramque Christi fidem profitentur, & se Beati Petri successori Romano Pontifici ut Christi in terris Vicario subiectos agnoscunt.  the visible company of them that are baptized, and do profess the true and sincere faith of Christ, unless it be added, and do acknowledge themselves subject to the successor of Peter the Bishop of Rome as Christ's Vicar upon earth. Pope Goodface the eighth having declared it for a new article of Christian faith, that 
i Extravag. de maiorit. & obedient. e. unam Sanctam. Subesse Romano Pontifici omnihumanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus & pronunciamus 〈◊〉 esse de necessitate saluti●.  for every human creature it is necessary to salvation to be subject to the Bishop of Rome. So extremely they dote in this behalf, as that wheresoever they read the name of the Church or Catholic Church, they presently sing as the horse-bals in the pool amongst the apples, nos poma natamus, & like children that imagine the bells in ringing to sound whatsoever they fancy; so do undoubtedly imagine that the church spoken of must needs be meant of their Roman Church. But for the pulling of this vizard from their faces, I noted the absurdity that is implied in that style of the Catholic Roman Church: for the Catholic Church, say I, is the universal Church; The Roman Church is a particular Church; therefore to say, the Catholic Roman Church, is all one as to say, the universal particular Church. Against this M. Bishop as a notable Logician taketh exception as an ill shapen argument, consisting all of particular propositions, as if I had here intended a Categorical syllogism, in mood and figure, which no smatterer but himself would ever have dreamt. The words have plain implication of an Hypothetical syllogism serving to infer an absurdity against them: If the Catholic Church be the universal Church, & the Roman Church a particular Church, then to say, the Catholic Roman Church, is as to say, the universal particular Church. But it is absurd to say, the universal particular Church. Therefore it is absurd to say, the Catholic Roman Church. Will he have it reduced for him to a categorical syllogism in mood and figure? Let him take it thus; No particular Church can be the Catholic Church. But the Church of Rome is a particular Church. Therefore the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholic Church. Must I prove the mayor? No particular Church can be the universal Church. But the Catholic Church is the universal Church. Therefore no particular Church can be the Catholic Church. So learned a Doctor should not thus have played boyes-play, but should of himself have conceived these things being clear and plain, without any new advertisement thereof by the simple Minister. But by this form, saith he, a man might prove that no one Church in the world were Catholic. But keep your terms aright M. Bishop, and say as you should, that no one Church in the world is the Catholic Church, and then it is true that by the same argument it is proved that no one Church in the world (particular Churches being each and every of them but a part) can be called the Catholic or Universal Church, which is the whole. And tell us I pray, good Sir, have ye found that any of ours hath entitled the Church of England to the name of the Catholic Church? If not, why then do you thus abuse your Reader, to put that for an instance, as if we affirmed it so to be? The truth is, gentle Reader that M. Bishop seeketh to blind thee by altering the terms that by me were set down, naming a Catholic Church, which importeth soundness of doctrine in any one Church; whereas I mention the Catholic Church, as importing the universal extent of the whole Church. It followeth not indeed that because a Church is particular, therefore it is not Catholic, that is, sound in doctrine; but it followeth that because a Church is particular, therefore it is not the Catholic, that is, the universal Church. Let him direct the argument against the Church of England, as I did against the Church of Rome, and it shall be as strong against the Church of England as against the Church of Rome. Let him say, and we will not contradict him, The Catholic Church is the universal Church; the Church of England is a particular Church; therefore to say the Catholic English Church, is as absurd as to say the universal particular Church; or more nearly to his own words, Therefore to say, the Church of England is the Catholic Church, is the same as to say, a particular Church is the universal Church. But he turneth the conclusion, that the Church of England is not Catholic, which we hold to be most Catholic, declaring by that addition that he referreth Catholic by a donatistical fallacy to quality of doctrine and faith, because more Catholic and most Catholic, have no use but only in comparing truth and sincerity of faith. This co●senage of his the learned see well enough, but he careth not for that, because his thrift lieth in abusing the ignorance of the more simple and unlearned. This not serving his turn, he cometh to the particulars, and of the first proposition, The Catholic Church is the universal Church, he saith that it is both absurd and captious. And why absurd? Forsooth because the same thing is affirmed of it self, for universal is no distinct thing but the very signification of the word Catholic. But what; is it now absurd to express the true signification of a word? The one is Greek, the other is English; and though there be no distinction in the thing, yet is there not a distinction in the tongue? Is the Roman Catechism absurd because it saith, 
k Catechism. Rom. p. 1. c. 10. sect. 16. Tertia proprietas Ecclesia ea est ut Catholica, nempe, universalis vocetur.  The third property of the Church is that it is called Catholic, that is, universal: or might the Catechism say without absurdity that Catholic is Universal, and must I be absurd because I say, The Catholic Church is the Universal Church? Surely when words of one language are borrowed to special use in another, the reddition of them in the tongue to which they are borrowed is taken with the learned as supplying the place of a definition, and it is thereby made to appear whether they be properly and rightly used or unproperly abused. M. Bishop and his fellows abuse the name of Catholics and of the Catholic Church, which English men do not so readily understand. Let them give the signification of the word, and call themselves universals, & their Church the universal Church, and then all that have will to understand can easily see their foolery, and are ready to deride them. But this they hide under the veil and cover of a Greek word, and we, that the truth may be the better seen, are necessarily to discover, and therefore just cause had I to say, The Catholic Church is the universal Church, and he is an absurd man to tax it as a thing absurd. Yet notwithstanding I wish the Reader duly to observe how that taxation stand 〈…〉 with the other, that the same proposition of mine is captious. For why is it captious? Marry, because the Catholic Church doth signifi● both the whole body of the Church compacted of all the particular members, in which sense no one particular Church can be called the Catholic Church, because it is not the whole body; and secondly the Catholic Church doth also design and note very properly every particular Church that embraceth the true Christian faith. Where we may wonder that within the compass of so few lines the man's wits should so extremely fail him. For if the Catholic Church and the universal Church be one and the same thing, as he hath already told us, and universal be no distinct thing but the very signification of the word Catholic, then how can it be which here he telleth us, that the Catholic Church signifieth both the whole body of the Church, which is the universal Church, and doth also very properly design and note every particular true Christian Church? If the Catholic Church be no distinct thing from the universal Church, than it cannot properly note or design every particular Church; or if it do properly design every particular Church, than it is distinct from the universal Church. Tell us, M. Bishop, how these things hang together; for if the universal Church be the very signification of the Catholic Church, than we cannot see how a particular Church can be properly called the Catholic Church, because no particular Church can properly be called the universal Church. As for the exception that here lieth against us, that the Fathers in pointing to a particular assembly, doubt not sometimes to use the name of the Catholic Church, I showed it before to be no whit prejudicial to that that we say, because they minded not in so doing to limit themselves to that particular assembly, but in a particular assembly to demonstrate the universal Church. For to say in any City for distinction sake, this is the Catholic Church, what was it else but to say, this is that Church which is universally dispersed through the whole world? even as when a man to demonstrate the elements, saith; This is the air, this is the earth, pointing to the air or earth whereat he is present, but therein intending to demonstrate the whole body of the air or earth, having continuation with that whereto he pointeth. For as the Apostle directing his speech to the Church of Ephesus nameth, 
l Act. 20. 28.  The Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood, and again, 
m 1. Tim. 3. 15.  the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth, so speaking of a part as to conjoin it with the whole, even so & no otherwise was it that in noting any particular Church, it was said, This is the Catholic Church; the whole Church being totum similare, as I said before, and the whole being subject to be designed in any part. But M. Bishop here saith, that this was not only because the Church is totum similare, but because each of the said particular Churches hath the same faith, the same Sacraments and order of government. Which is as wisely and discreetly spoken as if he had said that this was not only because the Church in all parts thereof hath the same faith and sacraments, but because the said particular Churches have all the same faith and Sacraments. For why is the Church said to be totum homogeneum or similare, a body whose parts are all of the same nature, kind and being, but because in all parts thereof there are the same faith and Sacraments, or to use the words of the Apostle, 
n Ephes. 4. 4.  One body, one spirit, one hope of calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. Surely either M. Bishop was sleepy or else his wits were a woolgathering when he put in this exception. Now than it was not said that the word Catholic is not or may not be directed to any particular, M. Bishop doth therein but merely calumniate; but I said and showed that it is never rightly applied any way or to any particular, but with implication of the universal Church. The faith is called Catholic, because it is the faith of the universal Church, propagated and spread by the Apostles over the whole world. Particular Churches are called Catholic, and particular persons are called Catholics, as a man would say, Vniversalists, for maintaining communion and fellowship of this faith, with the Church of the whole world. And as the name of the air or the earth, being absolutely used importeth that whole element whereof we speak, but yet according to distinction of places we say, The air of London, the air of Oxford, the air of Winchester, etc. without restraining the name of the air to any one place more than other, and only meaning that part of the air, that is in such or such a place; even so whereas the name of the Catholic Church simply and absolutely used importeth the whole universal Church, the same notwithstanding is found to be distinguished by diversity of places, the Catholic Church of such a place, or the Catholic Church of such a place; not limiting the name of the Catholic Church to any one place more than other, and in true propriety of speech meaning nothing else but that part of the Catholic Church, that is in this or that place. And therefore I formerly noted and think not unfit here to be repeated, that as Leo wrote himself 
o Leo. epist. 12. Leo Papa Ecclesiae Catholic● urbis Romae.  Bishop of the Catholic Church of the City of Rome, so doth Constantine the Emperor write 
p Socrat. hist. l. 1. c. 6. Constantinus Catholic● Alexandrinorum Ecclesiae.  to the Catholic Church of Alexandria; and Austin nameth 
q August. count. Crescon. l. 3. c. 13. Omnis Africana Catholica Ecclesia.  the Catholic Church of Africa, and Aurelius writeth himself 
r Collat. cum Donat. cognit. 1. c. 16. Aurelius Episcopus Ecclesie Catholicae Carthaginensis.  Bishop of the Catholic Church of Carthag●, & another Aurelius 
s Ibid. cap. 201. Aurelius Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Macomadiensis.  Bishop of the Catholic Church of Macomadia, & Novatus 
t Ibid. c. 204. Novatus Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Sitifi.  Bishop of the Catholic Church of Sitif. And so in the fift Council at Constantinople we read, 
u Conc. Constantinop. 5. act. 1. Supplicatio à Clericis & Monachis Apostolici throni Antiochenae magnae civitatis Catholicae Sanctae Ecclesiae Dei.  The holy Catholic Church of Antioch: and in the subscriptions of the Council, Sextilianus Bishop of the Catholic Church of Tunis, and 
x Ibid. Act. 8. in subscript. Sext●lianus misericordia Dei Episcopus Ecclesiae Catholicae Tuniensis: Megethius gratia Dei Episcopus Sanctae Dei Catholicae Ecclesiae civitatis Heracleae.  M●gethius Bishop of the holy Catholic Church of the city of Heraclea, and Pompeianus Bishop of the holy Catholic Church of the city of Victoria, and many other in the like sort. Herein then standeth the error, not that the name of the Catholic Church is used of a particular Church, but because it is absurdly made a propriety of one particular Church, which was never used but indifferently of all Churches, and never but with implying the signification of the universal Church. Thus I am still constant in one tale; what I said before I said after, and I say it now again, and more cause there was for M. Bishop to have taken another Cock to himself then to put the weathercock to me. Now he himself confesseth that no one Orthodox Church is more Catholic then other, if the word Catholic be taken precisely; but what it meaneth with him if it be taken precisely, he telleth us not. If Orthodoxal and Catholic precisely taken be all one with him, he playeth the Donatist as we shall see hereafter, and in that sense amongst many Churches that may be called orthodoxal and sound, there may yet be some more sound than other. If in true meaning it be taken precisely and properly, than it is taken as in the Creed we profess to believe the holy Catholic, that is, the universal Church, and so no particular Church, as hath been said, and as M. Bishop hath confessed, can be called the Catholic Church, M. Bishop therefore unless he be wilful must also necessarily confess, that the church of Rome being a particular Church, dealeth absurdly in applying to itself the name of the Catholic Church there, where the word Catholic without all doubt is precisely and properly taken. But though speaking precisely no one Church be more Catholic then other, yet we hold, saith M. Bishop, that among all the particular Catholics the Roman holdeth the greatest privileges both of superiority in government and stability in true faith. Hold it, M. Bishop, where you have it, and blind men as much as you can in the conceit of it: but where you have it not, ye are never likely to obtain it. To us it is nothing what you hold: what you prove is somewhat; but you may hold with Copernicus, if you will, that the Sun standeth still and the earth turneth round, or with Anaxagoras that snow is black. So the Church of Rome, according to that it was, we attribute eminency of place, precedence of honour, authority of estimation and account, but authority of power or superiority of government, we acknowledge none belonging thereto. We read that other Churches have yielded unto it amity and love, 
y Rom. 16. 16.  The Churches of Christ salute you; but no where do we read, All the Churches of Christ are subject unto you. And will any man think it credible that such privileges should appertain to the Church of Rome, and yet that neither St. Paul nor St. Peter himself should make any mention of them? The one of them wrote to the Church of Rome itself, they both wrote to many other Churches, and would they never have remembrance to say any thing of the Lord God the Pope? Yea St. john did honour to 
z Apoc. 1. 4.  the seven Churches of Asia by writing to them, and would he never speak of 
a Apoc. 17. 9  the seven hills of Rome, but only as the seat of the whore of Babylon? Yea & of those seven Churches of Asia, it is to be noted which Gregory Bishop of Rome oftentimes delivereth, & hath Austin therein agreeing with him, that 
b Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 15. In ●oannis Apocalypsi septem Ecclesijs scribitur per quas una Catholica designatur. Praefat. add exposit. job. Per septem Ecclesiar●m numerum universalis Ecclesia designatur. Sic August. Ep. 161.  in them is designed or figured the Catholic or universal Church. And to this accordeth Optatus also, when of those Churches he saith; 
c Optat. Milevit. lib. 2. Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid foris est alienum est.  Whatsoever is without the seven Churches is altene and strange. Now amongst those seven Churches none had any privilege either of superiority in government, or of stability in faith. There is not one Angel or one Church questioned for all, as having charge and authority over all, but every Angel, every Church severally censured by itself, and according to every their works either allowed or reproved. Sith then the principal must have correspondence with the figure, it must likewise be in the universal Church, that no one Church hath privilege or superiority above all, but every Church accordingly as it performeth fidelity unto God, either standeth or falleth; either is accepted or refused. And the less hath the Church of Rome to presume of privilege in this behalf, for that it hath special caution given to the contrary; 
d Rom. 11. 20.  Be not high minded but fear; f●r if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold the bountifulness of God towards thee if thou continue in his bountifulness, or else thou shalt also be cut off. This notwithstanding M. Bishop telleth us that that which they hold of those Romish privileges, is deduced out of the word of God. But how? because that Church 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. Here is chalk for cheese; we were promised a deduction out of the word of God, and instead thereof he bringeth us an exposition of the ancient Fathers. But M. Bishop, show you self a man of your word; let us see that which you say is deduced out of God's word; for as for the exposition of the Fathers it availeth not if it be not deduced out of the word of God. He is dumb and can say no more; if you will take the Father's exposition for a deduction out of God's word, be it so; otherwise deduce he that can; for M. Bishop can deduce nothing. Albeit let us ask him, who be those ancient Fathers that have expounded the Roman Church to be the Rock, upon which the Church is built? What, M. Bishop, are you afraid to name them? Though you set not down their words, yet did not leisure serve you to quote them in the margin of your book that we might take knowledge of them? It is true that St. Peter is sometimes termed the Rock upon which the Church was built, but who ever said that the Rock is the Church of Rome, or that the Church is built upon the Roman Church? The truth is that he belieth the Fathers, and fathereth upon them that which they never meant. The Rock upon which Christ would build his Church is often by the Fathers expounded to be Christ himself, and the true faith & confession of Christ. 
e Aug. de verb. Dom. ser●. 13. Super hanc Petram quam confessus es, super hanc petram quam cognovisti, dice●, Tu es Christus, etc. adisicab● Ecclesiam med; id est, super meipsum fi●ium Dei vivi, etc.  Upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, saith Austin, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, Thou art Christ the son of the living God, I will build my Church; that is, upon myself being the sonné of the living God. 
f Hilar. de Trinit. lib. 6. Super banc confessionis Petram Ecclesi● aedificati● est, etc. Haec fides Ecclesiae fundamentum est; per hanc fidem infirma adversus came sunt portae inferorum: h●c fides regni c●lestis babet ●l●ues, etc.  Upon this Rock of confession, faith Hilary is the building of the Church. This faith is the foundation of the Church, by this faith the gates of hell prevail not against it; this faith hath the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, etc. chrysostom saith; 
g Chrysost. in Math. hom. 56. Super hanc Petram, id est, fidem & confessionem.  Upon this Rock, that is, this faith and confession. Theodoret likewise expoundeth it. 
h Theodor. in Cant. l. 2. Petran appellat fidei pietatem, veritatis profession●, etc.  the piety of faith, the profession of truth. An●brose saith; 
i Ambros. in Eph●. c. 2. Super hanc petram etc. id est, in hac Catholicae fidei confessione statuam fideles ad vitam.  Upon this Rock will I build my Church, that is, in this confession of the Catholic faith will I 'stablish the faithful unto life: and again that those words of the Apostle, 
k Ibid. In quo omnis structura, etc. Hic sensus est unde Dominus a●t, super hanc petram, etc.  In him (that is in Christ) all the building is coupled together, etc. are the sense and meaning of that which the Lord saith, upon this Rock will I build my Church. And thus the whole number of the Bishops of Palestina in the Council of Chalcedon understood it; 
l Epist. Juvenal. & Episc. Palest in append. Concil. Chalced. Super hanc confessionem roberata est Ecclesia Dei.  Upon this confession the Church of God is confirmed and strengthened. By many other such like expositions of the ancient Fathers it may appear that Christ I●SVS, even the true faith of Christ (for Christ is nothing to us but by faith) is the true Rock whereupon the Church is builded, that the gates of hell may not prevail against it. And to this St. john accordeth; 
m 1. john 5. 4. 5.  This is the victory that overcometh the world, 〈◊〉 our faith; for who is it that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that jesus is the son of God? If Christ then be the Rock by faith in him, how falsely doth M. Bishop deal to foist in the Roman Church in steed of Christ or of the faith of Christ? Now if Christ properly and truly be the Rock, than it can be but accidentally and unproperly that Peter is so called, only in respect of his doctrine and example of faith, expressed and uttered in his confession; 
n Math. 16. 16.  Thou art Christ the son of the living God. As Abraham is 
o Esa. 51. 1.  the Rock from whence we are hewed, so is Peter the Rock whereupon we are built: not for that either of them conferreth any thing to us, but only for that they stand before us for patterns of imitation, whereto we are to conform ourselves, that together with them we may be builded upon the true Rock, 
p 1. Cor. 3. 11.  that foundation beside which no other may be laid, which is jesus Christ. But in this Peter was not alone, the rest of the Apostles as well as he 
q john 6. 69.  believing and knowing that jesus was Christ the son of the living God. Yea, and in the place where Peter uttereth that confession, as the question was asked of all the Apostles, Whom say ye that I am? so we must understand also, and so St. Austin affirmeth that 
r Augustin. in Psal. 88 Respondens Petrus pro omnibus, unus pro unitate.  Peter answered for all, one for unity, and consequently that all being in the like case, the words which Christ returneth though in token of unity uttered to one, yet in that unity did appertain to all. Therefore, by the words there spoken to Peter, Hi●rome concludeth that 
s Hieron. in Amos, lib. 3. c. 6. Petra christus est, qui donavit Apostolis sui● ut ipsi quoque Petra vocentur. Tu es Petrus & super hac petram, etc.  Christ the Rock gave, not to one only Apostle; but to his Apostles that they also should be called Rocks. And in like sort Origen conceiveth it when he saith; 
t Origen. in Math. cap. 16. Quod si super unum illum Petrum tantum existimas ●dificari tota● Ecclesiam quid dicturus es de joanne filio tonitr●i & Apo●lolor●● vn● quoque? Quin alioqui num audebimus dicere, quòd adversus Petrum unum non pr●ualitur● sin● port● inferor●, advensus caeleroes au●●. Apostolos praevaliturae sin●, ac non potius in omnibus & singuli●●orum fit illud quod dictum est, super 〈◊〉 Petram, etc. Quòd si dictum hoc, Ti●i dabo claves, etc. c●teris quoque commune est, cur non simul omnia, & quae prius dicta s●nt, & quae sequunt●r 〈◊〉 ad Petrum dicta, sunt omnium communia?  If thou think that the Church was built upon Peter only, what wilt thou say of john the son of thunder & every of the Apostles? shall we dare to say that against Peter only the gates of hell shall not prevail, and that they shall prevail against the other Apostles, and not rather that in all & every of them it is verified which is said, Upon this rock will I build my Church? In a word he reasoneth thus, that because that which is said, I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, is common to them all, therefore all the rest both going before and following after as spoken to Peter, is common to them all. And this the Scripture confirmeth in that it saith, that 
u Ephes. 2. 20.  the household of God are builded, not upon the foundation of Peter only, but upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and not St. Peter only but 
x Apoc. 21. 14.  the Lambs twelve Apostles have their names written in the twelve foundations of the city of God. Yea, it is yet further to be observed out of the Fathers, that they make Peter in all this matter 
y August. Epist. 165. Petro totius Ecclesia figuram gerenti Dominus ait; super hanc Petram, etc.  to be are the figure as St. Austin saith of the whole Church. 
z Idem de verb. Dom. serm. 13. Hoc nomen ei ut Petrus appellaretur à Domino impositum est, & hoc ut ●a figura significaret Ecclesiam. Quia enim Christus Petra, Petrus populus Christianus.  The Lord, saith he, gave him that name to be called Peter, that by that figure he might signify the Church; for because Christ is (Petra) the Rock, therefore Peter is the people of Christ. And thus of that which Christ there saith, 
a Mat. 16. 19  Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, Gregory Bishop of Rome delivereth that 
b Greg. exposit. in 1. Reg. l. 6 c. 3. Quod antiquis ●usquam dicitur, m●dò universali Ecclesiae dicitur, Quodcunque ligaveris, etc.  it is spoken to the universal Church. Therefore Origen apply the name of Peter to every man that joineth with Peter in the confession of the same faith: 
c Orig. in Mat. c. 16. Quòd si nos quoque locuti quod dixit Petrus, Tu es Christus, etc. t●nquam non accepta 〈◊〉 revelatione à carne & sanguine, sed luce cordi nostr● illucescent● à Patre qui in c●lis est, efficimur Petrus & nobis dicetur, quod hunc sermonem sequitur▪ Tu es Petrus, etc.  If we say as Peter said, Thou art Christ the son of the living God as not receiving revelation hereof from flesh and blood, but by light shining into our hearts from the Father which is in heaven, we also are made Peter, and it shall be said to us which followeth that speech, Thou art Peter, etc. And anon after he affirmeth again, that 
d Ibid. paulò post. Dicta sunt ut doc et spiritus illius ad quemuis qui t●lis factus fuerit, qualis ●rat ille Petrus: siquidem nom●● ducunt à Petra quicunque sunt imitato●es Christi, qui est petra spiritualis, etc. Christi membra cum sint, ab ●● nomen habe●t dicti Christiani, & à Petra Petri.  the spirit of the Gospel speaketh those words to every one that is such as that Peter was: for they take their name, saith he, of (Petra) the Rock, whosoever are followers of Christ who is the spiritual Rock; being called of Christ Christians, and of (Petra) the Rock being called Peter. Hereto St. Ambrose also alludeth, when giving the reason why Peter was so called, 
e Ambros. in Luc. lib. 6. cap. 9  & ipse sit Petrus quòd de petra habeat soliditatem constanti●, fidei firmitatem. Enitere ergò ut & tu petra sis; itaque non extra te sed intra te petram require, etc. si petra fueris, in Ecclesia eris, quia Ecclesia supra petram est.  For that of (Petra) the Rock, he had soundness of constancy, and steadfastness of faith, he useth this exhortation; Therefore endeavour that thou also mayest be a Rock, and not without thee but within thee require this rock; if thou be a Rock, thou shalt be within the Church, because the Church is upon a Rock. To conclude, Origen expounding by way of allegory that which is written, as befalling upon the death of Christ, that the rocks were cloven in sunder, maketh the rocks to be the Prophets; whom he proveth rightly to be so called. 
f Origen. in Math. tract. 35. Probamus scissas tum Petras esse Prophetas, primùm ex eo quòd Christus dicitur Petra spiritualis & rationis est omnes imitatores Christi dici similitèr Petras esse, sicut & lux mundidicuntur ex eo-quòd ipse Dominus ●orum est lux mundi; deinde etiam ex eo quòd ipse Petrus à Domino Petra est appellatus cum dicitur ei, Tu es Pe●rus, etc. Maximè autem demonstratu● ex co quòd o●nes quibus non prevalent portae inferorum, qui opus nominis petr● babe●t in se, id est, Apostoli & Propheta, Petra sunt ipsi, & sunt ●um qui super eis adificantur, etc.  First, for that Christ is called the spiritual rock, and it standeth with reason that all that are followers of Christ should likewise be called Rocks, as they are called the light of the world, because Christ their Lord is the light of the world; and secondly, for that Peter is by Christ called a Rock, when it is said, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, etc. For it is strongly proved thereby, saith he, that all against whom the gates of hell do not prevail, who have in them the work or effect of the name of Rock, as namely the Apostles and Prophets, are themselves Rocks, and the foundations of them that are builded upon them. Thus do the Father's turn and wind those words of Christ; they find Christ himself to be the Rock, they find Peter in some sort to be a Rock, albeit not Peter alone but the rest of the Apostles, yea the Prophets also as well as he; yea they find every faithful Christian man to be a Rock by constancy of faith, and by drawing on others through his example of confession to the acknowledgement thereof, but no where do we find that ever they took the Roman Church to be the Rock. How unhonestly then doth M. Bishop abuse his Reader, by setting down in gross that parenthesis (according to the exposition of the ancient Fathers) when as no such exposition is to be found amongst the ancient Fathers? Albeit it is also to be noted how unhandsomely this matter hangeth together, and cannot be stained in any sort to serve his turn; for seeing the Church was when as yet there was no Roman Church, how senseless a thing is it that the church should be said to be builded upon the Roman Church? Surely that against which the gates of h●ll shall not prevail, is the Church builded upon the Rock. If then the Rock be the Roman Church, and other Churches in the beginning were builded upon it, it must needs follow that the gates of hell should never have prevailed against other Churches. But they will not deny but that the gates of hell have prevailed against other Churches. Therefore the Rock is not the Roman Church, neither were other Churches in the beginning builded upon it. If he will have the meaning to be that the gates of hell shall not prevail against other Churches, so long as they continue builded upon the Roman Church, he teacheth us an exposition against himself, that so long as the Roman Church continueth builded upon the Rock which is Christ jesus, so long the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; but no assurance have we that it shall always continue so builded upon the Rock. But he saith further that the Bishop of Rome lineally succeed unto S. Peter. Be it so; and so did Caiaphas succeed lineally to Aaron; yet did Caiaphas give sentence against Christ. Their own law saith; 
g Non sunt omnes filii Sanctorum qui te●ent loca Sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera ●orum.  All are not the children of Saints that hold the places of Saints, but they that practise the works of Saints. Yea but Christ prayed for Peter 
h Luke 22. 32.  that his faith might not fail. He did so, but I ask then with Austin; 
i Aug. quaest. vet. & novi testam. 75. Pro Petro rogabat, & pro lacobo & joanne non r●gabat ut c●teros taceam? Manifestum est in Petro omnes ●●tin●ri ● r●gans enim pro Petro, pro omnibus r●gass● dignoscitur.  Did he pray for Peter, and did he not pray for james and john, to say nothing of the rest? It is manifest that in Peter they are all contained; and praying for Peter he is known to pray for them all. Of them all he prayeth; 
k john 17. 11. 25.  Holy Father keep them in thy name, I pray thee to keep them from evil. And what is the means whereby they are kept? Even the same that St. Peter expresseth when he saith; 
l 1. Pet. 1. 5.  Ye are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. If through faith, than Christ in praying to the Father to kee●● them, is consequently understood to pray that their faith may not fail, through which they are kept. Yea St. Austin maketh it common to all the elect, that 
m August. de corrept. & great. cap. 12. Pro his ergò interpellante Christo ne deficiat fides eorum, sine dubio non deficiet usque in finem, ac per hoc perseverabit usque in finem.  Christ prayeth for them that their faith may not fall, and that by virtue of this prayer it doth never fail finally, but persevereth to the end. If then Peter in this prayer have no privilege above other, then can nothing in this behalf be derived to other by privilege from him. Albeit let it be admitted that Christ here meant a singular favour to Peter, what shall that be to the Pope? What Art hath M. Bishop whereby to derive the effect of Christ's prayer from Peter to their Popes, from an holy Apostle to a rank and succession of men, amongst whom there have been so many Atheists, Infidels, Idolaters, Heretics, so many incarnate Devils and hateful Monsters of mankind? This is a matter of great weight, and we require some good authority and proof for it, that what Christ prayed for the Apostle Peter, the same he hath prayed for the Pope also. But in the proof of this he faileth wholly, neither can he any way persuade it unless he meet with either simple or well-willing creditors, who will be content for payment to take counters in steed of gold. And yet I would further ask him what faith it was whereof Christ prayed in the behalf of Peter that the same might not fail? Surely by St. Augustine's application formerly mentioned, it appeareth that it was meant of that faith which is 
n 'tis 1. 1.  the faith of Gods elect, that justifying and saving faith whereby Peter should rise again from his fall, and should resist thenceforth the temptations of Satan, and stand steadfast thereby unto eternal life. But M. Bishop will not deny but that many Popes there have been in whom this faith hath failed, or rather in whom it never was; many who have been reprobates and castaways, and their end everlasting death. Of Sixtus the fift, namely Bellarmine being asked what he thought after his death, answered as Watson in his Quodlibets reporteth, 
o Wats. Quodlibet. Quantum capio, quantum sapio, quantum intelligo, descendit ad infernum. Qui sine poenitentia visit, & sine poenitentia moritur, proculdubio descendit ad infernum.  So far as I can conceive or understand he is gone down to hell; he that liveth and dieth without repentance, goeth undoubtedly to hell. In him therefore and ma●● other such like, the prayer of Christ did not take effect, and therefore certain it is that it did not appertain unto them. If M. Bishop will needs understand it that Christ prayed for Peter that he might be free from error in judgement of faith; than not to question whether Peter thenceforth committed any error in judgement, it must needs be that the Pope cannot be subject to error in that behalf. But they themselves confess that the Pope as a private man may err, that he may be an Heretic and defend heresy; only in his consistorial sentence and Pontifical decree he cannot err. Was this then the intent of Christ's prayer in the behalf of Peter, that howsoever he might otherwise be an Hypocrite or an Heretic, yet when he should set himself down in his chair to define any matter, he should be like Balaam to bless where he meaneth to curse, and like Caiaphas to prophesy without understanding what he saith? I dare appeal to M. Bishop himself, if he be sober, that this was not Christ's meaning in respect of Peter. If it were not thus meant of Peter, and it can be no otherwise derived to the Pope, but as it was meant of Peter, than it must follow that because it can in no other meaning be fitted to the Pope, therefore it can have no reference to the Pope at all. If he be so absurd as to say that it was so meant of Peter, I will not stand to disprove a drunken man's dream; I only require proof of that he saith. But because he can deduce nothing out of the word of God, he will make some flourish with some few sentences of the ancient Fathers. And first he beginneth with Ireneus who going in hand to avouch the true doctrine of faith by the testimony of the Churches, which had received the same from the Apostles, for avoiding tediousness bringeth in steed of many other the Church of Rome, being a very great and very ancient Church, and known to all men. 
p Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potent●rem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in que semper abhis qui sunt undique conseruata▪ est ea qua est ab Apostolis Traditi●.  To this Church, saith he, because of her more potent principality, it is necessary for every Church to accord, that is, the faithful every where, wherein the Tradition which came from the Apostles hath been always preserved. Now take this reason added by Ireneus which by M. Bishop is concealed, and it will plainly appear why it was necessary for other Churches to accord with the Church of Rome. For this Church for the renown and famousness of the place, being then the seat of the Empire, was the most eminent Church in the world, and therefore continuing still in the doctrine of the Apostles without alteration or change, it was most fit of all other to be propounded as a pattern to other Churches, whereto to conform themselves; and with which whosoever accordeth not, did thereby serve from the doctrine of the Apostles. But the case is now altered, because the Church of Rome itself is now questioned for swerving from the Tradition of the Apostles; which being so, that cannot be said to be necessary now, which was necessary so long as she continued in that Tradition. And thus far we find only a necessity of consenting then in doctrine with the Church of Rome, but for her superiority in government we find nothing. Yes, saith M. Bishop, for Ireneus attributeth to the Church of Rome, a mightier or more potent principality, which what should it import, will he say, but a superiority of Dominion and government over all other Churches? But I answer him, that principality doth not enforce sovereignty and dominion; for he himself is holden for a principal man amongst the Seminary Priests, and yet he hath no rule or dominion over them. Principality importeth specialty and chiefty, and noteth an honour of estimation and account, and thus the Church of Rome though having no title of dominion for ruling and governing, yet had the honour to be a chief and principal above other Churches. Now principality is always potent, and they that are chief and eminent above others sway much by their example and persuasion, and their very names are very available to induce other, whom notwithstanding they have no authority to command, according to that which Hilary saith, that 
q Hilar. Epist. apud August. tom. 7. Plure● sunt in Ecclesia qui authoritate nominum in sententia tenentur aut ad sententiam transferu●tur.  in the Church there are many who by authority of names are moved, either to hold still their opinion, or to alter and change the same. Such and no other was the potent principality of the Church of Rome, and thus doth Ireneus in the same place say, that that Church 
r Iren. ut supr. scrip. Sit qua est Rom● Ecclesia, potentissimas literas Co●inthijs etc.  wrote most potent letters to the Corinthians, namely such as were effectual and strong to move them, and the rather for that they came from such a famous and renowned place. And that M. Bishop may understand that I do not answer him by a device of mine, but according to the truth, he shall find that Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome 
s Cypr. lib. 1. Epist. 3. Ad Petri Cathedram & Ecclesiam principalem, etc.  the principal Church, and yet in the same place he denieth 
t Ibid. Navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram, etc. Oportet eos quibus praesum●s non circumcursare, etc. Nisi paucis d●speratis & ●erditis minor esse videtur authoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorl●. etc.  the authority of the Bishops of Africa to be inferior to the Bishop of Rome. And thus the African Council acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be 
u Conc. Afric. cap. 6. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princ●ps Sacerdotum, aut summus Sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus.  the first or principal Sea, and the Bishop thereof they term the Bishop of the first or principal Sea, and yet they denied to the Bishops of Rome to have any authority over them. Yea when Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestmus, challenged the same by a forged Canon of the Nicene Council, those 
x Ibid. c. 101. Quia hic in nullo c●di●● Gr●c● ea po●●imus inuenir●, ex Orientalibus Ecclesijs ubi perhibetur eadem decreta posse etiam authentica reperiri, magis nobis desideramus adferri.  African Bishops for the disproving thereof sent to the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople for authentical copies of the said Council, wherein they found no such matter; and 
y Ibid. c. 105.  aliqui tanquam à tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur, nulla invenimus patrum Synodo constitutum. Quod ex part Nicem Concilij transmisistis in Concilijs verioribus tale aliquid non potuimus reper●●e. Executores Cle●icos vestros quibusque petentibus nolite mittere, etc.  thereupon wrote to Celestinus that he should forbear to send his Legates to intermeddle in their matters, and 
z Ibid. c. 92. Non provocent nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad primates Provinciarium s●●rum: ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, à nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiatur.  forbade all appeals save to their own Counsels, excommunicating them that presumed to appeal to Rome, and in this recusancy of subjection they continued afterwards for the space of an hundred years until Eulal●●s the Bishop of Carthage, if it be true which is reported of him and not coined at Rome, betrayed the liberty of that Church, and submitted the same to Boniface the second, who doubted not most wickedly to say of those African Bishops, of whom the learned Father St. Austin was one, that 
a Bonifac. 2. Epist. ad Eulal. tom▪ 2. Concil. Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesi● olim Episcopus cum collegis suis inf●igante Diabolo superbire tēporib● praedecessorum Bonifacij atque Celestini contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit.  by the instigation of the Devil they had then begun proudly to demean themselves against the Church of Rome. As for that potent principality of the Roman Church, and necessity of according therewith, which M. Bishop intendeth, Polycarpus knew it 
b Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 23. Neque enim Anicet● suadere Polycarp● poterat ne seruaret, etc. quae semper seruaverat.  not, when he would not be persuaded by Anicetus' Bishop of Rome to keep the feast of Easter according to the manner of the Church of Rome. Neither did 
c Ibid. cap. 22. Episcopis per Asiam qui morem ipsis ab antiquo traditum retinendum esse affirmabant, pr●erat Polycrates.  Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus with the rest of the Churches of Asia, acknowledge any such when they withstood Victor Bishop of Rome in the same cause, and neglected his excommunication; the same Polycrates alleging for himself, that 
d Ibid. Ego qui sanctam Scripturam volui ac revolui, non t●rbabor illis quae terrendi gratia obijciuntur. Et●nim maior●s mei Deo magis quàm hominibus obedien●●● esse dixerunt.  having read the holy Scripture over and over, he would not be troubled with those things that were threatened to him, because his ancestors had taught him rather to obey God then men. Neither did 
e Concil. Carthag. apud Cyprian. Per totum.  Cyprian and his African Bishops conceive any such when in their Council they determined the point of the Baptism of Heretics, professedly against the known judgement of the Bishop and Church of Rome; whether truly or falsely that skilleth not, only hereby it appeareth that they had not learned nor did believe M. Bishop's necessity of according with the Church of Rome. Neither did the Eastern Churches imagine any such principality in the church of Rome, when as Leo having affirmed it to be 
f Leo. Epist. 62. Ad octawm Calend. Maiar. Paschalem obseruantiam perducere nimis insolens & aperta transgressio est.  a strange and manifest trespass or transgression to bring Easter day to the eighth of the Calends of May, he was feign notwithstanding to yield 
g Idem Epist. 93. Study unitatis & pacis malui Orientalium definitioni acquiescere, quàm in tantae festivitatis obseruantia dissidere.  to them therein because they would not yield to him. Neither did Hierome believe any such who writing purposely in derogation of the Church of Rome saith; 
h Hieron. epist. ad evagr. Si authoritas quaritur, urbis maior est urbe, etc. Quid mihi pr●fers unius urbis consuetudinal? quid paucitatem de q●a ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesi● vindicas?  If authority be required, the whole world is greater than one City: what dost thou bring me the custom of one City? why dost thou maintain a paucity or fewness, whence hath grown proud usurping upon the laws of the Church? Neither did Ambrose admit it, who for defence of a ceremony used in his Church of Milan, saith, 
i Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1. Cupio in omnibus sequi Romanam Ecclesiam, sed tamen & nos homines sensum habemus.  I desire in all things to follow the Church of Rome, but we also are men that have understanding, and therefore what is more rightly observed otherwhere, we justly observe the same. Neither was it acknowledged by the six hundred and thirty Bishops of the Council of Chalcedon, who affirming 
k Chalcedon. Concil. Act. 15. Can. 28. Antiquae Roma throno quòd urbs illa imperaret iure patres privilegia tribuere. ●t eadem consideration● mo●i centum quinquaginta Dei ama●tissimi Episcopi Sanct●ssimo nova Rom● thro●o ●qualia privilegia tribuere, rectè iudicantes urbem quae & Imperio & Senatu honorata sit, etc. etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illam extols, etc.  the privileges of the Church of Rome, to have been given to it by the Fathers before, f●r that that City was the seat of the Empire, did for the same consideration give to the Church of Constantinople equal privileges with the Church of Rome, when the City of Constantinople was honoured with the Empire and Senate as well as the City of Rome, which in the 
l Synod. 6. in Trullo, Can. 36. Decernimus ut thronus Constantinopolitanus aequalia privilegia cum antiqu● Romae throno obti●eat.  sixth Synod holden at Constantinople, in Trullo by almost three hundred Bishops more was again approved and confirmed. Now then by the continual practice of the Church it appeareth that the words of Ireneus cannot be truly applied to approve any superiority of government to appertain to the Church of Rome. As little do the words of Cyprian avail to challenge thereto certain continuance and stability in true faith, who exagitating the tumultuous and disorderly courses of certain lewd and schismatical persons who being censured by the Bishops of Africa sought to patronage themselves under the favour of the Bishop of Rome, upbraideth them, that 
m Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 3. Nec cogi●●re ●os esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est, ad quos perfidia hab●re non possit accessum.  they considered not that the Romans were men whose faith by the testimony of the Apostle was commended, to whom perfidiousness can or may have no access. Where M. Bishop adding in his translation of the words, or falsehood in matters of faith, to make the words serve his purpose, thrusteth them quite from the purpose of him that wrote them. It made nothing for Cyprians purpose, that falsehood in matters of faith could have no access to the Romans; the thing that he aimeth at, is, that in matters of jurisdiction, perfidious and treacherous persons justly punished for their evil demeanours, and thereupon coming to Rome with lies and tales should find no admittance or harbour there. M. Bishop though he give to the Bishop of Rome a privilege not to err in deciding matters of faith, yet will not deny but that he may err in cases and proceed of jurisdiction, and in examining and judging matters of fact, may give countenance to lewd and ungracious men, as he did to the jesuits against the Priests. It being then impertinent here to Cyprians occasion, to affirm the Church of Rome to be free from error in question of faith, either we must make him speak idly, or else we must construe his words the other way, that those lewd and evil disposed persons should find no favour or entertainment there. Which he saith, cannot be: not as to affirm an impossibility thereof, but as to signify how far he presumed of their integrity in this behalf, and that they would make good the Apostles commendation of their faith, one fruit whereof should be to resist the courses of such tumultuous disturbers of Ecclesiastical order and peace, and to yield no access or ●are to their calumnious and false suggestions. Gregory Nazianzene well noteth that in divers meanings it may be said of a thing that it cannot be▪ 
n Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 5. Significata horum (posse vel non posse) complura sunt. Interdum dicuntur de virium desectu & certo huius tempore & respects alicuius etc. Interdum usurpamus de eo quod ut plurimùm accidit, etc. Nonnunquam ut rationi non consentaneum, etc. Nonnunquam ut quod voluntas non admittat, etc. Praeterea quod nat●rae quidem respectu sieri nequit, praestari aut●m à Deo potest, si is velit, etc. Praeter haec quod prorsus vel fieri vel contingere nequit, etc.  First, to note want of strength at a certain time and in some respect, as to say of a child that he cannot wrestle, which notwithstanding being grown he can. Secondly, it signifieth that such a thing commonly, or for the most part cannot be; as when it is said, A City that is set upon a hill cannot be hid, which notwithstanding by interposing somewhat may be hidden and not seen. Thirdly, that we say cannot be, which is not convenient or agreeable to reason, as when it is said, The children of the Bride-chamber, so long as the Bridegroom is with them, cannot fast, meaning that so long it is not reasonable or fitting so to do. Fourthly it is said cannot be, which the will admitteth not or liketh not to do, as when the Evangelist saith of our Saviour; He could do no great miracles there because of their unbelief, wherein is a relation to the former meaning, the will not admitting that which is not fitting or convenient to be done. Fiftly, we say that can not be which by natural course cannot be, though by the power of God it may be done. And lastly, we say so of that which in no sort can be, and is wholly and altogether unpossible. It was far from Cyprians meaning that it was a thing wholly unpossible for the Romans to admit the hearing of such persons, (for if he had so thought, what needed he so much to labour Cornelius the Bishop in that behalf?) but he would note it as a thing unfitting to that testimony, which the Apostle had given of them, and which being so unjust he assured himself they would by no means yield unto. Even in the same manner as Gregory saith, that 
o Greg. Mor. l. 33. c. 22. Iniqui si ap●rtè mal● essent, à bonis omninò recipi non possent  men openly evil cannot be received or entertained of them that be good; and as Marcellinus saith of a Bishop, that 
p Collat. cum Donat. 1. c. 62. Falsi crimen nec obijcere condecet sacerdotem, nec committere potuisse credendum est.  it beseemeth him not to object falsehood to another, nor is it to be believed that he could commit the same himself; and as Leo saith, 
q Leo. Epist. 52. Privilegia Ecclesiarum Sanctorum patrum Canonibus instituta & Nicena Synodi fixa decretis nulla possunt improbitate conuell●, nulla no●itate mutari.  The privileges of Churches established by the Canons of the Fathers, and by the decrees of the Nicene Council, cannot by any sinister practice be impeached, on by any novelty changed: and as we commonly say out of the law, Id tantùm possumus, quod iure possumus: 
r Aug. count Gaudent. lib. 2. c. 22. Quod non potest justè, non potest justus.  We can do that only which we can lawfully do, or as St. Austin saith to the same effect; The just man cannot do what he cannot justly do; agreeable to the words of the Apostle, 
s 2. Cor. 13. 8.  We can do nothing against the truth but for the truth. Where, as in infinite places more, we may not understand a mere denial of possibility, but a signification of improbability, of undecency or breach of duty, if the thing be done that is spoken of, even as St. Austin expoundeth the words of the Angel to Lot; 
t Genes. 19 22.  I can do nothing till thou be come thither; 
u Aug. count Gaudent. lib. 2. c. 22. Non posse se dixit, quod sine dubi● poterat per potentiam, sed non poterat per justitiam.  He saith he could not, which doubtless by power he could, but by justice he could not do. Now if M. Bishop be pecuishly wilful against common sense to understand perfidiousness of falsehood or error in matters of faith, yet that Cyprian can be understood no otherwise but according to the same meaning it is infallibly proved, for that in a matter of faith he with his Council of African Bishops, as I said before, determineth contrary to the Church of Rome: and of Stephanus the Bishop of Rome saith expressly, that he 
x Cyprian. ad Pompey. Haereticorum causam contra Christianos & contra Ecclesiam Dei ass●rere conatur etc. Imperitè atque improvidè scripsit, etc. Quae ista obstinatio, quaeu● pr●sumptio humanam traditionem divina dispositioni anteponere, etc. unitatem & veritati de divina lege venientem non tenens, h●res●m contra Ecclesiam vindicat.  endeavoured to maintain the cause of Heretics against Christians and against the Church of God, that he wrote ignorantly and unwarily, that obstinately and presumptuously he preferred the Tradition of man before the ordinance of God, that not holding the unity and truth that proceeded from the law of God, he defended heresy against the Church. Wherein although it be true that Cyprian did err, yet we cannot doubt but that upon advertisement given him by the Bishop of Rome, he would have reform his error and submitted himself to the judgement of that Church, if he had known that privilege of immunity from error, which M. Bishop now by his testimony challengeth thereunto. In a word to show the weakness of the foundation whereupon M. Bishop buildeth all this fable, Cyprian where he saith as the other Fathers sometimes do, 
y Cypr. Epist. ad jubaian. & alt. ad Quirin. Petrus super quem Dominus aedis●cauit Ecclesiam▪ suam.  that Christ builded his Church upon Peter, in the very same place disputeth against the sentence of the Bishop of Rome, thereby plainly declaring that from Peter to the Bishop of Rome there is by his judgement no such privilege derived as these men so infinitely babble of. Now though his proofs hitherto be vain, yet those that follow are more vain, beside that he is feign to report them falsely to give them that little colour that they seem to have. Ambrose, saith he, taketh it to be all one to say the Catholic and the Roman Church. Forsooth Ambrose reporteth that his brother Satyrus having escaped the danger of shipwreck, and being come to land was desirous in token of thanksgiving to receive the Sacrament. So it was that the heresy or schism of the Luciferians at that time, prevailed in those parts, and he was careful by no means to communicate with them. Therefore, 
z Ambros. de obitu Fratris. Percontatus ex ●o est vtru●●am cum Episcop●s Catholicis, hoc est, cum Romana Ecclesia con●eniret.  he questioned with the Bishop whom he had sent for unto him whether he accorded with the Catholic Bishops, that is, with the Roman Church. He held it not enough to name Catholic Bishops, because Heretics and Schismatics do take upon them to be called Catholics, but because he knew the Church of Rome then retained the Catholic faith, he would take knowledge of them to be Catholic Bishops, by this that they joined themselves in fellowship of faith with the Roman Church. And is not here, think you, a goodly reason, They were then Catholic Bishops that did communicate with the Church of Rome; therefore it is all one now to say the Catholic and to say the Roman Church? The Church of Rome as the most famous and chief Church was most fit to be named in this case, but otherwise it may even as well be said, They were Catholic Bishops that communicated with the Church of Milan where Ambrose was Bishop; therefore to say the Church of Milan, is all one as to say the Catholic Church. As little discretion is there in his next allegation out of Hierome, who mentioning the words of Ruffinus, concerning some works of Origen by him translated, The Latin Reader shall find nothing in them different from our faith, demandeth thus, 
a Hieron. Apolog. adverse. Ruffin. lib. 1. Fide suam quam vocat? Eamnè qua Romana pollet Ecclesia, an illam qu● Origenis voluminibus contin●tur? si Romanam responde●it, ergo Cathol●ci sumus qui nihil de Origenis errore transtulimus, etc.  Which calleth he his faith? that which the Church of Rome professeth, or that which is contained in the books of Origen? If he answer, the Roman faith, then are we Catholics, who have translated nothing of the error of Origen. For what is there here said of the Roman Church, but what might likewise be sa●d of any other Church professing the true faith? The argument followeth, because the Roman Church did then maintain the true Catholic faith; so should it follow of the rest, If he profess the faith of the Church of Constantinople, of Antioch, of Alexandria, yea of the poor Church of Eugubium, then is he a Catholic, because all these did then profess the Catholic faith. But what is this to M. Bishop's purpose to prove in the Church of Rome a privilege of continuance and stability in the same true Catholic faith; to prove that the Roman faith should be always the certain and undoubted pattern of the true Catholic faith? In which conclusion his other Authors also do all fail him, who though it be granted him that they did, as he saith, prove themselves then to be Catholics and their Churches Catholic, by declaring themselves to communicate with the Church of Rome, and their adversaries to be Heretics because they did not so, for that the Church of Rome was then famously known to have continued the same from the beginning in the points of faith than impugned by the Heretics; yet very idly and childishly are they alleged to prove that which M. Bishop intendeth, that it should always thenceforth continue so. But indeed he racketh his Authors and wrongeth them, neither do they say that which he would have them taken to say. Tertullian appealeth to other Churches as well as to the Church of Rome, and referreth his Reader to the most famous of them accordingly as they are nearest at hand; 
b Tertul. de prescript. Percurre Ecclesia● Apostolicas apud quas ipse adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur, etc. Proxima est tibi Achaiai habes Corinthum. Si non longè es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendered, habes Ephesum. Si autem Ital●ae adiaces, habes Romanam.  Run through the Apostolic Churches in which there are Bishops still sitting in the seats of the Apostles in their places. Is Achaia next unto thee? thou hast Corinthus. If thou be not far from Macedonia, thou hast Philippos and the Thessalonians. If thou canst go into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. If thou border upon Italy, thou hast the Church of Rome. What is there here for M. Bishop's turn? 
c Epiph. haeres. 27.  Epiphanius setteth down a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, but saith not a word to that effect as M. Bishop citeth him. Optatus approveth his part to be Catholic, not simply by communicating with the Church of Rome; but for that together with the Church of Rome, 
d Optat. lib. 2. Si●icius hody noster est socius; cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordant.  they communicated with th●●hurch of the whole world. Yea in the same book he attributeth as much in this behalf to the seven Churches of Asia as to the Church of Rome, & thereby as strongly reproveth the Donatists. 
e Ibid. Cum quibus Ecclesijs nullum communionis probamini habere cons●rti●, etc. Extra septem Ecclesias quicquid soris est alienum est.  You are proved to have no fellowship of communion with the seven Churches. Whatsoever is without the seven Churches is stranger to the Church. Austin setteth down the succession of the Bishops of Rome, and upbraideth the Donatists, that 
f Aug. Epist. 165. In hoc ordine successionis nullus Donatista Episcopi● invenitur.  no Donatist was found amongst them; but as well doth he object to them, that whereas 
g Ibid. Quile gunt in codicibus sanctis Ecclesias quibus Apostoli scripserunt & nullum in eyes habent Episcopum. Quid autem perversius & insanius quàm lectoribus easdem Epistolas legentibus dicere, pax tecum, & ab earum Ecclesiarum pace separare quibus ipsa Epistolae scriplae sunt.  they read the Epistles of the Apostles, they divided themselves from the peace and fellowship of those Churches, to which the Apostles wrote the same Epistles. So then in all these Authors which he allegeth he doth but merely abuse his reader, which is the cause why he thus set down their names without their words, for that he presumed that only alleging their names, men would imagine that undoubtedly they said somewhat for him, whereas if he had set down their words, every man might see that they said nothing. Yea, but it is greatly to be noted, saith M. Bishop, that there is no general Council of sound authority wherein the Christian truth hath been expounded and determined, but is confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. Well; and it is as greatly to be noted that the sentence of no Bishop of Rome was anciently holden sufficient for the deciding of a question of faith, except the same were confirmed by a general Council. Therefore doth Leo Bishop of Rome mention 
h Leo epist. 61. Apostolicae sedis Epistola universali sancta Synodi assens● firmata. Et Epist. 70. Scripta mea adiecta universalis Synodi confirmatione, etc.  his Epistle against the heresy of Eutyches, confirmed by the universal assent of the sacred Synod, and his writings having the confirmation of the general Council added thereto. And what his authority was in the Council it may be conceived by that he wrote to the Council of Ephesus, 
i Idem Epist. 14. Misi qui vice mea sancto conventui vestrae fraternitatis intersint, & communi vobiscum sententia qua Domino sint placitura constituant.  I have sent my deputies to be present with you in your assembly, and by sentence in common to decree those things which may be pleasing to the Lord; where we see that he challengeth no more but a voice in common with the rest of the Bishops there. And that Counsels held it not an●●atter of necessity to have the confirmation of the Bishop of Rome, it is manifest both by the African Council excluding his authority from amongst them, as hath been before showed, and by the Council of ᵏ Chalcedon, which notwithstanding the opposition of the 
l Concil. Chalced. Act. 16. Contradictio nostra his gestis inh●reat, etc. J●dices dixerunt, Quod interlocuti sumus, tota Synodu● approbavit.  Legates of the Bishop of Rome and 
l Leo Epist. 51. 52.  his own reclaiming thereto, yet decreed to the Church of Constantinople equality of privileges with the Church of Rome, save only that the Bishop of Rome had precedence and priority of place, as before also is declared. As for M. Bishops other note it is a vain and fond presumption, that all heresies sprung up since the Apostles days have opposed themselves against the Roman Sea, and have been by it finally overthrown. The Church of Rome hath had nothing singular in this behalf; Yea many heresies there have been that have more bend themselves against other Churches then against the Church of Rome, neither hath the Church of Rome done so much in the confounding of them as other Churches have done. But yet he bringeth Austin, affirming for him that that chair obtained the top of authority heretics in vain barking round about it. Where he dealeth very unhonestly in falsifying the words of Austin who in that whole book by him cited, never once nameth the Roman Church or chair, nor saith any thing that may be avouched to have any special reference or respect thereto. Of the Catholic or universal Church so apparently to be discerned from all heretical combinations, St. Austin there saith; 
m Aug. de utilit. credendi. c. 17. Dubitabimus nos eius Ecclesiae condere gremio, quae usque ad confession●m generis humani ab Apostolica sede per successio successio▪nes Episcoporum frustra hareticis circumlairantibus, etc. culm●n authoritatis obtinuit.  Shall we doubt to repose ourselves in the bosom of that Church which even by the confession of mankind from the Apostles sitting (or time when the Apostles sat) by successions of Bishops hath obtained a height of authority, Heretics in vain barking round about, etc. In the whole process of that book from the beginning to this place which is almost the very end, he speaketh generally of the Catholic Church without relation to any particular Church, and therefore unlikely it is that his words here should bear any special application to the Church of Rome. M. Bishop will say that I mistranslate the words ab Apostolica sede, and that Apostolica sedes is there meant the Apostolic Sea, that is, the Roman Church. But he must give us leave to understand the meaning of St. Augustine's words by St. Austin himself, who in this cause so often signifieth by that phrase of speech, the time wherein the Apostles themselves sat, that is, wherein they lived and occupied the rooms of teaching and governing the Church. Thus he saith in another place, 
n Aug. count Faust. Manich. lib. 11. cap. 2. Vides in hac re quid Ecclesiae Catholicae valeat authoritas quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorum usque ad hodiernum diem succedentium sibimet Episcoporum & lot populorum consensione firmatur.  Thou seest how much the authority of the Catholic Church herein availeth, which from the most surely founded seats of the Apostles until this day (that is, from the time that the seats of the Apostles were most surely founded until this day) by rank of Bishop's succeeding one another, and by the consent of so many people's is confirmed. And again, 
o Ibid. lib. 28. cap. 2. universa Ecclesia ab Apostolicis sedibus usque ad praesentes Episcopos certa successione perducta.  The universal Church, saith he, which is derived by certain succession from the seats of the Apostles (that is, from the time that the Apostles sat) unto the Bishops that now are. And in another place, 
p Ibid. lib. 33. cap. 9 Eam sequamini que ab ipsius praesentiae Christi tempo●ibus per dispensationes Apostolorum & 〈◊〉 ab corum ●edibus successiones Episcoporum usque ad haec tempora pervenit.  Fellow that authority which hath come from the time of the presence of Christ himself, by the ministry of the Apostles, and by other successions of Bishops from their seats (from the time wherein they sat) until this time. Which when he will in more proper words express▪ he speaketh thus: 
q Ibid. lib 28. cap. 4. Ecclesia quae ab ipsius Matthaei temporibus usque ad hoc tempus certa successionum scrie declaratur.  The Church which from the very time of Matthew until this time by certain rank of successions is declared. 
r Ibid. lib. 32. cap. 19 evangelica authoritas ab Apostolorum temporibus usque ad nostra tempora per successiones certissimas commendata.  The authority of the Gospel commended by most certain successions from the time of the Apostles until our times. And in another place: 
s Contra Adverse. leg. & Prophet. lib. 1. cap. 20. Ecclesia quae ab illorum (Apostolorum) temporibus per Episcoporum successiones certissimas usque ad nostra & deinceps tempora perseverat.  The Church which from the times of the Apostles by most certain successions of Bishops continueth to our times and so forward. Now then sith all these speeches, as by conference appeareth, serve to express only one and the same thing, it is plain that St. Austin when he said ab Apostolica sede, meant nothing else but from the sitting, that is, from the age and time of the Apostles. Of the Apostles, I say, though he speak in the singular number, because he nameth from thence not a succession as speaking of one, but successions as resorting himself to those many seats wherein Bishops had succeeded from the time of the Apostles. And though we do understand it of one Apostle St. Peter, as elsewhere he saith, 
t Cont. Epist. fundam. cap. 4. Tenet ab ipsa ede Petri usque ad praesentem Episcop●tum successio Sacerdotum.  The succession of Bishops from the very seat of Peter (from the very time when Peter sat) until the Bishopric that now is, holdeth me in the Catholic Church; yet doth there nothing hereby follow more to the Church of Rome then to the Church of Antioch, where Peter sat as well as he did at Rome, and where there had been Bishops succeeding him until that time. In a word let M. Bishop take those words as he will, yet is there nothing therein to be seen concerning the Church of Rome, but only that as the principal Church, and specially 〈◊〉 these Western parts, it served him most conveniently for instance of the succession which he pleaded; but as for the height or top of authority there spoken of, it belongeth to the Catholic or Universal Church, discountenancing all partial and schismatical combinations, and mere impudence is it by those or any other words of Austin to challenge to the Church of Rome an authority or superiority of government over other Churches, when as we see that both Austin and the rest of the Bishops of Africa did with one consent utterly disclaim the same. Hitherto, therefore we see no cause to attribute to the Church of Rome any such privileges as M. Bishop pretendeth, and the less opinion have we that any such there are for that he bringeth no show of proof, but only by wresting and falsifying the Authors whom he allegeth in that behalf.    

W. BISHOP. §. 3.  
HEre comes in Master Abbot's 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; Christian is my name, 
Epistola ad Simphorian.  Catholic is my surname: so now adays 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, For not understanding what 
1. Tim. 1. vers. 7.  they speak, nor of what they affirm.  

R. ABBOT.  
HEre is a newfound distinction, and I confess myself to be one of those Doctors that know it not, and we see that M. Bishop as great a Doctor as he is, yet can bring neither Scripture, nor Father, nor Council, nor Story, nor any ancient writer whatsoever for the warrant of it, but such as it is we must take it barely upon his own word. The Church of Rome hath abused the world under pretence of the name of the Catholic Church, alleging falsely of itself that which is truly said of the Catholic Church, that without the Church there is no salvation. To discover this fraud we instruct men, as truth is, that the Church of Rome is but a particular Church, and therefore cannot be called the Catholic, that is, the universal Church; and therefore again that it is but a mere mockery of Popish impostors, whereby they say that out of the Church, meaning the Church of Rome, there is no salvation. To this M. Bishop answereth, that in that proposition, The Church of Rome is a particular Church, there is doubling and deceit. And how I pray? Forsooth, albeit the Church of Rome in rigour of speech do comprehend only the Christians dwelling in Rome, yet it is usually taken to signify all Churches of other Countries, agreeing in faith with the Church of Rome, and confessing the Pope to be chief Pastor of the whole Church. Where it is to be observed how he setteth himself merely to cirumvent and cozen his Reader. For it being admitted that the Church of Rome is taken to signify all Churches of other Countries, agreeing in faith with the Church of Rome, and confessing the Pope's chiefty over them, yet this nothing hindereth, but that the Church of Rome is still a particular Church or a part only of the Church, because the whole Church doth not agree nor ever hath agreed to give to the Pope and Church of Rome that chiefty which they require. For how many Churches are there not in Europe only, but also in Asia and Africa, that deride that claim of theirs, and neither yield nor acknowledge any such superiority to belong unto them? Yea and his own instance of the Roman Empire confoundeth him in this behalf, because as the Roman Empire was not the Empire of the whole world, but imported only the Country's subject to the Romans; there being many other Dominions and Kingdoms that were never subject unto them; even so the Roman Church is not the Church of the whole world, which is the Catholic Church, but signifieth only those Churches which profess subjection to the Bishop of Rome, there being many other Churches which profess no such subjection. Now therefore be it so, that the Church of Rome is so usually taken to signify other Churches, submitting themselves to the Church of Rome, M. Bishop for all this to his purpose is never a whit the nearer, unless he can show that the Church of Rome is taken to signify the whole Catholic Church of Christ. For if it be not the whole Catholic Church, than it is but a member and part thereof, and therefore only a particular Church. Tell us then, M. Bishop, is it any where to be found that the Roman Church is taken to signify the whole Catholic Church? Mark, I pray thee, gentle Reader, how it sticketh betwixt his teeth. Feign he would speak it, and yet because he knoweth it to be an absurd lie, his heart faileth him, and only faintly he telleth us, The whole Catholic Church may be called the Roman Church. But M. Bishop do not tell us what in your foolish conceit may be, tell us what hath been done? The Fathers were interested in this cause as well as we; they have told us of the East Church and the West Church; the Greek Church and the Latin Church; they have infinite times made mention of the Roman Church; but show us that ever they meant by the Roman Church, to signify the whole Church. Here he is blank and can say nothing; and if he would say any thing, the testimony of Pighius one of his own fellows should be sufficient to choke him, 
a Pigh. Eccles. Hierarch. l. 6. cap. 3. Quis per R●manam Ecclesiam unquam intellexit aut universalem Ecclesiam aut generale Concilium?  Who did ever by the Roman church understand the universal Church! A general Council is holden to be by representation the universal or Catholic church, and who was there ever so far out of his wits as to call a general Council the Roman Church? The seven Churches of Asia have been taken to betoken the universal Church, as we have seen before, but who ever said or thought that they did betoken the Roman church? Now whereas he telleth us that it may be so taken, I answer him, that so some man may take M. Bishop to signify a joined-stoole. For if men will take names & words to signify what they list, why may not some man be as wilful in the one as he seethe them witless in the other? What authority have they to impose significations upon words and phrases contrary to the first original thereof, and to the always continued custom and use of the whole Church? The Church of Christ absolutely is but one, dispersed and scattered over the whole world. Of this one Church there are notwithstanding divers parts, which all being in nature alike are by the name of the whole called by the name of 
b Act. 15. 41. Rom. 16. 16.  Churches. For distinction of these Churches they have every of them their denomination of the places where they are. The church of Antioch is called 
c Act. 13. 1.  the Church which is at Antioch: the Church of Corinth is 
d 1. Cor. 1. 2.  the Church of God which is at Corinth: the Church of Ephesus are 
e Ephes. 1. 1.  the Saints which are at Ephesus. And thus when the Apostle meant to write to the Church of Rome he writeth 
f Rom. 1. 7.  to all that be at Rome beloved of God, etc. For as the Church of Thessalonica is 
g 1. Thess. 1. 1.  the Church of the Thessaelonians, that is, of them that inhabit Thessalonica, so the Church of Rome is the Church of the Romans, that is, of them that inhabit Rome. And thus we see that in the inscriptions of the Epistles of the ancient Bishops of Rome accordingly as we have them, albeit sometimes they wrote themselves Bishops of the Catholic Church, yet do show that they meant it no otherwise then as all Bishops wrote themselves Bishops of the Catholic Church, as I have before showed, namely with limitation thereof to the City of Rome whereof they were Bishops, without ever dreaming of M. Bishops universal Roman Church. Thus we find, 
h Calixt. Epist. 1. Calixtus Archiepiscopus Ecclesiae Catholicae urbis Romae.  Calixtus Archbishop of the Catholic Church of the City of Rome; 
i Marcellin. Epist. 1. Marceilinus Episcopus Sanctae Ecclesiae Catholicae urbis Romanae.  Marcellinus Bishop of the holy Catholic Church of the City of Rome; 
k Marcell. Epist. 2. Marcellus Episcopus Sanctae & Apostolicae & Catholicae urbis Romae.  Marcellus Bishop of the holy and Apostolic and Catholic City of Rome. And so Leo onewhere writing himself, 
l Leo. Epist. 13. Leo Catholicae Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopus.  Leo Bishop of the Catholic Roman Church, doth otherwhere plainly express the meaning thereof, 
m Epist. 1 2. 3. Leo urbis Romae Epi copios. Et Epist. 12. Leo Papa Ecclesiae Catholicae urbis Romae.  Leo Bishop of the City of Rome; Leo Bishop of the Catholic Church of the City of Rome. To be short, it is not to be found that ever the Church of Rome was otherwise understood, but only for the Church of the City of Rome, and shall we hearken to these new upstart Minters, that thus coin us a Church of Rome that was never heard of before? And therefore it is nothing to us what they by abuse of speech teach their followers to say; let their French Disciples say they are of the Catholic Roman Church; we understand them thereby to take part with the Church of Rome, but the Church of Rome is that of Rome only whereto they addict themselves. Albeit by that addition, what do they but show themselves Sectaries and Schismatics, dividing themselves factiously apart from the whole? the Catholic Roman Church absurdly so named by themselves, from that which is absolutely, and therefore truly called the Catholic Church. For the Catholic Church is the whole Church as hath been said, but Roman put to it is a term of diminution, and abridgeth the whole to a part, the universal to a particular, because the whole is not Roman. Therefore to say Catholic Roman, is to say, Catholic not Catholic; and Roman Catholics are Catholics which are no Catholics, and of them it may be truly said which Optatus said of the Donatists; 
n Optat lib. 2. Vultis vos solos esse totum qui in omni toto non estis.  You would have yourselves only to be the whole who are not in all the whole. Now here we may ask them with what face they can talk of antiquity, who have brought into the Church so strange a novelty as this is. The name of Catholics and of the Catholic Church, which pleased antiquity, is not enough for them. Pacianus said of old; 
o Pacian. ad Simpron. epist. 1. Christianus mihi nomen est; Catholicus verò cognomen.  Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname; but that is changed now into Roman Catholic is my surname, disclaiming thereby the communion and fellowship of the Catholic Church, and banding themselves in a partial and factious confederacy with the Roman Church. Thus having departed from the ancient faith and discipline of the Catholic Church, they do notwithstanding for colouring of their Apostasy, retain certain names and formalities thereof, but they do it so as that by their additions and constructions they make no other but mongrels and bastards of them. And this appeareth by the reason that M. Bishop giveth of their adding Roman to Catholic, namely to separate them that join in faith with the Church of Rome from other sectaries; because Catholics were of old so called, not for joining in faith with this or that Church, but for being members of the universal Church. And if that reason were sufficient, it should have weighed of old as well as now, when there were so many Sects and Heresies in the Church, when Schismatics and Heretics usurped to themselves the name of Catholics, and yet the Catholic saw no reason to draw the whole to the name of any part, or to call themselves otherwise then by the name of Catholics, as resolving to profess no other communion or fellowship, but universally with the Church of the whole world. Neither was it otherwise till Antichrist had exalted himself in the Roman Sea, who challenging to himself and his only to be the Church of God, took upon him to set his own mark upon the Church, to call it the Catholic Roman Church, and the members thereof Roman Catholics, that none should thenceforth be called Catholics, but such as would be called Roman Catholics. And hereof M. Bishop very rightly saith, that hereby they separate those Catholics that join in faith with the Church of Rome from other sectaries; as importing them also to be Sectaries that join in faith with the Church of Rome, and that by this mark they are to be known from other Sectaries. For certain it is that the name of Roman Catholic is a name of Sect and Schism, and an open proclaiming of a rent and division of the Catholic Church of Christ. Now for conclusion of this passage he telleth us, that out of the premises may be gathered, that the Roman Church may well signify any Church, holding the same faith which the Roman doth. But what premises may we think he meaneth here? Surely if this be his conclusion, we find here nothing but conclusion; premises to prove it we find none. He hath told us before that it may be so, and here full wisely he repeateth the same again, but neither before nor here doth he say any thing whereof it should be gathered that it may be so. And though it may be so, yet it availeth him nothing as hath been said, because it is but a part of the Church that joineth in faith with the Church of Rome, and therefore the Roman Church cannot be said to be the whole Catholic Church; so that my proposition still standeth good, the Church of Rome is a particular Church, and Master Bishop though he be a Doctor that sometimes understandeth what he speaketh, yet is not so great a Doctor in this point as that he can give us any reason why he ought otherwise to understand.    

W. BISHOP. §. 4.  
NOw to this his second sophistication, The Roman Church (by our rule) is the head, and all other Churches are members to it; but the 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 mish●pen 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: wherefore 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, 
Fellacia accidentis.  that we say not the Church of Rome, but the Bishop of Rome to be the head of the Church, it is a soul 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, Vicit Leo de tribu juda: now if therehence 
Apocal. 5. v. 5.  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, Head, 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 & 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 for me; and that so palpably, that if young Logicians should stand upon such in the paruies, they would be hissed o●t 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
HEre it may well be doubted whether M. Bishop were such a Doctor as to understand himself, because it should not seem likely, if he had so done that he would have given such a brainless and stupid answer. The first part thereof serveth to show that when he hath played the wiseman once, he cannot be quiet until he have done the like again. Of the shape of the argument I need say no more than hath been said of the former being of the same kind, and let him propound as he should, that by the like it may be proved that the Church of England is not the Catholic Church, and we acknowledge so much▪ and do take his argument as he hath set it down, The Church of England is only a member of the Catholic church▪ but the Catholic church comprehendeth all; wher●●●re to s●y, the English Church is the Catholic Church, is to say, a member is the whole body. We confess it to be true, and therefore we are not so absurd as to say that the Church of England is the Catholic Church; we affirm it to be only a member and part thereof; and may we not then think that this man hath made a doughty fray? But, beside the counterfeit fashion of the argument, there is, saith he, a great fallacy in it. And how? Marry, first we say not, saith he, that the Church of Rome; but the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church. True it is, M. Bishop, that when ye compare together the Church and the Bishop of Rome, ye say that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church; but is it not true also that when ye compare Church with Church, ye say the Church of Rome is the head of all Churches? Your Master 
a Bellarm. d● Rom. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 13. c● Synod. Nicen. 2. Act. 2. Capu● om●●ium Eccles● arum De●.  Bellarmine hath cited this title as a matter of great moment out of the second Nicene Council, approving the Epistle of Adrian where it is so called; 
b Ibid. cap. 14.  out of S●ricius, Innocentius, john the second, Pelagius the second, Gregory the Great, Bishops of Rome, out of 
c Ibid. cap 16.  Prosper and Victor Vticensis, and do you come now with your slecu●les●c tale and tell us that you say not so? The truth is that you know not what to say, because you see it sorteth absurdly whatsoever you say. Well, let us omit this because M. Bishop is willing so; the upshot of his answer is, that it is a fiule fault in arguing when one thing is said to be another by a metaphor, to attribute all the properties of the metaphor to the other thing. And this he handleth very gravely by example of Christ's being called a Lion, whence notwithstanding he saith, it is not to be argued that he hath four legs, and therefore that M. Abbot must be an unreasonable creature who shifteth from that propriety of the metaphor, Head, which was to purpose unto others that are clean besides the purpose. Now here a simple man, who commonly admireth that most which he understandeth least, imagineth that M. Bishop hath showed himself a learned man, and hath told a worthy tale, when as that which he hath said is as much to the matter as if he had told us in great sadness, that a bird bolt hath no brains. Undoubtedly he dreamt very strongly that I had said that the Church of Rome because it is the head, must have a nose in the middle of the face, or because it is old, must have wrinkles in the brows, or must have long ears, because it is become an Ass' head. If not, who can take him for any other but a foure-legged creature, that thus impertinently cometh in with a tale of four legs? What property of a head do I speak of that he should say, that I shift from that propriety which was to the purpose, to others that are beside the purpose? My words are these; To speak by their rule, the Roman Church is the head, and all other Churches are members unto it. I name no property of a head at all; let it be what it will or what they will have it; it shall be all one to me; for in whatsoever respect they will make the Church of Rome the head of all Churches, in the same respect they must make all other Churches the members and body to this head. Let it be that property of a head which he mentioneth, and which I intended as meant by them, that all other Churches are to be directed and governed by the authority of the Church of Rome, as the members of the body by the head; accordingly my argument shall proceed, that the Church of Rome by their learning is the head of all other Churches, and all other Churches are as the members and body to this head; but the Catholic Church comprehendeth all, even the whole both head and body. To say then that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church, is all one as if a man should say that the head is the whole body. Who can speak hereof more clearly than I have done, and who can answer more absurdly than he hath done? And albeit he have thus egregiously played the fool, and hath bewrayed plainly that he was here put to his trumps and knew not what to say, yet to flourish and face the matter, he admirably vaunteth and insulteth upon my insufficiency in arguing, and telleth me of being hissed o●t of the Schools, and making myself a mocking-stocke, and that my writings are more meet to stop mustard-pots, then likely to stop any mean scholars mouth. You say well, M. Bishop; You shall do well to stop your mustard-pot with some part thereof that your mustard may be kept quick and strong to clear your head; for if it be always as dull as you have showed it here, it may very well be said that such a head hath but a little wit. As for your mouth it may be it will not be stopped, because you are sick of Piso's disease, 
b Hieron. ad Ocean. Pisoniano's vilio cum l●qui nesciret, tac●re non potuit.  Who though he knew not what to say, yet could not hold his peace. A man may well think that your mouth is not easily stopped, who rather than you would say nothing, would tell such a wise tale as you have here done.     

CHAP. II. The comparison betwixt the Donatists and the Papists is justified and enlarged.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
IT is therefore a mere Usurpation whereby the Papists call the Roman Church the Catholic, etc. to, There was reason why Austin should, etc.  

W. BISHOP'S REPROOF. Pag. 95. §. 1.  
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 
Epistola. 48.  to be purged from their sins, as S. Augustine testifieth in express terms, in the very place by M. Abbot alleged. False also in the principal point, that the Donatists held the Catholic Church to be at Carten●●: for there dwelled only the Rogatists, who were (as Saint Augustine there speaketh,) Bre●●ssimum frustum, d● frusto 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
IN this comparison betwixt the Donatists and the Papists, I must confess that I committed some little oversight by understanding that generally of the Donatists which belonged only to a part of them, and thereby affirming that wholly of Cartenna in Mauritania, which is to be referred to that which properly and particularly is called Africa. I observed the error myself long since, and meant in another edition, if any should be, to correct it; and in the mean time to have noted it in the Preface of my third part. But now since it falleth out to be first noted by M. Bishop, I will take it here in his due place, making it to appear that this mistaking in a circumstance altereth nothing of the substance of that comparison which I had there in hand. The first branch then of the comparison shall be this; The Donatists did set up a particular Church to be the Catholic Church; all of them first in the south of Africa, some of them afterwards, namely, the Rogatists, at Cartenna in Mauritania, and so have the Papists done at Rome in Italy. Against this branch as it was before set down, he giveth two exceptions. First, that they do not hold it so to be at Rome a● the Rogatists did at Cartenna. And what is the difference? Marry, they hold it to be so at Rome, as that it is dispersed also all the world over, but the Rogatists held it to be wholly included in the bounds of Cartenna and confines thereof. The first part of which answer on their own behalf is false, and the second part thereof concerning the Rogatists is vain. For it is false that he saith that their Romish Church is dispersed all the world over, and he knoweth well that the Churches of Greece and all the Eastern Churches are holden by them to be Schismatics, because they disclaim subjection to the Church of Rome. True it is, they would have it all the world over, and they make simple fools believe that it is so, but they themselves know that the skirts of it are too short to reach so far, and that a huge part of the Church there is that will have nothing to do with them. And this drew from Bellarmine that caution that I before mentioned in the first Chapter, that 
a Supra. cap. 1. §. 1.  though one only Province did embrace the true faith, yet the same should truly and properly be called the Catholic Church, so long as it could be plainly showed that it is one and the same with that which at any time or times was over the whole world. Now hereof it followeth that the other part of his exception concerning the Rogatists is vain. For although the communion of the Church of Rome be far larger than that was of the Rogatists at Cartenna, yet doth neither of them contain any more but a part, and their doctrine as touching their communion sorteth all to one. For whereas M. Bishop saith that the Rogatists included the Church within the bounds of Cartenna and the Country thereabout, it was not by position of doctrine that they so included it as if it could not be any where else; but because they pretended that the Church was only in their communion, and there were none in any other part of the world that took part with them, it followeth of this defect that they so included it. But though there were now not above 
b Aug. Epist. 48. Tu cum decem Rogatistis qu● remansistis, etc.  ten or eleven Bishops of them remaining, as Saint Austin objecteth to them, yet by that he upbraideth them with this number remaining, it appeareth that they had been of greater number and extent, and we cannot doubt but that they would as willingly have had the whole world to join with them as the Church of Rome would. Now inasmuch as they held themselves only to be the Catholic Church; And there were none of them otherwhere to be▪ found to baptize and reconcile pe●itents, but only within the confines of Cartenna, Saint Austin rightly objecteth it as an absurdity ensuing thereof, that 
c Ibid. Quisquis f●●rit hac praedicatione commotus in qualib●t pa●te orbis ter●arum, nisi quaesierit & invenerit latent●m in Mauritania Caesariensi Cartennensem Vincentium aut aliquem ex cius nou●m aut decem con●ortibus, dimitti ei peccata non pos●int, etc. Nisi Cartennas venerit aut in vi●●iam Cartennensium, mundari omnin●● delictis suis non pot●rit.  than whosoever there were in any part of the world, that were moved with the preaching of the Gospel, unless he did seek and find out Vincentius Bishop of Cartenna lurking in Mauritania Caesariensis, or some one of his nine or ten consorts, he could not have remission of sins; or as otherwise he expresseth it; except he came to Cartenna or into the Country near adjoining, he could not be cleansed from his sins. Now although the Roman Church, as M. Bishop understandeth it, is of much larger extent, and stretcheth itself into sundry Countries and Nations, yet being but of small compass in comparison of the whole world, the exprobration of the same mad fancy lieth upon it, that whosoever in the further parts of the world shall be moved with▪ the preaching of the Gospel and converted thereby, unless he come to Rome or into some part of the world where he may meet with a Popish Priest, he cannot be baptized or reconciled to God, he cannot obtain the remission of his sins, it being by them resolved of themselves, as by the Rogatists of themselves that out of their particular communion there is no salvation. Therefore, both Rogatists and Papists let them go together, and the truth is that in this behalf there is no difference betwixt them. As touching his second exception, although it be not generally true of the Donatists that they placed the Catholic Church at Cartenna, yet it is not altogether untrue, because the Rogatists were Donatists; 
d August. ut supra. Vos qui non solum cum illis communiter Donatistae a Donato, verumetiam propriè Rogatis●● a Rogat● app●ll●nu●▪  being in common with the rest called Donatists of Donatus, as Sa●nt Austin noteth, and by a more proper name Rogatists of Rogatus. For although they had in some spleen and upon some pe●uish quarrel divided themselves from the rest, yet the substance of their doctrine was still the same as before, as appeareth by St. Austin, who disputing against Vincentius the Rogatist, chargeth him in effect with nothing else but the common positions of the Donatists, and therefore they were all at once commonly comprehended under the name of Donatists. The Donatists then, though not all the Donatists but of them the Rogatists only, placed the Catholic church at Cartenna; and to the Rogatists, then being a part of the Donatists, the Papists are like, who do in the same sort place the Catholic Church at Rome. Yea, and although the Donatists in general did not seat the Church at Cartenna, yet M. Bishop is not ignorant that they in general before some quarreling fell amongst them, did in effect the same thing by designing the place thereof in Africa properly so called, so as that none should be called Catholics in any part of the world, but such as did communicate with that African Church of theirs. For although they acknowledged that the Church by the preaching of the Apostles had been dispersed over the world according to the manifold testimonies and prophecies of holy Scripture in that behalf, which they professed to believe, ●et they said that 
c Aug. de unit. Ecclesiae, c. 12. Ista, inquiunt, credimus & copleta esse cofitemur, sed postea o●bis terrarum apostatavit & sola rema●sit Donati communio. 〈…〉 postea cap. 15 Postea c●ter●s de●icientibus solam Christo As●icam remansisse.  the Church afterward fell away by Apostasy, and there remained only the communion of Donatus; that the rest failing, there remained to Christ Africa only. Whereupon it was urged upon them as consequent of this opinion, that either 
f Ibid cap. 16. Ostendat Ecclesiam vel in sola Africa perditis tot gentibus retinendam, vel ex Africa in omnibus gentibus reparadam atque adimpl●dam. ●t ibid. Declaretur Africa vel in reliquis sola derel●cta, vel ad priacip 〈…〉 ●●nouandi atque implendi orbis sol●●●ruata.  the Church was to be retained thenceforth in Africa only, or else that from thence as the beginning the Churches of the whole world were to be repaired and restored again. The former they disavowed, because they had their partakers, till there fell out distraction amongst them, not only in Africa but also in 
g Ibid. cap. 3. & Epist. 48.  Mauritania Caesariensis, in Tripoli, Byzacium, amongst the Auzuges, in 
h Idem cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 108.  Spain, yea and at Rome also as followeth to be said hereafter. Yea by the words of the Catholic Bishops to Marcellinus the Lieutenant, 
i Collat. cum Donatist 1. c. 16. Neque enim desperare debemus multò digniùs & sacilius ●os velle ut par● Donati universo ●rbi Christiano reconcilietur, quàm universus orbis Christianu● à part Donati rebaptizetur.  hoping that the Donatists would think it more meet and more easy that their part should be reconciled to the whole world, then that the whole world should be rebaptized by them, it appeareth plainly that their opinion did not exclude the having of their communion throughout the whole world. It remained therefore that Africa was to be as it were the head and foundation of their Catholic Church, and from thence the Church through the world was to be renewed and restored again by holding communion and fellowship with that Church. Even in the same sort standeth the matter with the Papists, who tell us that the Church in all the far parts of the world hath failed; that 
k Rhem. Testam. Annotat. 2. Thess. 2. 3.  the patriarchal and Apostolic Seas are all either extinguished, or by Schism and Heresy fallen away, and only the Roman Church hath remained, wherein only is the communion of the Catholic faith, and whence the Church through the whole world is to be re-edified and reduced to the obedience of the Pope. And to that purpose they tell us of strange wonders that they have done, and make as if they had converted whole worlds of nations to their Roman faith, when as indeed they do but mock the world with lies and tales, talking liberally of Countries whither they know it unlikely for us to come to search out whether they speak truth or not; and the nations which they pretend to have converted being either colonies of their own people transported thither, or some Insidels forced to accept baptism without religion, or such as by wiles they have surprised to make profit of by traffic and merchandise, as in japonia the jesuits most lewdly and treacherously have done. Thus then M. Bishop avoiding to be like the Donatists by putting the matter spoken of over to the Rogatists, is in this point become like both to Rogatists and Donatists, by tying the seat of the Catholic Church to one only particular place.    

W. BISHOP. §. 2.  
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, that it was for the fullness of Sacraments, Ex plenitudine Sacramentorum, 
Brevi collat. cap. 2. dici 3. Epist. 48.  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 and 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 wisemen as M. Abbot is) do think any thing to be Catholic, because it is perfect.  

R. ABBOT.  
THe second branch of this comparison betwixt the Papists and the Donatists, I set down thus; 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, and the same perfection the Church of Rome now arrogateth to itself, and will therefore be called the Catholic Church. M. Bishop saith that there are many faults here, yet he reckoneth but only two; belike he would have me think that he doth me a favour to let pass the rest. As touching the first, he very grossly telleth me that in the chief branch there is a gross lie; for the Donatists, saith he, did not call the Church Catholic for perfection of doctrine and Sacraments. For what then? Marry, for the fullness of Sacraments and for the observation of all God's Commandments. Well; it is true indeed that Saint Austin challengeth Vincentius 
a Aug Epist. 48. Acutum aliquid videris dicere cum Catholic●e nomen non ex totius orbis communione interpretaris, sed ex observatione omnium praeceptorum divinorum & omnium Sacramentorum.  for interpreting the word Catholic, not of the communion of the whole world, but f●r the observation of all God's Commandments and all the Sacraments; and in the other place bringeth them in, saying, that 
b Brevic. collar. cum Donatist. di● 3. cap. 2. Donatist●e responderunt non Catholicum nomen ex universitate gentium, sed ex p●enitudine Sacramentoru●● institutum.  the word was instituted not to import universality of nations, but fullness of Sacraments, but did I amiss for a brief hereof to name perfection of doctrine and Sacraments? Is not fullness of Sacraments the same with perfection of Sacraments? and when they professed the observation of all God's Commandments, did they not thereby pretend an observation both to teach and practise all that God had commanded, and is there not perfection of doctrine in teaching all? Or if M. Bishop be foolishly wilful, and will say still that he seethe not perfection of doctrine in those words, yet he might have seen it in the very next words to those that I alleged, where St. Austin expresseth the Donatists' conceit in other terms thus, that 
c Idem Epist. 48. Si sort hinc sit appellata Catholica quod totum veraciter teneat.  the Church is called Catholic, for that it holdeth all wholly (what but the whole Christian faith?) according to truth; for what is perfection of doctrine, but the holding of all according to truth? And whereas he saith that St. Austin observeth the Donatists to be more sharp-witted, then to go about to prove universality by perfection (a very ridiculous jest, because Austin only in mockery telleth Vincentius that he seemed to himself in so expounding the world Catholic as before, to speak very acutely and wittily, meaning that he did nothing less,) let Gaudentius himself, a Donatist and a chief man amongst them, tell him that by Catholic they did mean perfect; 
d Coliat. 3. ●um Donatist. cap. 102. Hoc est Catholicum nomen quod Sacramentis pl●num est, quod perfectum, quod immaculatum.  The word Catholic importeth that which is full in Sacraments, which is perfect, which is unspotted. Now then as I have in this point belied the Donatists; even so and no otherwise in the application do I belie the Roman Church. M. Bishop saith, that I should have belied them if I had s●id as due proportion required, that they hold their Church to be Catholic as the Donatists did theirs for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments. But was he blind, and did he not see that I said so much? Are not my words very express and clear, The same perfection (of doctrine and Sacraments) the Church of Rome now arrogateth to itself, and will therefore be called the Catholic Church? And what? do I therein belie the Roman Church? Ask his own fellow Bristol the great Motive-master, who saith to Doctor Fulke, 
e Reply to Fulke, Chap. 10. Dem. 6.  We tell you with the words of St. Austin, that the Church our Mother is called Catholic of this, because she is universally perfect and halteth in nothing (though the Donatists and other like Heretics do never so much triumph in that interpretation) and is spread over all the world. Both interpretations agree to our Mother, saith he, and we claim them accordingly. And it is true indeed that St. Austin in a work which he wrote in his younger time, and which he himself for the imperfection thereof 
f August. Retract. l. 1. c. 18. Qu●m neque ●d deram, & abolere decreveram.  had purposed wholly to suppress, doth give that double interpretation of the word Catholic, that the Church is so called, 
g Idem de Gen. ad lit. imperf. cap. 1. Quae Catholica di●itur ex eo quòd universalitèr perfecta est & in nullo ●laudicat, & per totum orbem dissusa est.  not only f●r that it is spread over all the world, but also for that it is universally perfect and halteth in nothing; but in his further experience and judgement, having special occasion to discuss and examine that point, he leaveth that interpretation wholly to the Donatists, and never vouchsafeth once to make mention of it. In the mean time notwithstanding seeing Bristol a Catholic writer of their creation hath so affirmatively told us, and claimed it to the Church of Rome to be Catholic in that sense, let it be considered with what discretion M. Bishop saith, that so to say of them is manifestly untrue, and clearly against the doctrine of all Catholic writers. And whereas he concludeth that perfection of doctrine and Sacraments, though it be only found in the Catholic Church, yet 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, to say nothing that St. Austin when he g●ue that construction was undoubtedly as wise as M. Bishop, let the same wise M. Bishop tell us what he thinketh of Cyril of Jerusalem, who amongst divers reasons of the name of the Catholic Church giveth one, that it is so called, 
h Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 18. Quia docet Catholicè, hoc est, vniuersal●tèr & sine ullo defect● vel differentia omnia dogmata quae deberent ve●re in cognitionem.  because it teacheth catholicly, that is, universally and without any defect or difference, all doctrines that are to be known. Yea let him tell us what he thinketh of Pacianus, whom he named before as his Author for 
i Pacian. ad Symph●●ian. Catholicus ut docti●es p●tant obedientia omnium nuncupatur; ●●ndatorum scilicet Dei▪  Catholic, to be the surname to Christian, who noteth it for the opinion of the learned that Catholic signifieth obedience to all the Commandments of God. Which I say not, as to approve that which either Austin, or Cyril, or Pac●anus have said in that behalf, but that it may appear what wise men M. Bishop maketh of the Fathers, yea and of his own fellows when he list, not ●lieking to cross both the one and the other, so that he can thereby shift for the present to save himself. But Bristol is our witness, as we have seen, that the Church of Rome doth call itself Catholic, as the Donatists did for the perfection of doctrine and Sacraments, and M. Bishop hath showed himself scantly wise in the denial of it, because it being manifest to all that are not blind, that it is a mere foppery and cogging device of theirs, to say that the Roman Church is spread over the whole world; either he must prove the same to be Catholic by perfection of doctrine, or else it must wholly leave the name of the Catholic Church.    

W. BISHOP. §. 3.  
THe third particle of the resemblance is, That from Cartenna 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: Quò ex Africa ordinare paucis 
Lib. 2. cont. C●●scon. c. 37.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
Put Africa here in steed of Cartenna, and M. Bishop hath no shift to avoid this point of resemblance betwixt the Romanists and Donatists. The Donatists designed the fundamental place of the Catholic Church in Africa, as the Papists do at Rome. The Donatists laboured the extent of their communion into all other Countries, as also the Papists do. 
a Optat. lib. 2. Sed & habere vos in urbe Roma partem aliquam dicitis.  In the City of Rome itself, as Optatus witnesseth, the Donatists bragged that they had a part that joined with them. They had there a Bishop of their own to assemble and govern that part of theirs, insomuch that Optatus in the same place reckoneth six Bishops of that faction, Victor, Bonifacius, Encolpius, Macrobius, Lucianus, Claudianus, who had there succeeded one another. Of the manner of the appointing of these Bishops St. Austin saith in the place by me cited to M. Bishop: 
b Aug. count Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 37. Romanorum Ecclesia, quò ex Africa paucis vestris ordinare soletis Episcopum.  To Rome for those few followers that you have there, you are wont to order and direct a Bishop out of Africa. Out of Africa, saith M. Bishop, not out of Cartenna in Mauritania. True it is if Africa be in special understood, but I, not weighing the matter so strictly, understood Africa more largely as the third part of the world, and in that signification Mauritania, and therefore Cartenna in Mauritania is a part of Africa. Well, let Cartenna be put out, and take Africa, as indeed it was meant, for 
c Theo▪ l●ret. haeret. fabul. l. 4. de Donatist. Regio quae olim Lybia, nunc autem Africa appellatur.  that Country which of old was called Lybia, and in which meaning St. Austin noteth that Mauritania Caesariensis, where Cartenna was, 
d Aug. Epist. 48. Mauritania Caesariensis quando nec Africam se vult dici, etc.  refused to be called by the name of Africa; from this Africa the Donatists ordered and established Bishops over that part which they had at Rome; and so, said I, from Rome by the Papists order must Bishops now be authorized to all other Churches. Now M. Bishop, seeing that Africa being thus put in steed of Cartenna, the resemblance would somewhat touch their Church of Rome, bringeth a very poor and silly shift for the averting of it. The Catholic Church, saith he, he meaneth the Roman Church, doth not appoint that every Bishop should go to Rome to take holy Orders, and from thence to be sent to other Catholic Countries. No more, say I, did the Catholic Church of the Donatists bind men to come into Africa to be ordered Bishops there, but it was enough if by Bishops of their communion he were ordered otherwhere. For whether it were by sending some to order Bishops where none were, or by sending Bishops already ordered, it may either way stand, which St. Austin noteth as a matter of their conceit, that 
e August. de unit. Eccles. c. 13. Ostendant esse praedictum solam Africam remansuram & quocunque Episcopi ex Africa ●●tierer tur.  out of Africa Bishops should be sent into all places. And thus the same St. Austin although in the place alleged, he mention no more but the ordering of a Bishop to be sent to Rome out of Africa, yet in another place declareth it to have been indifferent with them, either 
f August. ad Quodvult h●rel. 69. In urbe Roma Mont●nses vocantur qu bus 〈◊〉 ex Africa sol●nt Episco●um mittere, aut ●inc illuc Afri Epicopi corum pergere si fortè ibi cum ordinare placuisset.  to send a Bishop to Rome out of Africa, or that the African Bishops should go to Rome if they thought good to order a Bishop there, namely because there were no other Bishops there of their communion, by whom otherwise he might be ordered. Whereas therefore M. Bishop saith, that Bishops may lawfully be consecrated in any region where be three Catholic Bishops, he saith no more for their Popish Bishops, than the Donatists acknowledged of theirs, and therefore in this point of the resemblance, there is no difference at all betwixt the Donatists and the Papists. Albeit by reason of that which M. Bishop confesseth, that all Bishops must be consumed by the Bishop of Rome, it may be truly said that Bishops are made at Rome only, because they are not taken to be fully and absolutely Bishops till they be confirmed there. Which confirmation is not for unity and order, as M. Bishop pretendeth, but for extortion and covetousness, the Pope being wont to make infinite advantage and profit to himself thereby; neither is it given by the supreme head under Christ, as he styleth the Pope, but by a Nimrod and proud usurper over the Church of Christ.    

W. BISHOP. §. 4.  
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.  

R. ABBOT.  
I Said, the Donatists; I should have said, the Rogatists (who were but one part of the Donatisls, as I have before observed) the Rogatists, I say, would be taken to be Catholics for keeping communion with the Church of Cartenna, and even so will the Papists be accounted Catholics for keeping communion with the Church of Rome. For the Rogatists expounding the word Catholic of integrity and perfection of faith, as before we have seen, and affirming 
a Aug. Epist. 48. Persuadere conaris solos remansisse Rogatistas qui Catholici rectè appellandi saint, etc. Et vos esse solos in quibus fidem inu●niat filius hominis cum venerat,  themselves only to be Catholics, and that with them only Christ at his coming should find faith, left it as consequent that none could be called Catholics, but by communicating and joining with them. Now they did but apply to their Schism at Cartenna those things which the Donatists in common held concerning their Church in Africa, who said of themselves that 
b Collat. Carthag. 3. cap. 22. Apud nos est vera Catholica.  with them only was the true Catholic Church; 
c August. de unit. eccles. c. 13. Velut pro se commemorant quod ait Dominus, Filius hominis veniens putas inveniet fidem in terra?  that with them only Christ should find faith, whence it should remain that in their communion only men were to bear the name of Catholics. Now whether we look to the Rogatists for Cartenna, or to the Donatists for Africa, the Papists are like them both, who plead the same for their Roman Church that they did for the other two, that men are Catholics for keeping unity of faith and agreement therewith. But M. Bishop telleth us that they do not call 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. Where we see how true it is which Optatus saith; that 
d Optat. lib. 2. Memoriam custodem oportet habere mendacem.  a liar needeth to have a good holding memory; for he himself a little before speaking of that particular Roman Church, to which he attributeth the privileges of stability in faith and superiority in government above all other Churches, hath told us that St. Hierome 
e Part. 1. § 2.  affirmeth men to become Catholics by holding the Roman faith; and that Tertullian, Epiphanius, Optatus, and Austin do prove their Churches to be Catholic, and themselves to be Catholics, by declaring that they do communicate with the Church of Rome, and did condemn their adversaries to be Schismatics and Heretics, because they did not communicate with that Church. If it be true which he hath told us thus before, that men become Catholics by communicating with that particular Roman Church, why doth he here tell us the contrary, that they do not call men Catholics for that cause? The reason is, because he speaketh no otherwise then as Optatus objecteth to Parmenian the Donatist, 
f Optat. lib. 1. Omnis pro tempore, nihil pro veritate.  All for the time and present shift, and nothing for the truth. Well, let us hear what it is for which men with them are called Catholics. Because that communicating with that Church, the particular Roman Church, in faith and religion, they do communicate with all other of the same faith, which are spread all the world over. So then men are not 
g Aug. Brevic. Collat. cum Donat l. 3. c. 2. Quia communicant Ecclesiae toto orb di 〈…〉 Cathol●ci meritò & sunt & vocantur.  Catholics now as of old, because they communicate with the Church dispersed over the whole world, but because in the communion of the Church of Rome they communicate with the Church of the whole world. But what if the Church of the whole world do not hold communion with the Church of Rome, as when the East and West Churches have been divided, and when Arianisme had overflowed in a manner the whole world; whence was the name of Catholics to be taken then? Yea to speak of later times before the Portugals and Spaniards had gotten the Indies, or discovered the new world, and before Ignatius Lo●ola had hatched his cockatrices brood, which braggeth of so great conversions there attained unto, when neither the Greek Churches in Europe received the Roman faith, and out of Europe scant any Church at all, how could it then be said that men were called Catholics, for that in communicating with the Church of Rome they communicated with the Church spread over all the world? And sith they say that all other Churches may err, and only the Church of Rome hath the privilege of perpetual truth; put case that all other Churches do err, how shall the name of Catholics be continued, but only for holding correspondence with the particular Church of Rome? Yea how is it that he seethe not that he merely circumventeth and overthroweth himself? For if a man be a Catholic for communicating with the Church of the whole world, and it be by communicating with the particular Church of Rome that he communicate with the Church of the whole world, than it is by communicating with the particular Church of Rome, that the name of a Catholic doth belong unto him. To be short, M. Bishops former acknowledgement justifieth the resemblance as I have set it down, and yet the Donatists if they could have had their way would never have doubted to say of their Church as M. Bishop doth here of his, that men should be called Catholics, not for communicating with their African Church, as it was contained only within the bounds of Africa, but for that in communicating with that Church, they communicated with all other of the same faith spread wheresoever in the world. Neither could the one nor can the other assume to themselves, that they were or are spread over the whole world, and therefore neither could the one nor can the other take upon them to be Catholics, but only each for communion with their own Church.    

W. BISHOP. §. 5.  
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 Noah 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, join myself to 
Epistola 7. tit. 2.  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 No shall perish, etc. where there is much more to this purpose.  

R. ABBOT.  
THe Rogatists as touching their Church of Cartenna, and the Donatists as touching their Church of Africa, were of mind that howsoever a man believed he could not be saved, unless he did communicate with their Church. This M. Bishop acknowledgeth to be true, and if this be true, what hindereth but that the resemblance standeth good, The Papists likewise hold that there is no salvation but in communicating with the Church of Rome. Forsooth we must understand that the Rogatists and Donatists spoke falsely concerning their Church; but most sure it is, saith he, that there is no salvation out of the true Church of Christ. It is sure indeed, and will not both Rogatists and Donatists, and all manner Heretics say the some as well as he? They all confess that out of the true Church of Christ there is no salvation, and therefore do every sort of them take upon them to be the true Church of Christ, that so they may persuade men that there is no salvation but with them. But M. Bishop inferreth; Wherefore whosoever doth not communicate with the Church of Rome, which is the chief member thereof, is out of the state of grace and salvation. And would not a Donatist as well infer, Wherefore whosoever doth not communicate with the Church of Africa, which is the chief member thereof, is out of the state of grace and salvation. Indeed he should have said somewhat to the purpose if he had made it good, that out of the communion of the Church of Rome, there is no communion of the Church of Christ; but if he cannot make this good, then full simply doth he conclude, There is no salvation out of the true Church of Christ, therefore there is no salvation out of the Church of Rome. But he telleth us that the Church of Rome is the chief member of Christ's Church. Be it so, and so was the Church of jerusalem the chief member of the Church of the jews, and yet the Church of jerusalem put to death the Prophets and Christ himself, and in that communion there could be no salvation. Is not a chief member of the same substance as is the rest of the body? and what hindereth then but as the other members, so the chief member may be wounded and corrupted, and cause annoyance to other members that adjoin unto it? Albeit we desire him to prove to us that the Church of Rome is the chief member of the Church of Christ. I regard not what human estimation hath attributed unto it for the renown and eminency of the place, but I require some divine institution whereby it hath been founded the chief member of the Church. We say that with God there is no more respect of the Church of Rome then of any other Church; if they will have us to believe more, we put them to that for their Roman Church which St. Austin required of the Donatists, for proof of that which they said for their African Church; 
a August. de unit. Eccles. c. 6 Legite nobis hoc de Lege, de Prophetis, de Psalmis, de evangelio▪ de Apostolicis literis; legite & credimus.  Read us this out of the law, out of the Prophets, out of the Psalms, out of the Gospel or Writings of the Apostles; read it to us, and we believe it, namely that Christ abideth no where heir upon the earth, but where he can have the Pope to be 
b Ibid. Quare superordinatis dicendo in nullis terris haeredem permanere Christum ubi non p●tuerit coh●redem habere Donatli?  his fellow heir, as the Donatists said of their Pope Donatus; or that the Roman Church is such a chief member of the Church, as that no man can live but by the breath that he draweth from thence, or obtain forgiveness of sins but in the society and fellowship thereof. I know I trouble M. Bishop now; he loveth not to be called upon for Scripture for the proof of this matter; for he knoweth well that the Scripture hath nothing at all to give testimony thereof. Well though he bring nothing out of Scripture, yet he hath that out of Hierome that will serve his turn: 
c Hieron. ad Damas'. Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedr● Petri communione consocior super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio; quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comedcrit, prophanus est: siquis in Arca Noah non fuerit, peribit regnant dilu●i●.  I following no chief but Christ, saith he to Damasus Bishop of Rome, join myself to your blessedness, that is, to the communion of Peter's chair; upon that Rock I know the Church to be built; whosoever eateth the Paschall Lamb out of this house, he is profane; whosoever is not in the Ark of Noah, shall perish by the flood. By these words M. Bishop would bear us in hand that Hierome believed a perpetual necessity of having communion of faith with the Bishop and Church of Rome. But tell us, M. Bishop, in good sooth do you think that Hierome not long before would have said the same to Liberius, that here he saith to Damasus? He saith of Liberius, that 
d Idem in Catalogue. Liberium Romanae urbis Episcopum pro fide ad exilium pergentem primus solicitavit & fregit & ad subscriptionem haereseos compulit.  by the persuasion of Fortunatianus he was overcome and brought to subscribe the heresy of Arius, and would he then have joined in communion with him? If he would in this case have disclaimed Liberius, then certainly he could not mean to Damasus that it standeth for a perpetual rule in the Church, that who so will be saved must join in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But Hierome dealt advisedly by expounding himself in his first words though M. Bishop list not to take knowledge of it. He professeth to give primacy to none but to Christ himself; to make none the Author or Lord of his faith but only Christ. Notwithstanding in communion and fellowship of faith he professeth to join with Damasus. But how far or in what sort? I join in communion with your blessedness, that is, with Peter's chair. Not simply then with Damasus Bishop of Rome, but with Damasus sitting in Peter's chair. Now as 
e Mat. 23. 2.  the sitting in Moses chair, importeth the teaching of the doctrine of Moses, so the sitting in Peter's chair, importeth the teaching of the doctrine of Peter. Damasus at that time did so, and maintained against the Arians the confession of Peter, 
f Mat. 16. 16.  Thou art Christ the son of the living God. This Hierome well knew, and therefore what he would not have yielded to Liberius though Bishop of Rome because he sat not in Peter's chair, that he yieldeth to Damasus because he did so; and desireth by him to be instructed, whether the use of the word hypostasis might stand with the truth of the confession of Peter. It is therefore communion with Peter's chair which Hierome commendeth, that is, with the faith and doctrine which therein Peter taught, but he doth not tell us that the Bishop of Rome doth always and infallibly sit in Peter's chair. For of Peter's chair at Rome we deem the same as of Peter's chair at Antioch, and Alexandria, both which Gregory Bishop of Rome maketh 
g Gregor. lib. 6. Epist. 37. Sedes Apostolorum Principis in tribus locis unius est, unius atque una est sedes, cui tres nunc Episcopi president. Idem lib. 4. Epist. 37. Apostolicam sede regis. Idem. lib. 6. ut supra. Petri Cathedram tenet.  one with Peter's chair at Rome, and saith of the Patriarches there to the one, that he governed the Sea Apostolic, and to the other that he possessed Peter's chair. But Hierome in the place alleged disclaimeth Paulinus the Patriarch of Antioch, that he might join himself to Peter's chair, signifying that Paulinus though succeeding Peter at Antioch, yet sat not in Peter's chair, because he taught not the faith of Peter. Now if to be Bishop of Rome where is the place of Peter's chair, be infallibly to sit in Peter's chair, then to be Bishop of Antioch should be so also, because there also is the place of Peter's chair. Which appearing by Hierome to be untrue, it followeth that to be Bishop of Rome likewise is not necessarily to sit in Peter's chair; because a man may be Bishop as of Antioch, so of Rome, and not teach the same as Peter did. Of Peter's faith and confession than it is that he saith; Upon that Rock I know the Church to be built. Erasmus very well noteth thereat, 
h Erasm. in Scholar Epist. ad Damas'. Non super Romam, ut arbitror; nam fieri potest ut Roma quoque degeneret, sed super came fidem quam Petrus professus est.  Not upon Rome, as I suppose; for it may be that Rome also may degenerate, but upon that faith which Peter professed, even as Gregory himself Bishop of Rome expoundeth, 
i Greg. lib. 3. Epist. 33. In petra Ecclesiae, hoc est, in consessione beati Petri.  The Rock of the Church to be the confession of St. Peter. The communion of this faith is the house wherein Christ our Paschall Lamb must be eaten; the Ark of Not wherein who so is not, shall be drowned. If the Bishop of Rome shall thus sit in the seat of Peter, we are ready to accord with him, and so far as he doth so, we still hold communion with him; but that he shall always sit there, we have no warrant; and we are sure that now he doth not sit where Peter sat. Now sith M. Bishop can give us no warrant that the Pope and Church of Rome shall always continue in the faith of Peter, his conclusion is but a fond and vain presumption, that out of the communion of the Church of Rome there is no salvation, and no otherwise challenged to the Church of Rome then by the Donatists to their Church. Now albeit I see that I much offend M. Bishop in making this comparison betwixt the Papists and the Donatists, yet that it may more fully appear that there was some cause why I did so, I will to those resemblances that I have already set down add some few more, whereby it may be discerned how directly they walk in the same steps. And first of Donatus the Pope of the Donatists, Open tatus recordeth that 
k Optat. lib. 3. ●ùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus D● qui fecit Imperatorem, dum se D●natus super Imperatorem extollit, iam quasi b●minum excesserat metas ut se ut Deum, non ut hominem ●stimaret, etc. Quamuis non sit usus hac voce (Ego sum Deus) tamen aut fecit aut pas● si● est quod defectum huitu vocis impleret, etc. tantum sibi ipsu● exegit ut eum non minori metu omnes venerarentur quàm Deum, etc. Primus Episcoporum quasi plus esset ipse quàm caeteri, exaltavit cor suum, etc. ut nullum hominem sibi comparandum arbitraretur.  he exalted himself about the Emperor, and thereby made himself more than man, and even as it were a God, because above the Emperor there is none but God that made the Emperor; and although he used not those words, I am God, yet he either did or suffered to be done to him, that which might supply the want of those words, requiring so much to himself as that all stood in no less awe of him then they did of God himself, being the first Bishop that advanced himself as if he were more than the rest, and did think no man comparable to himself. Now is there not in this Pope of Africa a very just and lively description of the Roman Pope? He hath made himself more than all other Bishops, and no man comparable to himself. He hath lifted up himself above the Emperor, and thereby as Optatus concludeth, made a God of himself. He hath not only done and suffered to be said and done to him such things as whereby in effect he hath taken upon him to be God, as namely in dispensing against the law of God, and disannulling the institution of Christ, but in very words hath yielded to be so called, and in the Gloss of his Canon law where he professeth to have corrected such things as were amiss, yet he hath suffered this title given to him to stand still, 
l Extravag. joan, 22. Cum interim. in Glossa. Credere Dominum Deum nostrum Papam non potuisse, etc. haereticum censeretur, Paris. anno 1601. cum privileg. Gregor. 13. etc.  Our Lord God the Pope. He bathe made men to stand in no less awe of him, yea more than of God himself, whilst he hath made show to have God's anger at his command to inflict it where he will. Secondly, the Donatists took upon them that 
m Collat. Carthag. 3. c. 165. Cum pacis & Ecclesia Dei possessores semper fuerimus ac simus.  they had always been possessors and owners of unity and of the Church of God, in so much that they reckoned 
n Aug. c●t. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 92. In vestry exemplis adver 〈…〉 Imperat●●es quam plures ac judices. vestros persecutionem nobis faciendo perijsse, ut relinquam N 〈…〉, Domitian●, Traianun, Vari●. etc.  Nero, Domitian, trajan, Varius, Decius, Dioclesian, and the rest, to have been persecutors of their Church, whereas their beginning whereby they were Donatists, was after the time of those persecutions, and had they been then, 
o Ibid. August. Isti omnes universalitèr Christianum nomen pro suis idolis persecuti sunt, etc. unitatem ipsam vel unde nos sicut, vos putatis, vel unde vos sicut Christus docet, exijstis, totam persequebantur.  had not suffered any thing for being partakers with Donatus, but for professing the name of Christ. No otherwise do the Papists take upon them to have been always the Church of God, and that it was their Church that was persecuted, that they were their Martyrs that were slain by the same Tyrants; whereas their beginning whereby they are Papists (which properly they are for worshipping their Lord God the Pope) yea and that whole form of doctrine almost which is properly theirs, is of far latter time, and though they had been then, yet had been persecuted only for that profession of Christ which is common both to us and them. The Donatists alleged that 
p Aug. count Epist. Gaudent. l. 2. c. 30. Per justitiam non veram sed vestram ad Imperatorum curam pertinere cause huiusmodi non deberent.  Emperors and Princes had nothing to do in Church matters. And 
q Idem Epist. 48. Vos quibus crimen videtur de inimicis communionis nostra Christiono Imperatori aliquid conq●eri.  held it for a great fault in the Catholic Bishops to complain to the Emperor of them. 
r Optat. lib. 3. Quid est Imperatori cum Ecclesia?  What hath the Emperor to do with the Church? saith their Pope Donatus: and so his followers, 
s Aug. in psal. 57 Quid nobis & Regibus, inquiunt? Quid nobis & Imperateribus?  What have we to do with Kings? what have Emperors to do with us? for the teaching of the people of Israel, 
t Idem cont. Gaudent. Epist l. 2. c. 26. Ad docendum populum Israel omnipotens Deus Prophetis pr 〈…〉 ium dedit, non Regibus imperavit. salvator ammarum Dominus Christus ●d insi 〈…〉 dam fidem piscatores, non milites misit.  saith Gaudentius, God gave charge to Prophets and not to Kings, and our Lord Christ the Saviour of souls sent Fishermen, not Soldiers for the planting of the faith; thus upbraiding the Emperors for condemning their Schism, and for using power and force of arms for repressing the infinite rage of their madde-brained Circumcellions. Thus they say to Marcellinus the Tribune, whom the Emperor had appointed to be judge in the conference at Carthage; 
u Capit. gest. collat. Ca●●hag. 3. c. 295. Si Christus non es, cur de Sacerd●tibus iudicas? Hoc judicium Christo seruandum est.  If thou be not Christ why dost thou judge of Priests? this judgement must be reserved for Christ: And another of them, that 
x Aug. Epist. 162. Non debuit Episcopus Proconsulari judicio purgari.  a Bishop should not have his purgation at a Lieutenant's judgement, and therefore Donatus their Patriarch writeth contemptuously to Gregory, one of the emperors Officers, 
y Optat. lib. 3. Adquem sic scribere minimè dubitavit; Gregori macula Senatus & dedecus Praefectorum & caetera talia.  Gregory the blot of the Senate, the disgrace of Lieutenants, with other terms of the same kind, as Optatus hath reported. Of the same humour are the Papists, who make the Prince 
z Dist. 96 Si Imperator. Filius est non Praesul Ecclesia; quod adreligionem competit, discere ei convenit, non docere, etc. Ad Sacerdotes Deus voluit quae Ecclesiae disponenda sunt pertinere, non ad seouli Potestates, etc. Imperatores Christiani subdere deb●nt executiones sua● Ecclesiasticis Praesulibus, non praeferre.  a son only and not a Governor of the Church, who must learn and not teach what appertaineth to religion, because God would have Church matters to belong to Priests, not to the secular powers; and Christian Emperors are to submit their executions to the rulers of the Church. Therefore they hold the Commissioners and Officers of Princes to be incompetent judges in their causes; they carry themselves contemptuously and despitefully towards them; they think it lawful by equivocations and mental reservations to abuse them, because they will not acknowledge any subjection to them. The Donatists 
a Aug. Epist 48. Multis aditum intrandi obserebant rumores maledicorum qui nescio quid aliud nos in Altar Deiponere iactiraba●t.  by false rumours discouraged and terrified men from coming to Church, and amongst other things gave out of the Catholic Bishops, that some of them 
b Optat. l. 3. & 7. Dicebatur venturos P●ulum & Macarium qui interessent Sacrificio, ut cum Altaria solenitèr aptarentur profe●rent illic imaginem quam primò in Altar ponerent, & sic Sacrificium offerretur. Hoc cùm acciperent aures percussi sunt & animi, etc. ut omnis qui hoc audierat diceret, Qui degustat, de sacro gustat.  at the time of the celebration of the Sacrament did set an Image upon the Altar or Communion table; whereat the minds of men were greatly moved, and every one said, He that tasteth thereof, tasteth of a profane thing; so contrary was it holden to religion then, which 
c Of Images▪ sect. 9  M. Bishop approveth now to set Images upon the Altar. But in this also the Papists are their followers, who in the like sort devise rumours and tales of our divine Service, and put strange conceits thereof into the minds of men, that without cause they may abhor to have any communion with us. The Donatists alleged their 
d August. Epist. 162. Prolata sunt à partibus vestris gesta quaedam quibu● recitatum est, etc. Temerarium Concilium quamlibet numerosissimum.  own Counsels assembled by their own authority, and managed wholly by themselves for defence of their cause, both against the 
e Idem in psal. 57 Lectum est Concilium Bagaitanum ubi damnati sunt Maximianistae, Et cont. lit. Petil. l 2. c. 43. Plenarij Concilij vest●i ore damnas●is.  Maximinianists their own Schismatics, & against the Bishops and Pastors of the Catholic Church. Even so do the Papists allege against us their own partial conventicles wherein they themselves have been both accusers, witnesses, and judges, and wherein none hath been suffered to sit, but only such as have first been sworn solemnly to the Pope. The Donatists 
f Aug. Epist. 137. Non habendo in causa sua diu●sionis quod defendant, non nisi hominum crimina colligere affectant & ●aipsa plura falsissimè iactant, ut quia ipsam diui●a Scripturae veritatem, etc. criminari & obscurare non possunt, homines per quos pradicatur adducant in od●um.  not knowing how sufficiently to make good their cause, and rend from the Church by argument and reason, sought to make themselves the more plausible, by devising and publishing crimes and slanders against them, who in the behalf of the Church were adversaries to them, that men disliking the persons of men might consequently think the worse of the truth of God, that was maintained and defended by them. In the same steps the Papists walk, with whom nothing is more common in all their books, then to labour by strange & odious imputations, to blemish the names of Luther, Caluin, Beza, and all other by whom the gospel of Christ hath been specially defended, yea generally of the Bishops and Ministers of our Church, that bringing men into hatred and detestation of the men, they may cause them to like the worse of the faith and religion which they did or do teach. 
g Collat. Cartag. 3. c. 30. D●natist●● nos appellandos esse credunt, cum si nominum paternorum ratio vertitur & ego ●os dicere possum imò palam apert●que designs Mensuris●as & Cecili●nistas esse.  Petilian the Donatist being offended that they were called Donatists, as justly they were, for tying themselves to Donatus as their Patriarch and 
h Ibid. cap. 32. Nec ●lic abnu● esse mi●i Principem ac fuisse Donatum.  Prince, retorted upon the godly Bishops, the names of Mensurists of Mensurius, and Cecilianists of Cecilianus, as if they in like sort depended upon them. So the Papists being vexed at that name of Papists given to them for being wholly at the devotion of the Pope, seek to disgrace us with the names of Lutherans, and Zwinglians, and Caluinists, of Luther, Caluin, and Zwinglius, as if we were in like sort affected and devoted unto them. The Donatists complained that 
i Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. ●. c. 43. Derebus vel locis Ecclesiasticis quos tenebatis & non tenetis querimi●i. Et cont. Gaudent. l. 2. c. 28. Obijcitis nobis quòd res vestras possidere cupiamus.  the goods and revenues of their Churches bestowed upon them by their ancestors were taken from them, and given into the hands of the Catholic Pastors and teachers of the Church, upon whom they cried out 
k Cont. Gaudent. lib. 2. cap. 2●. Alienarum rerum incubaetores.  as robbers and spoilers of them. The same complaint 
l Epist. to the King, sect. 31.  M. Bishop and his fellows use, that Bishoprics and Deaneries and Benefices founded by men of their religion, and to the use thereof, are now as they pretend by wrong and usurpation bestowed upon us. The Rogatists being one part of the Donatists 
m Aug. Epist. 48. Solos vos Christianos esse perhibetis.  affirmed themselves only to be Christians, even as the Donatists generally did challenge 
n Ibid. universi Donatist● se pro Ecclesia Christi supponentes. Optat. lib. 2. Nitimini suadere hominibus apud vos solos esse Ecclesiam.  to themselves only to be the Church of Christ, and so now the Papists in their faction esteem themselves only to be Christians, in so much that Bellarmine's Ghost doubteth not to say, that 
o Tort. ad Apolog. resp. Jacobus cum Catholicus non sit, neque Christianu● est.  our King james because he is no Catholic (of their coin) therefore is no Christian. The Donatists 
p Aug. Epist. 50. 68 122. & cont. Crescon. Grammat. lib. 3. cap. 42. etc.  provoking Emperors and Kings by their intolerable outrages and villainies, to make laws for the punishing of them, when the same were executed, complained of 
q Aug. count Gaudent lib. 2. c. 12. Propter filium hominis ac fidem, etc. vos persecutionem sustinere iactatis.  persecution, and termed themselves 
r Collat. Carthag. 3. c. 22. Apud nos est vera Catholica quae persecutionem patitur, non quae facit.  the Church persecuted which persecuteth n●t: and such of them as were justly executed for murders and other unlawful acts they called 
s Aug. count lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 83. Cum vivatis ut latrones, mori vos iactatis ut Martyrs. Et Epist. 166. Dementia ut latronum facta fac 〈…〉 & cum iure punimin●, marlyrum gloriam requiratis.  Martyrs, yea such as threw themselves down from sleep places to kill themselves, that it might be thought that others killed them, yea such as forced others to kill them, threatening to kill them if they did not so, these all I say they blazed 
t Aug. count lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 71. Petil. Vos beati non estis, sed beatos martyres facitis quorum scilicet animabus c●li repleti sunt, corporumque memoria terr● storuerunt. Vos ●on colitis●ed facitis quos colamus. Aug. Si dictum esset, Beati qui seipsos praecipitant, implerent coeum martyres vestri. Et l. 1. c. 24. Praeci●●tatorum ultrò ●adauerum cultus sacrilegos mitto.  for Martyrs, and to their Relics and dead bodies they did great devotion, and canonised them otherwise for ●●ints in heaven. Even the same course do the Papists take with us, who by their traitorous attempts and practices and most devilish conspiracies, giving cause of making laws for their punishment and restraint, do upon execution thereof cry out 
u Concertat. Eccl. Cathol in Angl. Epist. De persecutions Anglicana.  of persecution, 
x Epistle to the King, sect. 33.  terrible persecutions, saith M. Bishop, in the late Queen's days, and do call them Martyrs that are notoriously put to death for such horrible treasons. Under which name they have registered 
y Apolog. pro Henr. Garneto pag. 169.  Garnet, that wretched caitiff, a principal abettor of the gunpowder practise, than which there was never a more impious designment amongst men. Yea and these thus justly put to death, they honour with great devotion, they devise miracles of them, they dip handkerchiefs in their blood, they joy to get pieces of their bodies, they make of them Saints, and 
z Concertat. Eccl. Cathol. in Angl. verse. de Campian. Sis mihi quaeso tuo facilis patronus alumno; Nec cesses pro me saepe rogare De●●.  pray unto them. The Donatists, though of their detestable and enormous acts Emperors took occasion to make laws against them, yet would not have it thought that the Emperors did it as of their own mind, but moved and drawn thereto by the godly Bishops and Pastors, that were adversaries to them. 
a Aug. cont. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 9●. Calumniamini nobis dicentes, à nobis in vos ad iracundiam Reges seculi concitari, dum eos non docemus divinam Scripturam, sed malitiam nost●am suggerimus.  Ye calumniate us, saith St. Austin, saying that by us Kings are incited to anger towards you, for that we teach them not the Scripture of God, but suggest to them our own malice. Even so our Papists, and namely 
b Reproof, pag. 85.  M. Bishop, although they know that of their own ungodly misdemeanours the State hath taken occasion to make laws against them, and that our Princes have had very just cause to deal severely with them, as Watson their own proctor hath largely confessed; yet that their own blame may be the better hidden, do impute these proceed to the instigations and exasperations of our Bishops and Ministers, as if otherwise no cause were conceived but that they should be mo●● gently entreated then now they are.▪ The Donatists albeit they knew well that it was a very small part of the world that joined with them, yet joyed to use words as if they had had a Church throughout the world, saying in their Council of three hundred and ten Bishops, that 
c Aug. count Crescon. Gramm. lib. 3. cap. 56. Cùm Ecclesiae Catholicae Sanctitatem vir memory utnerabilis ab errore persidia Donatus assereret, in ●ius nomen & cultum mundi penè totius obseruantia ●●trita c●aluit.  when Donat 〈…〉 ●reed the Catholic Church from the error of perfidiousness, the observance or obedience almost of the whole world joined to his name and honour; in which manner ●armenian also, though he held the Church 
d Optat. lib. 2. Eam tu apud ●os solos esse dixisti.  to be with them only, yet pretended 
e Ibid. post. Offer vos dicitis pro una Ecclesia quae sit in tot● terrarum orb dissusa.  to offer or pray for one Church which is dispersed over the whole world. Even so the Papists also, albeit they know that it is but a small part of the world, wherein the communion of the Bishop and Church of Rome is accepted or acknowledged, yet take pleasure to babble and prate as if the Pope's triple crown were so wide as to compass the whole earth, and his sceptre so long as to reach to the world's end. Thus much then M. Bishop hath gained by being angry at my comparing the Papists to the Donatists, that whereas I mentioned but five resemblances before, I have now added twelve more, and so like are they in all these, that I doubt not but by observation they may be found like in many more. As for the retortion of this comparison which he hath used in his answer to my Epistle Dedicatory, as it is wholly forced and violent in itself, so it argueth only malice and folly in him. I will set down the branches of the Donatists' heresy as he hath noted them, and add the application that he hath made of every of them. First he 
f Reproof, pag. 42.  saith they held that the true Church of Christ was perished all the world over, saving in some coasts of Africa, where their doctrine was currant. Well, and what is that to us? The Protestants, saith he, teach even as they did, that Christ's visible Church was perished for nine hundred years at the least all the world over, and is now wholly decayed in all other parts of the world, saving where their doctrine is embraced; and this, he saith, was the main point of the Donatists' heresy. To show why he nameth the visible Church, he putteth in a parenthesis, thus; for the invisible Church the Donatists held could not perish, as St. Austin witnesseth in Psal. 101. Which is a very lie▪ neither is there any thing to be found in St. Austin to that effect. But as touching the visible Church, where do the Protestants hold or affirm that it was or is perished in that sort as he saith? Why doth he not cite us some author of this assertion? Well, whether we say so or not, it skilleth not; 
g Bellarm. de notis Eccles. c. 9 Ecclesiam visibilem a multis seculis perijsse, & nunc solum esse in septentrionalibus partibus ubi ipsi sunt, doce●t omnes.  Bellarmine hath told him that we all say so, and that is enough for him. Yet that we do not all say so, M. Bishop may sufficiently understand by that that hath been before handled at large, as touching this point in the answer 
h Sect. 17.  to the Preface to his second part, whither I refer the Reader for further satisfaction hereof. Here I briefly answer him, that we hold in all that time whereof he speaketh one only Catholic church, whereof the Church of England was a part, and the Church of Rome another part, and the Greek Church another part, and so the rest throughout the whole world. The Church in these parts was in that time blemished with many corruptions and errors, whilst first the Teachers in steed of 
i 1. Cor. 3. 18.  silver and gold and pearl, built hay and straw and stubble upon the foundation; and secondly the Pastors more and more 
k jerem. 10. 21.  became beasts, as the Prophet saith, and sought not the Lord, nor had any understanding to teach God's law, by means whereof ignorance increased, and of ignorance grew superstition, and one idolatry begat another, till the whole face of the Church was bewrayed with the filth thereof, 
l Mat. 24. 15.  the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, and the man of sin tyramnizing over the Church, and giving strength to all abuse and corruption for his own gain. So gross were the enormities and superstitions which in this time had grown into the Church, as that the great Rabbins of the Church of Rome could not for shame but in some part acknowledge the same, and took upon them to correct sundry things 
m Trident. Concil. sess. 22. de Missa celebr. Quae sive temporum vitio, sive hominum incuria & improbitate irrepserunt in Missam ipsam.  which either by the corruption of times or by the carelessness and naughtiness of men were crept into the very Mass. And thus the Pope himself confessed concerning their Offices and Primers, that 
n Offic. Beatae Mariae per Pium V in Summar. constitut. & indulgent, etc. Vanis superstitionum erroribus alia ferè omnia huiusmodi officia, etiam Latino sermone referta esse deprehensum fuit, etc. Credant ijsde● alijs ●fficijs multas sub falsis & confictis sanctorum nominius confict●● orationes fuisse insertas.  they were found to be stuffed with vain errors of superstitions, and that many counterfeit prayers were inserted into them under false and counterfeit names of Saints. Of these errors and superstitions they reform what they list, and purged their books and Service of many things that were amiss: and what? will any man say hereupon that they became another Church? We proceeded further and voided the Church of the rest of those abominations, which ignorance and error had brought in, which they were not willing to have meddled with, because the same were gainful to them; and shall we be said hereupon to deny that there was any visible Church before, and to begin a new Church? No, we say that the Church hath continued still from the time that it was first planted; we affirm it to have been the house of God, the garden and vineyard of the Lord, but we say that the husbandmen had long dealt wickedly and unfaithfully in the usage of it; they dressed not the Lord's vine but suffered it to grow wild; they let this garden be overgrown with briers and weeds, and Foxes and Swine had liberty to tread it down and to destroy it. All that we have done hath been but to lop and prune the vine, to dress and water the garden that lay waste, to pluck up the weeds and thorns, to drive out the noisome beasts, and to repair the fence that they may be kept out. Therefore, we do not take upon us to be another Church, but the same Church reform, neither have we gone about to bring in a new religion, but only to reform that which they call the old, retaining still the same Scriptures which they acknowledged, the same articles of faith, the same Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, the same form of divine Service, save only that we have cut off what their superstition had brought in contrary to the word of God, and practise of the first Church. Many goodly stones and pillars of Christian doctrine there were remaining amongst them, which we continue and acknowledge according to the word of Christ, and whereby we cannot doubt but that in those times of darkness many found means to see the light of God, and were thereby directed unto eternal life. far therefore are we from Donatism, who neither affirm the perishing of the Church in any part of the world, no not in Rome itself, nor tie it to any one place as the Papists do to Rome, nor hang it upon the neck of any one man as they do upon the Pope's neck; but acknowledge all nations and all men indifferently accepted with God, accordingly as in spirit and truth they faithfully worship him. The second point of the Donatists' heresy he nameth this, that they rebaptized Catholics that fell into their sect. His application is, Though all the Protestants do not rebaptize, yet one part of them, to wit, the Anabaptists do use it. But his foolery in that deserveth no answer, it being known to himself that the Anabaptists are exploded and detested universally of all Protestant Churches. The Anabaptists shall be rather theirs then ours. And whereas he divideth the Protestants into Lutherans, Sacramentaries and Anabaptists, as answerable to the Donatists, Rogatists and Maximianists, he should rather have made the like division of Papists into Anabaptists, Secularists, and jesuitists; the Anabaptists answering the Rogatists in challenging the Church from the rest of the body of their Schism only to themselves; the Secularists and jesuitists fully resembling the Donatists and Maximianists, each divided for a time by mortal quarrel amongst themselves, but content after a while as men of one Church and religion to be reconciled again. The third point that he mentioneth is this, They held not the faith of the blessed Trinity entire and whole, but some of them taught like Arians, the son to be less than the father, though as St. Austin noteth this was not marked of their followers. This he applieth to us in this sort, Thirdly, divers of their principal teachers, as Melanchton, Caluin, and many others do corrupt the sound doctrine of the most sacred Trinity, as I have showed, saith he, in the Preface of the Reformation of a deformed Catholic, though the common sort of them do not greatly observe it. In which third point he very wilfully belieth both St. Austin and the Donatists and us. For St. Austin doth not say of the Donatists, but only of a second Donatus, who was a follower of the former, that 
o August. ad Quodvult. haeres. 69. Apparet cum etiam non Catholicam de Trinitate babuisse sententiam, etc. Verùm in hunc quem de Trinitate habuit ●ius errorem Donatistarum multitudo intenta non fuit, nec facilè in eyes quisquam qui hoc ill● sensisse noverit invenitur.  he had an uncatholike opinion of the Trinity, which the Donatists were so far from approving as that he saith, there was scant any one found amongst them that knew that he thought so; so that to him only it is referred which St. Austin saith in his Epistle; 
p Idem Epist. 50. Si aliqui ipsorum ●●●orem filium dixerunt esse quàm pater est, ●iusdem tamen substanti● non negarunt.  If any of them have said that the son is less than the Father, yet they have not denied him to be of the same substance. And indeed St. Austin though living amongst them and having perfect knowledge of them, yet never upbraideth them with this heresy, and therefore M. Bishop doth wrong both to them in laying this heresy to them, and to St. Austin in making him the witness thereof. Neither shall it help him that Theodoret chargeth them therewith, who as it plainly appeareth by his relation never knew what their heresy was, and being deceived perhaps by the writings of that Donatus, reporteth that as common to them all, which St. Austin of his knowledge noteth to have been proper to him only. As for that he chargeth Melancthon, Caluin, and other our principal teachers with corrupting the doctrine of the holy Trinity, how lewdly and falsely he dealeth therein, 
q Answer to the Preface of the second part of Doct. Bishop's Reformation, sect. 6. 7.  I have fully declared in answer of the Preface, where he saith he hath showed the same. The fourth matter of the Donatists by him noted, is their being soon divided into three sects, whereof he saith nothing but what is before touched. Only he addeth; There were also amongst them many frantic furious fellows called Circumcellions, who roving up and down committed many outrages, &c: But what is this to the Protestants? Forsooth, for plucking down of Churches, abusing the most blessed Sacrament, holy Oils, and all holy ornaments that belonged to Catholics Churches, the Protestants are not behind, but go far beyond the Donatists. But this I let pass as another part of his idle babbling, only telling him that to fit the example of the Circumcellions, he should rather have looked to those memorable acts that have been done by the Leaguers and jesuits, and other madde-braines of their employment in France, Germany, Poland, and in all places almost of Christendom, where they have gotten any strength, whereof goodly stories might be here set down if it were pertinent to the main point that we have now in hand. In the last thing which he noteth of the Donatists, he specially showeth his great abundance of little wit, the matter whereto he alludeth being such as whence I might most justly have taken yet a further resemblance betwixt the Donatists and them. Finally, saith he, the Donatists devised a new kind of Psalms to be sung before their divine Service and Sermons. And what the Protestants? Forsooth, they have also compounded and framed a new kind of Psalms, saith he, called Geneva Psalms, to be sung before their Sermons. A new kind of Psalms, say you, M. Bishop? What? do not you know that those Geneva psalms, as you call them, are only the Psalms of David and other Prophets and holy Men, translated into English Meter, and do they seem to you a new kind of Psalms? They were turned into Meter and Verse, and fitted with plain and easy notes and tunes, to serve for popular and common use of Christian exercise and edification, both in our Churches and private houses, that we may answer the exhortation of the Apostle, 
r Col. 3. 16.  Let the word of Christ dwell plentifully in you, in all wisdom teaching and admonishing yourselves, or one another, in Psalms and Hymns and spiritual Songs, singing with a grace in your hearts unto the Lord. Now mark, I pray thee, gentle Reader, what St. Austin faith hereof in the place whence M. Bishop would fetch a resemblance betwixt the Donatists and us. Of 
s Aug. Epist. 119. cap. 18. De Hymnis & Psalmis canendis & ipsius Domini & Apostolorum habemus documenta & praecepta & exempla. De hac re tam utili ad movendum piè animum & accendendum divinae lectionis affectum varia consuetudo est, etc. Donatista nos reprehendunt quòd sobriè psallamus in Eccl●sia divina cantica Prophetarun, cum ipsi ebrietates suas ad canticum Psalmorum humano ingenio compositorum quasi tubas exhortation is inslamment. Quando autem non est tempus cum in Ecclesia fratres congregantur Sancta cantandi nisi cum legitur aut disputatur, aut anti●●ites clara voce deprecantur, aut communis oratio voce Diaconi indicitur.  singing Hymns and Psalms we have lessons and examples, and precepts of the Lord himself and his Apostles. It is a thing profitable to stir up the mind to piety, and to kindle devotion and affection towards the lessons that are read from God. Of the Donatists contrariwise he saith; The Donatists reprehend us for that we soberly sing in the Church the holy songs of the Prophets, whereas they by singing of songs devised by men as it were by trumpets of encouragement, do inflame and provoke themselves to drinking until they be drunk. Against this he saith: When is it out of time when the brethren are gathered together in the Church to sing Psalms, but when there is reading or preaching, of when the Ministers do pray with loud voice, or when by the voice of the Deacon warning is given of common prayer? That the Donatists used those songs in the Church or before their Service and Sermons St. Austin saith not; that is M. Bishop's lie; his words import that as their 
t August. count. lit. Petil. l. 1. c. 24. Mitto prophanas bacchation●s ●bri●t●tū.  drunken meetings and feastings which elsewhere he objecteth to them, they used such songs, as the manner is of carnal profane men at their meetings and merry-making, by vain and wanton and lewd songs, to cheer and sport themselves. But out of St. Augustine's words it is easy to be gathered whether of us in this behalf are more like the Donatists, either we that retain the same religious custom of singing Psalms which St. Austin commendeth, and not he only, but also Leo Bishop of Rome witnesseth, that 
u Leo de collect. ser. 4. Psalmi Davidici per universalem Ecclesiam cum omni pietate cantantur.  the whole Catholic Church with all devotion then used; or the Papists who reprove us for the same, and have wholly abandoned it, both out of their Churches and houses, and can better brook to solace themselves with secular and profane rhymes and sonnets, yea with filthy and unclean ribawdries, insomuch that some of their own as touching their Service have complained, that 
x Cornel. Agrip. de vanit. scient. cap. 18. hody cum Missa ipsius Canone obscene cantiunculae pares vices habènt.  obscene and filthy songs had their course and turn therein, as well as the Canon of the Mass. Very unfortunately therefore hath M. Bishop entered into the retorting of this comparison; nothing fitteth, nothing serveth his turn; his ball reboundeth upon himself, but neither in doctrine nor in manners can he truly allege any thing reprovable in the Donatists that can be fastened upon us.    

W. BISHOP. §. 6.  
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 and lying; he must look (unless he repent) to have his part with all liars in the pool burning with 
Apocal. 21. v. 8.  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: What hath the Church or Sea of Rome 
Lib. 2. cont. Peril. cap. 51.  done to thee, in which Peter did sit, and now sitteth Anastasius? 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. Optatus Bishop of Milevitan saith thus: Whence 
Lib. 2. cont. Parmeni.  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: He need not to care for the multitude 
August. Epistola 162.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
I Wish M. Bishop to take heed lest the doom which he pronounceth upon me be returned upon himself by the sentence of the Gospel, 
a Luke 19 22.  Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee thou evil servant. Mistake I did in a circumstance, but lie I did not, because 
b Mentiri est contra mentem ire.  to lie is to go against a man's own mind and knowledge, which it is plain I did not, for that my error was disadvantage to myself, in that I alleged the Papists to be like the Donatists only, whereas by more perfect relation they are found to be like both Rogatists and Donatists. But now to make the matter the more goodly for himself, he for conclusion notably playeth the Skoggin, and most grossly deludeth the simple Reader that hath not discretion to espy his fraud. Forsooth, he will show at what great square the Donatists were with the Church of Rome. But trouble not yourself M. Bishop about that matter: we know it, and will acknowledge it always as far as you; only we desire to know what that maketh to the matter here in hand? What? because the Donatists in the time of Optatus and Austin, were at great square with the Church of Rome, doth it follow that there can be no cause now to compare the Papists to the Donatists? When M. Bishop was clapped up in prison at Rome, there was great enmity betwixt the Seculars and jesuits, and doth it therefore follow that they are not friends now? What is it, M. Bishop, but your legerdemain, to pretend a comparison made by me, betwixt the Donatists and the Church of Rome that was of old, when as my comparison concerneth only Romanists and Papists that now are, who are far departed from that way wherein that Church of old did walk? Why do you in this case allege to us Optatus and Austin, to disprove this resemblance, as if they were able so long before hand to tell us that the Papists now in the points alleged are not like the Donatists? The Donatists of old were at square with the Church of Rome, for resisting their claim of the propriety of the Church: neither do we doubt but that if they were now in being, the Church of Rome would be at square with them, for challenging that to Africa which they hold properly to belong to Rome, but this squaring on the one side or the other, hindereth not but that Papists now in their kind are like to Donatists in their kind, each tying the Catholic Church respectively to their own place and faction; wherein the condemning of the Donatists of old by the Church of Rome for so tying it to Africa, is an instruction to us to condemn the Papists now for doing the like to Rome. But M. Bishop's purpose of cozenage doth more lively appear in the first citation which he here bringeth out of Austin, where purposely he omitteth a part of the sentence, whereby the Reader should perceive that it maketh nothing for his purpose. To P●tilian the Donatist condemning all Churches save their own, he saith; 
c Aug. count lit. Petil. l. ●. c. 51. Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romana in qua Petrus sedit & in qua ●odi● Anastasius sedet; vel Ecclesiae Hier●s●lymitana in qua jacobus sedit, & in qua body Joannes sidet, quibus nos in Catholica unitate connectimur & à quibus v●s nefari● fur●re separastis? Quare appellas Cathedram pestilentia Cathedram Apostolicam?  What hath the chair of the Church of Rome done to thee wherein Peter sat, and wherein at this day Anastasius sitteth; or the chair of the Church of jerusalem wherein james sat, and in which john at this day sitteth, to which we are joined in Catholic unity, and from which you have severed yourselves by wicked fury? Why do you call the Apostolic chair the chair of pestilence? Now what do these words make more for the Church of Rome then for the Church of jerusalem? The Donatists were then at square with the Church of jerusalem, and yet that hindereth not, M. Bishop will confess, but that the Church of jerusalem may be now Schismatical: and the Donatists were then at square with the Church of Rome; what is there here to hinder but that the Church of Rome may be now Schismatical as the Donatists were then? The Church of jerusalem is by St. Austin termed an Apostolic chair or Sea, as all the Churches planted by the Apostles are by him styled 
d Aug. Epist. 162. Possent Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum iudici● causam suam integram reseruare.  Apostolic Churches, as well as the Church of Rome▪ The Church of jerusalem M. Bishop will not deny, both might be and hath been since St. Augustine's time a chair of pestilence. And doth St. Austin say any thing there to let, but that the Church of Rome also may be since become the chair of pestilence, though it were then the chair of unity and peace? Yea what he saith here concerning the Churches of Rome and jerusalem, the same he saith elsewhere of other Churches also. 
e Ibid. Quid tibi fecit, 6 pars Donati, quid tibi fecit Ecclesia Corinthiorum? Quod autem de ista dic●, de omnibus ●a●●bus & tam longè positi● intelligi v●l●; quid vobis fecerunt? etc.  O ye Donatists, what, what, I say, hath the Church of the Corinthians done to you? What I say of it, I would have to be understood of all such and as far distant Churches; what have they done unto you? etc. with all which the Donatists were at as great square as they were with the Church of Rome, and yet M. Bishop will not yield to any of them any prerogative thereby. But all mention of the Church of jerusalem and the rest, he thought it behoveful for him to suppress, because if he had set it down he knew well that the Reader would easily see that in all this great show he had said nothing. And by the premises it appeareth that he hath said as little in producing the words of Optatus; for be it that the Donatists did then cruelly wage battle against the Church of Rome, and there were no agreement betwixt them, what is that to that that I say concerning the Church of Rome now? what hindereth that, I say still, but that there may be now a just resemblance betwixt the Papists and the Donatists? His conclusion therefore is ridiculous, that because Austin saith that Cecilianus needed not to care for the Donatists, so long as he saw himself joined with the church of Rome, therefore they need not to care so long as they stand in the like society of faith and religion with the same Church of Rome. For seeing the Church of Rome is not the same now that it was then, as in the process of this book, God willing, shall plainly appear, there may be just cause in many things now to forsake the communion of the church of Rome, though it were piety and religion to hold it then. But it is not to be omitted how falsely he dealeth here again, in alleging the words of Austin, as if he spoke of being joined with the Church of Rome only, whereas he nameth other Churches as well as the Church of Rome. 
f Aug. Epist. 162. Qui posset non curare conspirantem multitudinem inimicorum, cùm se ●ideret & Roman● Ecclesiae in qua semper Apostolic Cathed●● viguit principatus, & c●teris terris unde evangelium ad ipsam Africam venit per communicate●● as literas esse coniunctum.  He needed not care, saith he, for the conspiring multitude of his enemies, when he saw himself joined by communicatory letters, both to the Church of Rome, where the principality or chiefty of the Apostolic chair hath always flourished, and to other nations whence the Gospel came into Africa. What is here more for the communion of the Church of Rome, then for the communion of other Churches? Why doth M. Bishop thus deceitfully appropriate to one that which St. Austin maketh to concern many? Do we find it in St. Augustine's words, which he pretendeth, that it shall be always an infallible rule of safety to hold communion with the Church of Rome? He will say that there is there attributed a principality to the Church of Rome. Be it so, a principality of honour, not of power, as I have 
g Chap. 1. §. 2.  before made plain by Austin himself: but doth it follow that because the principality of the Apostolic chair had flourished there till that time, therefore it should be necessary or safe to communicate with that church for ever until the world's end? These are lose and vain collections, mere mockeries of simple and credulous persons, very unfit to 'stablish and resolve the conscience of any sober or advised man.     

CHAP. III. That the name of Catholics is abused by the Papists, and is in their abuse a donatistical and hateful name of faction and schism.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
THere was reason why Austin should be moved with the name of Catholic, etc. to, Now as of this Catholic Church, etc.  

W. BISHOP. §. 1.  
SAint Augustine indeed was so much moved with the name of Catholic, that he allegeth 
Cont. Epist. Fund. c. 4. De vera Relig. c. 7.  it to have been one principal cause, which kept him in the lap of the Church. And elsewhere 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, is 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 Catholic faith, that is extended over all the world.  

R. ABBOT.  
THe name of the Catholic Church might justly move St. Austin to continue in the society thereof, when under that name 
a August cont. Epist Fundam. cap. 4. Tenet ipsum Catholica nomen quod non sine causa inter tam multas h●rescs ista Ecclesia sola obtinu●t.  Catholic he saw the communion of a Church successively continued from the time of the Apostles throughout the world, and that only communion every where termed by that name. There was reason for him to exhort men. 
b Idem de vera relig. cap. 7. Tenenda est eius Ecclesiae communicatio quae Catholica est & Catholica nominatur non solum à suis verumetiam ab omnibus inimicis.  to hold communion with that Church which was thus Catholic or Universal, and so called both of the friends and of all the enemies thereof; and thereby to be fortified against all heretical distractions and separations, as knowing that to draw them away from this communion, should be to draw them away from the Church of Christ. The appellation of Catholics according to the original of it, as I have 
c Chap. 2. § 4.  before noted, importeth an interest holden by them that are so called in this universal communion, without renting themselves by heresy or schism from the common society and fellowship of the Church. In this only meaning is it rightly used, and they are mere usurpers of it who take it to themselves without this or in any other sense. Now whereas M. Bishop according to that sense, as he pretendeth, telleth us that that name is of great force to persuade all reasonable men to make themselves members of the Roman Church, he is greatly deceived himself, and doth but seek to deceive others therein, because they wholly fail in the ground of it, the Church of Rome being neither Catholic indeed, as St. Austin requireth, nor so called by any other, but only by itself. Who is there in the world so mad as to call the Roman Church the Catholic Church, but only they that are drunk by drinking of the same cup? He saith that we confess that the faith and religion of the Church of Rome hath been received all the world over; but that is both ways a lie, because neither do we confess so much, neither was it ever so. And therefore whereas he saith, that by joining in society of faith with the Church of Rome, we shall communicate with the Church spread over the whole world, he again abuseth his Reader, there being at this day no Church in Asia or Africa that holdeth communion with the Church of Rome, to say nothing of the Greek Church, and sundry other in Europe, that do detest the fellowship thereof. I am not ignorant how they seek to gull the world in this behalf, and what goodgeons they give men by telling and writing tales from Rome of 
d Gentill●t. in Exam. Concil. Trident.  patriarchs and Metropolitans of the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Armenians, the Aethiopians, and such other like, coming to Rome to submit themselves, and to be reconciled to the Pope; these jests are now grown stolen; these suborned and counterfeit patriarchs have been descried, and were they not men absurdly impudent they would never practise the like cozenage again. And yet my friend 
e And. Eudoem. adu. R. Abbot. Respon. lib. 3. sect. 6. Aegyptius C●phtorum Patriarcha à qu● Aethiopia petit pracepta fidei, ad communionem Catholicam nuper Clement octave Pontifice redijt.  Cac●daemon telleth us in sadness of the Egyptian Patriarch, upon whom all the Churches of Aethiopia depend (his name is neither known to him nor me) that now very lately in the time of Clement the eight, he returned to the communion of their Catholic Church; the wise man not considering that thereby he doth intimate unto us contrary to other fables and tales which they have given out before, that therefore before that time he was a stranger to them. Thus by reason that these submissions and reconciliations are still to seek, and the world seethe no appearance nor effect of them, they are every while put to their shifts to devise new rumours hereof, and to stuff the old coat of some Gibeonite with straw, setting him up upon a poles end under the name of the Patriarch of some far Country, so to feed the humours and fancies of them, that do yield themselves content to be gulled and deluded by them. But against this foolery the Catholic Bishops truly noted against the Donatists, that 
f Collat. Carthag 1. cap. 55. Non in unum aliquem terra locum ex alijs locis ad Deum gentes venturas esse praedictum est, sed in ocis suis ●um adoraturas  it was not foretold by the Prophets, that the nations should from other places come to God into any one place of the earth, but that in their own places they should worship him. This they held to be enough, and knew no need● of hunting or seeking to this place or that place, either to Rome or to Africa, as under the overture whereof they might have readier access to God, because all places were alike to him. Where if M. Bishop will say that they do not require that every one shall come to Rome to worship God there, I answer him, that when the Donatists did require 
g August. count. Crescon. Gran. mat. lib. 3 c. 34. Tot populi quid fecerunt, quicùm ista nescirent, tamen à v●bis rebaptizandi censentur?  all nations to be rebaptized by them, they were not so mad as to think that it should concern all men personally to come into Africa, but would have thought it sufficient that though not immediately by themselves, yet mediately by their rebaptizers, though not in person, yet in devotion and affection they had been there; that in the mean time they did respect it as the rock from whence in their converters they were digged; as the root of their Christianity, the oracle of their doubts, the place of their appeals, the sanctuary of piety, from whence by communicating with it, all their Services and Sacrifices should ascend to be acceptable unto God. Such as would have yielded them this regard, they would never have doubted, though they had never come into Africa, to adjudge them true members of their Church: and therefore the Fathers in denying any one place to which the nations should need to come, that they might come to God, either spoke idly against the Donatists, or else must be understood to deny any such one place as I have said. But the Papists not content to attribute that to their Rome which the Donatists did to Africa, have further made it a matter of so great merit and moment with God, to come to Rome to do devotion there, as that to them that do so or do by money redeem the necessity of going thither, thereby to be esteemed as if they did go, they have proclaimed the full pardon and remission of all their sins. Sith then the Catholic Church importeth the universal communion of 
h 1. Cor. 1. 2.  all that call upon the name of our Lord jesus Christ in every place through the world, and the communion of the Roman Church is extremely short of being extended over the whole world, being limited to one place, and being particular and private only to one sect and sort of men, out of the number and company whereof are innumerable Christians and Christian Churches, which as the case standeth neither have nor desire to have any portion therein, yea undoubtedly a number that never have heard either of the Pope or of the Roman Church, it must needs follow that as they deal absurdly who call the Roman Church the Catholic Church, so they deal as absurdly who appropriate the name of Catholics to the communion of the Roman Church, which cannot arise but from the communion and fellowship indifferently of the universal Church. And hereby it appeareth that though some of them had dispersed themselves into all nations, yet they could no more take upon them thereby to be Catholics, than the Donatists in the like case could have done. For as the Donatists though they had set foot into all other Countries, as they did into Italy and Spain, and out of Africa particularly so called into many parts and Provinces of Africa at large, yet could not for that have been called Catholics, because through the whole world they should have been but a part of the whole Church, 
i Aug. Epist. 161. Pars vestra quae Donati dicitur, etc.  Pars Donati, Donatus his part, depending upon one man, and divided under his name from the common society of the Church; even so the Papists also though they should spread themselves in the same sort, yet should not thereby obtain the right of the name of Catholics, because they should be but a part of the whole, the Pope's part, depending upon him and under his name divided from an innumerable multitude of all nations, who though they disclaim the Pope, yet doubt not to have interest in the Church as well as they, and therefore where they are, are no other but a faction and schism, renting the union and communion of the Church of Christ. Surely if anciently there had been any such dependence of the Church upon the Bishop of Rome, as the Papists pretend now, the Donatists being offended as St. Austin witnesseth, 
k August. count. lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 39 Quia vos de part Donati essedicimus, qu●ritis hominem de cuius part 〈◊〉 esse dicatis.  that they were called Donatists or Donatus his part, and seeking to entitle their adversaries under the name of another part▪ would never have been to seek herein, but being at so great square with the Church of Rome as M. Bishop hath alleged, would have given them a name from the Bishop of Rome, to whom as their Prince and chief they were as fast tied as they themselves were to 
l Collat. Carthag. 3. cap. 32. Petil. N●c nunc abnuo esse mihi principem ac f●isse beatiss●m● santaeque memoris Donatum.  their Prince Donatus. But because there w●nted ground and occasion of so doing, the Church then standing in the liberty whereunto Christ had called it, and neither addicting itself to any one place, nor yielding itself servant to any moral man, therefore they devised otherwise as occasion and stomach led them, sundry names which they applied unto them, 
m Aug. Epist. 164. Nos Macarianos appellatis.  Macarians, 
n Collat. Carthag. ● cap. 30. Petil. Palam aperteque designo Mensuris 〈…〉 cos & Ceci 〈…〉 istas esse.  Mensurists, Cecilianists, of Macarius, Mensurius, Ceciltanus, even in the like manner as the Papists, being offended that we call them Papists, for tying their devotion wholly to the Pope, seek to return the same objection of partiality upon us, by calling us Zwinglians, Lutherans, Caluinists; whereas we yield no more either to Zwinglius, or Luther, or Calum, than we do to all other learned men, so far only to regard them as their proofs go: yea and do determine that whosoever in adhering to any one place or any one man, do affirm themselves only in that communion to be the Church of Christ, they are no other but Donatists, they are no other but Schismatics, mere breakers and disturbers of Christian peace. Whence it followeth as I have said that the Papists are no other, who limit the name of Catholics, and of the Catholic Church, only to the communion of the Pope and of the Roman Church. Which M. Bishop here doth, who though he say that all other Churches of what Country so 〈…〉 r may be called Catholic, maketh restraint of his ●ll in this sort, that with the Church of Rome keeps entirely the same faith. In which sort the Donatists also would not have denied all other Churches to be called Catholic, that with their Church of Africa kept entirely the same faith: and therefore I said rightly before, that the name is now by the Papists Donatistically applied not only to one particular Church of Rome, as M. Bishop falsely repeateth, to put the sot if he could from himself to me, but also as I added to men bearing the name of Catholics only for communicating with that Church. As for us, we apply the name Catholic no more to the congregations of the Protestants, than we do to all that profess in truth the communion of one universal Church. The name of Protestants being casual, and arising by occasion in these Northern parts, may haply be enclosed and confined within the bounds of Europe, but the Church of Christ cannot be so enclosed, and 
o Aug. Epist. 48. Erit Anathema quisquis annunciauerit Ecclesiam praeter communionem omnium gentium.  cursed is he, saith St. Austin, that preacheth the Church otherwise then in the communion of all nations. No otherwise do we preach the Church; we limit it not to ourselves; we say the Papists ought not to limit it to themselves. There are questions betwixt them and us, but how many Christian Churches are there in the world which neither know them nor us, nor have ever heard any thing of the quarrels that are betwixt us? How many Churches are there in the East which have heard of the Pope and his proceed, and will by no means endure to hold communion with him? He will say that those Churches do not accord with us in judgement of all points of faith. Be it so; no more did Cyprian and 
p Aug. count Gaudent. lib. 3 art. 10. Quando rebaptizabat Cyprianus ab h●reticis venientes, Ecclesia Carthaginensis Episcopus, tunc Ecclesi● Romanae Stephanus Episcopus in ●odem baptism● quem foris accep●rāt suscipiebat ●aereticos & ambo haec diversa facien●es in unitate Catholica permanebant.  Stephanus Bishop of Rome agree in all points, and yet they were both members of one Catholic Church. How many differences of opinions are there found amongst the Fathers, and yet we do not therefore divide them into many Churches. They may err, and we may ●rre, but we believe that wheresoever the Gospel of Christ is read and published, there Christ hath a people to whom he revealeth all truth that shall be necessary unto eternal life. In a word they profess the same Christ, they read the same Gospel and Scriptures that we do, and therein our faith both hath been from the beginning, and doth now continue dispersed and spread over the whole world.    

W. BISHOP. §. 2.  
SEcondly, M. Abbot is much mistaken in his comparison of the name of jew, with the name Catholic: for ●o 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 Husit●, Naaman the Syrian, the widow of Sarepta a Sydonian, and by a great number 
Luc. 4. vers. 16.  of Prosilites, and finally by that which the Apostle teacheth: Many Gentiles were saved without the law. 
Rom. ●. vers. 14.  Lastly, most uncertain it is, of what name the Prophet Isay speaketh when he saith: It shall be left for a name 
cap. 65. vers. 13.  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 world's end. If the name Catholic shall continue to the world's 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, that 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 
Tract. 32. ●● johannem. Lib. 1. co●t. Gaudent. c. 33.  the holy Ghost, if we love the Church, 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, doc 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
Such examples, saith he, prove nothing, but serve only for explication. And what of that? As though it were unlawful for me to use explication, and I were bound to proof only. His first exception than is wholly idle and of no effect at all. Whereas secondly he saith, that it can hardly be showed that the name of jew was a name of honour, he saith untruly, because the Scripture in sundry places mentioneth it with honour, as the name of them with whom God did dwell; 
a Zachar. 8. 23.  Men of all languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a jew, and say; we will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you: as the name of them from whom salvation was to be derived to other nations, 
b john 4. 22.  Salvation is of the jews: as the name of them that had received preferment at God's hands; 
c Rom. 3. 1.  What is the preferment of the jew? much every manner of way: the same giving them a pre-eminence above others; 
d Galat. 2. 15.  We who are jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles: as a name gloried and rejoiced in; 
e Rom. 2. 17.  Behold thou art called a jew; in respect whereof the Apostle teacheth the truth of the name, that they might not vainly rejoice in it; 
f Vers. 28.  He is not a jew which is one outward; but he is a jew which is one within; for which cause the holy Ghost challengeth it from them who literally assumed to themselves the name for carnal propagation only without regard of inward truth: 
g Ap●c. 2. 9  They say they are jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan. He again denieth it to have been a proper title of the people of God; but his instances to that purpose are vain; for albeit to speak of particular men God had many good servants of other nations, job the Husite, Naaman the Syrian, the Sydonian widow, and many Proselytes and converts as he allegeth, yet there was no other nation vouchsafed the honour to be called the people of God, but only the nation of the jews, according to that of the Psalm, 
h Psal. 147. 19  He hath given his laws unto jacob, hi● Statutes and Ordinances unto Israel; he hath not dealt so with any other nation. As for the words which he addeth; Many Gentiles were saved without the law, they are his own; the Apostle hath no such; and therefore he dealeth falsely to cite them under the name of the Apostle. Well, I say then that the name of jews was of old a name of honour, and the proper title of the people of God, and yet afterwards by their Apostasy who were so called, it was left for a name of curse and reproach. I quoted for this the words of the Prophet Esay: 
i Esay. 65. 15.  Ye shall leave your name as a curse unto my chosen. M. Bishop hereto saith; Most uncertain it is of what name the Prophet Esay speaketh, when he saith, It shall be left for a name of curse. But the reason of his uncertainty is, because he will be certain of nothing, which he seethe in any sort to make against him. Certain we are that the prophesy hath had his effect, and we see the effect thereof in the name of jew, and in no other name, and therefore how should we but be certain that the prophesy hath reference to that name? It is true that the place with some undergoeth another translation, and is thereby drawn to another construction; but being translated as by M. Bishop it is set down, which is according to the most proper signification of the words, no man understandeth the name there mentioned of any other, but of the name of jew only. Thus Hierome according to that translation expoundeth it; 
k Hieron in Esa. l. 8. c. 65. Nomen vestrum erit in juramentum Electis meis ut pro malorum exemple vos habeant & detestentur talia suslinere & iurent sic; Non hac pati●r qua poss●● est popul●● Iud●●rum.  Your name shall be for an oath to mine Elect, so as that they shall take you for an example of evils, and shall abhor to suffer such things, and shall say: Let me not suffer those things which the jews suffered. The ordinary Gloss yieldeth the meaning thus; 
l Gloss. Ordinar. in Esai. 65.  aliqui affirmantes dicant: si alitèr fecero, conti●gat mihi sicut Judaeis Romanorum gladio occisis.  So as that men by way of affirmation shall say; If I do otherwise (than I say) let it befall to me as to the jews, that were slain with the sword of the Romans. Lyra thus: 
m Lyra. ibid. Christiani sic iurant aliquando; si feci istud quod mihi imponitur, suspendar ego per pedes sicut judaeus.  Christians sometimes swear thus; If I have done that wherewith I am charged, let me be hanged by the feet like a Iew. Osorius their own Paraphrast understandeth it in the same sort; 
n Osor. Paraphras. in Esai. l. 5. o. 65. Nomen relinquetis electis infaustum & abhominandum, quod in dirarum imprecationibus usurpetur; ita ut quise volverit execratione devincire, exitum sibi Iudaorum imprecetur si quicquam in se contra quàm fas & officium requirit admiserit, etc. servos suo● non tudaeos appellabit Dommus, etc.  Ye shall leave your name to mine Elect as unfortunate, and to be had in abomination, so as that it shall be used in imprecations and curses, and he that will bind himself with a curse, shall wish to himself the destruction of the jews, if he have done any otherwise then right and just. The Lord shall not call his servants jews, but shall give them a new more excellent name. The name of jews than it is which is meant in the words of the Prophet, and therefore hither to there are no impertinences in mine example, but his exceptions are altogether impertinent. Yet being taken for such, he is content like a kind Gentleman to remit them, but telleth me that there is a gross fault in the main point of the comparison which he cannot pardon. Doubtless it is some reserved case: his holy Father the Pope must pardon it, and none but he. And what is it I pray you? Forsooth, the name jew 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 Catholic. It may be, M. Bishop, that in all things it is not like, and I suppose you are not so ignorant, but that you know that it is needless that things compared should every way and in every respect answer each the other. It is a common saying, that 
o Omnis similitudo v●● pede claudicat.  every similitude halt thou one foot at the least: and concerning the similitudes and parables used by our Saviour Christ in the Gospel, Origen noteth, that 
p Origen. in Mat. cap. 13. Quemadmodum in imaginibus & statuis similitudines non omni ex part respondentijs adqu● conferuntur, etc. simititer mihi cogita & de similitudinib●s quae s●●●t in evangelio:  as images and pictures do not on all parts and in all respects fit to those things which they represent, so neither do those similitudes that are used in the Gospel. It is sufficient always in this case that the resemblance stand good in that, in respect whereof the similitude is taken. Now therefore albeit the name of jew do import a people of one race and kindred, and the name of Catholic do not so, yet the name of jew implieth withal a certain profession of religion and devotion towards God, according to the oracles of God, delivered unto that people, and therein it agreeth with the name of Catholic, which amongst Christians hath done the like. The name of jew importing of old a prerogative of being the people of God, and of having the knowledge of God and of true religion, was a name of honourable respect, as I have showed, and therein the name of Catholic is answerable to it, having been wont to signify the true professors of Christian faith, living in the unity and fellowship of one Catholic Church, being thereby partakers of the honour that belongeth to the same Church. The name of jew though in itself a gracious and lovely name, yet by the infidelity and apostasy of them who for carnal propagation only continued it to themselves, without regard of the spiritual duty thereto annexed, became a name of curse and reproach. What hindereth but that I might also say, the thing being so, that the name of Catholics also, though honourable and desirable in itself, and in that use whereto it was of old applied, yet being abused by unjust usurpers of it, is in them and in their abuse a name of curse and infamy, so as that when we hear such a man call himself a Catholic, we take him thereby to be a man of shame, and to carry the mark of an Apostata and an Heretic. Yea but the law of the jews, saith he, was to continue but for a time, and to end at the coming of Christ, whereas the name of Catholic shall never fail▪ It is true that the law of the jews as touching the outward ceremonies was to end at the coming of Christ, but in the spiritual use and doctrine thereof accomplished in Christ, it was to remain for ever. Wherein if the jews had continued by faith, their name and they themselves had continued in honour, but 
q Rom. 11. 20.  by unbelief they were broken off, and thereby their name grew to that detestation spoken of. Even so the faith for which men at first were called Catholics, shall remain without end, wherein if they had continued that assume to themselves that name, it should have been to them still as of old it was a name of honour; but having seized upon the name only by external and carnal succession, and having banished that faith which they professed, who of old were called Catholics, the name according to their understanding of it is odious and hateful, neither doth any faithful man joy to be called a Catholic, lest he should seem to be partaker with them in their perfidious apostasy from the faith of Christ. For the better clearing whereof and better discovery of M. Bishop's fraud, who to deceive the simple hudleths and confoundeth all, it is to be observed that the word Catholic in our common speech is taken sometimes adjectively and sometimes substantively. adjectively as when we say the Catholic Church, the Catholic Faith, the Catholic Doctors and Fathers; and thus we forbear not to use the name, but it is common in our mouths and in all our writings, neither will we make it any doubt or question with M. Bishop, but that the Church hath been from the beginning, and shall be to the end called the Catholic Church. But it is otherwise taken substantively, and put absolutely to design the persons that are styled by the name of Catholics, as when a Papist saith that he is a Catholic, and that they generally are Catholics, in which sort it was not used from the beginning, and therefore there is no necessity of the continuance of it to the end. For the space of three hundred years after Christ until the time of Constantine, and the arising of the heresy of the Donatists, I do not think it can be showed that Christians of true belief were accustomed any where to be called by the name of Catholics. I would entreat M. Bishop for my learning to bring me Tertullian, or Origen, or Athanasius, or Clemens Alexandrinus, or Cyprian, or Euscbius, or any other of those times, by whom it may appear that there was any such use thereof. Nay Athanasius certainly knew it not, who to express the true professors of the faith, useth no other names but to call them, 
r Athanas. Apolog. 2. Epist. Sardic Concil. Omnes ubique Orthodoxae fidei homines.  Men of the orthodox or right faith, or more briefly to the same effect, 
s Ibid. Ab Eusebianis contra Orthodoxos acta. & Epist. proxima. Toti in hoc sunt ut Orthodoxos eijciant.  The Orthodox, or elsewhere, 
t Ibid. Epist. julij. Ferè omnes Clericos & Populos Ecclesiae Catholicae insidij● appeti.  The Clergy and People of the Catholic Church, or such like, and found no general or usual name to that purpose but only Christians. Which appoareth very plainly where arguing against the Arians from their very name of Arians, he saith thus: 
u Athanas. count. Arian. Orat. 2. Nunquam populus ab Epi●copis suis sed à Domino in quem credidit, nomen accepit. Certè à beatis Apostolis preceptoribus nostris ministrisque evangelii salvatoris nostri app●llationes adepti non sumus, sed à Christo Christiani & sumus & nuncupamur. Illi verò qui al●unde originem suae fidei deducunt, meritò authorum suorum cognomenta, ut ad quos pertineant, praeseserunt. Quaproptèr cùm omnes à Christo Christiani & essemus & diceremur, explosus est Mortion inventor haereseos: reliqui autem qui cum Marcionis explosore remansere. Christiani titulum retinuerunt: qui verò secuti sunt Marcionem, non iam inde Christiani sed Marcionistae appellati sunt. Ita quoque Va●entinus, Basilides, Manichaeus, & Simon Magus sectatoribus sua vocabula impertierunt, ind●que factum ut alij Valentiniani, alij Basilidiani, etc. vocitati sint, Ita Melctius eiectus à Petro, etc. suos qui ipsum sequebantur non Christianos postea, sed Meletianos denominavit. Eadem it erum ratione Alexandro Arium eijciente, ij qui Alexandro adhaeserunt remanserunt Christiani, illi verò qui unà cum Ario recesserunt, nomen salvatoris nostri Alexandro cum suis relinquentes, Ariani deinceps appellati sunt. Quinimò ecce ●tiam nunc post mortem Alexandri qui eiusdem communionis sunt cum Athanasio Alexandri successo●e & quibus ipse Athanasius communione coniunctus est omnes eundem pariter characterem habent neque ille suis nomen indit aut à suis recipit, sed omnes, ut antea, consuet● more Christiani nominantur.  Never any people took name of their Bishops, but of the Lord in whom they believed. We have not taken names from the holy Apostles our Masters and Ministers of the Gospel of our Saviour, but of Christ we both are and are called Christians, but they who derive the original of their faith from any other, do worthily bear the names of their authors as to whom they do belong. When as therefore we all were and were called Christians of Christ, Martion the inventor of heresy was worthily exploded. The other which remained with him by whom Martion was exploded, retained the name of Christians, but they who followed Martion were no longer called Christians, but Marcionites. And thus Valentinus, Basilides, Manicheus and Simon Magus gave names to their followers, and thence it came that some were called Valentinians, other Basilidians, other Manichees, other Simonians, other Cataphrygians of their Country Phrygia, other Novatians of Novatus▪ Thus Meletius being ejected by Peter a Bishop and Martyr, named them that followed him not any more Christians but Meletians. In the same sort when Alexander ejected Arius, they who cleaved to Alexander remained Christians, but they who went away with Arius leaving the name of Christians to Alexander and his, were thenceforth called Arians. Moreover even now after the death of Alexander, they who are of the same communion with Athanasius the successor of Alexander, and with whom Athanasius himself is joined in communion, they all still keep the same mark; he neither giveth any name to them nor they to him, but all as before according to the accustomed manner are called Christians. This place I have set down at large, that the Reader may see that Athanasius here could not have omitted the name of Catholics, there being such occasion to draw it from him, if it had been then in use, and that the common names of opposition were then, not Catholics and Heretics, but Christians and Heretics: even as Cyprian also useth it, saying of Stephanus; 
x Cyprian. ad Pompeium. Qui haeret●corū caus●m contra Christianos & contra Ecclesiam Dei esscrere conatur.  He goeth about to maintain the cause of Heretics against Christians and against the Church of God, the word Catholic being never found in either of them, personally taken or substantively as before was said, but only that Athanasius mentioneth one surnamed 
y Athanas. Epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes. Faustinus Catholicus homo & genere Bithy●us & opinionibus haereticus.  Catholicus, an Arian Heretic, and a persecutor of the faith. We may therefore well think that there was little discretion riveted to M. Bishop's head, that would tell us that the name so taken is so fast joined and riveted with Christian profession and religion, as that it cannot be separated from it; for if it were not so riveted then, how cometh it to pass that it is so now? The original thereof was as we may well conjecture, by occasion of the heresy of the Donatists, who challenged the name of the Church to a part in Africa or elsewhere, which were followers of Donatus, against whom they that defended the Church Catholic, were thereof in process of time termed by the name of Catholics. The first use then of the name of Catholics, stood in opposition betwixt Catholics and Donatists, albeit custom soon transported it to make a general opposition betwixt Catholics and Heretics. Now the name thus arising accidentally and only by occasion, who doubteth but that without prejudice of Christian profession it may by occasion be let fall again? And what greater occasion can there be then the Popish abuse thereof, who make a Catholic to import the same in effect now, that a Donatist did then? For with them a Catholic is no otherwise taken but for a Roman Catholic; and because the whole Church is not Roman but a part only, what is this Roman Catholic, but one who under the false name of a Catholic divideth himself from the whole Church, as the Donatists did, to cleave to a part thereof? What is the name of a Catholic then with them but a donatistical name, schismatical and factious, and therefore wicked and hateful, and in their sense wholly to be abandoned out of the Church of God? Hereby it may appear how idly M. Bishop saith, that the Apostles did ascribe and appropriate the name Catholic to true Christianity; for although they taught us to believe the Church to be Catholic, that is, universally extended through the world; yet did they never teach, neither was it for a long time after them accustomed, that true Christians were called by the name of Catholics, and therefore without wrong to any thing which the Apostles taught, we may rightly say that the name according to the Popish abuse thereof, is become the proper badge and mark of Apostates and Heretics. And therefore although if we had been in the time of Austin, we would with him 
z August. in joan. tract. 32. Catholico nomine & fide gaudemus.  have rejoiced in the Catholic name and faith, yet now we cannot with the Papists rejoice in the name of Catholics, and without any blasphemy we reject it; because under that name they have divided themselves from the Catholic Church, and have destroyed the true Catholic faith. Who though they be no other but proud and false fellows, as M. Bishop speaketh, and mere usurping companions, and their insolent and audacious folly have been both rebuked and convicted, yet do still impudently and infinitely persist in their absurd claim, and do leave us no way but only to desist from the communion of the name, which we cannot free from that abuse. Now whereas I say further, that 
a Rom. 2. 28.  the Apostle denieth the name of jews to them, who yet according to the letter were so called, because of the circumcision of the flesh, and applieth the truth of the name to them, who were so according to the spirit, albeit according to the letter they were not so named; M. Bishop very discreetly answereth, that the name jew being taken in the Apostles sense for one of what nation soever that fulfilleth the justice of the law, never was nor shall be a name of reproach. But what is this, I pray to that, that I say? Do my words import that the name of a jew in that sense is or hath been a name of reproach? When I say, that the Apostle applieth the truth of the name to the faithful, would he conceive me that the Apostle applieth to them a name of reproach? My words plainly signify that the name in vulgar and literal construction applied to them, who by propagation of nature are the seed of Abraham, is become a name of reproach and shame; but that as it hath implication of spiritual circumcision and conformity with Abraham, it is a name of honour, though they to whom it appertaineth be not according to the letter, and in common speech called by that name. Let him then understand proportionably that the truth of the name of Catholics, belongeth not to the Romish faction, who challenge to themselves as the jews did, to have gotten by succession the possession of the name, and will be commonly so called; but it belongeth to us, who though we use not the word being grown to ill meaning by their abuse, yet do maintain one and the same truth with them, who first were called by that name. In a word as there is a double sense in the one, so is there also in the other, and I do not so hop from one sense to another in the one, but that I show a just correspondence betwixt them both.    

W. BISHOP. §. 3.  
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 and Universal (as he acknowledgeth) that hath ever been, and is also spread over all the world, and shall continue to the world's 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 to to or be 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
IT pleaseth us very well, M. Bishop, that we have the kernel of the name of Catholics, and in the mean time because your importunity so requireth, we are content to leave the shell to you. The kernel serveth us to feed upon, and it is very tasteful to us; but you have bewrayed the shell, and therefore we have no care to meddle with it. Our inveighing against it is no otherwise but in respect of your abuse; let it be restored to his true use, and we shall be ready to extol it, and where it is so, we do so. As for your wager, M. Bishop, of twenty pound to a penny, you have lost it, and you know that you have lost it, because you see that I have set no other face upon the matter then by sufficient proofs I have made good. But here he taketh in hand to bereave us of the kernel, because our faith and religion was never Catholic, that is, was never spread over the whole world. Whereas I on the other side do tell him, that it is only our religion which appeareth to have been absolutely spread over all the word▪ and none but ours. For our religion is no more nor other than is contained in the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles, and because we know that the religion there set down was spread over all the world, therefore we cannot doubt but that our religion is that, that was spread over all the world, and though Apostasy hath overshadowed it, yet hath ever since continued in the world. As for that which he allegeth to the contrary, it is no uniform confession of ours, but a deformed lie of his own. We do not acknowledge that for nine hundred years together there was not a man of our religion to be found in the world. The Papacy indeed did mightily domineer accordingly as it was foretold, but yet it could never so prevail to the extirpation of our religion, but that even in the midst of the Papacy it hath continued still; yea thousands and hundred thousands, as by their own stories appeareth, have been murdered and slain for the profession thereof. Yea in the very religion of Popery our religion hath continued; for what is Popery, but a doctrine compounded of our religion, and their own device? Our religion hath served them for a foundation, whereupon to build, not only their wood, and hay, and stubble, but also the wildfire and poison of their idolatries and damnable heresies, which without the pretence and colour of our religion, Christian ears would have detested and abhorred, but therefore dreaded them not, because they saw them cloaked with show of still retaining that which we profess. They durst not deny those Canonical books of the old and new Testament, which our religion receiveth, but to serve their turn they added other books not inspired of God, to be notwithstanding of like authority with those. They acknowledged the Lords prayer, the articles of the Creed, the ten Commandments, which we receive as principles of our religion, but they frustrated them by a superstitious custom brought in of reciting them like a charm in an unknown tongue. They have never denied the two Sacraments which we teach, which were fast rooted in Christian profession; but they have added to them other five, and made them up seven. They used no other substantial form of Baptism than we do; only they profaned it with sundry polluted and corrupt ceremonies of human device. In their Mass and Sacrament of the Altar, the ground of all is that that we do according to the institution of Christ, and example of the primitive Church. They bring bread and wine to the Lords table, they sanctify or consecrate the same with the words of Christ; when and where they list they administer the same to the people, and all this they take upon them to do in remembrance of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord jesus. This is our religion, and herein their example justifieth us; but their doctrines of transubstantiation, and real presence, and concomitancy, and sacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead, with the rest of that kind, are additions of theirs, whereof the institution of Christ which together with us they recite, maketh no show at all. If they should have disclaimed redemption and remission of sins, by the bloodshed and death of Christ, Christian people would have defied them; therefore they left the name thereof in the Church, which is our religion, but they defeated the power of it by bri●ging in a thousand other devices, whereby men should redeem themselves, and purchase the remission of their own sins. It is our religion to acknowledge Christ to be the Mediator betwixt God and Man, and this they would never disavow; but to Christ they have joined the Saints also to be our Mediators. It is our religion to teach that God is to be worshipped, and all spiritual devotion is to be done unto him, and this they cannot deny: but they have added hereto the worshipping of Saints and Saints Images, and thereby have defiled the worship of the immortal God. They deny not grace which our religion teacheth, but they put to it the power of nature and free will. They dare not but confess Christ to be the head of the Church, which our religion teacheth; but they have added the Pope to be another head, and so have made the Church a Monster with two heads. Thus in every point of doctrine take away those patcheries and additions of theirs, which are things not taught us by the word of God, and even in their religion that which remaineth is our religion, the very truth of the Gospel of jesus Christ. For these and such other propositions of true faith the Devil could never abolish out of the Church; only by Antichrist he suppressed the knowledge and use of them, and to this wholesome wine put such abundance of his corrupt and poisoned waters, as might frustrate the power and effect thereof. Wherein notwithstanding he could not so far prevail, but that the light here and there broke forth by such chinks and lattices as were remaining, which many of our forefathers in the time of that Egyptian darkness, did discern and see to their everlasting comfort and soul's health. Yea M. Bishop knoweth well that there were in those times both Pastors and Flocks, not in one only Country, but in many, who detested those blending and mixtures of theirs, and kept themselves either wholly or for the most part to the entire truth of our religion, the light whereof even then shined unto them out of the very darkness of the Church. Which notwithstanding we wonder not that he pretendeth not to know, who will seem not to know that our religion hath spread itself into Italy and Spain, when as all the world knoweth that the Inquisition hath shed the blood of many thousands there only for the profession of our religion. Yea the principles of our religion are so residing, will they, nill they, in the very bowels of Popery, as that they are forced to use many sinister courses to drown and stifle them, and to keep the people from taking knowledge thereof, because they see that if there be but wind to blow away the ashes, our fire will straightways burn amongst them, and the flame presently ascend to the consuming of their roof; they see that if men be but stirred a 〈…〉 awaked out of their sleep, they will be forthwith ready out of the very common instinct of Christianity to believe as we do. In Greece, in Africa, in Asia, wheresoever the Gospel is, there is no other but our Gospel, because there is no Gospel but that which the Evangelists and Apostles have recorded in the writings of the Gospel, neither is Christ any where known, but where he is known by that Gospel. Therein hath our Gospel been spread over the whole world; therein we communicate with the Church of the whole world; wheresoever this Gospel is free, there our religion is not bound; but thereby even amidst error and apostasy, ᵇ wisdom is justified of her children, and God 
Mat. 11. 19  according to the purpose of his grace giveth light unto everlasting life. As for the Indians, lamentable experience have they had of the Popish Gospel. Never any Apostle or Evangelist carried their religion abroad as the Papists have done thither: and they have cause to wish that the Roman Church had never been so Catholic as to extend to them. Upon some few of the remainder of them they have forced baptism & some of their ceremonies, but they have taught them nothing of religion, nothing of the Gospel of jesus Christ. How otherwise their religion hath been spread over the whole world, enough hath been said already: in brief I say here that they can allege no age nor time wherein they can make good that it hath so been. We know they can talk at will, but far are they from proof that their doctrines of the Pope's Supremacy, his Pardons and jubilees, of Purgatory, of Transubstantiation, of their private Mass and half Communion, with a number of such other, were ever or at any time received throughout the whole world.     

CHAP. FOUR That the Church before Christ even from the beginning was a part of the Catholic Church; and that the faith and religion of the new Testament differeth not in substance from the old.  
A BRIEF DEFENCE OF THE KING'S SUPREMACY ECCLESIASTICAL.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
NOw as of this Catholic Church from the beginning to the end there is, etc. to, Now whereas he allegeth, etc.  

W. BISHOP. §. 1.  
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 over-seen 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: 
Pacian. Epist. ad Simphor. de nomine Catholico.  Christian is my name, 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, and 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
MAster Bishop is foully overseen, to make it a question here, what time it was that the Church began to be called Catholic, it being sufficient to my purpose that the Church before the time of Christ, albeit it were not then called Catholic, yet was a part of that Church which hath been so called since the time of Christ, even as the arm which coming first out of the womb, beareth not the name of the child, and yet is a part of the child, which is afterwards called by that name. Therefore, St. Austin dividing mankind into 
a Aug. in psal. 61. una civitas & una civitas. Babylonia una; Jerusalem una. Illa rege Diabolo; ista rege Christo, etc. Illa incepit à Cain, haec ab Abel.  two Cities, the one under the Devil as King thereof, the other under Christ; the one Babylon, the other jerusalem (
b Heb. 12. 22.  the heavenly jerusalem, 
c Gal. 4. 26.  jerusalem which is above, which is the Mother of us all) beginneth jerusalem at Abel, as he doth Babylon at Cain, and maketh 
d Aug. in psal. 86. Civis inde Propheta, civis inde Apostolus.  the Prophets as well as the Apostles citizens thereof, and by another similitude calleth the Christian Church 
e Idem in psal. 79. Quid est expectandii secundae vincae, in mò eidem vineae? ipsa est enim; non enim altera est.  one and the same vineyard with the Church of the jews. And if M. Bishop will not learn this of Austin, let him learn it of Gregory Bishop of Rome, saying that God 
f Gregor. in evang. hom. 19 Habet vineam, universalem scilicet Ecclesiam, quae ab Abel ●usto usque ad ultimum electum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est quot sanctos pretulit, quasi tot palmit●s misit.  hath his vineyard, even the universal Church, which yieldeth so many branches as it bringeth forth Saints from righteous Abel unto the last Elect that shall be borne in the end of the world: and again, that 
g Idem in Ezech. hom. 15. una est Ecclesia electorum praecedentium atque sequentium.  there is but one Church of the Elect, both before and since the time of Christ. Or if he be loath to turn so great a volume as Gregory's works, let him look into their own Roman Catechism, where he shall find that it is one cause why the Church is called 
h Catechism. Roman. part 1. cap. 10. sect. 16. Praeterea omnes fideles qui ab Adam in hunc usque diem suerant qui●e futuri sunt quamdiu mundus durabit, veram fi●em profitentes ad eandem Eccl●siam pertinent.  Catholic, because all the faithful who have been from Adam till this day, and shall be to the world's end professing the true faith do belong unto it. What? hath M. Bishop been so long a Doctor of Divinity, and yet doth he not know that the Catholic Church though it were not called Catholic, till after the coming of Christ, yet now is understood to contain all the faithful, from the beginning to the end? Undoubtedly he knew it well enough, but my collection galled him, and he saw there was no way but by cavilling to make show to shift it of. But if he did not, let him have wit to learn it now, and let him take my words accordingly, that as of the Catholic Church from the beginning to the end, there is but one body even as one Lord, one God and Father of all, so there is also but one spirit, which quickeneth that one body, and 
i Ephes. 4. 4.  one faith, whereby we are all partakers of that spirit, both which the Apostle joineth together when of the faithful both of the old and new Testament, he saith, that they have 
k 2. Cor. 4. 13.  the same spirit of faith. Of this one spirit Gregory saith, that 
l Greg. in psal. 5. Poenitent. Sicut est una anima quae diversa corporis membra vivisicat; ita totam simul Ecclesiam unus spiritus sanctus vegetat & illustrat.  as it is but one soul which quickeneth the divers members of the body, so one holy spirit giveth life and light to the whole Church. Whether we respect them that were before the incarnation of Christ, or them that come after, they both make but one body, and therefore the holy Ghost as the soul is but one and the same to both. So of faith Gregory telleth us, that 
m Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 16 ●adé sides ●pes, charitas, in antiquis patribus quae in novis Doctoribus fuit.  in the old Fathers was the same faith, hope, and charity, as in the new teachers, namely the Apostles and the rest. So likewise Leo Bishop of Rome saith, that 
n Leo in Natluit. Dom. ser. 3. Fides qua vivimus nulla fuit aetate diversa.  the faith whereby we live was never different in any age, but 
o Idem de Pass. Dom. serm. 14. una fides justificat universorum temporum sanctos.  one faith, saith he, justifieth the Saints of all times. 
p Aug in joan. tract. 45. Tempora variata sut, non fides, etc. In diversis signis eadem fides.  There is difference of the times, saith Austin, but not of the faith; in diversity of signs there is the same faith. 
q Idem Epist. 89. Sacramenta variata sunt ut alia essent in veteri Testamento, alia in novo, cùm fides varia non sit sed una sit.  The Sacraments are altered, one sort in the old Testament, other in the new, whereas faith is not divers but one still. Now though the signs and Sacraments were divers, yet because there was the same faith and the same spirit, therefore the effects of faith and of the spirit were the same, so that what we receive spiritually in Baptism and the Lords Supper, they also though in other Sacraments received the same, so that they were spiritually baptised, they did eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood as well as we, as was before intimated in my answer, and M. Bishop giveth occasion to declare further in the next section. Of the original of the name Catholic and Catholics, I have spoken before that that may suffice, and though M. Bishop have drawn it in, it is impertinent here to stand upon it.    

W. BISHOP. §. 2.  
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 too 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, No, 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; That the mystery of Christ unto 
Ephes. 3. vers. 4.  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 looking a far off, at the days of 
Hebr. 11. v. 13.  Christ the light of the world) did not discover so distinctly the mysteries of the Christian faith as the Apostles, who were 
* joh. 6. v. 45.  taught by his own mouth, and made to know 
a Ioh 15. v. 15.  all his Father's secrets, and had 
b Rom. 8. v 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: Many Prophets and just men have 
Math. 13. v. 17.  desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
I Was neither deceived myself, M. Bishop, neither did I go about to deceive others, the case being so plain as that a man of understanding cannot easily be deceived therein. If the Catholic Church be but one from the beginning to the end, and of this Church from the beginning to the end there be but one faith, as hath been showed, who is so blind as that he seethe not that the Catholic faith now must be the same with the faith of all the Patriarches and Fathers since the world began? It was not Catholic then, because it was peculiar only to some few whom God enlightened, or to one only nation which he specially selected, but it was the very same which afterwards became Catholic by being preached and spread over the whole world. Now then most clear it is that if our faith be the same with the faith of Abel, of Enoch, of Abraham, and the rest of those times, than our faith is the Catholic faith, even the faith which the Apostles preached through the world; and if the faith of Popery be not the same, then is Popery falsely termed the Catholic faith. M. Bishop blameth me for recoiling to the beginning of the world, and telleth me what it is that I should have proved, when by recoiling, if I must so call it, to the beginning of the world, I prove that which he requireth, howsoever he under pretence of calling for proof would make his Reader believe that he seethe no proof. But he well enough seethe the work too hard for Hercules, as he calleth it, by this proof very readily dispatched; for if there be but one faith of the Church from the beginning to the end, and our faith be that which was in the beginning, then is our faith that which was spread over the world, and shall continue to the end. As though, saith he, 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. I answer him, that all particular points of faith were revealed unto them, but not all circumstances of all particular points, nor so clearly as to us; and the same religion and manner of worshipping God in substance was delivered unto them, though in outward rites and ceremonies we differ from them. Christ was 
a Apoc. 13. 8.  the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world. 
b Aug. Epist. ●. Christum Deum in carne venturum, moriturun, resurrecturum, in coelum ascensurun etc. inque illo remissionem peccatorum, salutemque aeternam credentibus futuram esse, omnia gentis illius promissa, omnes prophetiae, Sacerdotia, Sacrisicia, temple & cunc●a omninò Sacramenta sonuerunt.  All the promises of that time, saith St. Austin, all the Prophecies, the Priesthood, the Sacrifices, the Temple, and all the Sacraments did tell them that Christ should come God in the flesh, that he should die, that he should rise again, and ascend into heaven, and that all that believe should have remission of sins in him. These are particular points of faith, and these they believed, albeit the manner and circumstances of the Birth, the Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, were not revealed unto them as they are in the Gospel lively described, and set forth to us. For as in the first draft of the painter there is to be discerned the whole feature, proportion, and parts of the body which he hath in hand to paint, which remain afterwards by filling and garnishing to be brought to full and perfect form; so the whole frame of Christian faith was in the beginning made known to the Patriarches and Fathers of the first world, though the same remained more and more clearly to be revealed until by the coming of Christ it should receive full and perfect light. It skilleth not therefore which he saith, that those ancient Patriarches did not so distinctly discover the mysteries of Christian faith as the Apostles did; they did discover them, though not so distinctly; they saw them, though it were as it were 
c Hebr. 11. 13.  a far off. Even as we see those things that are taught us concerning the end of the world, the resurrection of the dead, the day of judgement, and the life to come, which yet distinctly we do not see, so did they see those things, which since by the effecting of them in Christ are become distinct and plain to us. Therefore St. Austin saith; 
d August. de nat. & great. c. 44. Ea sides justos sanavit antiquos quae sanat & nos, id est, mediatoris Dei & ●emi●um hominis Jes● Christi, fides sanguinis eius, sides crucis eius, sides mortis & resurrectionis 〈◊〉.  The same faith saved the just of old, that saveth us, the faith of the Mediator betwixt God and Man, even the man jesus Christ, the faith of his blood, the faith of his cross, the faith of his death and resurrection; hereby signifying that they believed all these points of faith as well as we, though being things to come they were not as yet so clear and manifest unto them. As for the Scriptures which he allegeth, because they make nothing against this, therefore they make nothing against us. He bringeth the Apostle, saying, that 
e Ephes. 3. 5.  the mystery of Christ in other generations was not known unto the sons of men, as now it is revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets. Be it so; it was known then, but it was not so known, as it was revealed and made known to his Apostles. Let him take this from Thomas Aquinas, so expounding the words: 
f Tho. Aquin. in Ephes. cap. 3. lect. 1. ●●et mysteria Christi Prophetis & Patriarchis fuerint. revelata, non tamen it a clarè sicut Apostolis. Nam Prophetis & Apostolis fuerunt revelata in quadam generalitate, sed Apostolis manifestata sunt quantum ad singulares & determinatas circumstantias.  Though the mysteries of Christ were revealed to the Patriarches and Prophets, yet not so clearly as to the Apostles; for to the Prophets and Patriarches they were revealed in a kind of generality, but tot he Apostles they were manifested, as touching particular and definite circumstances. And hereby the answer is ready to the words of our Saviour Christ, 
g Mat. 13. 17.  Many Prophets and just men have desired to see the things which ye see and have not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear and have not heard them. For 
h Aug. count lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 37. Omnes superiorum temporum justi & Prophetae cupicbant videre copl●tum quod revelante spiritu futurum esse cernebant, unde & ipse Dominus ait, Quoniam multi justi, etc.  they desired clearly and perfectly to see those things which they believed, and with their eyes to behold the promised Saviour, in whom all their hope and joy was fixed, and to hear the gracious words that should issue from his mouth, which notwithstanding they obtained not. 
i john 8. 56.  Your father Abraham saith our Saviour elsewhere, desired to see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced. He saw it, and yet still desired to see it, because as yet he saw it not as he did desire to see. He desired to see with his eyes Christ come in the flesh, but so he saw him not; yet by faith he so foresaw his coming, as that it was great joy and gladness to him. Three other Texts he quoteth, not to prove his purpose, but only to let us see that he is able for a need to cite the Scripture. Two of those he appropriateth to the Apostles, which appertain to all the faithful. To show that the Apostles were taught by Christ's own mouth, he allegeth the words of Christ, citing a sentence of Esay the Prophet; 
k john 6. 45.  It is written in the Prophets, And they shall be all taught of God, whereas it is plain that the words are spoken not of being outwardly taught by the mouth of Christ, but of being inwardly taught by 
l Mat. 16. 17.  the revelation of the Father; nor contain any thing peculiar to the Apostles, but common to all the Elect, as both by the course of Christ's speech appeareth, and by the words themselves, as they are set down by the Prophet, 
m Esa. 54. 13.  All thy children shall be taught of the Lord. So to the Apostles also he referreth the words of St. Paul, of 
n Rom. 8. 23.  having received the first fruits of the spirit, whereas to be partaker of the first fruits of the spirit, is the condition of every regenerate man, in which manner St. Austin generally applieth it; 
o August. de Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. l. 2. c. 7. Nunc ei similes esse iam coep●mus primitias habentes spiritus.  We have now begun to be like him by having the first fruits of the spirit, and not only in the new but in the old Testament also, because of us both the Apostle witnesseth, as we have heard before, that 
p 2. Cor. 4. 13. * John 15. 15.  we have the same spirit of faith. In the third place Christ saith to his Apostles, ● I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of my Father, have I made known to you. But what will M. Bishop conclude hereof? Will he argue that because Christ taught his Apostles all points of faith more plainly and clearly, therefore the ancient Patriarches knew not all points of faith? Nay, we will argue to the contrary, that sith Christ maketh known to his friends all his father's secrets, as M. Bishop speaketh, therefore God made known all those secrets to Abraham, because Abraham was 
q Esa 41. 8. james 2. 23.  called the friend of God, and such a friend as that he saith of him: 
r Genes. 18, 17.  Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I will do? And seeing Abraham is called 
s Rom. 4 11. 12.  the Father of all that believe, as in the steps of whose faith we are to walk, how can we doubt but that God revealed unto him all that faith which concerneth us unto eternal life? In a word, St. Austin saith again of all those fathers and of us, 
t Aug. count 2. Epist. Pelag. l. 3. c. 4. Eadem sides & in illis qui nondum nomine sed reipsa fucrunt Christiani, & in illis qui non solum sunt sed & ●●cantur, & in utrisque eadem gratia per Sp. San●um.  There is the same faith both in them who beforetime not yet in name, but indeed were Christians, and in them who not only are, but also are called so, and in both the same grace by the holy Ghost. From which words it may be observed, what will become of those two absurdities which M. Bishop hath taken upon him to observe in me. For first, if those old Fathers were indeed Christians, and therefore members of the Catholic Church, as well as we, what tergiversation do I use, or how do I leap back from the point in question, when by affirming our communion with them, I affirm consequently our communion with the Catholic Church? Forsooth, the Church was not then Catholic. Be it so, but it was then the same Church which was afterward to become Catholic, a part of the Catholic Church, and in come 〈…〉 nicating with a part of the Catholic Church, we communicate with the whole, because of the whole there is but one and the same saith. Secondly, if they were Christians by the same faith, whereby we are so, what absurdity do I commit in saying, that they believed all the articles of faith that we believe; so clearly I do not say, because they believed them not in those particular circumstances, which by the story of the Gospel are known to us, but yet all the same, and as clearly as we believe those points of faith, which are of those things that are yet to come? And if they did so, what hindereth but that we rightly conclude, that those branches of the Roman faith which were not then sprung up, are only Romish additions, and not any parts of the true Catholic faith? Against this M. Bishop excepteth: But good Sir, did they believe that all their children were to be baptised? and that all persons of riper years among them were to receive the holy Sacrament of Christ's body? I have answered him before, that as touching outward signs and Sacraments, there is difference betwixt them and us, and I now answer him further, that as touching the power and effect of Sacraments, they were in their Sacraments spiritually baptised as well as we, and spiritually partakers of Christ's body and blood as well as we. For 
u Leo in Natiu Christi. ser. 3. Verbi inca●natio haec contulit facienda quae facta, etc. Hoc magna pietatis Sacramentum quo totus iam mundus impletus est tam potens etiam in suis significationibus fuit ut non minùs adepti sine qui in illud credidere promissum quàm qui suscepere donatum.  the incarnation of Christ being yet to come, saith Leo, yielded the same that it doth now being done, and the great mystery of godliness whereof now the whole world is full, was so powerful in the significations of it, as that they attamed no less, who believed therein being promised, than they did who have received it, now given and performed. And again, 
x Idem de Pass. Dom. ser. 13. Sanguis unius ius●● quem nobis pater donavitqui ●um pro reconciliatione mundi credimus fusum, hoc contulit patribus qui similitèr credidere fund●●dum.  The blood of one just one which the father hath given unto us, who believe the same to have been shed for the reconciliation of the world, yielded the same benefit to the Fathers, who did believe that it should be shed. Therefore, we see that the Apostle as on the one side he saith of us, that we are 
y Col. 2. 11.  circumcised, because the effect of circumcision is with us, so saith of them also that they were 
z 1. Cor. 10. ●.  baptised, because the grace and effect of baptism was with them. And thus Gregory saith, that 
a Greg. Mor. l 4. c. 3. Quod apud nos valet aqua bapt●matis, hoc e●●t apud veteres vel pro paruulis sola fides, vel pro maioribus virtus sacrificij, vel pro his q●i ex Abrahae sti●pe prodierant mysterium circumcisionis.  what the water of baptism availeth with us, the same with 〈◊〉 old Fathers did either faith only for infants, or for them of el●●● years the power of Sacrifice, or for them that came of the stock of Abraham the Sacrament of circumcision. And thus of their Sacraments, whereto now answereth our Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the Apostle saith, that therein 
b 1 Cor. 10. 4.  they did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink. For their Sacraments and ours 
c August. in joan. tract. 26. Sacramenta illa fu●runt; in signis diversa sunt, sed in re quae significatur pari● sunt.  in signs are divers, faith St. Austin, but in the thing signified they are both alike. They that did eat Manna aright, 
d Idem de util. posset. cap. 1. Quicunque in Manna Christum intellexerunt, ●undem quem nos cibum spirituilem manducaverunt.  did understand Christ therein, and thereby did eat the same spiritual meat that we do, even the flesh of Christ, and they that did drink of the Rock aright, did therein also drink of Christ, even the blood of Christ, for the Rock was Christ, that is, 
e Idem de Temp. sor. 108. Petra illa typum habuit corporis Christi etc. Quod utique non ad d●uin●tatem 〈◊〉 sed ad cara●m relatum est quae siticntium corda populorum perenni riu● sang●●nis sui inundavit.  was the type or figure of the body of Christ, saith Austin: again, the same not being referred to his Deity, but to the flesh which watered the hearts of the thirsty people by the ever-flowing river of his blood. 
f Idem de utilit. Poenit. cap. 1. Eundem ●rgò cibum, eundem p●tum, sed intelligentibus & credentibus. Non intelligentibus autem illud solum Manna, illa sola aqua; ille cibus esurienti; potus iste sitienti: nec ille net iste credenti; credenti autem ●dem qui ●●●c.  There was, saith he, the same meat and the same drink to them that had understanding and faith; but to them that understood not, the one was only Manna, the other was only Water; the one food for the hungry, the other drink for the thirsty, neither the one nor the other meat or drink for the believer, but he that believed had the same that we have now. And if they had so; if by Manna they did eat the body of Christ, and by the Water of the Rock they did drink the blood of Christ, what hindereth then but that we may say that though not by outward sign, yet as touching inward grace and effect, they were partakers of the Lords Supper? Whereas he further asketh, Can M. Abbot demonstrate that they had perfect faith of the Trinity, believing distinctly in three persons and one God? I answer him that it may be to him in ●ade of a demonstration that they did so, because sundry Heathen Philosophers, as 
g Cyril. count Julian. lib. 1. Ex Hermete, Orp●●●, Porphyrio, etc. Vide Phil. Morn. Plessi de verit. Christ. relig. cap. 6.  Cyril at large showeth, were not ignorant of this secret of the divine nature, who had no otherwise knowledge thereof but by some kind of Tradition from the Fathers, who had been so instructed from God himself. For can we think that it could be known to Philosophers and Pagans, and that it was unknown to the Patriarches and godly Fathers? Nay, it is a certain demonstration that they had this knowledge of the Godhead, because out of those Scriptures wherein their knowledge and faith is set forth unto us, we have testimony and proof thereof; though not so formal and clear as in some few places of the new Testament is expressed, yet such as from whence this point of faith is most certainly and undoubtedly to be conceived. For when we find on the one side, 
h Deut. 6. 4.  The Lord our God is one Lord, and on the other side do read, 
i Psal. 2. 7.  The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee; and again, 
k Psal. 110. 1.  The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, etc. and again, 
l Esa 48. 16.  The Lord and his spirit hath sent me; 
m Esa. 61. 1.  The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, with infinite other places to like effect, how can we doubt but that in unity of the Godhead they saw distinctly three persons▪ the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost? And thus Gregory resolveth, that 
n Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 16. Si●e high qui elects in testamento veteri fuerunt, sive hi qui in novo testamento secuti sunt, ●imirum constat quia omnes ex amore Trinitatis accensi sunt, etc. Ad veram speciem ex Trinitatis sunt cognition decorats.  whether the elect in the old Testament, or they that followed in the new they were all enkindled with the love, and adorned to true beauty with the knowledge of the holy Trinity. As touching the last point which he mentioneth of Christ in unity of person being both God and Man, I answer him by St. Austin, that they did so believe; for 
o Aug. Epist. 157. Cuius hominis eiusdemque Dei saluberrima fide ●tiam illi justi salui facti sunt qui priusquam in carne vemret crediderunt ill●m in carne centurum.  by the most wholesome belief, saith he, of Christ both God and Man, even those just were saved who believed that he should come in the flesh before that he did come. And in another place he saith yet more expressly concerning Abraham, 
p Idem cont. Pelag. & Celest lib. 2. c. 27. Nunquid & illud quod jubet Abraham ponere mark servum suum sub semore suo & jurare per Deum coeli, alitèr quisquam rectè intellecturus est nisi Abraham scisse in qua v●ntu●us esset Deus coeli, carnem de illo semore propagari?  When Abraham bid his servant put his hand under his thigh, and swear by the God of heaven, can any man otherwise understand it aright, but that Abraham knew that from that thigh should be derived that flesh, wherein the God of heaven should come. If Abrah 〈…〉 knew that the God of heaven should come in flesh, taken of his flesh, he could not be ignorant, I trow, that when he should be come, he should be in the flesh both God and man.. To be short, the same St. Austin presently after saith, 
q Ibid. cap. 28. Nondum factum sed adhuc futurum eadem tamen ipsa & patrum quae nostra est sides una cantabal, Tues Sacerdos in aternum, etc.  The faith of the Fathers all one with our faith did sing that which then was not done, but was as yet to come, Thou art a Priest f●r ever after the order of Melchisedec. Where we cannot doubt but their faith observed as ours doth, from the beginning of the Psalm, that it was David's Lord to whom this was said, and therefore that he was very God; and because he could not be a Priest after the order of Melchisedec, except he were man, therefore that he was truly man, and because God notwithstanding speaketh unto him as only one, therefore that in unity of person he should be both God and man. For conclusion M. Bishop granteth that they believed some few points of faith in particular, and had a certain confuse and dark conceit by figures and types of most of the rest; but inasmuch as he instanceth against me the most high mysteries of our Christian faith, and yet it appeareth that they had the belief and knowledge thereof, we do not doubt but that they had likewise knowledge, though not so easily as we, but with more labour attained unto, yet they had knowledge not only of the most, but also of all the rest.    

W. BISHOP. §. 3.  
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 Tabernacle, and in the 
Exod. 25. v. 18.  Temple of Solomon, and this sentence of the Psalmist; 
3. Reg 6. v. 23.  Adore his footestole, and many such like places and 
Psalm. 98. v. 5.  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: God, etc. and the Angel that hath 
Genes 48. v. 16.  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 Saints in heaven are equal 
Luc. 22.  to Angels, as our Saviour himself assureth us; and job was counseled to pray and call for aid unto some of the Saints: Ad aliquem Sanctorum convert. Thirdly, 
job 5. vers. 1.  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: If thou do 
Genes. 4. v. 7.  well shalt thou not receive; if evil, thy sin will be 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: Consider 
Deut. 30. v. 15.  that I set before you life and good, and contrariwise death and evil; if you love God, and will walk in his Commandemen, life; or else, death, etc. choose therefore life, etc. Must they not be very dull, 
Vers. 19  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 special 
Numer. 6.  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. Abbots fift instance. For not only David saith: Vow and render it 
Psalm. 75. v. 12.  to our Lord; but in the law it is written: When thou 
Deut. 23. v. 21.  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 
Antiquitat. judaic. lib. 18. c. 2.  in the time of the law many thousands called Esseni, 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 forefather's 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, and the eternal pain was forgiven them, is most clearly recorded both of all the people of Israel, Whose murmuration against 
Numer. 14.  God, was at the earnest intercession of Moses pardoned; and yet were they therefore deprived of entering into the land of promise. Yea Moses and 
Numer. 20. v. 24  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 debarred from entering into the land of promise, for the 
Deut. 32. v. 51.  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 judas Machabeus, 
2. Mach. 12.  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: see the Catholic Apology out of Protestant Authors. Eightly, the 
Titul. 1. Sect. 4.  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 that what stranger soever, should 
Deut. 16. v. 16.  come thither to pray, he might obtain his suit. And the bones of the Prophet Elizeus, giving life by 
3. Reg. 8. v. 21. 4. Reg. 13. v. 21.  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 they 
Numer. 5. Levit. 5.  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, as both S. chrysostom 
Chrysost. lib. 3. de Saceraot. Hieron. in cap. 16. Math.  and S. Hierome do argue. This in brief will suffice I hope, for answer unto M. Abbot's particulars.  

R. ABBOT.  
I Gave instance in mine answer of sundry points of faith and religion, which I affirmed to be unknown to the first Fathers; which notwithstanding are such as they could not have been ignorant of, if they were matters of so great moment in religion, as they are pretended now. I named the worshipping of Idols and Images, Invocation of Saints and Angels, Merits and supererogations, Monkish vows, Popish pardons, and prayers for souls in Purgatory, Pilgrimages to Relics and dead men's bones, auricular Confession and shrift, in which and sundry other such like devices, the very substance of Catholic religion is now with the Papists imagined to consist. Now M. Bishop affirmeth to the contrary, that they held the most of these; the most, he saith, not all; thereby importing concerning some of them, at least that they were unknown to them. And yet as though he witted not what he had said, he taketh in hand to touch every one of my instances, and to give some proof of every one of them, referring the Reader for more full satisfaction, to the proper places of the head controversies, whereas he knoweth well that in the answer to those controversies is already taken away almost all that he hath here said. As first, his exception against the name of Idol, 
a Of Images, sect. 5.  I have showed to be wholly vain, and have made it plain out of Tertullian and others, that every Image consecrated to be worshipped, is properly an Idol. Again, his allegations of Images in the Tabernacle, and in the Temple of Solomon, and of the words which he bringeth out of the Psalm, 
b Ibid. Sect. 8. 16.  Adore ye his footstool, have been also declared to be to his purpose false, impertinent, and vain. But yet to give a touch for a touch, note here also briefly the folly of them. I say that the old Fathers worshipped no Images; and he to prove the contrary allegeth that in the Tabernacle and Temple they had Images. What is the one of these to the other? Be it that they had them, but doth it thereof follow that they worshipped them? Doth he not know that some of our men do defend the having of Images in Churches, and yet do hold it gross idolatry to worship Images? It is written in the Psalm, Adore ye his footstool, but what is that to Images? Doth it any where appear that Images are God's footstool; or that there were in the Tabernacle or Temple any Images that went under that name? He citeth two places for Images there, which both mention the Cherubins, 
c joseph. Antiquit. l. 8. c. 2. Hae Cherubicae ●ffigies quanam specie fuerint n●mo ●el conijcere potest vel cloqui.  the shape and fashion whereof, josephus saith, no man can conjecture or tell; but can he show us that they had the Images of Abel, of Enoch, of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, and such other holy men? Did they set up any such in the Temple or Tabernacle, and fall down to worship them? If they did, let him make it appear to us. If they did not, why doth he trifle and dally in this sort? why doth he abuse the unwariness of simple and ignorant men, thus having one thing in hand to prove, to bring testimony of another? As for Invocation of Angels, how far the Patriarches and Fathers were from it, may appear by Origen, who when Celsus the Pagan objected to the jews that they did worship Angels, saith, that 
d Origen. count. Cells. lib. 1. Vbinam invenit in Mosaicis literis à legislatore tradi cultum Angelorum?  it is no where found in the writings of Moses, that the Lawgiver did deliver the worshipping of them; and saith again, that 
e Ibid. lib. 5. Coelestes Angelos nemo adorat qui se legi Mosis subdidit.  no man worshippeth Angels that yieldeth himself subject to Moses law. M. Bishop notwithstanding out of the law of Moses bringeth proof, as he would make us believe, of the practice thereof by the Patriarch jacob, who saith concerning the two sons of joseph, as M. Bishop setteth down his words, God, etc. and the Angel that hath delivered me from all evil, bless these children. Where it is to be observed how for the serving of his turn he doth by putting in, and, very wickedly corrupt and forge the text. For it is not said as he citeth, God and the Angel bless them, as if there were a dividing of the Angel from God, but thus the words are, 
f Genes. 48. 15.  The God before whom my Fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which hath fed me all my life long until this day, the Angel which hath delivered me from all evil, bless these children, so as that the God, the God, the Angel, are by apposition to be applied all to one, as if he had said; The God who hath fed me who is the Angel; or even the Angel which hath delivered me from all evil. For M. Bishop should not be ignorant of that which Hierome saith, that 
g Hieron. in Agg. cap. 1. In multis locis Dominus noster atque salvator Angelus Dei dicitur.  in many places our Lord and Saviour is called the Angel of God. Which Tertullian declaring at large, and defining it as a thing 
h Tertul. de Trinit. Personae Christi convenit ut & Deus sit quia Dei filius est & Angelus sit, quoniam paternae dispositionis adnunciator est.  agreeing properly to the person of Christ, both to be God, because he is the son of God, and to be an Angel, because he is the messenger for declaring his Father's will: and giving sundry examples hereof, cometh at length to the words which M. Bishop citeth, saying, 
i Ibid. Etiam post haec aequè non cessat eade Scriptura divina Angelum Deum dicere, Deum Angelum pronunciare. Nam cùm Manassem atque Ephram filios Joseph benedicturus esset hic ipse jacob transuersis super capita puerorum manibus collocatis, Deus, inquit, qu● pascit me, etc. Angelùs qui liberavit me, etc.  And yet further the holy Scripture ceaseth not to call God an Angel, and to pronounce the Angel to be God; for when jacob was to bless Manasses and Ephraim the two sons of joseph, laying his hands across upon their heads, he saith; God who siedeth me from my youth up to this day, the Angel who hath delivered me from all evil, he bless these children. Now than it is no created Angel that is here spoken of, but it is God that is called the Angel, even the second person in Trinity the Son of God. And that it is no otherwise to be understood, Tertullian evicteth out of the very words; 
k Ibid. Vsquead●ò eunde Angelum ponit quem Deum dixerat ut singularitèr in exitu sermonis sui posuerit personam de qua loquebatur, dic●ndo, benedicat pueros hos. Si enim alterum Angelum voluisset intell●gi, plurali numero duas personas complexus fuisset, etc.  So certain is it that he calleth him the Angel whom he had called God, as that in the issue of his speech he setteth down in the singular number, the person of whom he speaketh, saying, Benedicat, he bless these children; for if he would have had the Angel to be understood another then God, he would in the plural number have comprised two persons (benedicant; they bless these children.) And thus chrysostom reciteth the words as all of one; 
l Chrysost. in Genes. hom. 66. Ille, inquit, cui patres mei benè placuerunt, qui me à inventute mea usque in praesentem di●m educavit, qui me ab initio ab omnibus malis liberavit, qui tantam erga me declaravit providentiam, ipse benedicat hos pueros.  He whom my Fathers served, who hath brought me up from my youth until this present day, who from the beginning hath delivered▪ me from all evil, who hath declared towards me so great providence, even he bless these children. M. Bishop therefore is yet to seek for invocation of Angels amongst the Fathers, because the Angel here spoken of, is no other but the same God whom jacob doth there innocate and call upon. And if invocation of Angels fail, then faileth his argument, whereby from them he would prove invocation of Saints, because Saints forsooth are said in the Gospel 
m Luke 20. 36.  to be equal to Angels. How unhandsomly he useth that text, I stand not here to declare, because it is nothing pertinent to the point in hand. But to prove it better than only by such collection, he telleth us of job that he was counseled 
n Job 5. 1.  to pray and call for aid to some of the Saints; Turn thee to any or some of the Saints. They are the words of Eliphaz to job, depending upon a discourse in the former Chapter, wherein Eliphaz had intimated it to him, that it appeared by this calamity of his, that there had been hypocrisy and iniquity in his former life, without which God is not wont to lay his hand so heavily upon any. 
o Job 4. 7.  Remember I pray thee, saith he, who ever perished being an innocent, or where were the upright destroyed? This he amplifieth and prosecuteth unto the end of that Chapter, and then saith to the same effect again, Call now if any will answer thee, and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn? thereby willing him to ask and inquire whether there were any that could tell that ever any of the Saints, any just and upright man had tasted of that misery, that was now lying upon him? To the same purpose Bildad also afterwards saith: 
p Cap. 8. 8.  Inquire I pray thee of the former age, and prepare thyself to search of their Fathers; shall not they teach thee and tell thee, and utter the words of their heart? etc. Behold God will not cast away an upright man. This being manifestly the drift and purpose of these words, and nothing appearing whereby to draw them to invocation of Saints, we must think M. Bishop to be very destitute of proof, that would apply them to that end, neither can they serve thereto, because of all the Saints departed, we must conceive the same then, that expressly we read of some; 
p Esa. 63. 16.  Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel knoweth us not. The words are somewhat otherwise expounded by Gregory B●shop of Rome, but yet so as that for invocation of Saints he findeth nothing in them. He referreth the first part to God, the other part to living Saints, such as David speaketh of; 
q Psal. 16. 3.  My delight is upon the Saints that are in the earth: as if Eliphaz had told job that he neglected their company in his prosperity, and therefore that now in his affliction they yielded no help or comfort to him. 
r Greg. Moral. l. 5. cap 31. Ac si apertè dicat, Qua● tumlibet afflictus claims, Deum tibi respondentem non habes quia vox cum in tribulatione non invenit quem mens in tranquillitate contempsit. Vbi adhuc deriden●o subiungit, Et ad aliquem Sanctorum convertere; acsi despiciens dicat, Sanctos quoque invenire in afflictione adiutores non vales, quos habere socios in ●ilarita●e roluisti.  He saith, Call if there be any to answer thee, as if he plainly said, Howsoever in thy affliction thou cry, yet thou findest not God to answer thee, because the prayer findeth not him in trouble, whom the mind in tranquillity hath despised. Where yet further in derision he addeth, saith he; And turn thee to any of the Saints; as if by way of despite he said, Thou canst not find the Saints thy helpers in affliction, whom thou wouldst not have for thy companions in thy mirth and welfare. In a word, we find not in the words that job was counseled to pray to Saints, neither do we find it any where else that job followed any such counsel, neither is there any example of any other of those Fathers that they did so, and therefore neither in this can M. Bishop find their religion in the Fathers. The next matter is concerning Merit and Free-will, for which he bringeth two texts which are already wrested from him, being by himself 
s Of Free-will Sect. 10. 11.  before alleged, and by me fully answered. But yet observe briesly how well they make for that for which he allegeth them. If thou do well, saith God to Cain, shalt thou not receive? His argument hence must be this: He that doth well, shall receive; therefore he meriteth that which he shall receive. It followeth not, because that which he receiveth is of the bountifulness of the giver, not of the merit or desert of works, as through the whole question of merits I have declared at large. Such is his other argument from those words of Moses; 
t Deut. 30. 19  I have set before you life and death; choose life that thou mayest live, by loving the Lord thy God, etc. For God thus setting life before us, doth not tell us what we by right deserve, but what it is his pleasure to give to those that love and obey him. We choose life by loving the Lord our God, and obeying him, and cleaving unto him; but in all this we do but our duty, and cannot presume to merit any thing thereby. No better success hath he for Free-will, albeit in that manner as he propoundeth it, we deny it not, for we grant that man hath by God's grace free-will to do good works; we deny only that free-will which they hold as a power of nature, and not the effect of the grace of God, whereby man himself doth something for himself beside that which God doth. We do well; who denieth it? but it is only of the grace of God that we do well. We choose life, it is true; but it is of the gift of God that we choose life; 
u August. de Praedest. sanct. cap. 10. Ipse sacit ut illi saciant quae praecepit.  Who maketh us to do those things, saith St. Austin, which he hath commanded to be done. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that power is given to the wicked to do well if they will, it is an absurd speech, because they cannot will till God work in them to will, neither can they have any power to do well, until they have the will. For the forbearing of outward heinous acts, we deny not but that God hath left in man, even in the wicked, some power of free-will, else in vain were all laws and admonitions, neither could there continue any society amongst men. Be it that the words cited by M. Bishop do yield so much to Cain; but to the converting of the heart, to the inward renewing of the soul, to the embracing of the love of righteousness, to true repentance, faith, obedience, the will of man hath nothing at all but what is wrought in it by the grace of God. But of all these things I have spoken so fully before, that it is not fit here to stand upon them any more. For works of supererogation he is feign to betake himself to the ceremonial law of Moses; thereby leaving us to take it as of his own confession, that before that time, which was the space of two thousand and almost five hundred years, the Church of God knew no such; and hereupon to conclude, that because they stood only in ceremonies which were not merely for themselves to be reckoned in the number of good works, therefore the ceremonial law being abolished in Christ, those works of supererogation must therein have an end. But the works of supererogation which they maintain, and whereof I spoke, are works of the moral law, the precepts and righteousness whereof hath concerned the whole Church from the beginning, and before the written law; and therefore which must needs have been found in the Church from the beginning, if there were in them that righteousness and perfection, which is now presumed of them. Of these M. Bishop is silent; he can say nothing, he can show nothing; there is no example, no intimation of any such, believed or practised in the Church, I will not say for two thousand, as before, but for the space of four thousand years, as by his own confession interpretatiuè we argue, because he allegeth none. His instance of works of supererogation is only in legal vows, which albeit in the ceremony they were in some sort arbitrary, yet carried always an implication of spiritual necessary duties which to make their vows acceptable unto God were then to be performed by them, and are now still remaining to be performed by us. The vow of the Nazarite did by certain observations shadow forth, what ought spiritually to be the holiness and purity of them, who either than were or now are by the calling of the grace of God separated unto God. And so it stood with all other vows, which were of things appointed by the law to be offered and sacrificed, which served to advertise both them and us of that 
x Leo in Anniversar. suo. ser. 3. universi spirituales & rationales Christiani Sacerdotalis officij consortes, etc. Quid tam sacerdotale quam vovere Domino conscientiam puram & immaculatas pietatis hostias de Altari cordis offer?  Priestly duty, as Leo calleth it, common to all Christians, to vow unto God a pure conscience, and upon the Altar of the heart to offer up unspotted sacrifices of piety unto him. What is there here then for Popish vows, and why doth he go about to build his works of supererogation upon a foundation so unfit for the bearing of them? But of these matters I have 
y Of Vows. sect. 1. 5. confut. of the Answ. to M. Perk. Advert. sect. 16.  spoken also sufficiently before, and have handled those texts, which as there, so here again he citeth to no end. Very ill doth it sort, that when I allege that they vowed no vows of Monkery, he answereth me by texts that concern vows of sacrifices and ceremonies belonging only to that time. But being offended at my term of Monkery, fearing it belike to be a charm, to turn their Monks into Monkeys, he setteth himself to be revenged on me, by bringing a proof inevitable for the antiquity of them amongst the Patriarches and Fathers of the old Church. Forsooth, josephus a grave author amongst the jews witnesseth that there lived in the time of the law many thousands called Esseni, who were contemners of riches, lived in common, having neither wives nor servants. Similes habent labra lactucas. Like matter, like proof. Ridiculous man, who for the justifying of their Monkish vows would bring us the example of lewish professed Heretics, so recorded to have been by 
z Philast. de haeres. cap. 6.  Philastrius and 
a Epiphan. haeres 19  Epiphanius, and by his own author josephus set down for such another sect, as were the other two of 
b joseph. Antiquit. ludaic. l. 18. c 2. judai in tr●s sectas divisi, Essenorum, Saducaeorum & Pharis●orum.  the Pharisees and Saducees. Why did he not as well allege the Pharisees and Saducees (but specially the Pharisees, amongst whom he might have found some show for their 
c Epiphan haeres 16. Quidam ipsorum ●●m se exer●●bant, praescribebat dec●nnium aut octennium ●ut quadrien●●um virginitatis sive continentiae.  vow of continency and chastity) but that their names being known out of the Gospel, he knew it would easily be discerned what kind of weapon he had brought to fight against me. These Essees 
d Philast. ut supra. Christ●m Dominum Dei silium non expectantes, etc. Sed Prophetam aut justum hominem s●lum cred●ntes expectant.  believed not that Christ the Messiah should be the son of God, but only some Prophet or just man, as Philastrius writeth of them. josephus saith of them 
e joseph. de bell. judaic. l. 2. ●. 7. Opinio apud illos sirmata est corruptibilia esse corpora, ma teriamque 〈…〉 'em non ess● perpetuam. anim is autem immortales semper manner, & quasi careeribus ita corporibus implicari, etc. q●um verò fuerint à carnalibus releuate vinculis quasi de servitute longissi●a liber ●as, ●●a 〈◊〉 ●eta●i, etc. Bonas pronunciant ultra Oceanum degere, etc. illic q●ippe esse reg●onem que neque imbribus neque nivibus neque aestibus aggravetur, etc. malis autem animabus procellosa loca & hyberna delegant.  that they believed the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the body they believed not, into which they said according to origen's opinion, that the soul was brought as into a prison, and shall greatly rejoice when it is freed therefrom. They dreamt that the souls of the just have a place of rest beyond the Ocean, where there is no rain, nor snow, nor heat, and on the other side, that some stormy and winter quarters were designed for the evil. In the place cited by M. Bishop he showeth further, that 
f Idem Antiq. l. 18. cap. 2. Ad templum donaria mutentes sacraibinon faciunt, quòd sanctioribus utantur ceremonijs; quapropter exclusi ● communi sano seorsum sacrificant.  they sent gifts to the Temple, but did no sacrifice or devotion there, for that they used more sacred and holy ceremonies, namely then were appointed by God himself, for which cause being from thence excluded, they sacrificed apart, which was a thing contrary to the commandment of God. Now whereas M. Bishop saith, that they had neither wives nor servants, though it were true in some of them, yet it was not so in all. For josephus noteth that there was one sort of them which though 
g Idem de bello judaico, l. 2. c. 7. Est autem aliud etiam Ess●norum collegium, cibos qu●d● & mores legesque fimiles cum prioribus habens, distans verò opinione de con●●gio. Maximam siquidemvitae hominum partem, successionem scilicet, amputare qui abstineant nuptijs arbitrantur, etc.  they agreed with the rest as touching diet and orders, yet differed from them in the opinion of marriage, thinking that they that did forbear marriage, did cut off a great part of the life of men, by taking away succession, and therefore they did marry. But it is not to be omitted how M. Bishop graceth these Essees, with living in the time of the law, making show to the ignorant Reader, as if they had had some great continuance of good and approved times, whereas 
h Funcc. Chronolog. Anno mundi 3833.  the beginning of them as of the Pharisees and Saducees, was in the very declination of true piety and religion amongst the jews, some two hundred years before the time of josephus, about a hundred and forty years before the birth of Christ. Neither in the law of Moses nor in any of the Prophets is there mention of any such, neither were they in being whilst any of Prophetical spirit was remaining amongst that people. But when men left to be guided by the law and word of God, and betook themselves to human inventions and traditions, divers wits drew divers ways, and they became divided into sundry sects, in such sort as hath been said. Sith then those Es●ees were no other in the Church of the jews but Schismatics and Heretics, divided in opinion amongst themselves, never known till there grew a general and final corruption of that slate, and yet no mention of any vows wont to be made by them, do we not think that M. Bishop hath stoutly carried himself in bringing them for an example of vowing their Monkish vows? As ridiculously doth he behave himself in the next point, where I alleged of those old Fathers, that they neither sold nor bought Pardons. He answereth, neither they nor we either buy or sell pardons; (yet that the Pope doth so and usually hath so done, all the world knoweth) but if he would have spoken to the purpose, he should have showed us that though they neither bought nor sold Pardons, yet they had Pardons accustomably, as they have been amongst us. He should have made it appear to us, if he would have dealt plainly, that there was then from time to time some Pope or Quasi-Pope, that could give bills of release from Purgatory pains, for the comfort of the souls, which he saith lie broiling there; or sith he could not so do, should have confessed ingenuously that there was no such matter in those times, neither Pope, nor Purgatory, nor Pardons, and so have left us to think as already we do, that we may be as well without belief of them now, as they were then. As for that which he allegeth of mercy showed to the children for the father's sake, and of punishment reserved after the remission of the sin, what mad man would have brought the same in the behalf of the Pope's Pardons, but that belike his Reader perforce must take it, that he hath given me an answer, because he saith somewhat? But of these two points, 
i Of Merits, sect 7. Consut. of the Answer to M. Perkins Advert. sect. 23  how God showeth mercy to the children for the father's sake, and how untruly they affirm 
k Of Satisfaction, sect 9 10. etc.  the retaining of punishment after forgiveness, I have before declared, and have answered those texts and examples of the Israelites, and of Moses and Aaron, which here he bringeth for proof of the latter point. Well though he can say nothing for Pardons, yet for Purgatory whatsoever I say to the contrary, he will surely speed. He leaveth Moses and the Prophets, of whom it was said, 
l Luk. 16. 29.  Let them hear them, and cometh down to the latter times of the jews, to judas Maccabeus, or rather to that which an uncertain story reporteth, concerning judas Maccabeus, which yet reporteth not that which he taketh upon him to report from it. By the fact of judas it is manifest, saith he, that the jews did make prayers, and offered sacrifice for the souls in Purgatory. But where do you find that, M. Bishop, which you say; for the souls in Purgatory? What, will you bely your Author, and say of him that which he saith not? The story doth not say that any thing was done for the souls in Purgatory; yea it giveth plain demonstration that nothing was meant to be done in that respect. For having set down that which Maccabeus did, it goeth on thus; 
m 2. Macca. 1●. vers. 43.  Doing well and honestly that he thought of the resurrection; for if he had not hoped that they which were slain should rise again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. That than which judas did, is said to have been done in respect of the resurrection from the dead, that the sin of them which were slain, might not be imputed unto them when they should rise again. Yea, it is said that that which was done were superfluous and vain, but only in hope of the resurrection. But though there were no resurrection, yet prayer for the dead should not be superfluous and vain if thereby souls were delivered from Purgatory pains. Therefore, there was no respect of Purgatory in that which judas did. Yea what if that which judas did were not done for the dead at all, but only for the living? Surely for my part I am so persuaded, and I think any man that well weigheth the story, will be of the same mind. Peruse it, gentle Reader, and thou shalt see that there is great cause to think that all that is spoken there as touching prayer and offering for the dead, is the historians Commentary, and interpretation of the fact of judas, without any occasion of such construction given by judas himself. In a battle some few of the jews were slain, under whose coats when they came to bury them, they found jewels consecrated to Idols, which they were forbidden by the law to meddle with. Then every man saw, saith he, that this was the cause wherefore they were slain, and they gave thanks to the Lord the righteous judge, which had opened the things which were hid. This yet was not all, but because they knew what had befallen▪ to the whole Host of Israel for the like sin of Achan, only they feared least the like now should befall to them. He goeth on therefore and saith; And they gave themselves to prayer, and besought the Lord that they▪ should not utterly be destroyed for the fault committed. This being set down generally concerning the people, it followeth particularly concerning judas thus; Besides, that noble judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things which came to pass by the sin of these that were slain, and having made a gathering through the company, sent to jerusalem about two thousand drachmas of silver, to offer a sin offering. Which words containing the narration of the fact of judas, who would otherwise understand but according to that that is gone before, that judas▪ having the like care as the people had, that the wrath of God might not remain against them all for the sin of these few, not only exhorted the people to beware by their example of committing the like trespass, but also took care that of common charge a sin offering in common should be offered, that God might be appeased towards the whole army. That judas had this regard we cannot doubt, neither can we doubt but that he would be careful to show it according to 
n L●uit 4. 13. compared with Ios. 7. 1. 11. & 22. 20.  the law, and as was wont 
o Deut. 21. 1. 2. etc.  to be done upon the like occasion. How then shall we interpret that which he did otherwise then of that which by order was to be done, when as we see nothing else done that should be answerable to that order? To offer a sin offering for the multitude, it was agreeable to the law, and therefore we may well presume that he did so, and cannot but take that which he did to be intended so, rather than of that whereof the law commanded nothing, nor example is there found of any that did the like. But the historian not content to set down the narration of this matter simply, as it seemeth he found it in the former story which he followed, taketh upon him to give his judgement of it, and maketh thereof construction according to his own conceit, as if judas had offered for the dead in respect that he believed that they should rise again, when as indeed nothing appeared to that effect. And thus he afterwards giveth his censure of the deed of 
p 2. Macca. 14. 37. etc.  Razis in killing himself, giving approof and commendation thereof; so that by his authority we may as well argue that it is lawful for a man to kill himself, as that it is lawful to make prayers and offerings for the dead. Now M. Bishop knowing well our exception against the books of Maccabees, that they are not Canonical Scripture, and therefore are unsufficient to give us warrant of any point of faith, preoccupateth this objection, and telleth us that it is needless to prove the books of the Maccabees to be Canonical Scripture, and that it serveth this turn that they be taken for a grave history. Very unlearnedly and childishly; as though every grave history were sufficient to give us information in points of faith; and as though by the commendation of the fact of Razis, it did not appear that he did not greatly deserve with us the commendation of a grave historian, who know not so much as a grave Heathen Philosopher did know, Pythagoras by name, from whom Tully learned it, that 
q Tull de Senect. Vetat Pythagora● iniussu imperatoris, id est, Dei, de praesidio & station vitae decedere. Et Tuscul. quaest. l. 1. Vetat dominans ille in nobis Deus iniussu hinc nos suo demigrare.  it is forbidden us of God, but only at his call and bidding to go out of this life, and therefore that it is not lawful for a man at his own will to make away himself. As for our allowing of those Apocryphal books, to be read for instruction of manners, what is it to the warranting of matters of faith? neither do we by that allowance give them such authority, as if every thing which they say in that behalf were to be approved, but only acknowledge them as containing for the most part very not able instructions, and very profitable to that end, which yet must all have authority from those books, which by due testimony we have received to be the certain and undoubted word of God. What the jews do at this day it skilleth not, so long as from their law they have no rule for that they do. We know they have now many superstitions amongst them, whereof their example can be no warrant to us, that we should thereupon presume to do the same. To the eighth point by me alleged; They made no pilgrimages to Relics or dead men's bones, he answereth, that the jews were bound to go as it were in pilgrimage at three solemn feasts yearly to one special place, which God should choose for his service. Where mark, I pray thee, how when I speak of going in pilgrimage, he answereth me of going as it were in pilgrimage; and where I speak of going to relics and dead men's bones, he telleth me of going to the Temple of God. What accord have these one with the other? who would trouble himself to give answer to an absurd man, that fooleth and trifleth in this sort? As much is it to the purpose which he allegeth, that 
r 2. Kings 13. vers. 21.  a dead man buried in the grave of Elizeus upon the touching of his bones revived and lived again. Be it so, but doth he read that hereupon there was ever any pilgrimage used to the bones of Elizeus? or doth he find that they who carried the body to be buried, did purposely go on pilgrimage to the sepulchre of Elizeus, as thinking to receive any benefit thereby? Surely, they did casually what they did; they saw enemies approaching, and for hast they cast the dead man into Elizeus grave. It pleased God to show that miracle once only for that time, to confirm that which had been taught by his servant Elizeus; but neither any before, by any other example, nor any after by this example, learned to hunt after dead men's bones, to receive any health or comfort by them. We can find no pilgrimage, M. Bishop, in this story, because here was no pilgrimage, nor any was hence learned to the bones of Elizeus. As barely and coldly dealeth he in the last point, where I say, They knew no shrift nor absolution. They were not wholly unacquainted, saith he, with some kind of shrift and absolution. Mark how faintly the man speaketh; some kind of shrift, he saith; and again, they were not wholly unacquainted with it. They were not acquainted with shrift, but yet they were not wholly unacquainted with some kind of shrift. But it is Popish shrift and absolution that we require, whereby the penitent is taught to tell in the ear of the Priest all his sins particularly, and thereupon to receive absolution, and injunction of penance to be performed afterwards. Which if it be of so great use and necessity as they pretend now, we must think it was likewise behoveful and necessary then; or if they could then be well without it, there is no cause to think it so religious and necessary now. Speak out, M. Bishop, deal plainly with us; are ye able to tell us any tidings of it? No more forsooth but this, they were not wholly unacquainted with some kind of shrift and absolution. But what was that kind? They were charged, saith he, to confess their sins which they had committed. And is that all? We acknowledge the same charge to belong to us; we confess our sins to God, both publicly and privately: in public trespasses we require confession to be made to the Church of God; in private griefs of conscience we persuade and commend the disclosing of the wound, for advice and comfort to the Minister of God; but what is all this to Popish shrift? Again, he saith, they were to bring to the Priest a prescribed sacrifice to be offered for their pardon and absolution. Of the sacrifice we find somewhat, and we find God's promise that 
s Levit. 4. 20.  the sin should be forgiven, and we find the Priest directed to 
t Num. 6. 23.  pray for them; but that the Priest gave absolution upon auricular confession, or enjoined penance to any party absolved, we can find nothing. Yea, but the lepers by the law were bound to present themselves to the Priests, and were by them declared such, or purged from that imputation. Well, and what of that? Marry, chrysostom and Hierome do argue, saith he, that even so in the law of grace men infected with the soul's leprosy, are either to be bound and declared obstinate by the Priest, if they will not repent, or repenting and confessing the same, are to be cleansed therefrom by the Priest's absolution. First, chrysostom in the place by him alleged saith nothing either of confession or absolution, but noting by occasion what grace is administered by Priests in baptism, that 
u Chrysost. de Sacerdot. lib. 3. Authores nobis sunt nativitatis eius quam à Deo habemus, etc. atque adeò adoptionis eius qua nos per gratiam silij Dei sumus effecti. Corpori● lepram purgare seu verius dicam haud purgare quidem sed purgatos proba●e judaeorum Sacerdotibus solis licebat, etc. At verò nostris Sacerdotibus non corporis lepram, verum animae sordes, non dico purgatas probare, sed purgare prorsus concessum est.  they are, as he speaketh, authors of our new birth, and of that adoption whereby we are made the sons of God, he addeth further thereof thus, Only the Priests of the jews might purge the leprosy of the body, or so speak more truly, not purge it, but give warrant of them that were purged; but to our Priests it is granted, I will not say, to approve such as are purged, but to purge not the leprosy of the body, but the uncleanness of the soul. This the Priest doth sacramentally and ministerially in baptism, when he 
x Acts 2. 38.  baptizeth in the name of the Lord jesus Christ to the remission of sins; and what is this to M. Bishop's turn? As little is there in the words of Hierome, who saith that 
y Hieron. in Mat. c. 16. Quomodo ibi Sacerdo● facit leprosum mund● vel immundum (non quò Sacerdotes leprosos faciant & immundos sed quò habeant notitiam leprosi vel non leprosi & possint discernere qui mundus quiuè immundus fit) sic & hic alligat vel soluit Episcopus & Presbyter, nō●os qui insontes sunt vel n●xij, sed pro ●fficio suo cum peccatorum audierit varietates scit qui ligandus sit, qui soluendus.  as the Priest in Moses law did make the leper clean or unclean, not for that he did so (indeed) but only took notice who was a leper and who was not, and did discern betwixt the clean and the unclean, so here the Bishop or Priest doth bind or loose, not bind them which are innocent, or lose the guilty, but when according to his office he heareth the variety of sins, he knoweth who is to be bound and who to be loosed. We see here the office and duty of the Priest to discern betwixt man and man, to acquit the innocent, to bind the guilty by the public censure of the Church, to decide who is to be holden for loosed with God & who for bound, all which belong to the outward and public discipline and government of the Church: but as for auricular confession or private absolution and penance thereto appertaining, there is not so much as one word spoken thereof. It is plainly here to be seen why M. Bishop quoted the authors only, but did not set down their words, because the Reader would have discerned his folly, that would set down such impertinent stuff, nothing at all concerning the point in hand. Yet he hopeth that he hath said that that may suffice for answer to my particulars, whereas he hath brought no tolerable proof or probability for any one particular, and therefore leaveth us to resolve, that none of those points of religion by me mentioned, were ever known to the old Fathers.    

W. BISHOP. §. 4.  
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 
Genes. 14.  wine, and foretold by the Prophet Malachy: and what a 
Malach. 1.  lively type Manna (that Angelical and delicate food) was of Christ's body in the Sacrament. And how the supreme authority of one headover all the whole Church, and that to belong to a Bishop, and 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, To determine and end all doubts 
Deuter. 17.  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 over great 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; All 
1. Cor. 10.  things chanced to them in figure, and were written for our correction and instruction: so on the other side, some strange defluxion, and distillation of corrupt humours, marvelously darkened M. Abbot's sore eyes, 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? Their senses 
2. Cor. 3.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
ANd I might as easily answer that the Popish Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, as they call it, under the forms of bread and wine, is an absurd novelty, neither prefigured by Melchizedecke, nor foretold by Malachy the Prophet, nor ever known to any ancient Father of the Christian Church. Strange it is that a real propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, under the forms of bread and wine, should be derived from Melchizedecke, with whom we see no token or semblance thereof, of whom it is not said, that he offered bread and wine, but only that 
a Genes. 14. 18.  he brought forth bread and wine, and that as Ambrose and Hierome say out of the Hebrew writers, 
b Ambros. ad Hebr. cap. 7. & Hieron. ad Euagr. Nec mirum si Melch●zedec victori Abraham obuiam processerit & in resection 'em tam ipsius quam pugnatorum eius panes●●mumque protulerit.  For the refreshing of him and his soldiers: in which meaning 
c joseph. An●iq judaic. l. 1. ●. 11. Milites  josephus namely Abrahami hospitalitèr habuit nihil ●is ad victum decsse passus. doth understand it. And if M. Bishop will needs have it translated by the word of offering, as his fellows are wont greatly to wrangle to that intent, yet Ambrose so also applieth it, that 
d Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. Occurrit illi Mel●lnsedec Sac●rdos & ●btulit ei pa●●e & viniis.  he offered to Abraham bread and wine, thereby excluding all necessity of construction of sacrifice to God. But if yet we shall perforce take it of offering to God, we conceive of it according to that which Cyprian saith, thate 
e Cyprian l. 2. Ep. 3. Domi●u● noster jesus Christus Sacrificium D●o Patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc id●m quod Melchisedec obtul●rat, id est, panem & viniis, su●● scilicet corpus & sanguinem.  our Lord jesus Christ offering a sacrifice to God the Father, offered the very same that Melchisedec had offered, that is, bread and wine, even his own body and blood. If the sacrifice of Christ and Melchisedecke be the very same, and Melchisedecke also offered the body and blood of Christ, as these words import, then cannot our sacrifice be a true and real sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, because Melchisedecks was not so, Christ as yet not having taken his body and blood; and therefore must both that and this be understood to be only the mystery and signification thereof. And this interpretation of the sacrifice on both sides, Hierome confirmeth when of our Saviour Christ's institution of the Sacrament he saith; 
f Hieron. in Mat. 26. Assumit panem & ad verum Paschae transgreditur Sacramentum, v● quomodo in praefiguratione eius Melchisedec summi Dei Sacerdos panem & viniis offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corp●ris & sanguini● repraesentaret.  Christ taketh bread and goeth to the true Sacrament of the Passeover, that as Melchisedec the Priest of the high God in prefiguring of him, offering bread and wine had done, so he himself also might represent the truth of his body and blood. There is therefore both in the one and in the other, not the very truth of the body and blood of Christ, but only a representation of the truth thereof: even as chrysostom on the one side expresseth, when he saith, that 
g Chrys. Op. imperfec. hom. 11, Haec vasa sactificata inquibus non ●st verii co●pus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur.  in the holy vessels is contained, not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of his body. And unless it be thus, it cannot stand which Ambrose, concerning this offering of Melchisedec, saith, that 
h Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 3. Intellige Sacramenta qu● accipis anteri●ra esse quàm sint Moysi Sacramenta, etc.  the Sacraments which we receive, are more ancient than the Sacraments of Moses; for how can that be, if our Sacraments be truly and really the body and blood of Christ, which Melchisedecks were not? Again, where God by Malachy saith; 
i Mat. 1. 11.  In every place incense shall be offered unto me, and a pure offering, whose eyes are so sharp as that in those words he can discern the Popish sacrifice of the Mass? We read here of incense and a pure offering, but this room is too little for the building of so large a house: their Mass cannot stand within the compass of this ground. And when we consider how the Fathers expound the same, Tertullian one where generally of 
k Tertul. adu. ludaeos. Desacrisicijs spiritualibus addit, dicens. In omni loco sacrificia munda offer●tur.  spiritual sacrifices; another where of 
l Idem cont. Marc. l. 4. Sacrificium mundum scilicet, simplex oratio de conscientia pura.  sincere prayer out of a pure censcience; Hierome of 
m Hieron. in Zacha. c 8. Sacrificium mundum nequaquam in victimis veteris Testamenti, sed in sanctuate evangelica puritatis.  the sanctity and holiness of evangelical purity; Eusebius of 
n Euseb. de demonstrat. evang. lib. 1. c 6. Sacrificium quod appellaturpurum facimus per puras actiones.  pure and godly doings; Austin of 
o Aug. count lit. Petil. l. 2. c. 86. Viwm Sacrificium de quo dictum est, Immola Deo sacrificium laudis.  the lively sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving; Theodoret of 
p Theodoret. in Mal. c. 1. Debitum honorem praestabunt & accomodatum cultum adhibebunt.  the due honour and convenient worship of God, exemplifying the same by the words of Christ, 
q John 4. 23.  The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: and by the words of the Apostle, 
r 1. Tim. 2. 8.  Let men pray every where lifting up pure hands without wrath or doubting: and Hierome by the words of the Psalm, 
s Psal. 141. 2.  Let my prayer be set forth in thy sight as the incense, and the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice: these things, I say, considered, may we not be thought to be out of our wits, if we shall believe them that the place must needs be understood of their monstrous sacrifice? That Manna was a type of the body of Christ, no Christian man doubteth, but that it was a type of Christ's body, as really in the Sacrament, no wise man believeth, and the reason whereby 
t Answer to M. Perkins Advertisement, sect. 56. See the Confutation.  elsewhere he goeth about to prove it, is there declared to be vain. So have I also 
u Of Traditions, sect. 21.  formerly showed that the example of the high Priest amongst the jews giveth no manner warrant to the supreme authority of one head over the whole Christian Church; that the high Priest amongst the jews had no such supremacy as they claim to the Pope; that reason teacheth such a supremacy to be the manifest and certain danger of the Church, and experience hath found it to be the very ruin and desolation thereof. As for their according with the jewish ceremonies in consecrating of Priests, and hallowing of Churches and Altars, and Vestments, etc. it is a slender proof for the finding of their religion amongst the jews, because they have borrowed many ceremonies from the Pagans also, and yet they will not say that their religion was amongst the Pagans. Their emulation of those ceremonies we justly cry out against as preposterous and absurd, because they being, as M. Bishop saith, types and figures of the law of grace, the substance and truth being revealed, they ought to cease, This was the very reason why the Apostles taught the Church 
x Col. 2. 17. 20.  to be disburdened of those rites, because they were shadows of things to come, the body whereof is in Christ. But M. Bishop telleth us by another spirit, that therefore the Church of Rome retaineth them, because they were shadows of things to come; because they were types and figures of the law of grace, and reproveth them of undiscreet zeal that are minded otherwise. Sith than he can observe undiscreet zeal in the Apostles, I may not marvel that he deemeth my sore eyes, darkened with strange defluxion and distillation of corrupt humours; but such indeed is the case of mine eyes, that in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets I cannot see that religion which we call Popery, which standeth in those points of faith whereof the question is betwixt them and us. The rest of his words I pass over as idle talk. What he hath declared, we see, and we see so much folly in it, and so little weight, as that we cannot but advise him to take longer time, and go over the same again.    

W. BISHOP. §. 5.  
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, Beefs, 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 remember 
Exod. 32. v. 13.  Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, and for their sakes to make mercy on them: for to that effect and in those terms prayed the Prophet Moses, and that according unto those patriarchs express order and commandment. 
Genes. 48. v. 16.  Whereunto if it please the Protestants to join that other prayer of the Psalmist: Remember (O Lord) David, 
Psal. 131.  and all his mildness; let them tell me, whether 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 libel 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 we christian's 
Act. 15. vers. 28.  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 Saint Paul saith, Caetera cum venero disponam, I will dispose 
1. Cor. 11. v. 3●.  of the rest when I come; and was further bold to say, Haec dico ego non Dominus, For the rest I say, 
1. Cor. 7. v. 12.  not our Lord. M. Abbot goes on belying the Apostle and saying, And they preached only the Gospel, 
Rom. 1.  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, saying none other things, than those 
Act. 26. v. 22.  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 applieth only to Christ's death and resurrection, and the preaching and carrying of light unto the Gentiles. It is a piece of strange alchemy, 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 he 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 Messiah should die so shameful a death? or that Moses' law should be abrogated by their Messiah? 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, and 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
THe words of mine answer are, As they worshipped God, so, saving ceremonial observations, we also worship him. Consider now I pray thee, gentle Reader, from what brain M. Bishop's illation proceedeth, Then should we sacrifice to him Beefs, Muttons, Calves, Lambs, and our sacrificers should be of Aaron's issue and order, and we all circumcised. Why, M. Bishop, are not all these in the number of ceremonial observations? Forsooth no; I omit all their ceremonies, saith he, because M. Abbot excepteth them. But did not M. Abbot in excepting all their ceremonies, except circumcision and sacrifices, and the whole Priesthood of the law? What, is M. Bishop ignorant, that circumcision and sacrifices, and the whole rites and rules of the Levitical Priesthood, do all belong to the ceremonial law? and that our Saviour Christ in abrogating the ceremonial law, is understood to have abolished all these? Is he to be set to school again, to learn what is meant by the name of ceremonies? It were a shame to send a Doctor of Divinity to his Catechism; for his credit's sake I will refer him to a greater book of Thomas Aquinas, where he saith, that 
a Tho. Aquin. sum. 12. q. 101. art. 4. Per tot. In veteri lege singula praedicta (Sacrificia, Sacramenta, sacra & obseruantiae) ceremoniae vocantur.  in the old law Sacrifices, Sacraments, sacred utensils and implements, and observances of singular or special conversation, are all called ceremonies, and this I would have him learn against the next time. His next exception is against that I say, As they prayed, so and in the same words we also pray. Then, saith he, they do sometimes pray unto God to remember Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob, and for their sakes to take mercy on them, as Moses did. Which in part we acknowledge and profess to do; to pray God in like manner as Moses did, to remember Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob, and for their sakes to take mercy upon the seed of Abraham, but not to take mercy upon us. God bound himself to the seed of Abraham 
b Genes. 17. 7.  by an everlasting covenant to be their God; by reason whereof we believe that in this forlorn estate wherein they now be, God still standeth entirely respective to the preservation of that nation: and though 
c Rom. 11. 28.  as touching the Gospel, they be enemies for our sakes, yet as touching the election, as the Apostle faith, namely whereby God of old elected them to be his people, they are beloved for their Father's sakes. Their present infidelity then is an interruption only, not any final rejection of them, and the time will come when the effect of that love will appear▪ by restoring that nation again to the society and fellowship of the Church of Christ. What hindereth then, but as they are beloved for their Father's sakes, so we may pray God to remember their Father's Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob, and for their sakes to show his love, and to return unto them in mercy and compassion, 
d 2. Cor. 3. 15 16.  To take away the veil that is laid before their hearts, that they may be turned to the Lord? Which notwithstanding we say not for ourselves, because God hath made no promise to us properly and personally in Abraham, but only 
e Genes. 22. 18. 〈…〉 ls 3. 25.  in the seed of Abraham, 
f Gal. 3. 16.  which is jesus Christ, by whom and in whom it is, and not by Abraham himself, that we are become the children of Abraham. As for the text which he allegeth, to prove that it was the express order and commandment of the Patriarches, that their posterity should so pray, he showeth his ignorance in the abusing of it, because no otherwise did jacob say, 
g Genes. 48. 16. Vulg. Innocetur super eos nomen meam.  Let my name be named upon them, and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac, then as seven women in a time of desolation are brought in by the Prophet, saying to one man, 
h Esa. 4 1. Vulg. Innocetur nomen tuum super nos.  Let thy name be named upon us; these women hereby craving that they might be called the wines of such a man, and the Patriarch desiring that Ephraim and Manasses should be severally reckoned for Tribes of the seed of Abraham and Israel, as if they had been immediately descended from him, even as jacob himself a little before expresseth his own meaning, saying; 
i Genes. 48. 5.  Thy two sons Manasses and Ephraim, which are borne unto thee in the land of Egypt, before I came to thee into the land of Egypt, shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are mine. But now upon this that hath been said, that they prayed God for those Father's sakes, to be merciful to them. M. Bishop being resolutely impudent to make all good that is stark nought, groundeth a defence of a devilish and horrible blasphemy, which the Church of Rome had brought of old into the service of the Church. Concerning Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, in the time of King Henry the second slain then, without due and lawful proceeding, but yet dying no other but an insolent rebel and traitor to his Prince, they have been wont to pray thus:  


k Breviar. in translat. S. Thomae Cantuar. Jesus Christ per Thomae vulnera, Quae nos ligant relaxa scelera. Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit, Fac nos christ scandere, quò Thomas ascedit.  O jesus Christ by Thomas his wound,  
Release the sins wherewith we are bound.  
By the blood of Thomas which for thee he did spend,  
Make us O Christ to climb whither Thomas did ascend.   
In which prayers we see how by the wounds and blood of this holy Saint of theirs, they ask at God's hands remission of sins and everlasting life, which Christian faith abhorreth to ask by any other, but only the blood of jesus Christ. Yea so harshly it soundeth in Christian ears, and so contrary is it to the common sense of Christian profession, as that the Rabbins of the Roman Synagogue were content even for very shame to blot it out of their Portesse, thereby acknowledging that it was by apostasy and error that it came first in. But M. Bishop a man more wise and learned, or rather a man of harder forehead than they were, taketh upon him to assure us that there was nothing amiss in that prayer, and that it might very conveniently and lawfully have been retained still. And why? Marry, because of old time they prayed thus, Remember Abraham, and Isaac; and jacob: and again, Lord remember David and all his mildness. For▪ saith he, if they did then desire God to remember the excellent virtues of his servants, and for their sakes to show mercy upon others, why may not we do the same now? why may we not as well beseech God to remember the constant fortitude of St. Thomas, as they did the mildness of David? But against that if of his I oppose the exposition that Thomas Aquinas maketh of the Apostles words concerning the jews, that they were beloved for their Father's sakes, understanding the same of the elect of that nation. 
l Tho. Aquin. in Rom. c. 11. Lect. 4. Quod non est sic intelligendum quasi merita praestita patribus fuerint causa aternae electionis 〈◊〉 sed qu●a Deus ab aterno elegit gratis & patres & filios, hoc tamen ordine ut filii propter patres consequerentur salutem, non quasi merita patrum suffi● create ad siliorum salutem, sed per quandam abundantiam divine gratiae & 〈◊〉 hoc dicit quae in tintum patribus est ex●●bita ut propter promissiones eis factas etiam fily saluarentur.  Which, saith he, is not to be so taken as if the merits bestowed upon the Fathers, were the cause of the eternal election of the children, but for that God from everlasting chose freely both the Fathers and the children, in such order notwithstanding as that the children for the Father's sakes should obtain salvation, not as if the merits of the Fathers should suffice for the salvation of the children, but he speaketh it according to an abundance of God's grace and mercy, which was so far yielded to the Fathers, as that the children should be saved by virtue of the promises, or for the promises sake made unto their Fathers. Here is then the true reason why they alleged unto God for themselves the names of the Fathers, not for the merits of the Fathers, but because of the promises that God had made unto them. Whereof we have this for a certain demonstration, that we no where find any of the Fathers mentioned in that sort, but only such to whom the promises of God have in special manner been made, neither Abel, nor Enoch, nor No, nor job, nor Moses, nor Esay, nor any of the rest, but only Abraham, Isaac, jacob, David, to whom God vouchsafed to do that honour by special covenants and promises, to tie himself both to them and to their seed. Yea, and it is further to be observed, that this was no ordinary manner of praying amongst them, as whereby to beg of God remission of sins and eternal life, as we see that Popish prayer doth; but when God in anger and displeasure seemed ready 
m Deut. 9 25. 26.  to destroy their nation, and so to forget the promise made unto their Fathers, or when they would seek any favour at God's hands for the justification of that promise, than would they allege to God the names of their Fathers, as it were to put him in mind of those things which he had promised. Thus doth Moses himself declare the meaning of that prayer, in another place when he saith; 
n Exod. 32. 13.  Remember Abraham, Isaac, and jacob thy servants, to whom thou sworest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed, etc. In which sort the three children in the fiery furnace are brought in, praying unto God in the Apocryphal additions to Daniel: 
o Song of the three children, Vers. 35. 36.  Take not away thy mercy from us for thy beloved Abraham's sake, and for thy servant Isaac's sake, and for thine holy Israel's sake, to whom thou hast spoken and promised that thou wouldst multiply their seed, etc. And thus it is said, that 
p 1. Chro. 13. 23  the Lord had mercy on them, and pitied them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and jacob. So concerning David also we read, that 
q 2. Chro. 21. 7.  the Lord (though he were much provoked) yet would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he had made with David, and because he had promised to give a light to him and to his sons for ever. This covenant and promise Solomon pleadeth in his prayer unto God, 
r 2. Chro. 6. 16.  Lord God of Israel keep with thy servant David my father, that which thou hast promised him; and again, 
s Vers. 17.  Let thy word be verified which thou spakest unto thy servant David. And thus the Church of the jews in time of affliction, remembreth God concerning David, 
t Psal. 89. 49.  Lord where are thy old loving kindnesses which thou sworest unto David in thy truth? By all which we see that it was not upon the persons or virtues of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, David, that those ancient faithful rested themselves in their prayers, but upon the word, the covenant, the promise of God, which he in mercy had vouchsafed to make unto them. And hereby we learn what to conceive of those latter words which M. Bishop allegeth out of the Psalm, 
u Psal. 132. 11.  Lord remember David and all his mildness. Where to make the words seem somewhat the more effectual to his purpose, we see how he groundeth himself upon an error of translation. For the words of the Psalm truly translated are not, Remember David and all his mildness, but remember David and all his affliction or trouble, as not only 
x Hieron. translat Psal. juxta Hebr. Memento David & omnis afflictionis cius.  Hierome in his translation opposed to the Septuagint in Greek, but also their own interpreters, 
y Pagn. & Ar. Mont. universa afflictionis eius.  Pagnine and Arias Montanus have translated it. Where under the name of affliction we understand that fervent burning zeal, and careful travel of mind, wherewith David was possessed, and even perplexed and anguished through desire that he had for the building of the Temple of God, and for the settling of the Kingdom and state, accordingly as God had promised unto him. With which desire he was so vehemently affected as here it is expressed, as that he swore and vowed to the Lord, not to enter into his house, nor to climb up to his bed; not to suffer his eyes to sleep, nor his eye lids to slumber, till he found the place for building the Temple of God, the house of God wherein he would rest and dwell amongst them. Solomon the son of David whom I doubt not to have been the author of this Psalm, for that 
z Psal. 132. ●. etc.  a part hereof was used by him in 
a 2. Chro. 6. 41.  the dedication of the Temple, recommendeth herein to God the remembrance of this care, and craveth success thereto, and that God would verify in him all that he had thereupon said and promised to David in that behalf. I have before showed how chrysostom giveth the effect of this prayer in salomon's name; 
b Chrysost, in Psal. 131. Quoniam genus ab co duxi & quoniam cum tibi acceptum suiss●t cius stud●um & diligentia, dixisti te cius genus & regnam erecturum, propterea nunc haec pa●la conventa à te exig mus. Idem habet Basil. in Psal. cund.  Because I am borne of him, and for that when his study and diligence was acceptable to thee, thou saidst thou would raise up his stock and Kingdom, therefore we now desire of thee the things which thou hast covenanted and promised. Albeit if we grant M. Bishop his own translation, and that here Solomon mentioneth the mildness and goodness of his father David, yet shall it avail him nothing; because God being styled 
c 1. King● 8. 23.  the God that keepeth covenant and mercy with his servants that walk before him with all their heart, the commemoration of David's virtues shall be but a describing of him, to be one of those servants to whom God keepeth covenant and mercy, not any allegation of his merit whereby he should stand as a Mediator for them. Therefore the Greek Fathers who follow the translation of the Septuagint, and do read the mildness of David, do notwithstanding make the promise of God the main ground of all this prayer and request. Thus Theodoret, though misapplying the Psalm to the people of the captivity of Babylon, giveth the brief thereof thus, that 
d Theodoret. in Psal. 131. Captivi qui Babyloni crant universorum Deum obsecrant, promissiones magno Davidi ab ipso factas pro precibus ass●rentes ut veniam consequantur precantes.  they besought God bringing the promises made by him to David, in steed of prayers that they might obtain pardon. And so Basil and chrysostom coming to those words of the Psalm; The Lord hath sworn unto David, etc. do note therein the principal point whereupon Solomon relied: 
e Basil. in psa●. cund. Quonia●a Davidis, virtutisque ac studij illius circa Templum meminit & priscarum narracion●m mentionem secit, hoc quod maximum crat huius reicaput, testamentum scilicet Dei relegens praetexit. Idem habet Chrysost. ibid.  Having made mention, say they, of David and his virtue and care concerning the Temple, and of other ancient narrations, he now allegeth that which was the chiefest ground of this matter, rehearsing the testament and covenant of God. In all this, let M. Bishop take it how he will, we see no blood alleged for remission of sins, no merit for obtaining the Kingdom of heaven, but all is for stablishing a stock and Kingdom, which God had promised upon the earth. If he can show us any promise made to Thomas Becket, concerning forgiveness of sins and eternal life, to be obtained by his blood, he shall say somewhat to the purpose; but sith he cannot do so, little reason had he and less conscience to allege the example of that prayer of Solomon, for defence of such a prayer, or rather such a blasphemy, as theirs is, whereof he himself is so ashamed as that even here where he defendeth it, he seemeth loath to utter it, repeating in Latin only the words, Tu per Thomae sanguinem, and whereas the prayer is by the blood of Thomas to be brought to heaven, setting down in steed thereof, take compassion upon us. Now although he have thus showed himself a monstrous man, in defending this horrible impiety of mingling the polluted blood of a vile traitor, with the sacred and innocent blood of the unspotted Lamb of God, yet to make the matter very goodly for himself, he passeth from it with a Rhetorical extenuation, thus; I will not dwell upon these impertinent and lose follies, which all that be not babes may of themselves easily descry. Indeed he may well call them on his own part impertinent and lose follies, which are no otherwise tied together but with such slender knots; which are so palpably impious, as that there is no babe so simple that hath any common understanding of Christian faith, but seethe the grossness and absurdity thereof. But herein he followeth the steps of his companions, whose manner it is where they are most wounded to make show to laugh most, and namely of M. Harding, who being pressed with this sacrilegious prayer, answered that it was an objection meet for a Cobbler, so very a trifle is it with them to abase the merit of the Son of God, by matching with it the demerit of a wicked and wilful man. Upon this transition he inferreth out of the premises two cruel conclusions. First, that no religion was to be called Catholic before the Gospel was preached unto all nations. True, but yet the same faith and religion was before though it were not as yet called Catholic till it were preached unto all nations. 
f Aug. count Faust. l. 16. cap. 28. Non diversa doctrina est, sed diversum tempus.  There was no difference of the doctrine, saith St. Austin, though there were difference of the time. Secondly, saith he, that the Roman faith and religion is very conformable to that of the Patriarches and Prophets, as the verity is to the figure. But we see not the premises whence this conclusion should follow, having hitherto heard of nothing pertaining to that purpose, but only a ridiculous imitation of old shadows and figures, which we rather hold for a deformity of the Church that is, than any conformity with the Church that was. Our conformity with them must not be in shadows and figures, which were no longer to continue but 
g Heb. 9 10.  until the time of reformation should come; but in the substance and truth which those pictures and shadows for the time helped them to understand that they might believe, and which Christ hath taught us now to believe without any of their helps. To cleave to the shadow still when the body is in place, what is it but to play with a shadow, and to neglect the body? The figure whereof M. Bishop speaketh is outward and corporal; the verity and truth is inward and spiritual. The resembling then of those outward figures in Popish outward ceremonies, is not a conformity betwixt the verity and the figure, but rather that that is betwixt figure and figure, betwixt one picture and another. As for us, we hold that due correspondence with that old church which God requireth, who wholly without those figures hold that spiritual truth which they believed therein. He goeth on and saith, that he hath already confuted my 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 the nations. Where note, I pray thee, gentle Reader, that whereas I say that Christ confirmed the same faith and religion and no other, he setteth down of his own device, the same faith and religion without any additions of his own; which although it be true as touching substance of faith and religion, for therein Christ added nothing, yet it showeth his lewd mind for that he hath done it to evil purpose, that he might give way to himself with some colour to cavil against me, as presently after he doth, that Christ added other signs and Sacraments, which the jewish Church before received not. But let him report my words as he findeth them, and then they shall stand good, that Christ taught no other but the same faith and religion that was delivered by Moses and the Prophets to the former Church, which is not hindered by that he instituted new Sacraments, because I have already showed that in diversity of Sacraments there is still the same faith. Which how handsomely he hath confuted hath before appeared, and I suppose by that time he hath further considered of the matter, he will find cause to seek for a better confutation. But yet taking it upon him that he hath confuted me, he goeth on, saying: And here I add that then Christians may have many wives together as the jews had, and may give their wives upon any displeasure a libel of divorce. Where we may well think that he was scant in the right that took the lawfulness of many wives, and the giving of a bill of divorce to a wife, to have been matters of the jews faith and religion towards God. I have cited Leo Bishop of Rome, saying, that 
h §. 2. of this Chapter.  the faith whereby we live hath never differed in any age: and will M. Bishop infer against him, as he doth against me, that Christians then may have many wives, and husbands may upon every displeasure give their wives a bill of divorcement, to put them away as it was amongst the jews? Did not his discretion serve him to put difference betwixt matters of faith and of manners; betwixt articles of religion and offices of conversation? Faith and religion import that devotion & service which is immediately performed to God, and what letteth but that in their lawfulness of many wives they might yield to God the same devotion that we do, and we in single marriage the same that they? But haply somewhat it was that he aimed at, which his troubled head served him not to express. I said in my answer as touching those Fathers of the old Testament; According to the approved example of their life, we also teach men to live. Now I imagine hereof it is that he meant to say, that then Christians may have many wives, and at their pleasure give their wives libels of divorce. If this were his meaning, he should have bethought himself where their example in these things is found any where to have been approved, because I made mention only of approved example. For our parts we hold plurality of wives in those times to have been permitted, but not approved; tolerated by dispensation, as 
i Gregor. exposit. in 1. Reg. c. 2 l. 2. Quaedam in sacra Scriptura inuen●untur praecepta, quae dispensat●o●● q●id●m D●● praecepta s●nt sed non amore De●.  Gregory saith, some things were of old, but not warranted by institution. And of that dispensation the same Gregory taketh an example of the jews, giving a bill of divorce, concerning which we see how the Pharisees allege in the Gospel not that God ordained it, but only that Moses so commanded or rather suffered, and the reason thereof given, 
k Mat. 19 78.  because of the hardness of their hearts: and therefore we hope M. Bishop upon better advice will not of unity of faith conclude any more, that it should now be lawful for us to do the same. As for the judicial law of the jews, it is wholly without the occasion and compass of my speech, and briefly I answer him, that though there be the same faith and the same rules of duty and conversation, yet it doth not therefore follow that censures and punishments, or trials and legal proceed must be the same. In a word, whatsoever the Apostles decreed in their Council at Jerusalem for the abrogating of the law, we acknowledge and obey, and that more faithfully than the Papists do, who, as M. Bishop confesseth, do hold it their grace still to hold a conformity with the ceremonies of the law. Yet again, if the Apostles, saith he, were simply and nakedly to preach to the Gentiles the law of Moses (he should say without ambiguity, the faith and religion of the Patriarches and Prophets) stripped of types and shadows, why then were they commanded to preach unto them the sacraments of Baptism and of the Supper of the Lord? An idle question, and it is already answered, that in delivering other Sacraments they taught no other but the same doctrine and faith. The Sacraments are water in Baptism, bread and wine in the Lord's Supper, different from those of old. The doctrine of faith is the death of Christ, and shedding of his blood for the cleansing of our souls and remission of our sins, which was the same in all the Sacrifices and Sacraments of the Church since the world began. And this one doctrine I said the Apostles by the commandment of Christ so taught, as that they added nothing of their own. This, saith M. Bishop, is very false; for many things were left by our Saviour to their disposition. Now thou must understand, gentle Reader, that I used not those words as mine own, but did set them down in a distinct letter, quoting Tertullian in the margin as the author of them. The whole passage of those words shall give some light to the matter here in hand. 
l Tertul. de Prescript. Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet, sed ne eligere quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos Domini habemu● authores qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio quod inducerent clegerunt, sed acceptam à Christo disciplinam fidelitèr nationibus adsignaverunt.  We may not, saith he, give ourselves liberty of any thing at our own discretion, nor make choice of any thing which any other man hath brought in of his own mind. We have the Apostles of the Lord for our leaders, who did not of their own will or discretion make choice of any thing to bring in, but the doctrine which they received of Christ, they faithfully delivered to the nations. Here then M. Bishop giveth Tertullian the lie, and telleth him that it is false which he saith, dissembling in the mean time the sight of Tertullia's name, and making show as if he spoke it to me only. Thou art now at thy choice, gentle Reader, wh●ther thou wilt rather believe Tertullian or M. Bishop. If thou wilt rather believe Tertullian in a work generally approved, than thou must say as we say, that the Apostles added nothing of their own, but taught only what they received of Christ, according to the commission given unto them; 
m Mat. 28 20.  Teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you. But to show that our Saviour left many things to the disposition of the Apostles, he allegeth those words of St. Paul; 
n 1. Cor. 11. 34.  Other things I will dispose or set in order when I come. Where I would pray him to tell us in good sadness whether the meaning of those words be, I will teach you when I come some new doctrine and points of faith which Christ hath not taught or commanded me to teach, but I have added of mine own. If he think so, let him tell us that we may wonder at him. If he do not think so, to what end is it that he allegeth those words? Surely he who a little before so religiously telleth them, that 
o Vos. 23.  he received of the Lord that which he delivered to them, should not seem likely presently after to say that he would hereafter teach them other matters of his own, which he had not received of the lord M. Bishop therefore should have used his discretion to put a difference betwixt matter of order and matter of faith, so to understand that though the Apostles might, as the Church always may, prescribe orders for decency and conveniency in the public assemblies and government of the Church, yet that in doctrine and faith, neither they then, nor the Church now, may add any thing to that which Christ our Lord commanded and delivered both to them and us. Of the same kind is his other proof out of that which the Apostle faith for advice to the unmarried so still to abide, concerning which he professeth to have received 
p 1. Cor. 7. 12. 25.  no commandment from the Lord; for what is this to show that the Apostle hereby added a new point of faith, when as whether the married or the unmarried, whether they that follow his advise, or they that follow it not, all are saved by the same faith? advise is of things arbitrary to be done; faith is of things necessary to be believed. The Apostle therefore might give wholesome advise without commandment of the Lord, and yet cannot hereupon be said to teach a new article of faith. I said further in my answer, that the Apostles preached only 
q Rom. 1. 2.  the Gospel, promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures. M. Bishop telleth me that I belie the Apostle, and corrupt the text by adding the word, only. But I set down the word only in a letter distinct from the words of the text, as appeareth in my book, though he would not observe it, but hudleth all together, and therefore there was no cause for him to charge me with corrupting the text. And what? will he say notwithstanding that it was not meant that they preached only the Gospel promised in the Scriptures? Surely the Apostle noteth his calling and service to have been to preach the Gospel of God. This Gospel of God, he saith, God had promised before by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures. Now if M. Bishop will say that though the Gospel were there promised, yet the whole Gospel was not promised; he wrongeth the Apostle by making his words partly true and partly false; true in one part of the Gospel, because one part was promised; false in another part, because that other part was not promised. Which to avoid, he must confess that the whole Gospel was promised in the Scriptures of the Prophets, and because the Apostles preached only the Gospel of God, therefore they preached only the Gospel promised in the Scriptures. And thus in the end of the same Epistle the Apostle speaketh again to the same effect, that 
r Rom. 16. 26.  the myslerie of the Gospel was published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets. We do not think he dallied in so saying as to mean, the Gospel is published, that is to say, a part thereof but not the whole, but the Gospel entirely and perfectly is preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets. Therefore elsewhere he professeth that in preaching the Gospel ᶠ he said no other things but what the Prophets and Moses did 
Acts 26. 22.  say should come. But here M. Bishop saith, I mangle the text and break 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 to the Gentiles. But he himself rather doth wrong in so abridging the words of the Apostle contrary to the practice of the Apostle, who though here he name only a brief of some principal points as accuslomably is done, yet under these as the chief comprehendeth the whole doctrine which he taught. He used the words to take away the offence which was generally conceived against his preaching, and seeing he did not preach these only particulars which are here set down, neither were they offended only at these, therefore he must be so understood as that the words must be applied to all the rest, and that taken as put in steed of all, whereat they were offended most of all. And if we do not so take them, we make him subject to calumniation, because he could not affirm that he said no other things than the Prophets and Moses did say should come, if in any other points he taught any thing that had not the testimony of Moses and the Prophets. Yea when the same Apostle saith generally of 
t Rom. 3. 21. 22  the righteousness of God by the faith of jesus Christ, that it hath the witness of the law and the Prophets, how can M. Bishop persuade us that in the preaching of the righteousness of God by the faith of jesus Christ, he should teach any thing but whereof he had witness and warrant of the law and Prophets? especially when we see him as in other of his Epistles, so specially in the Epistle to the Romans, instifying all points of faith accordingly. And that this is a truth not to be contradicted, we will take witness of Gregory Bishop of Rome, who saith, that 
u Gregor. in Cant c. 5. Apo 〈…〉 a Pro 〈…〉 ●ru●n d●ctis ut 〈◊〉 persisterent fidem integram 〈…〉.  the Aposiles received the whole faith from those things that were spoken by the Prophets. And again, 
x Idem in Ezech. hom. 6. Qued praedicat l●x, hoc ●iani Prophet; quod d●nuilciant Prophatae, ●o● 〈…〉 b●t 〈◊〉; quod ex●●ourt evangelium, hoc praedi●a●erunt Aposto●● per mundum.  Look what the law preacheth, the same also do the Prophets; and what the Prophets teach, the same the Gospel hath exhibited; and what the Gospel exhibited, the Apostles preached through the world. Thus the law and the Prophets and the Gospel, and the preaching of the Apostles, have all delivered only one and the same thing. Therefore he saith, that 
y Ibid. V●raque Testamenta in nullo a se discrepant, etc. In●st testamento veteri, testamentum no●um, etc. Prophetia testamenti no●i, testamentum vetus est, & expositio testamenti veteris, testamentum nowm.  the two Testaments differ not in any thing one from the other; that the new Testament is contained in the old; that the old Testament is a prophecio of the now, and the new Testament the exposition of the old. The same had St. Austin said before, that 
z Aug. count Faust. Manich. l. 15. c. 2. Vetus testamentum recte intell●gentibus prophe●a est novi testamenti.  the old Testament to them that rightly understand it is a prophecy of the new; that 
a Idem de Catechiz. rudib. c. 4. In veteri testamento est occultatio novi. in nevo testamento est manifestatio veteris.  in the old Testament is the hiding of the new, and in the new the manifesting of the old. To be short Leo faith. 
b Leo in Nativitat. Dom. serm 3. Quod praedicaverunt Apostoli, hoc annunciaverunt Proph●tae, etc. quod semper est credit●m.  What the Apostles preached, the same the Prophets have declared, and the same hath always been believed. Now if the Apostles received the whole faith of the Prophets, and the same have always been believed, if the preaching of the Prophets and Apostles be the same; if the two Testaments differ in nothing one from the other, and the new be contained and hidden in the old, then have I rightly affirmed that the words of St. Paul are generally true, that in preaching the Gospel he said no other things but those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come. In the rest of this division we may think that M. Bishop was scant sober when he wrote it, or else wrote in a dream when he neither knew what was said to him, nor what he was to say. The Apostle saith not that he taught any one article which the common sort of the jews did believe. And what then? To what end, M. Bishop, do you here tell us a tale of the common sort of the jews? Who spoke of them or gave you occasion to make any mention of them? The matter is what the Prophets taught, and the elect of God believed, not what the common sort of the jews believed who commonly believed not the Prophets but killed and stoned them when they were sent unto them. How many, saith he, believed that their Messiah should die so shameful a death? or that Moses law should be abrogated by the same Messiah? or that the Gospel of Christ should be preached unto all nations? All, say I, that understood and believed the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, in which they were forewarned of these things. The unbelief or ignorance of the rest, I trow, hindereth not but that these things were then contained in the faith of the Church, and in the doctrine of that time, unless M. Bishop will say, that in Popery those are no articles of faith which the common sort of their Christians do not conceive, who have only the Collier's faith to believe just as the Church believeth, when they neither know what the Church believeth, nor what they themselves ought to believe. In a word the Prophets than foretold nothing for matter of faith which was not matter of faith then as well as now.    

W. BISHOP. §. 6.  
MAster 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 taughtly 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 of: 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, when any controversy in religion ariseth, to make their recourse to 
Euseb. 〈◊〉. Eccles. lib. 5. c. 19  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. Oh, but Tertullian saith, That believing 
De Praescriptionibus.  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 and 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; If 
Galat. 1.  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: The Apostle saith not 
Aug. lib. 17. cont. Faust. cap. 3.  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 saith 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
THe Planets though in respect of other Stars they seem to wander, because in their orb they change their place, yet in their wandering and change do always observe a certain and constant course. I seem to M. Bishop to wander by going from a Prosyllogisme to a Syllogism, and from a mayor to a minor; but yet he seethe to his grief that I infer a direct and certain conclusion, as I have before briefly declared in the first Chapter. I came by process of speech to show that our faith and not Popery is the Apostolic faith, To prove this I alleged that what faith and Gospel the Apostles taught, they committed the same to writing, and because ours accordeth fully with that which they wrote, therefore ours is the Apostolic faith. It offendeth M. Bishop that it should be said that all which the Apostles taught, they committed to writing. Well, what is his instance to prove the contrary? Forsooth, many of them who never ceased to preach left not one sentence in writing behind them, and he that wrote most, wrote not the hundredth part of that which he taught. Where we see the true picture of a very wilful and absurd wrangler, who seeketh by vain cavillation to obscure that which by reason and truth he cannot disprove. What though all the Apostles did not write, when as the writings of some might sufficiently set forth the preaching of all, because they all preached the same thing? And what though none of them wrote particularly all the words which he uttered, when as it sufficeth us that amongst them they wrote all the points of faith which they uttered in those words? If M. Bishop were asked whether they have not in Scripture and Tradition all which the Apostles taught, would he not say, yea? And can he then tell us particularly all the speeches and discourses and sermons that they made from day to day, Peter amongst the jews, and Paul amongst the Gentiles, at Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, in Galatia, and the rest; john in ● sia, Thomas in India, Mathias and Andrew in Aethiopia, and the other Apostles otherwhere? If he would think him a fool that should ask him this question, and doth hold it sufficient that they have all the points of doctrine though they have not all the words, he must give us leave to think him scant wise that when we say, what the Apostles taught, they committed all to writing, would understand us otherwise. And this meaning he himself, that it may appear that he doth but famble and palter, presently declareth, when yielding of his courtesy that the Apostles left the Gospel in writing and many other most divine and rare instructions in their Epistles (a rare commendation of them as if he spoke of Granatensis his Dux peccatorum or Parson's Resolution) and therefore that I needed not cite Irenaeus to witness that, he addeth his exception, but that they wrote all which they preached or all things necessary to salvation Irenaeus saith not a word. So then he knoweth well enough that when we say that all which the Apostles taught they committed to writing, we mean thereby all things necessary to salvation, all points of faith and doctrine by them preached, and which it concerneth us to know and believe unto eternal life. But of this, saith he, Ireneus saith not a word. The words of Ireneus which I cited are these: 
a Iren. adu. haer. lib. 3. c. 1. ●on enim per alios dispositionem salutis nostrae cognovimus, quàm per eos per quos I uang●lium pervenit ad nos; quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt, postea verò per Dei voluntatem in scriptaris nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam sidei nostrae futurum.  By no other have we known the order or way of our salvation but by them, by whom the Gospel came to us, which verily they then preached, and afterwards by the will of God they delivered the same to us in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Now I hope M. Bishop will not deny but that the gospel which the Apostles preached, contained all points of faith necessary to salvation. If therefore they have delivered unto us in writing the gospel which they preached, surely they have delivered to us in writing all points of faith necessary to salvation. He playeth upon a distinction betwixt the Epistles and the Gospel, as if the Epistles were no part of the Gospel which the Apostles preached, but if they be not so, he should tell us what they be, and how the Apostle professeth 
b Phil. 3. 1.  to write in his Epistle the same things which he had before preached; and how Christ preached 
c Mat. 4. 23.  the Gospel of the Kingdom, and taught men 
d Mar. 1. 15.  to believe the Gospel before there was any written Gospel, and before the greatest part of the history was in act; and how St. Paul challengeth the Galathians for being 
e Gal. 1. 6.  removed to another Gospel, when yet they received no other story concerning Christ, but doctrine contrary to that which is contained in the Epistles? 
f Aug. de Ciu. Dei. l. 17. c. 17. Fatentur ex Sion missam suisse legem Christi, quod evangelium nos vocamus.  The Gospel, as St. Austin telleth us, is the law of Christ, and are the Epistles of the Apostles no part of the law of Christ? The Gospel is called by St. Paul 
g 2. Cor. 5. 19  the word of reconciliation, and is expounded by St. Ambrose to be 
h Ambros. in Rom. c. 1. evangelium Dei est bonum nuncium Dei quo peccatores ad indulgentiam conu●cantur.  the glad tidings sent from God whereby sinners are called to pardon and forgiveness, and do not the Apostles in their Epistles teach this word of reconciliation and glad tidings from God? If then the Apostles left the Gospel in writing, and the Gospel contain all points of faith necessary to salvation, then that which the Apostles left in writing containeth all points of faith necessary to salvation. Albeit to follow M. Bishop in his own distinction, if we take the Gospel as he doth for the writings of the four Evangelists, St. Austin saith thereof, that 
i August. in joan. tract. 49. Ipse sanctus evangelista testatur multa Dominum Christum & di●isse & socisse qu● scripta non sunt. Electa sunt autem quae scriberentur quae saluti credentium sufficere videbantur.  of those things which our Lord jesus said and did, choice was made of so much to be written as seemed sufficient for the salvation of them that believe. And to the same purpose Cyril also saith; 
k Cyril. in joan. lib. 12. c. 68 Non igit●r omnia quae Dominus fecit conscripta sunt, sed qu● scri●●●tes sufficere putarunt tam ad mores, q●àm ●d dogma●a, ut recta fide & operibus & vir 〈…〉 rutil●ntes ad regnum coelorum perveniamus.  All things which Christ did are not written, but what the writers thought sufficient both for manners and doctrine, that shining with true faith and virtuous works, we may attain to the heavenly Kingdom. The Gospels then contain that doctrine and faith that is sufficient to salvation, albeit God would provide for us not only sufficiently but abundantly, and hath in the Epistles of the Apostles given us large and clear declaration of the doctrine of Christ that is contained in the Gospels. As for that which M. Bishop allegeth under the name of Ireneus to prove the contrary, it is a most wilful and impudent falsification. He most sagely counseleth all men, saith he, when any controversy in religion ariseth to make their recourse to the most ancient Churches where the Apostles had conversed, and from them to take their resolution. He citeth for this Euseb. hist. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 19 But that which is of Ireneus is by my Book Cap. 18. and no matter at all tending to that effect as he allegeth. Ireneus is there brought in mentioning 
l Euseb. hist. l. 5. cap. 18. Cum puer adhuc in Asia inferiore apud Polycarpum essem, etc. Commemorarequeam quomodo se cum Joanne ac reliquis qui Dominum viderunt conversatum esse dixerit & sermons eorum memorauerit, & quae ex illis de Domino audierit & de virtutibus eius & doctrina tanquam ex ijs qui ipsi verbum vite viderant percepta & cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona rec●nsuerit.  that he had been in his childhood with Polycarpus, and that he had heard him tell how he had been conversant with john and the rest that had seen the Lord, and remembered their speeches, and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and his miracles and doctrine, as received from them who themselves had seen the word of life, and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures. Here is a commendation of the Scripture, and an intimation given that tradition ought to be no other but consonant and agreeable to the holy Scripture, but of referring to the Churches in cases of controversy not so much as one word. But though his head here failed hi●, yet I know well what the place is that he meant to cite, which followeth in the book whence I alleged the sentence to which he answereth. And yet there is nothing in that place fitting to his purpose, Ireneus having there to do with Heretics, who being reproved by the Scriptures, rejected the trial of the Scriptures upon the like pretences as the Papists now do, and therefore being forced to use against them the testimony of the Churches from the time of the Apostles, for proof of those things which were clear by the writings of the Apostles, as we now do against the Papists, but saying nothing at all as to deliver a rule, that when cases of controversy do arise, we should always have recourse to such testimony of the Church. Of that place of Ireneus I have spoken sufficiently 
m Answer to Doctor Bishop's Epistle to the King, sect. 11.  before, and therefore I will not here again trouble the Reader any further therewith. In what sort also he attributeth principality to the Roman Church, I have already declared in the 
n §. 2.  first Chapter of this book. Now as he is impudent in answering Ireneus, so in his answer to Tertullian he is much more impudent. The sentences of those two Fathers I cited as depending one upon another. Ireneus saith, that the Gospel which the Apostles preached, they afterwards delivered to us in the Scriptures. Tertullian saith; 
o Tertul. de Prescript. Nobis non est opus curiositate post Christum nec inquisitione post evangelium. Cum h●c credimus, nihil desideramus ultrà credere; hoc enim prius credimus, non esse quod ultrà credere debemus.  We need no curiosity after Christ, nor further inquiry after the Gospel; when we believe this, we desire to believe nothing further, for this we first believe that there is nothing further for us to believe. Mark well, gentle Reader, the coherence of these words. The Apostles committed the Gospel to writing; we need no further inquiry after the Gospel; we desire to believe nothing further; we believe that there is nothing else for us to believe. To this what doth M. Bishop say? Believing this? believing what? the written word only? nothing less. The Gospel, M. Bishop, it is the Gospel, you see, of the belief whereof he speaketh, and beside which or after which he desireth to believe nothing, yea believeth that there is nothing further to be believed. Seeing then the Gospel is written as Ireneus saith, it followeth by Tertullian that beside the written word there is nothing else to be believed. Nothing less, saith M. Bishop. And why? For in that whole Treatise, saith he, his principal drift is to prove that Heretics cannot be confuted out of the written word, but by ancient customs and traditions which he calleth Prescriptions. Where he most shamefully abuseth that work of Tertullian, expounding Prescriptions to be meant of old customs and traditions, whereas Tertullian hath nothing to that purpose, but by Prescriptions meaneth grounds of reasons and arguments whereby to proceed and deal against Heretics for the reproving and convincing of them. Neither doth he go about to prove that Heretics cannot be confuted by the written word, but only showeth that it was to no purpose to deal with them by the Scriptures or written word, because they received and rejected Scriptures as they list, did put in and blot out, alter and chop and change, so that whatsoever made against them should go for no Scripture. Yea the matters of their heresies were touching those articles of our faith, which are clearly and manifestly testified by the Scriptures, and therefore M. Bishop dealeth very lewdly with Tertullian, to make him to say that they could not be confuted thereby. I need not stand hereupon, having 
p Of Traditions, sect. 10.  before at large discovered M. Bishop's dishonesty herein, and showed out of the matter of the book how falsely he fathereth that drift upon Tertullian. Only it is here to be noted what a pretty meaning he maketh of those words which I cited thence, namely this, 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. Where I pray thee to note how his two answers agree together. He told us before to Ireneus that the Apostles left the Gospel in writing. Here to Tertullian speaking of the Gospel, he answereth, that the Gospel signifieth the whole doctrine of Christ both written and unwritten. So when he list the Gospel is written, and when he list the Gospel is unwritten, and he cannot tell certainly what it is. If the Gospel were left in writing, than the Gospel is no doctrine unwritten; or if the Gospel do signify also unwritten doctrine, than the Apostles did not leave the Gospel in writing, but only a part and parcel thereof. But we believe that the Apostles left us a perfect written Gospel, and therefore we say to M Bishop and his fellows, as Athanasius said to the Arian Heretics; 
q Athanas. de Incar. Christi. Si Discipuli estis Euangeliorum ne loquamini contra Deum iniquitatem sed per scripturas cedite. Quòd si diversa à scripturis fabulari vultis, cur nobiscum concertatis qui neque ●oqui neque audire sustinemus quod extraneum sit ab istis, dicente Domino, etc.  If ye be Scholars of the Gospel, speak not iniquity against God but go by the Scriptures; but if you will babble things diverse from the Scriptures, why do you meddle with us who endure neither to speak nor hear any thing which is strange from the Scriptures, our Lord Christ telling us, If ye abide in my word, then shall ye be free indeed. Now to show that beside the written Gospel and word of God there is nothing else to be received, I alleged a peremptory sentence of St. Austin; 
r Aug. count lit. Petil. l. 3. c. 6. Sive de Christo sive de eius Ecclesia, sive de quacunque alia re qu● pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam Nos, neq●aquam comparandi ●i qui dixit, Licetsinos, sed quod secutus adiecit, si Angelus de coelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in Scriptures legalibus & Euangelicis accepistis, anathema sit.  If any man, nay if an Angel from heaven shall preach unto us 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. Here M. Bishop cometh forth and telleth us; To St. Austin I answer first, that those are not his formal words which he citeth, and that is all his first answer. Wherein he showeth no other but a perfidious and treacherous purpose, in that he would put a surmise into the Readers mind that I had cited the words amiss, when he had nothing to allege, why he should say that I had done amiss. What ailed him that he did not himself set down the formal words that it might be seen what fault I had committed in the citing of them? Thou mayest well be assured, gentle Reader, by the whole course of his writing, that if he had had any thing to say he would not have omitted so to do. To let this go, he taketh upon him secondly to give us a formal answer. Admitting the sense, saith he, if it be rightly taken, I say that the words are to be understood, If any shall preach contrary to that that is written. Of this sense he maketh St. Austin himself the Author, quoting one place in the margin of his book, as he did before with Ireneus, when as the words which he citeth are in another, showing that he took them at all adventure out of their large volumes, and never looked into the Author whether he did right or wrong. It is true indeed that in the place quoted, St. Austin apply the words of the Apostle, If any preach beside what ye have received, to condemn Faustus the Heretic 
s Aug. count Faust. Manish. l. 17. c. 3. Qu●a de Christo contra Christi Discipulos loquitur & contra Euangclium quod ill●rum authoritate firmatum est.  for that he spoke of Christ contrary to the Disciples of Christ, and contrary to the Gospel which by their authority was confirmed. Thus he might very rightly use the words and not beside the meaning of the Apostle, who when he taught the Galathians to reject whatsoever was beside the gospel which he had taught them, doth much more teach them to condemn whatsoever should be contrary thereto. But this exposition though it be true yet is not sufficient, because it was not enough that the Apostle should condemn only things contrary, but all doctrines beside the Gospel which they had received. For we cannot doubt but that the Apostle preached unto them the whole doctrine of the Gospel, even as he did to the Ephesians 
t Act. 20. 27.  all the counsel of God. Now of the whole doctrine of the Gospel it is truly said that not only nothing contrary, but nothing beside it is to be received. The Apostle therefore meant so that they were to receive nothing beside the Gospel which they had received. And this chrysostom very well observeth; 
u Chrysost. in Gal. c. 1. N●que dixit, si contraria annuntiaverint, aut totum evangelium ●ubuerterint, verum si vel paululùm evangelizaverint praeter evangelium quod accepistis, etiamsi quidvis labefactarint, anathema sint.  Paul doth not say; if they preach contrary things, or if they subvert the whole Gospel, but if they preach but even a little beside the Gospel which ye have received, or if they weaken any thing, accursed be they. This Theophylact expresseth more plainly, thus; 
x Theophy l. in Gal. c. 1. Neque enim fi contraria solum praedicaverint, intulit, sed si evangelizaverint quid prater quod ipsi Euangeliz●uimus hoc est, s● plusculum quippiam ipsi adi●cerint, execrationi, ●ubdantur.  For he saith not only, if they preach contrary things, but if they preach any thing beside that which we have preached, that is, if they add but any little thereto, let them be accursed. As for the words of Austin which M. Bishop citeth he knoweth not whence, they make nothing against this meaning but wholly for it, save that he somewhat forceth them by false translation, and cutteth off the last part of them. 
y August. in ●●an. tract. 98. Non ●●t, plus quàm accepistis, sed praeter quod accepistis: nam si iltud diceret sibi ipse praeiudic●ret qui cupiebat venire ad Thessalonicenses ut suppler et quae eorum fidei de●uerunt, sed qui supplet, quod minus erat addit, non quod inerat tollit. Qui autem praetergreditur regulam fidei, non accedit in via sed re●●dit de via.  The Apostle saith not, more than ye have received, but beside what ye have received: for if he had so said, he should have prejudiced himself, who desired to come to the Thessalonians, to supply what was wanting to their faith. Now he that supplieth, addeth that which is wanting; and taketh not away what was before. But he that goeth beside the rule of faith, goeth not forward in the way, but departeth from the way. Where St. Austin doth not say, otherwise than you have received, as M. Bishop translateth, but beside what ye● ha●e received, as the Apostle speaketh, calling that which they had received the rule of faith, and saying, that he that goeth beside or beyond that rule, as it were to make a larger way, departeth out of the way, which M. Bishop thought it safest for him wholly to suppress. But he noteth withal that the Apostle forbiddeth them not to receive more than they had received, that is, to receive that more perfectly which they had received by growing more and more in the knowledge and understanding thereof, and proceeding therein as it were from milk to strong meat, which is the drift of St. Augustine's discourse there; only he willeth them that beside that which they had received, they should receive nothing. In a word to speak as the Schools speak, in extension they were to receive no more by adding to the doctrine which they had been taught; in intention they were to receive more by increasing and profiting in that which they had received. But that we may know that it was St. Augustine's mind as his words import, that nothing is to be received beside what we receive out of the Scriptures of the law and the gospel, we are to observe again that which I before observed, that he saith that 
z August. de Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9 In ijs qu● apertè in Scriptura posit●● sunt, in●●●iuntur illa omnia qua continent fidem moresque vivendi.  in those things which are plainly set down in Scripture, are found all those things which contain faith and conversation of life. Yea he saith further, that 
a Idem de utilit. cred. cap. 6. Planè ita modificata ut nemo inde baurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modò ad bauriendum devotè ac piè ut vera religio poscit accedat.  the doctrine of the Scripture is so tempered as that there is no man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with devotion and piety as true religion requireth him to do. Hereto add how he useth the words of the Apostle, where to he alludeth in the sentence by me cited in his disputing against the Donatists: 
b Idem de unit. Eccl. c. 11. 12. Quisquis aliud Euangelizauerit, anathem● sit: Aliud autem evangelizat qui perijsse dicit de c●t●ro mudo Ecclesiam & in part Donati in sola Asrica re●nansisse dicit. Ergo anathema sit. Aut legat mi●i hoc in scriptures sanctis & non sit anathema.  Whosoever preacheth any other thing accursed be he; but he preacheth another thing who saith that the Church is perished out of the whole world, and is remaining only in the Donatists; therefore accursed be he; or else let him read it to me in the holy Scriptures that he may not be accursed. Now than if by St. Augustine's judgement there be found in Scripture all things belonging to faith and manners and there be no godly man but may draw from thence that that is sufficient for him; if he be to be holden accursed that preacheth that which he cannot read to us out of the holy Scriptures, than it appeareth that M. Bishop dealeth falsely in expounding the words of Austin, and that they serve very fully to that purpose and meaning, whereto I alleged them, and whereto without any ambiguity at all they most plainly sound. But because we have here in hand to inform the Roman Catholic, I will conclude this place with the censure of a Roman Bishop, Gregory the first who calleth 
c Gregor. in 1. Reg. l. 2. c. 3. Quid cor & animam Dei ●●si sacram eius scripturam accipin●.  the holy Scripture the heart and soul of God, and telleth us that 
d Idem Moral. l. 16. c. 16. Per came Deus loquitur omne quod vult.  by it God speaketh all his will or all that he requireth, and that so as that 
e Ibid. l. 18. c. 14. Eos ad sacrae authoritatis paginas vocat ut si vere loqui desiderent, inde sumere debeant quid loquantur. Qui ad verae praedicationis verba se praeparat, necesse ●st ut causarum origines à sacris paginis sumat ut omne quod loquitur ad divinae authoritatis sundamentum revocet atque in c● aedificium locutionis suae ●irmet.  he that desireth to speak or preach iruly, must take from thence that which he speaketh, and set ●h the grounds of his matters out of the sacred books, that he may bring all that he speaketh to the foundation of divine authority, and thereupon settle the building of his speech. He saith again that 
f Idem in Cant. c. 5. Sancti viri se consilijs Scripturae ex toto addicunt, ut vide●icet nihil agant nisi quod ex respons● Scripturarum audiunt, etc. Quia de quibuscunque scrupuli● in Scriptures consilium quaeritur, fine min●ratione de omnibus ad plenum invenitur.  holy men do wholly addict themselves to the counsels or directions of the Scripture, namely so as to do nothing but what they hear by answer of the Scriptures; because of whatsoever doubts, advise is sought for in the Scriptures (namely concerning matters of faith and godliness) it is there fully found of all things without exception, and 
g Idem in Ezech. hom. 15. universa nostra munitio in sa●ro ●l●qu●o cominetur.  all our munition or armour (to wit, against our ghostly enemies) yea 
h Ibid. hom. 9 In h●● volumine cuncta qu●●dificant, omni● qu● 〈…〉 diunt, scripta conti●entur.  all things that do edify, all things that do instruct are contained therein. In all which speeches if Gregory say truth, than it must stand good which I have set down, that all our faith and religion is contained in the Scriptures, and neither may the preacher speak, nor the hearer receive any thing that hath not confirmation and proof out of the book of God.    

W. BISHOP. §. 7.  
MAster Abbot having in few lines run over four 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 adds, 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 Iew. Behold what a round this man is driven to walk, and 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 begs 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 of 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 ●esus Christ himself telling them: This is my 
Mat. 26. 27. 28.  Body that shall be broken for you; this is my Blood that shall be shed for you. Whose sins ye shall 
joh. 20. v. 23.  forgive on earth shall be forgiven in heaven. Thou 
Math. 16. v. 18.  art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, etc. and the ga●es of hell shall not prevail against it. Call the workmen (that had laboured in 
Math. ●0. v. 8.  his vineyard) and pay them their hire. Do you see 
jacob 2. v. 24.  that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? Is any man sick among you, let him bring in 
jacob 5. v. 14.  the Priests of the Church, and let them pray over them, anoiling them with Oil in the name of our Lord, etc. Confess therefore your sins one to 
Ibidem 16.  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: Thereall 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 ●dde 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. For the written word of God consisteth 
Lib. 2. de Trinitate ad Const.  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 swerveth 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
I Have noted 
a §. ●.  before in this Chapter, that St. Austin faith of the Prophets and faithful of the people of the jews, that though not in name, yet in deed they were Christians as we are. As they were Christians then with us, so are we now jews with them, not according to M. Bishop's understanding of the name of jews, to whom I may well say as Austin said to julian the Pelagian, 
b August. con●. julian. l. 4. c. 3. Cùm insana dicis & rides, phrenetico es similis.  When thou speakest madly and laughest, thou art like to a frantic Bedlam, but according to the Apostles construction thereof; 
c Rom. 2. 29.  He is a jew which is one within, and 
d Phil. 3. 3.  we are the circumcision which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. We must be jews by unity of faith with them, as they were Christians with us, because they with us and we with them make but one body and one Church, whereof though there be divers Sacraments, yet there is but one faith from the beginning to the end, received first by the patriarchs, written afterwards by the Prophets, written again more clearly by the Apostles, so that 
e Ephes. 2. 20.  upon the foundation (not foundations but one foundation, because one even one written doctrine) of the Apostles and Prophets the household of God are built, and our faith resteth wholly thereupon. I have walked no rounds; I have broken through no brakes of thorns, but have kept a direct and even way, and have so strongly builded all this as that I scorn M. Bishops poor paper-shot as much too weak to throw it down. To him I know these things are rounds and mazes; he knoweth not which way to get out of them: they are brakes of thorns; he lieth fast tied in them; God give him grace to yield to that which he seethe himself unable to reprove. He is very angry it seemeth, as touching the last point that I should say, that the Protestants receive and believe all the written word. He saith that therein I beg that which is principally in question, and thinketh that I have little wit or judgement to think that they would freely grant me that. But our usage and debating of questions with them is sufficient to put that out of question. We use the Scriptures ourselves, we translate them for common use; we read and expound them publicly in our Churches; we exhort men to read them privately in their houses; we instruct them to receive no doctrine but what they see there; we make the same written word the sovereign judge of all our controversies, we defend the authority and sufficiency thereof against the impeachments and disgraces which Papists have cast upon it. What may we do more to make M. Bishop believe that we receive and believe the written word? Surely if I tell him that the Sun shineth at noon day, he will not believe it, if it seem to him to sound any thing against the Pope. But he will give instance to prove that we do not so; first for that we reject divers books of the old Testament. Wherein he saith untruly; for the books of the old Testament are the books of Moses and the Prophets & the Psalms; 
f August. count. Gaudent. lib 2. cap. 23. Non habent Judaei sicut legem & Prophetas & Psalmos quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis.  To which, saith Austin, our Lord jesus gave testimony as his witnesses; of which we reject none; the other books that are adjoined to these, we do not reject, but we read them and commend them, yea we say as much of them as M. Bishop vouchsafeth to say of Paul's Epistles and the rest, that they contain many most divine and rare instructions, but yet we give them no authority for confirmation of matters of faith, because Christ and his Apostles have given no testimony or witness of them, and the primitive Church in that respect hath expressly disclaimed them, as I have showed at large 
g Of Traditions, sect. 17.  before, and resteth hereafter in this book to be showed again. Secondly, he bringeth sundry texts of the new Testament, to prove that we do not rightly understand and believe all that is written in God's word, wherein he saith their Catholic Roman doctrine is delivered in express terms. First, to prove the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, he citeth the words, This is my body which shall be given for you, etc. But if the Romish doctrine be here delivered in express terms, how is it that their own Scotus saith that 
h Scotus apud Bellarm. de sacra. Eucharist. lib. 3. cap. 23. Dicit nullum extare lo●um scripturae tam expressum ut sine Ecclesi● declaratione evidentèr c●gat transubstantiationem admittere. Atque id non est omnin● improbabil● etc. an ita sit merit● d●bitar● potest cum homines doctiss●●● & acutiss●●●, qualis inpr●●is Scotus fuit, contrarium s●●tia●t.  there is no place of Scripture so express as that it evidently forceth to admit transubstantiation without their Church's declaration. Yea Bellarmine himself saith, that this is not improbable, and that it may worthily be doubted whether there be any such, because very learned and acute men, such as Scotus specially was, do think the contrary. Let him first go and agree with Scotus and Bellarmine, and those other so learned and acute men, and then tell us what he hath to say and we will answer him, albeit of this matter. I have 
i Confu●a●. of the answer to M. Perkin● his Advertisement, sect. 48. 59  already answered him so much as will suffice for the clearing thereof. For his second instance he citeth the words of Christ thus, whose sins ye shall forgive on earth, shall be forgiven in heaven, and maketh it here delivered in express terms, that Priests have power to pardon sins. True it is, M. Bishop, accordingly as you cite, on earth, but not in heaven; in the Court of the Church, but not in the Court of conscience; for restitution to the outward society of faithful men, not immediately for reconcilement to God. As for forgiveness of sins spiritually with God, the Priest hath the ministry only, not the power thereof; by 
k 2. Cor. 5. 18. 19  the word of reconciliation, not by any form of absolution; neither can he say any further, I forgive thee, than he saith, I baptize thee▪ who baptizeth not by any inward effect to God (which is only the work of God) but only by outward Sacrament to the Church of God. Therefore for the Popish challenge of the power of absolution with God, our Saviour Christ saith nothing; he speaketh only for that power of absolution which professeth only to take away the bar that standeth against reconcilement to God, who in public sins lying under public censure, admitteth of no penitency for forgiveness in heaven, that is not testified and declared for obtaining forgiveness and pardon upon earth. It needeth not that I speak so much hereof, having so largely handled this point 
l Answer to the Epistle to the King, sect. 28. and to the Preface of his second part, sect. 3.  before. Thirdly, he allegeth the words, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; from whence he inferreth, that Christ hath built his Church upon St. Peter. But it was of Petra, the Rock, that Peter had that name given him to be called Peter, and therefore it cannot be that Peter himself should be the Rock. 
m Gregor. in Psal. 5. Poenitent. Ipse est Petra à qua Petrus nomen accepit, & super quam s● ad ●icaturum Ecclesiam d●xit.  Christ himself is the Rock, as Gregory saith, of which Peter took his name, and upon which he said he would build his Church. Albeit we deny not but that the Church was in some sort built upon Peter, but upon Peter as one of many, not upon Peter alo●e, because of the City of God there are 
n Apoc. 21. 14.  twelve foundations wherein are the names of the Lambs twelve Apostles, not only Peter's name. See hereof also that which hath been 
o Chap. 1. §. 2.  before said. His fourth text is, Call the workmen (that had laboured in the vineyard) and pay them their hire; which he bringeth to prove that good works do in justice deserve eternal life. But is this in express terms delivered in those words? Surely it seemeth to me a very long conclusion to be drawn out of so short a speech. I have handled this text 
p Of Merits, sect. 14. 17.  before, and have showed out of the very circumstance of the place, that it is so far from proving that which he saith, as that the contrary is very manifestly and infallibly evicted thereby. The brief is, that if things had been there measured by desert, than greater work should have had greater wages, whereas there all have alike, that it might be understood of all, as there I have cited out of Prosper, that 
q Prosp. de vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 5.  intelligant d●num se grati●, non operli accepisse merc●dem.  they received a gift of grace, not a wages for their works. For his fift instance he bringeth the words of St. james; Do you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only? Hence he inferreth, that we are justified not by faith alone but also by work●s. And who denieth but that by works also we are justified and must necessarily so be? We say with Saint james that we are not justified by faith only, but also by works, as Abraham was, but yet we say with St. Paul also, that 
r Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 3 11.  before God or in the sight of God we are justified by faith and not by works, and 
s Rom. 4. 2.  if Abraham were justified by works (he denieth him not so to be) he had to rejoice, but not with God. For the further handling of this point also I refer the Reader to that that I have said 
t Of justification, sect. 36.  before. Again, to prove that in extremity of sickness we must call for the Priest to anoile us with holy oil, he citeth St. james, 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. But if their Sacrament of Extreme unction be here so expressly delivered, how is it that their own Cardinal Cai●tan● could not see it, who saith, that 
u Caietan in jac. cap. 5. Nec ex verbis, nec ex effectu verba haec loq●untur de sacramentali unctione extrem● unctionis, sed magis de unctione quam instit●●t Dominus in e●angel●● ex●rcendam in ●g●●t●s.  neither by the words nor by the effect doth the Apostle here speak of their sacramental unction, but rather of that which the Lord instituted in the Gospel, to be used by his Disciples to them that were sick? He justifieth that which we say, that the anointing whereof St. james speaketh, was no other but a ceremony annexed to 
x 1. Cor. 12. 9  the gift of healing, of which we read in the Gospel spoken of Christ's disciples; 
y Mar. 6. 13.  They anointed many that were sick with oil and healed them, which gift and power of healing being ceased in the Church, the ceremony must be reputed idle, and the using thereof in that manner and to that end as the Papists do, is no other but an imitation of the Valentinian Heretics and Heracleonites, as I have 
z Answer to the Preface of the second part sect 20.  before showed. St. james doth not say, Is any man in extremity of sickness, past hope of life, and now departing out of the world, as M. Bishop in part speaketh, and as they wholly use that new devised Sacrament, but he saith absolutely, Is any man sick? Again, St. james maketh the effect of that anointing to be bodily health, saying that the Lord shall raise him up or give him ease, which is the saving or preserving, of which he speaketh, namely, from the peril and danger of sickness, as 
a Bellarm. de Extr. unct. c. 8. Incipit à sanitate corporali, cum ait, Oratio fidei saluabit infir 〈…〉.  Bellarmine himself expoundeth it, whereas the effect of Sacraments is no corporal benefit, but only inward and spiritual grace. For albeit the water of Baptism have an effect to cleanse the body, and bread and wine in the Lord's Supper to nourish and feed the same, yet these are no Sacramental, but only natural effects belonging to these creatures without any Sacrament, whereas the proper effect of that whereof St. james speaketh is bodily recovery, and therefore by 
b OEcumen. in jac. 5. Hoc etiam Domino adhuc inter homines conversante Apostoli sacrebant ungentes aegrotos ol●o & sanantes.  OEcumenius is made all one with that which the Apostles did, as I have alleged, whereof health is noted to have ensued. His last text is to prove, that we must confess our sins not to God only but also to men, because the same St. james saith; Confess your sins one to another. And who denieth this? who gainsayeth it, when as our Saviour Christ so plainly instructeth him that hath 
c Luke 17. 4.  sinned against his brother to return to him and say, It repenteth me, that so there may be reconciliation and peace betwixt them? We make no question of confessing repentantly and charitably one to another, but we question the necessity of confessing auricularly to the Priest by particular enumeration of all our sins: and so far is the text which M. Bishop citeth from delivering expressly this, as that his Masters of Rheims do plainly tell him, that 
d Rhem. Testam. Annotat. jam. 1. 16.  it is not certain that St. james speaketh here of sacrament all confession, who notwithstanding would have been glad if they could have had any ground whereupon to affirm that he did so. Now, what did he then mean thus to heap together such a number of places, as wherein their Roman doctrine is delivered in express terms, when as there is not one of them that doth justify their Roman doctrine, and his own fellows do confess so much of sundry of them? What need we to ransack all the corners of our wits to devise odd shifts to avoid the evidence, as he calleth it, of such places, which without any shifts at all are so easily and plainly cleared as these are? Yet according to his wont and wise manner, he concludeth that the Protestants do not receive all the written word, who notwithstanding receive all these places, read them, cite them, expound them, acquaint the people usually with them, which they by no means dare to do. Yea but the Scriptures are not in reading but in understanding, and we do not take them in the right sense. Silly fellow, what hindereth but that we should be thought able to understand the Scriptures as well as he? Forsooth, we receive not the Scriptures, he saith, according to the most ancient and best learned Doctor's exposition. But be thou judge, gentle Reader, whether in this whole work, to go no further, I have not brought the most ancient and best learned Doctor's exposition, more frequently and firmly than he hath done. He talketh of the Doctors for show to blind simple men, but the true cause of their grief is, that we receive not the Romish exposition, nor be content to submit the whole Scriptures to the Popes will. But because we find no such rule amongst the most ancient and best learned Doctors, that the Pope's mouth should be any oracle of Scripture-sense, we leave his babbling of the exposition of Scripture as partial and idle, and do wish him to learn more wit then to take Scriptures in such sort as they that are at Rome are feign to do.    

W. BISHOP. §. 8.  
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 proved 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, Ex perfectione 
Page 16. lin. 5.  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 Protestants 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 he 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 side: 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
THe truth of mine assertions hath hitherto appeared by my defence of them; but let them no further be taken for true then he is here found to be false that is the oppugner of them. He saith that my conclusion convinceth me even by the verdict of myself, to fall into the foul fault and error of the Donatists. To prove this he maketh me to speak in my answer in this sort: Our faith because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolic faith; and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is proved to be an Apostolical Church, etc. and is the only true Catholic Church, etc. Having set down all these as my words he inferreth thus; see you not how he is come at length to prove their Church to be Catholic by perfection of their doctrine, which was as he himself in this very assertion noted a plain donatistical tricks reproved by St. Austin etc. But I pray thee, gentle Reader, to look where thou canst find those words by me set down, And is the only true Catholic Church? Ask M. Bishop if thou meet with him, where he found them, and if he cannot tell thee, ask him in sadness what spirit he thinketh it was wherewith he was led when he set them down for my words? Fie, M. Bishop, fie for shame, do you talk so against lying, and will you in the mean time lie so wittingly and willingly, so as that there is no means to salve it, no colour to excuse it? I did not say that ours is the only true Catholic Church, I made no show of proving it by perfection of doctrine to be the Catholic Church; I never wrote it, I never thought it, and therefore once again I wish you to bethink yourself of your words whereof I remembered you before, 
a Reproof. pag. 283.  The devils cause it is that needeth to be bolstered out and underpropped with lies. Surely, it is beyond doting folly, it is desperate fury that draweth men on to such courses. To let that go, foul and shameful as it is, he telleth us next that he liketh well of Tertullia's observation, that our faith ought to have consanguinity and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine. But he curtolleth Tertullia's observation by this recital of his, because Tertullian doth not only say what our faith ought to have, but telleth us that 
b Tertul. de Prescript. Quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authorem suum proferant ut m●●tò posteriores, quae denique quotidiè institui●tur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non m●●us Apostolicae dep●tantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae.  those Churches which cannot bring any of the Apostles or Apostolic men for their author, as being much later, even the Churches which daily are begun, yet according in the same faith are for this consanguinity or agreement of doctrine reputed Apostolic Churches no less than the rest. Hence I concluded that our Church because it agreeth in faith and doctrine with the Apostles, is therefore to be reckoned an Apostolic Church. But that, saith M. Bishop, is not the question at this time. And what then is the question? Marry, saith he, whether our doctrine or the Protestants be truly called Catholic; that is, whether of them hath been received and believed in all nations over the world. But did not he see that the one of these directly followeth of the other? for the faith of the Apostles is it that was spread over the whole world. Our faith is the same with the faith of the Apostles, because it is that which is recorded in the Scriptures of the Apostles. Therefore our faith it is that was spread and believed through the world. Abraham's faith was it that was spread over the whole world, for Abraham is 
c Rom. 4. 12. 16  the father and pattern of all that believe both circumcised and uncircumcised. Our faith is the same with Abraham's faith. Therefore, again it is our faith that was generally received throughout the world. At this M. Bishop biteth the lip; it troubleth him, that he knoweth not what to say to it. He seethe this proof to be most certain and impregnable above all other, and therefore he seeketh by all means to divert and turn away his Reader from listening to it. He telleth him that I do not deal plainly and sound, that I go about the bush, that I fetch wide and wild windlasses from old father Abraham's days. But I answer him, that I have so gone about the bush, as that I have scratched him with it, and my wide and wild windlasses have so enclosed him as that he cannot find which way to get out again. Well, if my course like him not, what would he have me do? I should, he saith, have demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesiastical histories or ancient Fathers, that the Protestants religion had flourished since the Apostles days over all Europe, Africa, and Asia. I have done already sufficient to demonstrate that. I have astonished him and choked him with the evidence of Scriptures, Stories, Counsels, Fathers, so as that hitherto he hath left all that he hath written to the question of religion without defence. I shall make further demonstration thereof in this book, even in the Roman Church. What am I the nearer with him by that that I have done? What shall I be the nearer when I have all done? for he hath resolved himself to a wicked course, and therefore though the light shine into his eyes, yet he will swear that he seethe it not. He blameth me for concluding without any premises, that in the written word there is no mention made of the Pope, of his Supremacy, of his Pardons, etc. Wisdom, what premises should I use to prove the negative in this case? It concerneth you to prove that there is mention made of them, and to design us the places where; for me it is enough to say that there is none. See now what proof he bringeth that there is. Belike, saith he, there is no mention made of St. Peter, nor aught said of his singular prerogatives: it hath not peradventure that whatsoever he should lose on earth, should be loosed in heaven. Wisdom, what is this for answer to me? I say there is no mention made of the Pope, and do you tell me of St. Peter? And if it were said to St. Peter, 
d Mat. 16. 19  Whatsoever thou bindest on earth, shall be bound in heaven, was it not also said to all the Apostles, 
e Mat. 18. 18.  Whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven? What prerogative is here to St. Peter more than to all the rest of the Apostles? or if there were any prerogative to St. Peter, what is that to the Pope? He would 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. But he saith untruly; he would not be glad to hear it: but how glad would he be if he could out of the written word say so much for the Pope, as we can for the King? We find the Apostle St. Paul saying, 
f Rom. 13. 1.  Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, and St. Peter expounding what is meant by those higher powers; 
g 1. Pet. 2. 13.  whether unto the King, as to the supereminent or chief, or unto Governors as sent by him, thereby giving absolutely to the King a superiority over every soul, and requiring every soul; 
h Chrysost. ad Rom. hom. 23. Etiam si Apostolus sis, si evangelista, si Propheta, sive quisquis tandem fueris.  even the Prophet, the Apostle, the Evangelist, as chrysostom observeth, to be subject to the King. But he will say, it is not here said in Ecclesiastical affairs. I answer him, Neither is it said here, only in temporal affairs. The supremacy then being simply given, will M. Bishop dare to set down a limitation where God himself hath set none? The office of a King is declared by those Apostles, to be 
i Rom. 13. 3. 1. Pet. 2. 14.  for the punishment of them that do evil, and for the praise of them that do well, and if well doing and evil doing do extend as well to Ecclesiastical as Temporal affairs, what warrant hath M. Bishop to restrain the King's power from governing in them both? Are temporal Magistrates, saith he, any Ecclesiastical persons at all. Let the Emperor Constantine give him answer hereof, who told his Bishops thus, 
k Euseb. de vita Constant. l. 4. c. 24. Vos, inquit, intra Ecclesiam, ego extra Ecclesiam Episcopus à Deo constitutus sum.  You are Bishops within the Church, but without the Church God hath appointed me to be a Bishop, signifying thereby that the acting and administering of divine offices & Sacraments did belong to them, but that otherwise the government of the Church and the power of commanding all, for the preservation of religion, and well ordering of Church affairs, did belong to him. Though temporal Magistrates than be no Ecclesiastical persons in the former sense, yet a King as a Christian is a member of the Church, and as a King by Constantine's judgement is appointed of God to be externally the Ruler and Governor thereof. Wherefore to call the state of Kings, as M. Bishop doth, a secular state, as having to meddle only with secular, and temporal things, is a secular and profane interpretation of the office of Kings, and a mere begging of the point in question. And of that presumption he inferreth another, when he saith, Is it meet and decent that the less worthy member should have the supreme command over the more honourable? I will not here stand upon his absurd crossing of himself, who having even now made the state Ecclesiastical and Secular two distinct bodies, doth make them here members both of one body. To let that pass, who will grant him that the King is the less worthy, and the Priest the more honourable? He will say, that matters of the soul which are of highest nature, are administered by Priests. Be it so, and matters of the soul which are of the highest nature, are commanded by Kings, and the commanding power as we suppose is always more honourable than the administering office. The very Heathens thought that the devotions to their Gods which were acted by their Priests, were of greatest respect, and yet they were not so fond as to conclude hereof, that the person of the Priest was more honourable than the King. In the policy ordered by God himself, we find 
l 2. Kings 23. 4.  the Priests commanded by the King, but we do not find the King commanded by the Priest. We find the Prophet styling himself 
m 1. Kings 1. 24. 26. 27.  the King's servant, and the King his Lord, but we do not find the King giving that honour to the Prophet. We know that in the natural body, the heart ministereth life unto the head, and yet the supremacy of honour resteth in the head, even for the government and direction of things belonging to that life, which is administered by the heart. Even so, albeit the ministering of those things which concern the salvation and life, both of Prince and people belong to the Priest, yet that hindereth not, but that the highest honour and dignity resteth in the Prince, so far as to command for the due usage and execution of those things, which concern the salvation both of himself and of his people. This is, saith M. Bishop, to prefer the body before the soul, nature before grace, earth before heaven. Full wisely spoken; as if a Christian King were nothing but body, and nature, and earth; but a Priest no other but spirit, and grace, and heaven. Yet we doubt not, but that many Kings are more spiritual and graceful, and heavenly, than many Priests; and many Priests, even Popes themselves, more savouring of the body and nature and earth, than many Kings; and how do we then by giving the sovereignty to Kings, prefer the body before the soul, nature before grace, earth before heaven? Forsooth, the matters of the soul, and of grace, and of heaven, he will say, are managed by Priests. Be it so; make comparison then of the things, but make no comparison thereby of the persons. Say, he that preferreth the things that belong to the King's affairs, before those things that are ministered by the Priest, preferreth the body before the soul, etc. but we say, we may in outward state of government give the supreme honour and dignity to the King, and yet prefer the things that are managed by the Priest, before those things that are managed by the King. Albeit I always add that to the King as without the Church, belongeth the care and oversight of those things that pertain to the saving of souls, and to the furthering of his subjects in the grace of God, and in the way to heaven, so as that in this respect there is no cause why the Priest should be accounted superior to the King. And this our Princes have done and still do, and yet the world with us, thanks be to God, is not turned topsy-turvy, but our state standeth upright, and prospereth maugre the hearts of all Romish malignant traitors and enemies, that have sought the ruin and overthrow thereof.     

CHAP. V That faith and religion cannot be safely grounded on the example of Fathers and forefathers, and that the Popish factors notwithstanding do in this behalf abuse the credulity of ignorant men.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
NOw whereas he allegeth that all his majesties most royal progenitors, & to sect. 4. You talk M. Bishop of many urgent, etc.  

W. BISHOP. §. 1.  
PAgans and Heretics do now and then, like Apes counterfeit true Christians: And no marvel, for their great Master Satan doth transfigure himself sometimes into 
2. Cor. 11. v● ●4.  an Angel of light, and did always, and yet doth labour to be like unto the Highest; but it is easy to espy their 
Esay 14: v. 14.  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 found 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; That the good seed was first sown by the Father 
Mat. 13. v. 24.  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 Lord's tradition, as S. Cyprian speaketh; because they shall return to that saith 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 done or said against it.  

R. ABBOT.  
PAgans, Idolaters, and Heretics, and of Heretics, the Papists namely, are in this pretence of their Fathers and forefathers all alike, and do alike allege the example of their fathers, for warrant of irreligion and apostasy from God. M. Bishop to make good their use of it, taketh upon him to rectify the rule, and so to propound it as that it shall serve for a most sound inducement among us Christians, and to be dearly regarded of all. And how is that? Marry, to follow the footsteps of our forefathers in believing, if they before have not degenerated from their Ancestors. Which if of his breaketh the force of his rule, and is so far from giving a careful man any sound inducement, for settling his conscience in religion, as that it casteth him rather into a further perplexity, whilst he cannot but be in doubt whether those fathers whom he is wished to follow, have degenerated from their Ancestors, or those Ancestors from other, or those other from other that were before them. In the judgement and trial whereof, if men have not some certain rule to be directed by, they are easily blinded and led into error, whilst all Pagans and Heretics and Papists pretend each for themselves, that all their forefathers even from the beginning were such as they are, and have their colours and shows of antiquities, whereby to persuade that they were so. But yet to explicate and strengthen his rule, he layeth this for the ground of it, that as God is more ancient than the Devil, and Christ jesus then all Heretics, so was the true service of God and faith of Christ before heresy and Idolatry. Which ground of his we willingly admit, and are most well content to build upon it. We hold it for certain and infallible which Tertullian prescribeth against Heretics, that 
a Tertul. de Prescript. Ex ipso ordine mani●estatur id esse Dominicum & verum quod sit prius traditum; id autem extraneum & ●a●sum q●od sit posterius immissum.  that is of the Lord, and the very truth, which was first delivered; that strange and false which is afterwards brought it; and 
b Idem cont. Marc. lib. 3. Illic pronuncianda est regulae ●nteruersio ubi posteritas invenitur.  that where any after-faith is found, there is to be pronounced the perverting of the rule of faith. Now therefore in question of religion, the trial of truth shall be to have recourse to that which was first delivered, or as Cyprian expresseth it, 
c Cyprian. l. 2. Epist. 3. Ad radicem atque originem traditionis Dominicae revertatur.  to return to the root and original of the Lords tradition, and thence to secure ourselves what we are to believe, and what to do that we may be saved. To the same purpose I alleged other words of Cyprian in the same place, that 
d Ibid. Si solu● Christus audi●ndus est, non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christ prior fecerit. Neque enim ho●●nis consuetudinem sequioportet sed Dei veritat●.  sith Christ only is to be heard (according to that which the Father proclaimed from heaven concerning him, This is my beloved son, etc. hear him) we are not to regard what any man before us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ hath done who is before all▪ for we must not follow the custom of man, but the truth of God. Which words, or the most of them as fitted my occasion, being by me set down in a distinct letter, that they might be known to be Cyprians words, M. Bishop in transcribing my text, hath changed into his common letter, that they might be thought to be but mine own words, knowing well enough that otherwise by the credit of the author, they would give the Reader a prejudice against all that he hath here said. We see that Cyprian teacheth us first of all without respect what men have done, to look to that which Christ did, and thereby to judge of all the custom of men. But M. Bishop like the Crab that goeth backward, teacheth a man to look first what his father did, and then his grandfather, and then his great grandfather, and so the rest, that out of the custom of men he may learn what is the truth of Christ. Those children, saith he, who follow the holy steps of their Catholic progenitors, ascending from son to father successively till they arrive at the first Christians of that Country, are true Christians. But what if the first conversion of a Country be not aright, as befell to the 
e Abb. Vrsperg. in Chronico. Val●ns Ariana persidiae saucius suae partis sautores illuc direxit praedicatores; qui venientes rudibus & ignaris illi●ò perfid●ae suae viru● insundunt.  Goths, whose conversion was to Arianism in the time of the Arrian Emperor Valens, how then shall his rule stand good of ascending from son to father, till we arrive at the first Christians of that Country? Will he say that such doubtless believe aright, because they believe as they did, who first were converted in that Country? If he allege that he speaketh of following the holy steps of Catholic progenitors, he maketh himself ridiculous, because it is the question whether the progenitors be Catholic, and their steps holy, and to be followed or not, and he for trial hereof referreth us to them that were in that country first converted, who haply were corrupted at first by them by whom they were converted. This case we put concerning the conversion of our nation, whereat he aimeth, by Austin the Monk, who though he brought hither the Christian religion, yet brought it somewhat blended and soured with the leaven of human traditions and inventions, so that to receive religion as he brought it, is to receive the corruption which he also brought; which being grown since, as in corruptions it falleth out, from a little scab to a foul leprosy, yet shall the foul leprosy be coloured and defended by the example of the scab. This case being put, M. Bishop's rule is out of joint; because we are come to the first converted of our nation, and we doubt of some default in their converters, which we the more suspect for that we 
f See the Answer to the Epistle, sect: 31.  find the Britain's, who had been formerly and anciently Christians, refusing at that time to meddle with them. Here than we are new to seek, and are forced to make further inquiry whether the faith of Christ, as it was taught here first by that Romish Monk, were in any such sort defiled or not. But that being granted, that a country is at the first rightly and truly converted to the faith of Christ, how shall the posterity after so many generations have infallible assurance, that they hold inviolably the same doctrine which they embraced, who were first converted? What rolls, what records have we certainly and particularly to inform us that our fathers, and father's fathers, and their fathers and forefathers, from the beginning, have without adding or detracting, without change or alteration either of phrase or meaning, believed and practised thus and thus? Will he send us to the Chronicles and Stories of our country to be certified hereof? To say nothing that every one that seeketh assurance of his faith, cannot study Chronicles for the finding of it, suppose a man hath read them all, what is he the nearer, inasmuch as Bellarmine hath taught us to say of them all, that 
g Bellarm. de Effect. Sacram. l. 2. c. 25. Quòd historici quidam meminerint etc. non potest parere fidem nisi humanam cui potest subesse falsum.  they breed but human belief, wherein there may be falsehood. Of the greatest matters many times they say least: they deliver things many times unperfectly, and often we may rather gather from them the private affection of the author, than any testimony of public faith. To the devices of their own times, they apply the phrases of former times, and corrupt the meaning of former times, by speaking in the language of their own times. We find many times differences and disagreements amongst them, and that reproved by one which is approved by another. Sometimes we descry lies and tales, wilfully devised, and falsely fathered upon the times and persons that have been before, and guilefully thrust into ancient books for the gracing of superstitions that have grown of latter times, and other writings and stories suppressed and made away, which taxed such superstitions as they did arise. Many uncertainties there are, many difficulties and perplexities in this course, and unpossible it is for them that are the authors of it, to set down out of any records any perfect form of their own faith, whereof a man can but reasonably satisfy himself that it hath been universally and uniformly received of all our fathers, and continued wholly the same without alteration from the first converted till our time. M. Bishop therefore by referring men in question of religion to their fathers & forefathers, doth but send them a long journey in the dark, not seeing which way to go, and uncertain where they shall arrive. And this he doth to hide from them the true use of that ground and foundation, which he himself hath laid, from whence it properly and naturally ariseth, that sith that was the certain truth which was first delivered and taught, and is to be the measure and rule of the faith and doctrine of all succeeding times, therefore we should first have recourse to the monuments and records of that that was first taught, thereby to judge of the faith and religion of our fathers, and to esteem whether their steps were such as that we may securely follow them. In this behalf Christ hath provided for us, who 
h Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 13 Ipsa quae dixit, etiam Scripturae tradidit ut posteris mand●●etur.  what he spoke, saith Gregory, he committed also to writing, that posterity might know the same. 
i August. de consens. Euangel. lib. 1. c. 35. Quicquid ille de suis factis & dictis nos legere voluit, hoc illis scribendum tanquam suis manibus imperavit.  Whatsoever he would have us to read, saith Austin, of his doings and sayings, he commanded his Disciples as his hands to write the same. And thus 
k Idem in 1. Epistol. joan. tract. 2. Contra insidiosos ●rrores Deus voluit ponere firmamentum in Scriptures contra qu●s nullus audet loqui qui quoquo modo se vult videri Christianum.  against deceit ●ill errors, saith the same St. Austin, God would set us a fortress or bulwark in the holy Scriptures, against which no man dare speak that will in any sort be thought a Christian man. Having then certain records of the truth first delivered, such as no man dare contradict, what way can we imagine for resolution, either more compendious and short, or more lightsome and comfortable, then to look to the pattern of faith expressed in those records, thence to inform ourselves, and thereby to rectify whatsoever we find to have swerved or declined from that rule? This M. Bishop cannot abide; this they know to be the gall and bane of Popery; and therefore from this they labour to withdraw men, that what they cannot defend by testimony of truth, they may notwithstanding colour by the example of their fathers. This was the intent of M. Bishops not humble but presumptuous request to his Majesty, that he would maintain and set forth that faith wherein all his royal Progenitors lived and died; not that he is able to demonstrate in what religion all his majesties royal progenitors lived and died, but that he may lead him from that rule whereby he should be able to judge of the faith of his progenitors, and whether his fathers have in any sort swerved from that faith, which at the first was delivered to their forefathers. Albeit if it be true which he saith, that Symmachus the Pagan played the part of a foolish Sophister, when he pleaded so with the Emperor Valentinian▪ We are to follow our fathers, because the Emperor's father and nearest Predecessors were no Pagan Idolaters, but professed Christians, then doth himself also play the part of a foolish Sophister, in pleading so with King JAMES, that he must follow his fathers, inasmuch as his nearest Predecessors, his father and grandfather, were no Popish Idolaters, but professors of the religion of the Protestants, and his mother so well persuaded thereof, as that she would not go about to dissuade him from it. But against the plea of Symmachus ●e excepteth further, because his forefathers for whose idolatry he pleadeth, had before forsaken the true worship of one living God. Which though it be true, yet I marvel how M. Bishop would make him to believe it, inasmuch as he had to allege that for so many hundred, yea for thousands of years their Ancestors had continued those devotions, and that it might seem strange that amongst so many wise Governors, so many learned Philosophers, so many virtuous men, there should not be one of so many generations that ever could see that they did amiss. We see how he saith not only, 
l Relat. Symmach. apud Ambros. Epist. lib 5. servanda est tot seculis fides, & sequendi sunt nobis parentes qui s●cuti sunt felicitèr suos.  Let us follow our Ancestors, but addeth; who with great felicity followed theirs, being fully resolved that both their Ancestors, and the Ancestors of their Ancestors, had in all times passed been the same as they. M. Bishop by belief of holy Scripture knoweth the contrary, because he there understandeth all nations to have been the posterity of Noah, who was a worshipper of one true living God, saved by faith in Christ to come, whose religion set forth in Scripture, being compared to the superstitions of the Pagans, doth clearly convince that they were far departed from that that he was. Now then, M. Bishop, be content that we return the same to you. You say that all our Ancestors from the beginning continued in one and the same, even your religion. Shall we now for trial hereof go to our Ancestors, and ask them whether it be so or not? No, but we will go to holy Scripture, and there see what was the faith and religion of them who are our true Ancestors, the first fathers and founders of the Christian Church; the Apostles and Evangelists; and there we find a far other manner of faith then Popery doth yield, whereby we certainly understand that they have corrupted the true faith. His exception against the Donatists pleading of their fathers, is the same as against Symmachus, that their fathers were degenerated from the integrity of their grandfathers, and therefore were not to be followed. But yet the Donatists held that all their forefathers were of their mind, even as stiffly as the Papists do. They said that they were not fallen from the Catholic Church, but the Catholic church from them, so as that they affirmed it to have been their Church, which was persecuted by Nero and the rest of those Roman Tyrants, as I have before showed in the second Chapter. But St. Austin every where bringeth them to the Scriptures, 
m Collat. Carthag. 1. c. 18. In eyes literis Ecclesiam esse quaerendam ubi Christus redemptor eius innotuit. Et Collat. 3. c. 101. Nos eam Ecclesiam retinemus quam in illis Scripturis invenim▪, in quibus etiam cognovimus Christum.  there to learn and seek the Church of Christ, where we learn to know Christ himself, and thereby justifieth that they were fallen away from the Church, and not the Church from them; and therefore that they were to renounce their fathers that had so done, and return to the Church again. This M. Bishop cannot plead against us, whose parents have been Protestants, to move us to refuse the religion of our fathers, and to return to the example of our forefathers: because by the Scriptures we learn that our forefathers did amiss, and therefore that it shall be to us a just imputation of apostasy, if to them we shall retire ourselves from the religion of our fathers. And see here how M. Bishop goeth a way quite contrary to St. Austin; for St. Austin used the Scriptures to draw the Donatists to the example of their former fathers, and M. Bishop useth the example of our former fathers, to draw us away from the Scriptures. But against all his vain motives we are settled by the charge given by God himself, 
n Ezech. 20. 18  Walk ye not in the ordinances of your fathers, neither observe their manners, nor defile yourselves with their Idols; I am the Lord your God; Walk in my statutes, and keep my judgements, and do them. God's statutes are the line and rule whereby he hath appointed us to go; we respect not therefore what our fathers have done, but we look to the statutes of God in the word of God, to the example and teaching of Christ in the word of Christ, there to learn how far we may approve the doings of our fathers. To do otherwise is, as the Prophet speaketh, 
o jerem. 2. 13.  to forsake the fountain of living waters, which God hath showed, and to dig to ourselves broken pits, that will hold no water, at lest no other but puddle water. For conclusion, strange it is to see how impudently he perverteth the words of Cyprian. To return to the original of the Lords tradition, is with Cyprian to leave the example of our fathers, and to look to the Gospel what the Lord hath there delivered; but with M. Bishop it is to return to our forefathers, and in steed of the Gospel to learn of them, what it is that Christ taught. Cyprian saith; We are not to regard what any man before us hath thought fit to be done, but what Christ did who was before all. M. Bishop saith, that we are to regard what our fathers before us have thought fit to be done, that of them we may learn what Christ did, who is before all. Cyprian saith, We are not to follow the custom of men, but the truth of God. M. Bishop saith, we are to follow the custom of men, that we may thereby come to the knowledge of the truth of God. Thus very directly he crosseth Cyprian, and yet will be very angry if we say that he speaketh any otherwise then Cyprian doth.    

W. BISHOP. §. 2.  
NOw to that point which followeth in M. Abbot: There shall be a time, when the Kings of the 
Apocal. 17.  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, When the Kings of the earth shall be as nurses to 
Esay 60. Psalm. 72.  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 they shall hate 
Cap. 17.  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 counsel and force, and their power they shall deliver to the beast; these shall fight with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overthrow them, etc. And the ten horns which 
Vers. 16.  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, 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 bad 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 ●ider of our religion, and now is fallen of from that to the Protestants: wherefore this device (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 all. 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
IT hath been already very gloriously fulfilled, which God promised unto his Church; 
a Esay 49. 23.  Kings shall ●e thy nursing fathers, and Queens shall be thy nurses, etc. The great states of the world, the Emperors, and Kings, and Princes, Constantine, Theodosius, Valentinian, Honorius, Lucius of Britain, Theodebert and Theodelind of France, Reccaredus of Spain, and infinite other of the same, and other nations held it their greatest honour and felicity to be members of Christ's Church, and have used all care and endeavour to honour and advance the same. The time hath since been for the fulfilling of the other prophecy, that 
b Apoc. 17. 13. 17.  the Kings of the earth should give their power and Kingdom to the beast, and with the whore sitting upon many waters, should bend themselves 
c Verse 14.  to fight against the Lamb. M. Bishop saith, that it is uncertain what Kings these shall be. But it is certain by the confession of all parts, that they are 
d See of this whole matter, Part. 2. in the defence of M. Perkins Prologue. Pag. 42. etc.  the ten Kings, that is, those many Kings that shall arise of the desolations and ruins of the Roman Empire, and what Kings they are that now possess the Countries and Kingdoms, that were once the Provinces of the Roman Empire, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, England, etc. it is not uncertain. The evidence and certainty thereof teacheth us to understand ten Kings, not for ten only particular men, as M. Bishop most improbably and absurdly doth, but for the Kings successively of so many Kingdoms, the King of England, the King of France, the King of Spain, etc. under every of which names there is a succession of many persons. Upon the decay and fall of the Empire, who arose together with these Kings? to whom have they yielded their Kingdom and power, but only the Pope, who by little and little thrust out the Emperor, and made himself Lord of the Roman territory, and hath set up himself under a title of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to usurp a Kingdom above them all? They have acknowledged his jurisdiction; they have submitted themselves unto him; they have been content to join with him, and to yield him all assistance to fight against the Lamb, against the true members of Christ, against all that professed the true faith and Gospel of Christ. But yet it is foretold that there shall be a time, when 
e Vers. 16.  these Kings shall hate the wheore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and eat her flesh and burn her with fire. Where because it might be questioned how it should be that they should do thus, of whom it is said, that they should give their power to the beast, the holy Ghost to take away that doubt, addeth; 
f Vers. 17.  For God hath put into their hearts to fulfil his will, and to consent together, and to give their Kingdom to the beast▪ until the words of God be fulfilled. Whereby he signifieth, that although by the secret hand and counsel of God, those Kings should give their Kingdom to the beast, yet it should be so but for a time only, until the word of God be fulfilled, that is, until it be performed which God hath foretold of the abomination of desolation, standing up in the holy place, in the Temple of God; which being done, they shall hate the whore, and make her desolate, and burn her with fire, God opening their eyes that they may see the abuses and usurpations of that wicked strumpet, that they may reward her accordingly. As for M. Bishop's construction of the beast and the whore, as things divers, and that those Kings though giving all their power to the beast, yet should withal hate the harlot, and fight against her, as wicked men fall out amongst themselves, and aid one another against as wicked as themselves, I reject it as his own ridiculous and fond device, the thing being so plain to the contrary, as that his own fellows the Rhemish Divines, as I have before showed, do confess, that it is 
g Rhem. Testam. Annot. Apoc. 13. 1.  the beast which is called the whore of Babylon, and by way of exposition do name the Whore, or Beast, or Antichrist, as appertaining all to one. The giving therefore of their power to the beast, is the giving thereof to the harlot; and their hatred towards the harlot, is their hatred towards the beast; they shall first do the one, and the time of that expired, they shall begin to show the other. This in part is already come to pass, and God hath opened the eyes and turned the hearts of sundry Nations and Princes, that they now hate the whore of Babylon, the Roman Church, whereof before they stood in awe, and the rest in God's good time shall follow and join together, to the devouring and consuming of it. I noted our gracious King for one of them, whose eyes God hath enlightened, to see the fornications of that wicked harlot, and to hate the same; but M. Bishop saith, that it cannot be applied to his Majesty in our sense, because he was not in his former time any aider of their religion, and now fallen off from that to the Protestants. But though King JAMES have been no aider of their religion, yet the King of England hath been; and the King of England who in other former Kings hath been a supporter of the Kingdom of the beast, is now in King JAMES an impugne● thereof, the King's first supporting, and then 〈◊〉 not being necessarily in person the same, but in succession only as hath been said. Therefore though they 〈◊〉 reprobates and cast▪ aways, who gave their Kingdom to 〈◊〉 beast, as M. Bishop pronounceth of them (as for us we judge the● not, let them stand or fall to their own Lord) yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not which he vainly collecteth, that King JAMES ●y b●ing one of them, that shall ●ate and destroy the who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●oned amongst reprobates, but he is rather 〈◊〉 hereby from the number of them. To exclude this he allegeth, that those Kings shall give their Kingdom to t●● b●ast, till the word of God be consummate, that is, saith he, till the ●nd of 〈◊〉 But the best is, we are not tied to his Commentary, and because 
h Apoc. 18. 1. 2. etc.  St. john at large declareth, that the Beast and hi● Babylon shall be destroyed before the end of all, therefore we use our liberty to think it false which he saith, that they shall give their Kingdom to the beast, until the end of all. They shall so do until it be fulfilled which God hath forespoken, concerning the Kingdom of Antichrist; which being done, they shall arm themselves against the said Kingdom, and shall help to pull it down. So doth King JAMES, and he will not think it worthy of any ha●d censure, that we say that he doth so, and as for M. Bishops fair warning, we reject it with scorn, only telling him that the custom was, that the 
i Tull. Orat. pro Sext. Rosc● Can●s aluntur in Capitolio, & C. si luce quoque canes lat●ent, etc. opinor ijs crura suffringantur.  Capitolian dogs, when they gave warning without cause, should have their legs broken.    

W. BISHOP. §. 3.  
MAster 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 majesties 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 majesties 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, jewel, Hollinshead, and such like 
Page 198.  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, wherein 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: Upon what day the feast of Easter was to be kept, 
Beda lib. 2. histor. cap. 2.  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 
Euseb. in vita Const. lib. 3. 17. Epiphan. lib. 3. Haeres. 70.  the manner of the Roman & 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, then among the Britan's, that lived in a corner of the world? Now for the other of keeping the feast of Easter, the fourteenth 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, and * M. Godwine 
Volum. 1. page 103. * Page 6.  in his Catalogue of the Bishops of England. S. Bede also witnesseth further in the place above▪ said, 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, as the adversaries 
john Bale in their lives.  themselves confess. Whereupon it followeth clearly, that not only for these later thousand years, but also in the former hundreds, all his majesties Ancestors both English and Britan's, embraced and maintained the same Catholic Roman faith, which we now do.  

R. ABBOT.  
MAster Bishop kindly threapeth upon me, that I deny not but that Austin the Monk sent hither by Gregory Bishop of Rome, did then teach the same Roman faith, that they now profess; whereas I do not only deny it to be so, but also do bring 
a Answ. to the Epistle to the King, sect. 31.  divers instances to prove directly that it is not so. Of those divers let one only here suffice. The religion brought in by Austin the Monk, continuing here till the time of Charles the Great, though it approved the having of Images, yet condemned the second Nicene Council, for that it approved the worshipping of them. The thing by Roger Hoveden is thus reported, that 
b Roger. Hoveden. Annal. p. 1. Anno 792. Carolus Rex Francorum misit Syn●dalem librum ad Britanniam sibi à Constantinopoli directum, in quo libro (beu pro● dolour) multa inconuenientia & ver● fidei contraria reperiebantur, maximè quòd penè ●mnium Orientalium Doctorum, non minus quàm trecentorum vel ●o amplius Episcoporum ●nanima assertione confir●atum fuerit, Imagines adorari debere, quod omninò Ecclesia Dei execratur. Contra quod scripsit Albinus Epistolā●x authoritate divinarum Scripturarum mirabilitèr affirmatam illamque cum ●od●m lib●o ex person. 1 Episcoporum ac Principli nostro 〈…〉 ●rancorum 〈…〉 t.  in the year 792. Charles the King of France sent over into Britain a synodal book, or book of a Council, directed to him from Constantinople, in which book (alas for woo) many things were found inconvenient and contrary to true faith, specially for that by agreement of all the Eastern Doctors, no less than three hundred Bishops and more, it was decreed that Images should be worshipped, which thing the Church of God wholly accurseth. Against which, saith he, Albinus wrote an Epistle wonderfully strengthened by authority of holy Scriptures, and brought it together with the book to the King of France, in the name or behalf of our Bishops and Peers. The Roman faith which Austin brought condemned that Nicene Council. though Roman faith which M. Bishop bringeth approveth that Council, for so hath he done in his 
c Sect. 12.  Epistle to the King. Therefore the Roman faith which M. Bishop bringeth is not now the same that Austin brought. He cannot doubt but that Austin being sent hither by Gregory, did teach the same faith here which Gregory himself taught at Rome. But the faith which Gregory taught at Rome shall be showed, if God will, in this book in many particulars, to have been contrary to that faith that is now taught from Rome. As for our writer's Bale, jewel, Hollinshead, and such like, I cite them not as sufficient witnesses in matters of controversy, as he vainly cavilleth, but I name them only as recording matters of history, which they have taken out of former stories and writers, when mine own Library doth not furnish me with some books which they have followed, in which case I may as well use their names, as Papists may use the names▪ of Baronius, Surius, Genebrard, and other their own authors, as I have 
d Advertisement concerning D. Bishop's Reproof. sect. 6.  before showed more at large. As touching the disagreement betwixt Austin the Monk and the British Bishops, I referred the Reader to Beda as well as to any other, and by him it appeareth that there was variance betwixt them, not only in some few, but in very many things, 
c Beda hist. l. 2. c. 2. Sed & alia plurima unitati Ecclesiae contraria faciebā●. Qui cum longa disputatione habita, neque precibus, neque hortamentis, neque increpationibus Augustini ac s●ciorum eius ossensum praebere voluissent, etc. Dicibat eyes, quòd in multis quidem nostrae consuetudini contraria g●ritis, & tamen si in tribus his mihi obseperare vultis, etc. caetera aequanimitèr ●uncta tolerabimus.  wherein he sought by disputing, by entreating, by exhorting, by reproving, to draw their assent unto him. Which when he could not obtain, he made offer to bear with all other differences, so that in three things they would yield to him; to observe Easter, and to celebrate Baptism after the manner of the Church of Rome, and to join with them in Preaching to the infidel Saxons. M. Bishop here will give reason why the Britan's should have yielded to the Roman manner of baptizing, because forsooth it was likely to be administered more decently and devoutly in the most renowned city of Rome, then amongst the Britan's in a corner of the world. But if it must be presumed that at Rome because of the renown of the place all things were done more decently and devoutly then otherwhere, why did Gregory advise Austin, that 
f Ibid. l. r. c. 27. M●bi plac●t ut sive in Romana, sive in Gall●aru, siue in qualibet Ecclesia, aliquid invemsti quod plus omnipotenti Deo pos●it placere, so 〈…〉 e ●l●ga●. custodiamus. consuctudines? commendat.  whether in the Church of Rome, or in the Church of France, or in any other Church, he should find what might better please God, he should make choice of it? Surely it was an absurdity in Austin, that when things might be better, as 
g Ambros. de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Quod alibi rectiùs seruat●r, nos rectè  Ambrose also saith, in other Churches then in the Church of Rome, he should notwithstanding seek to force other Churches, to the example of that Church. Yea, and it was a token of his ignorance that he needed to write to Gregory to be resolved, as touching 
h Beda ut supra. Cùm una sit sides, cur sunt Ecclesiarum diversae etc.  the divers customs and observations of divers Churches, not knowing that 
i Euseb. hist. lib. 5. cap. 23. Dissonantia ieiuny fidei concordiam  difference of ceremonies commendeth the unity of faith, as Ireneus spoke particularly of fasting, and therefore that there was no cause for him so to labour other men to conformity to their rites. Albeit it may be likely that the Sacrament of Baptism was administered amongst the Britan's with greater simplicity and less ceremony then at Rome, and that for that cause they made choice, rather to continue their old form, knowing that abundance of ceremonies, breedeth commonly abundance of superstitions, and 
k Aug. Epist. 119. Quamuis neque hoc inveniri possit, quomod● contra fidem sint; ipsam tamen religionem, etc. seruilibus oneribus prem●nt, etc.  though it be not seen how they make against the faith, yet they are, as St. Austin saith, the clog and burden of religion, oppressing it first, and then eating out the very heart of it. And this we take to be the chief cause why they so stiffly refused Austin, for that albeit they acknowledged that he taught the true Christian faith, yet they saw him join therewith▪ not in baptism only, but otherwise also, so many human traditions and inventions, which they held to be so many profanations of the true Christian faith. If some of them acknowledged so much, as M. Bishop urgeth out of Beda, we will not stick to acknowledge the same in such sort as they did, neither will we stand to question whether Dulcitius (he would say Dubricius, as I take it) or David principal preachers of the Britan's in their times, were brought up at Rome, though Bale, whom he citeth, in his lesser work, which only I have, do not say so much, or that either of them was Legate to the Bishop of Rome; but be it so, yet it followeth not, that all his majesties Ancestors both English and Britain's embraced that Roman faith that now is, because it shall appear as I have said, that the Roman faith is not the same now that it was then. As touching the observation of Easter, what reasons might move the Britan's to continue their former custom, we cannot tell. It may be that they were ignorant of the Nicene decree, and what of that? Surely Hilary a learned and godly Bishop of France protesteth, that he 
l Hilar. de Synod. adu. Arian. Fidem Nicenam nunquam ●●si exulaturus aud●●i.  never heard of the Nicene Council till the time that he went into banishment, which as appeareth by Hieromes Chronicle, was about the twentieth year of Constantius the Arian Emperor, which was thirty years after the time of that Council. Now if it were so long unknown, or so little known in France, no marvel if in Britanny it were less known; and where it had not caused a change within that time, it was not likely afterwards to prevail much, specially with a nation so much afflicted and troubled with wars and invasions, as the Britan's thenceforth were, in which case no alteration might be likely to take place amongst them. Moreover, they could remember that in the time of Lucius their King, Eleutherius sent over some preachers hither, for the converting and instructing of the King and his people, who yet required not to have Easter observed after the manner of the Roman Church, but left them to keep it according to the custom that they had used from the time of the Apostles; whereupon they might resolve that there was no cause why Austin coming from Rome, should now go about to alter that custom more than they had done. In a word the Britan's were not too contentious in refusing to yield to a sudden alteration of things so long continued, but Austin rather showed himself contentious and undiscreet, in that he did so unseasonably and without cause, so strongly urge the same.    

W. BISHOP. §. 4.  
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; That they would not accept of him for such, 
Walsingham in vita Edw. Anno 1292.  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 Philip 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, preiudicious to the temporal slate, 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.  

R. ABBOT.  

a Bale. Script. Britamnic. Cent. 1. oper. minor.  PAlladius and Patritius were sent into Scotland by Celestinus Bishop of Rome, to instruct the Scots against the doctrine of Pelagius the Heretic, which is a certain argument of the apostasy of the Church of Rome, inasmuch as the Church of Rome now patronizeth and defendeth the doctrine of Pelagius, as I have 
b Of Free will, sect. 5.  before showed. Little doth M. Bishop gain by all this alleagement of teachers then sent from Rome. We know what was then the religion of the Church of Rome, and we know that the stream the longer it ran, the more soil it gathered, but yet it was very pure and tolerable then in comparison of that, that now it is. There followeth now an assertion of mine, that it was twelve hundred years after the incarnation of Christ, ere the Pope's authority could get any acknowledgement in Scotland, which he saith I do most impudently or ignorantly affirm. But how doth it appear that I so do? Forsooth, in the very same hundredth year by him named, saith he, they were so far off from denying the Pope's authority over them in causes Ecclesiastical, that they did acknowledge him to be their Protector in temporal affairs. Mark well, gentle Reader, that I name twelve hundred years, and he saith, in the very same hundredth year, and yet for the thing which he reporteth of the Scots alleging, that the Pope had their Country in protection, he noteth the year 1290. which was almost a hundred years after the time by me set down. Be it M. Bishop, that at the end of twelve hundred and ninety years, they had received the Pope to be the Protector of their Country; that nothing hindereth the truth of my speech, that for twelve hundred years they acknowledged not any authority of the Pope amongst them in Church affairs. You should have brought us some records to show that within the compass of those twelve hundred years, the Pope had without controllement exercised in the Realm of Scotland, Ecclesiastical and ordinary jurisdiction; which seeing you do not, you justify my assertion, and the impudence whereof you speak, must be the stain of your own face, who will take upon you to contradict me with such an impertinent and sleeveless tale. To prove that there was no such jurisdiction acknowledged, I referred the Reader to the King of Scots own words, who as Matthew Paris reporteth, 
c Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. Anno 1237. Volenti autem Domino Legato intrare regnum Scotiae ut ibi de negotijs Ecclesiasticis tractaret sicut in Anglia, respondit Rex Scotiae; Non memini Legatum in terra mea vidisse, nec opus esse iquem esse vocandum, Deo gratias, nec adhuc opus est, omnia benè se habent. Nec ●tiam tempore Patris mei vel alicuius Antecessorum meorum visus est aliquis Legatus int●oitum habuisse, nec ego dum mei compos suero tolerabo.  when the Lord Legate was desirous to enter into the Kingdom of Scotland, there to deal in Ecclesiastical matters as he had done in England, answered him, I do not remember that I have seen any Legate in my Country, nor that there hath been any need, thanks be to God, that any should be called, neither is there any need; all things are well. No, nor in the time of my Father, or of any of my Predecessors hath any Legate been seen to have had any entrance there, neither will I suffer any so long as I am in my right wits. This evidence is clear; none had entered in his time, none had entered in the time of his Father, or any of his Predecessors, none should enter so long as he could keep him in his right mind, and though things were amiss, yet none had authority to enter, but as he should be called and warranted by him. The same in effect he alleged two years after, when the Legate again was attempting to go into that Country, and though after much ado, upon intercession of the Nobles of England and Scotland, he was content for once to admit him, that he might not have the disgrace of being repulsed, yet it was with condition as I have 
d See the Advertisement concerning D. Bishop's Reproof. sect. 15.  formerly declared, that the said Legate should put in caution under his hand and seal, that his entrance should not be drawn to a matter of example, whereupon to presume the like another time. This matter is more plain than that M. Bishops paltry shifts can put it off. King Philip and Queen Mary respited the entrance of a Legate for a time, but wholly to deny him entrance for ordering matters Ecclesiastical as the King of Scots did, he well knoweth they durst not. As for his other tales, that the country was poor and could not spare money for which the Legate came, and that the charges of entertainment of such a state would be over great, they are his own scurvy devices, the story mentioneth no such thing, and we know the Pope's authority where it is acknowledged, is not wont to be put off with such slender excuses. He than that considereth what I have alleged, and what he hath answered, will easily see that I said truly of them, and that there is no cause to return it upon me; 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 acquainted with their lewd and naughty dealing.    
THere followed here M. Bishop's answer to my sharp taxation of him, for upbraiding the King's Majesty with misfortune in his breeding and bringing up, which for that it concerneth no matter of controversy, I have left to be touched otherwhere amongst other matters of like nature, and proceed to that that followeth for the sixth Chapter.   

CHAP. VI That the reasons of Popery where there is not a mind prejudicate, are not urgent or forcible, and that M. Bishop was justly censured, for that in repeating a rule delivered by the King's Majesty for judgement of true religion, he left out some words thereof.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
YOu talk M. Bishop of many urgent and forcible reasons, but you talk as, etc. to, We hope you will not deny, etc.  

W. 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. Sir 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 sound 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 majesties 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
Howsoever I seem to M. Bishop to come fair and soft to the matter, I make no doubt but he would have been very well contented that I should have made less haste. His upbraiding me with idle vaunting words and vain repetitions, with bare words and voluntary supp●sals, seemeth to me no strange thing, because he knoweth it to be for his behoof, that all that I have written be so accounted. But every man can conceive that he is no fit man to be judge of my writings. He hath a web in his eye that troubleth his sight, so as that nothing seemeth straight to him, but that that is crooked. What reason and proof I have brought for that that I say, and whether my censure of him be right or wrong, it resteth with the judicious and indifferent Reader duly to consider, and then to pronounce accordingly. But the lest is in that that followeth. Sure I am, saith he, that some Catholics having read your book, do like much the better of mine. And do they so indeed M. Bishop? Happy man are you then, and need no longer care where you beg your bread. You are certainly in the right, if some Catholics like better of your book than they do of mine. But take heed, M. Bishop, that you be not deceived by them. It may be they do but flatter you, and to please you, are content to say that which they do not think. It may be they too much favour you, and you may remember what Seneca saith, that 
a Senec. de Tranquill. animi. Semper judicio favour officit.  favour always hindereth a man from judging aright. I told you before of the Proverb;  


b Quisquis amat Ranam, Ranam putat esse Dianam.  Who loves the frog in filthy dike  
He thinks the frog Diana-like.   
As in the body, so in the mind there is a corrupt disposition, which maketh a man to like nothing but that that serveth for the further corrupting of him. Yea, and it may be they are like to children, that think the bells sound whatsoever they fancy, and therefore do esteem mine a very fond piece of work, full of babble and lies, and I know not what; but yours on the other side a grave, profound, learned, and super-learned book. But M. Bishop if they were not forestalled with prejudice, and bewitched thereto with Romish enchantments, surely they would see that your Epistle to the King is so far from bringing those urgent and forcible reasons, which you pretend, as that it consisteth wholly of mere cavils and calumniations, such and so apparent as that you have been glad to let it go, because you saw it unpossible to defend it. Gladly would I know of those judicious Readers of yours, how well they like of your alleging against us the opinion of 
c See the Advertisement concerning D. Bishop's Reproof, sect. 16.  Proclus the Heretic. You have been so hot and so confident in it, as that having set forth the matter at large, I would willingly hear of them whether they think you or me more worthy to be thrust into the Ass' skin. To let pass many other matters, you have there tendered to the King divers conclusions, drawn from our doctrine, within the compass of a few lines. Of that that we say, that it is unpossible in this state of mortality and corruption, perfectly to fulfil the law, you infer, 
d Epistle to the King, sect. 19 20.  Therefore it is in vain to go about it, therefore it is unpossible to have charity, therefore it is unpossible to have faith; therefore it is unpossible for a Protestant cleaving to the grounds of his own religion, to hope for any salvation. Again, of that that we say that the best work of the righteous man, is stained with sin, you conclude, Therefore as good to leave all undone as to do any; therefore all men are bound under pain of damnation, never to do any good deed. I do but only name those worthy disputes of yours, referring the Reader to their proper places, to see further the absurd inconsequence and vanity of them. I might go along your questions of that part, and put you in mind of a great number of such illations; but I will content myself to name an argument or two in the last only. To prove the worshipping of Images 
e Of Images, sect. 16.  you allege out of the Psalm: Cast down yourselves before his footstool, and conclude, that much more Images may be worshipped. Again, to prove that the Ark was worshipped, you tell us; First, none but the high Priest might come into the place where it was, and it was carried before the camp with great solemnity; when they were to fight against the Philistines, they had great confidence in the presence of the Ark; the Bethshamites were slain for looking into it; Oza was smitten of God for touching it. You propound first, that by these things it is evident that the Ark was worshipped, and when you have set them down, as it were to make yourself ridiculous, you demand; Doth not all this convince in what reverence the Ark was had? Anon 
f Sect. 17.  after, for confirmation of the same point, that Images are holy and to be reverenced, you allege, that the place where Moses stood was holy ground, that days were called holy and worshipful, that the Priests Vestments were holy▪ from which we wonder how you should dream to derive that conclusion which you intent. Some man will haply excuse the matter, that being towards the end of your book, you had spent your wits and knew not well what you said; which we would easily admit, but that we see that having refreshed your wits again, your arguments in this book are found to be of the same stamp. I require example out of the old Testament for the worshipping of Images, and you answer, that 
g Chap. 4. §. 3.  the having of them in the Tabernacle and the Temple (where it was never thought lawful to set up the Image of a man, but only the Cherubin's, to us unknown what they were, and the pictures of Lions, and Bulls, and Palm trees, and Flowers, for garnishing the house) and the sentence of the Psalmist, Adore ye his footstool, and many such places and resemblances, do very strongly argue that Images are to be worshipped. To prove the profession of Monkery amongst the jews, you tell us out of josephus of the Essees that were amongst them, who with the Pharisees and Sadducees, as I have showed, were no other but jewish Heretics. For example of Pilgrimages to Relics and dead men's bones, you answer us, that all the males amongst the jews were bound by the law to go thrice in the year to the Temple of God at jerusalem. To make good that you may lawfully pray to have your sins forgiven by the blood of Thomas Becket, and by the same blood to be brought to heaven, you allege that in the Psalm it is said, 
h Ibid. §. 5.  Lord remember David and all his trouble. To show that St. Paul speaketh of the Mass, you tell us hereafter, that 
i 1. Tim. 2. 1.  he desireth that obsecrations, prayers, postulations, thanks-givings, be made for all men. What, M. Bishop, do your judicious Catholics of whom you speak, tell you that they like well of these proofs of yours? And may not we then think that both you and they have drunk of a spiced or rather an enchanted cup, that will take such wilful and affected Sophistications, to be very urgent and forcible reasons? Surely, M. Bishop, with as much wit as you have told us here, that some Catholics like better of your book than they do of mine, I might also tell you that many Protestants having seen these your collections, and our solutions, do pity your Catholics, that suffer themselves to be gulled and deluded with such reasonless reasons, as before I affirmed them to be. Yea so reasonless are they, that when we have showed by answer, how little reason there is in them, we never doubt to commit them to the sight of all men. And whereas you ask who are more circumspect than we are, to keep our followers from the reading of your books, I ask of you, what cause you yourself have to complain in that behalf? Surely, your books have been very openly and commonly sold; and whereas you say, that we imprison any that will help to print them, you see your own books printed for you, and free for all men to buy that are desirous of them. How many other of your books are there in the same sort common to the view of all men, and by us made common; our care only being, not to suffer poison to go freely abroad without a preservative, & therefore having joined answer to them, we leave every one that list to read at his liberty to judge of both. It would go amiss with you, M. Bishop, if our books had that free passage amongst you, that yours have amongst us. Your Kingdom would soon go down, even in Italy and Spain, if your men had liberty to read our answers, together with your books. The last part of this passage concerneth his delivery of a speech, uttered by his Majesty at the conference at Hampton Court; That no Church ought further to separate itself from the Church of Rome in doctrine and ceremony, than she hath departed from herself, when she was in her flourishing and best estate, and from Christ her Lord and head. In the rehearsal whereof I note him, that subtly he left out the last words, And from Christ her Lord and head. He telleth me that I show no cause why I do so, and that indeed none can be showed, because they are needless words, and comprehended in the former. But we suppose that he needeth more understanding, that conceiveth those words to be needless, which are no otherwise comprehended in the former, then as the former are expounded by them. For although in right meaning it be true which he saith, that if the Church of Rome be not departed from herself when she was in her flourishing and best estate, she cannot be departed from Christ her Lord and head, yet such a meaning he may make of her flourishing and best estate, as that in that estate she may be found somewhat to have departed from Christ her Lord and head. His Majesty therefore to prevent this, with great judgement added, And from Christ her Lord and head, as to note, that by her departing from Christ her Lord, we are to take knowledge of her departing from herself, when she was in her flourishing and best estate, because then was her flourishing and best estate, when she was nearest to Christ her Lord and head, and most entire in the faith and doctrine, which she had received from him. Of this flourishing and best estate, we must consider in the next Chapter, and therefore I cease here to speak any further thereof.     

CHAP. VII. Of the flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome, and of the testimony of Theodoret, concerning the fullness of doctrine, contained in the Epistle to the Romans, and that the Apostle there condemneth Popery of Idolatry, in worshipping of Saints and Images.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
WE hope you will not deny, but the Apostle S. Paul was one principal pillar, etc. to Chap. 8. Paul saith, and we say the same, that, etc.  

W. BISHOP. §. 1.  
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 Sir, whiles 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 and conntenanced 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
We see here what great cause there was that his Majesty should add the words now spoken off, And from Christ her Lord and head, because it might be doubted what construction they or any other might make of the flourishing and best estate of the Church of Rome. I say that St. Paul wrote his Epistle to that Church, when the faith thereof was most renowned through the world. This M. Bishop denieth, and will not have that to be taken for the flourishing and best estate of the Roman Church. And why? First, not the ten thousand part of that most populous City, was then converted to the faith; and secondly, they who had then received the Christian faith, were very novices in it, and stood in great need of the Apostles divine instructions. So then he will have us to understand, that then was the flourishing and best estate▪ of the Church of Rome, when there were in it the greatest number of Christians, and they were so perfect in the faith as that they needed not the Apostles divine instructions. But when was that? Not before the reign of Constantine the Great, saith he. Well; and was it then? Nay, he saith not so, and we may well think that he knoweth not well when, or what to say. Certain it is that Paganism abounded in Rome after the time of Constantine, who indeed for his time by laws restrained the public exercise thereof, but yet 
a Relat. Symmach. apud Ambros. lib. 5. Epist. 30 Divi Constantij factum diu non sletit.  that act of his, saith Symmachus, did not long stand good; the people returning to their old superstitions and sacrifices, until that by Theodosius and Gratian the Emperors of Rome, they were repressed again. Which laws of theirs Symmachus the Lieutenant of the city, moved the next Emperor Valentinian in his own name, and in the name of the City and Senate of Rome, to have again repealed; who 
b Symmach. ut supra. Senatus me querelarun suarum jussit esse I egatum, etc.  Praefectus v●ster gesta publica prosequor, & ut Legatus civium mandata commendo.  though he pretended a far greater number of Senators to join with him than did, as Ambrose showeth, yet cannot be doubted to have had a great number also partakers with him, beside the common multitude of the City, whose affection how it stood we may gather by that that Hierome saith, not much distant from that time, that 
c Hieron. in Esai lib. 16. c. 57 ●psaque Roma orbi● Domina in singulis insulis domibusque Tutela simulachrum cereis venerans ac lucernis, quam ad tuitionem aedium isto appellant nomine.  Rome in every house did with tapers and candles worship the image of Tutela, whom they so called for the tuition and defence of their houses, though elsewhere he testify, that 
d Idem ad Marcel. ut commigret Bethlehem. Est ibi sancta Ecclesia, etc. & gentilitate calcata in sublime se quotidiè erigens vocabulum Christianum.  Paganism was decaying, and the name of Christians arising, and growing higher and higher from day to day. But if it were yet growing, than it was not at full growth, and therefore when will M. Bishop say was the most flourishing and best time of the Church there? Again, we desire to know of him when the time was that the Church of Rome stood in no need of the Apostles divine instructions? May we think, M. Bishop, that ever there was any such time? Surely we know now what the cause is, why the Apostles divine instructions are so little set by at Rome. They served the Romans forsooth at first, when they were but novices in the faith, but now they are grown ripe, and have no need to be taught by him. May we not think him a wise man, that thus telleth us that the Romans than stood in need of the Apostles divine instructions, as if there were any time since that they had not the like need? But I would ask him how it appeareth to him, that the Romans were then but novices in the faith? The reason which his words imply is, because the Apostle wrote that Epistle to them. But so did he write two Epistles to the Corinthians, of whom notwithstanding he saith, that 
e 1. Cor. 1. 5.  in all things they were made rich in Christ, in all kind of speech, and in all knowledge. So did he to the Ephesians, 
f Acts 20. 27.  from whom he kept nothing back▪ but had showed them all the counsel of God. Yea and of the Romans, the Apostle in that Epistle saith, 
g Rom. 15. 14.  I am persuaded of you that ye are filled with all knowledge, and are able to admonish one another; Nevertheless I have somewhat boldly after a sort written unto you, as one that putteth you in remembrance. It should seem then that they were not novices in the faith, but fully instructed in all points, and that the end of the Apostles Epistle was only to keep the remembrance of those things, which they had been before taught. Of that time Tertullian saith, that 
h Tertul. de Prescript. Foelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum suo sanguine prosuderunt.  the Apostles Peter and Paul together with their blood poured forth their whole doctrine, all that they taught, to that Church; and shall we think that when the Apostles delivered all their doctrine to that Church, that Church did not receive and learn the same? Of that time we have a more sure and undoubted testimony, than we can have of times following, that 
i Rom. 1. 8.  their faith was renowned throughout the whole world. That therefore do we hold to be the best state of the Roman Church, and the most flourishing, because we measure not the flourishing of it by number of professors, or by glory of outward state, but by integrity of doctrine and truth of faith. Nevertheless, because flourishing may seem to import a reference to that outward liberty and exaltation, which that Church as the rest received, by the reign of Constantine, and enjoyed under other Christian Emperors after him, therefore his Majesty with great caution and advisedness added the other words spoken of before, to signify that we are so to respect her in that flourishing estate, as that always for more assurance we have respect to that that she was at the first, immediately from the Apostles, and from Christ her Lord and head, the lively picture and description whereof is set forth unto us in the Epistle to the Romans. Here M. Bishop though he have not yet proved any first fault, yet taketh upon him to note a second, that I take an Epistle written to the Romans for their instruction and correction, as if it were a declaration and profession of their faith. Where the Reader seethe, that save only I say the Apostle in that Epistle wrote at large, I say nothing thereof myself, but report only what Theodoret saith, who if he had affirmed that the Apostle in that Epistle did set down a declaration of the faith, which the Romans then professed, had said nothing amiss; the care of the Apostle therein being both to confirm them in the faith which they had received, and to testify to posterity what that faith was. All men know, saith M. Bishop, that such a letter might contain many things, which they had not heard off before. But we question not what such a letter might contain, that is an idle and dreaming supposal of his; but the point is, what we are to think that Epistle doth contain? This I declared by the words of Theodoret, who giving a reason why the Epistle to the Romans, though written after divers other; yet was put in the first place, allegeth this to be it, 
k Theodoret. Praefat. Epist. Pauli. Epistolam ad Romanos praeposuerunt ut quae in se omnis generis doctrinam & accuratam copiosamque dogmatum pertractationem.  for that it containeth doctrine of all sorts, or all kind of doctrine, and very exact and plentiful handling of the points of faith. This place dazzled his eyes; he stood astonished at it, and knew not which way to shift. He grew therefore to a desperate resolution▪  ●lectere si nequeam superos, Acheronta movebo: 
Sith God and truth do us forego  
I will try the devil what he can do.  
My words in my answer speaking of St. Paul, writing to the Church of Rome, stand thus; He wrote at large comprehending therein, as Theodoret saith, Omnis generis doctrinam & accuratam copiosamque dogmatum pertractationem; Doctrine of all sorts, or all kind of doctrine, and very exact and plentiful handling of the points thereof. He in transcribing my text, setteth it down thus, comprehending therein, as Theodoret saith, doctrine of all sorts, or all kind of doctrine, E● accuratam copiosamque dogmatum pertractationem, An exact and plentiful handling of all points thereof. Where note how he purposely leaveth out the Latin words, Omnis generis doctrinam, and whereas in Englishing, Dogmatum pertractationem, I say, the points thereof, he in steed of, the points, saith, all points thereof. From this latter he frameth his miserable answer, which is only an accusation of me, for legerdemain in the Englishing of Theodoret's words. And why? Dogmatum pertractationem, The handling of opinions, saith he, is by him translated; all points of doctrine, whereas it rather signifieth some then all opinions or lessons. Thus he overslippeth the words that carry weight and force to the point in question, and to colour this that the Reader may not espy it, he busieth him the while with an opinion of my false translation; whereas the false translation is none of mine, but by himself very lewdly foisted in. But the Bear though thus broken lose, must be brought to the stake again. Remember, M. Bishop, what I told you, and answer us directly to it. Theodoret saith, that the Epistle to the Romans containeth, Omnis generis doctrinam, All kind of doctrine, and doth not say it once only, but saith it again, that 
l Idem Praefat. Epist. ad Rom. Variam quidem & omnis generis doctrinam per haec scripta exhibet Apostolus.  the Apostle therein delivereth manifold, and not only manifold, but all kind of doctrine. Now if all kind of doctrine that concerneth the Christian faith, be contained in the Epistle to the Romans, than Popery is not the true Christian faith, which teacheth so many points of doctrine, whereof nothing is contained in the Epistle to the Romans. Nay, it doth not only say nothing for Popery, but it also saith against it, and instructeth us to call that apostasy and heresy, which they falsely call the Catholic faith. Whether any thing be there to be found of moment to that purpose, we shall see in that that followeth.    

W. BISHOP. §. 2.  
SAint 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 religious 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
O Noble disputer, saith he, and worthy the whip. Whereby he putteth me in mind, that he hath before returned it upon me to be one of the King's horses, and indeed Solomon saith, that 
a Prou. 26. 3.  to a horse belongeth a whip, but he addeth further, that to an Ass belongeth a bridle, and a rod to the fools back. I say in my answer, that the Apostle to the Romans, condemneth 
b Rom. 1. 23.  the changing of the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and 
c Vers. 25.  the worshipping of the creature instead of the Creator. I noted that the Apostle herein condemneth the Church of Rome, which by her school-tricks teacheth men to worship God in the image of a man, and by religious devotions of prayers and offerings, to worship Saints and Saints images in steed of God. Where thou mayest see, gentle Reader, that as I cite the Apostles words double, so I make a double application thereof. Where he condemneth the Heathens for changing the glory of God into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man, I say, it maketh against the Papists, doing the like, in teaching men to represent and worship God in the similitude and likeness of a man. Where he noteth it for sin in the Heathens, that they worshipped the creature in steed of the Creator, I say, it condemneth the Papists, who worship Saints and Saints Images, in steed of God. But M. Bishop playing the part of Danus to set all out of order, taketh the former part of the Apostles words, and putteth them to the latter part of my application, making me to say thus; First, he condemneth the worshipping of Saints and Saints images, in that he reproveth the Heathens for changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man. Thus he slippeth by a main point of idolatry condemned in the Pagans, and yet defended and practised by the Papists, as if his heart failed him, and he saw no way to salve their abuse against the words of the Apostle. The Apostle giveth to understand, that by the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome, it was accounted an abominable wickedness, and an abusing of the Majesty of God, to transform him into the image of man. The Church of Rome therefore now transforming God in that sort, and setting him forth to be worshipped in the image of an old man, doth that which was holden abominable in the ancient Church of Rome. What hath M. Bishop here to answer, or what will he say? Will he tell us that the Heathens were to blame, for that they were false Gods, whom they represented in this sort? But that the Apostle excludeth, in that he noteth this as a dishonour done 
d Rom. 1. 19 20. 21. 23.  to the incorruptible God, whom they knew by the creation of the world, whom they should have glorified: and were punished for that, knowing God they did not glorify him as God, but turned the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man; 
e Hieron. in Rom. 1. Dicentes se esse sapientes quasi qui invenissent quomodo invisibilis Deus per simulachrum visibile coleretur.  calling themselves wise, as Hierome saith, for that they had devised how the invisible God might be worshipped by a visible image; even as M. Bishop's wisdom hath done, who though he hold 
f Of Images, sect. 7.  that no image is to be made as to represent God to the quick, and as in himself he is, yet resolveth that we may picture God, and resemble him in such image as he hath appeared, or in some similitude represent him by some actions or properties, whereby to lead our understanding to the better knowledge of him; whereas the ancient true religion doth teach us, that God 
g Origen cont. Cells. l. 3. Communis sensus cogitare nos jubet non delectari Deum hoc honore imaginum quae ●ffigiem eius aut significationé repraesentent aliquam.  is not pleased with the honour of images, which represent either shape or any signification of him, or 
h Ibid. lib. 7. Quis sanae ment● non rideat cum qui. etc. Per statuarum contemplationem tanquam signi alicuius conspicui conatur animu ●rigere ad imaginationem intelligibilis numinis.  whereby to lift up our minds to the cogitation of him. Will he say that the error of the Gentiles was in this, that they took the very images to be Gods? But against this we must observe, that the Apostle there speaketh of them, who took themselves to be wise, even the Philosophers and learned men, who scorned to be taken for such idiots, as to imagine a dead block to be a God. 
i Origen. count. Cells. l. 7. Quis alius nisi sit tot●s fat●us haec deos credit, non dijs dicatas stat●as.  Who but very fools, saith Celsus, take these to be Gods, and not images dedicated to the Gods? 
k August. in Psal. 113. Dicunt, Nec simulacbrum nec d●monium colo sed per corporale effigi●m eius rei signum intueor quam colere deb●o.  I neither worship the image nor the devil, saith another, but by the bodily shape I behold the sign or token of that which I ought to worship. They hold them to be as it were 
l Athanas. count. Idola. Simulachra pro elem●ntis literarum humano generi esse, quae dum legunt, Dei notitian● condiscere possiat.  Alphabetical letters, which men might read, thereby to learn the knowledge of God, and that 
m Arnob. count Gentes lib. 5. Dicere quî convenit ad incutienda● for●idmes vulgo deorum 〈…〉 a simulac●ra?  they were appointed to terrify the vulgar sort. M. Bishop hath no thing to except against it, but that Pagans and Papists are both alike, and both condemned by the ancient Roman Church, for changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into the similitude of the image of a corruptible man. But now for worshipping of Saints and Saints images, he will find somewhat to say, though it be stark nought. Because we may not make false Gods, saith he, or give the glory of God unto Idols, may we not therefore yield unto Saints their due worship? Their due worship, saith he, when as the thing affirmed against him is, that no worship is due unto them; and because there is no worship due, therefore to give them worship, is of Saints in themselves to make them Idols to us, and to do that which in the other part of the words by me alleged, is forbidden by the Apostle. For the Apostle speaking 
n Cyril. de rect. side ad Regin. De his qui adorant creaturam pr●ter creator em●dicit, etc.  of them, as Cyril saith, who beside the Creator do worship also the creature; 
o August. count. Faust. l. 14. c. 18 Creaturae culturam damnat Apostolus dicens, Et coluerunt & seruierunt creaturae, etc.  Condemneth, saith Austin, the worshipping of the creature, and 
p Ibid. cap. 11. Creaturam Dei laudat, & tamen ci cultum religionis exhiberi vetat.  for biddeth worship of religion to be yielded unto it. Neither is M. Bishop helped with that which he saith of the most excellent, spiritual, and religious virtues of the Saints, for worship cannot thereby be due to them, who have the same only by grace and gift, but belongeth to him who is the giver thereof. We cannot doubt but that the Origenists and Arians, when they made Christ a oreated God, did hold him by endowments and gifts, to be far above the condition of all other creatures, and yet being supposed to be a creature, Epiphanius by these words of the Apostle, resolveth against Origen that he ought not to be worshipped. 
q Epiphan. hae● cs. 64. Quomodoadhuc adorandus erit si factit●us est? Anser enim indignationem quae est apud sanctum Apostolum propter eos qui creaturam velut Deum tractant, & tribue mihi Deum qui adoratur creat●●, quae non amplius creaturam adorat sed creatore, etc. Omne enim quod creatum est, non est adorandum.  How shall he be worshipped, saith he, if he be created; for take away the wrath which is uttered by the Apostle, as touching such as do use the creature like God, and show me a created God worshipped according to true faith, which no longer worshippeth the creature, but the Creator; for nothing that is created is to be worshipped. So doth Athanasius conclude of the Arians, that 
r Athanas. count Arian. Orat. 1. Creaturam asserunt esse Dei verbum, & ut Ethnici solent cul●um exhibent creaturae, omisso creatore. Cyril de recta fide ad Regin. Oportebit semper & omninò consiteri quòd adhuc pristmi ●rroris laqueis irretiamur, communi homini sidem exhibentes.  affirming the Word to be a creature, they did after the manner of the Heathens worship the creature in steed of the Creator. In like sort doth Cyril determine against Nestorius the Heretic, who though he held the manhood of Christ to be endued with all singular perfections and graces, yet dividing it from the Godhead, and affirming it notwithstanding to be worshipped and believed in, is therefore accused of the same Heathenish error. ˢ We must then confess, saith he, that we are yet entangled in the cords of old error, yielding faith to a common or mere man. Yea the second Nicene Council chargeth the same Nestorius expressly with 
t Concil. Nicen. ●. act. 7. Epist. ad Constant. & Iren. Audemus anathematizare etc. Nestorij idololatriam in homine.  idolatry, thus committed in worshipping a man. Now if it be idolatry, and the same heathenish sacrilege, which the Apostle condemneth. to worship Christ either as a supposed created God, or as a mere man, though of excellent virtue and grace, then surely it is idolatry, and contrary to the Apostles doctrine, to worship the Saints, notwithstanding their most excellent, spiritual, and religious virtues. Of which most excellent, spiritual, and religious virtues, because he giveth us example in Saint Paul, whiles he lived as all other most godly men, we put him to his choice, either to fall down before such godly men yet living, and to worship them; to pray and offer to them, as they do to the Saints, or else to acknowledge his own absurd folly, in alleging to us the virtues of living men, for warrant of such worship to be done to them, when they are dead. With us it shall stand good which St. Austin adviseth; 
u August. de vera relig. cap. 55. Non sit no●is religio cultus hominum mortu, orum, etc. Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non ador●ndi propter religione.  Let it be no religion with us to worship dead men; they are to be honoured by way of imitation, not to be worshipped by way of religion. For albeit men for their temporal callings be honoured, as M. Bishop saith, with temporal worship, without robbing God of his honour, yet to religion this is nothing, because 
x Ibid ●i uni religantes animas nostras unde religio dicta creditur.  religion tieth our souls to God only, as Austin saith; 
y Lactant. institut. lib. 1. c. 20. Religio & veneratio nulla alia nisi unius Dei tenenda est.  neither are we to hold or maintain any other religion or worship, but to God only, saith Lactantius; 
z Origen cont. Cols. l. 1. Caetera honore tantum digna, non etiam cultu & adoratione que nulli creaturae concedi potest sine divinitatis ●iuria.  neither can worship (in this sense) be yielded to any creature, saith Origen, without wrong or injury unto God. But here M. Bishop demandeth of us; Is the Lord or Master dishonoured and spoiled of his due reverence and respect, if his servants for his sake be much made of and respected, yet with such due regard only as is meet for their degree? Where we see, that like will to like, and that a Papist cannot plead for worshipping of Saints, but even as the Pagans did for their petite Gods. They pleaded for themselves, as Osorius showeth, that 
a Oros. hist. l. 6. cap. 1. Non se plures sequi, sed sub uno Deo magno plures ministros venerari f●●entur.  they did not follow many, but under one great God did worship many, as his officers or servants. Now 
b Origen. count. Cells. l. 8. ●it ●um qui plures deos veneretur, hoc ipsorem gratam summo D●o facere, quòd nemini honor contingat nisi quem ille honorari vult. Quapropter qui veneratur eius subditos, non offendere illum cuius òmnes sunt.  he that thus worshippeth many Gods, saith Celsus, he doth a thing pleasing to the highest God, for that there is hereby honour given to none, but whom he will have to be honoured, and therefore he that worshippeth his subjects, offendeth not him whose they all are. But M. Bishop by Christian learning should understand, as hitherto hath been showed, that God admitteth no servants of his to any such communion or fellowship with him, nor can endure that any servant accept from his fellow servant any part of religious service, which he requireth to be proper to himself alone. Peter notwithstanding all his religious virtues, taketh it not of Cornelius; 
c Acts 10. 26.  Stand up, saith he, fir even I myself also am a man. The Angel though more than a man, admitteth it not to be yielded to him by St. john; 
d Apoc. 19 10.  See thou do it not; I am thy fellow servant, and one of thy brethren; worship God. 
e Cyril count julian. lib. 4. Hi docent honores & adorationem non sibi sed potiùs soli summo Deo debere offerri.  They teach us, saith Cyril, that honours and adoration or worship, are not to be offered to them, but only to the highest God. As for M. Bishop's addition, as is meet for their degree, it is but a verbal cover of the idolaters cup. 
f See of Images sect. 11. and the answer to the Preface of D. Bishops second part, sect. 12.  They kneel to Saints to worship them, they pray to them, they offer to them, they give them the honour of Temples and Altars, they keep fasting days and holy days to them, they swear by them, and what do they not, and then tell us that they do worship them, but as is meet for their degree. I may say here as Ambrose saith; 
g Ambros. in Rom. c. 1. Quasi sit aliquid plus quod reseruetur Deo.  As though there were any thing more to be reserved to God. Surely those Christians of whom Leo Bishop of Rome speaketh, who retained the superstitious custom of their Paganism, 
h Leo in Nativit Dom. ser. 7. Nō●ulli Christiani, etc. superatis gradibus quibus ad suggestum arae superioris ascenditur, converso corpore ad nascentem se solem reflectunt, & curuatis ceruicibus in honorem se splendidi orbis inclinant.  to worship the Sun rising, turning themselves back to it, as they went up the steps to the high Altar, and bowing their heads, and inclining themselves to the honour of that glorious light, might well have learned of M. Bishop to excuse and defend this heathenish superstition, for that they put a great difference, as no doubt they did, betwixt the light and the Creator of the light, and in honour of the Creator, did worship the Sun, no otherwise then as was meet for his degree, being such a glorious and goodly creature. But 
i Ibid. Etsi quidam fortè creatorem potius pulchri luminis q●ā ipsum lumen quod est creatura venerantur, abslinendum tamen est ab ipsa buiusmodi specie officij, etc. Abijciatur à consuetudine fidelium damnanda perversitas nec bonor uni D●● debitus cor● ritibus qui creaturis descruiunt misceatur. D●cit enim Scriptura divina: Dominun Deum tuum adorabis, etc.  though some of them, saith Leo, do perhaps worship the creator of the light, rather than the light itself which is a creature; yet the very show of this devotion is to be forborn; let this damnable perversity be cast away from the custom of the faithful, and let not the honour due to God only, be blended with their rites who do service unto creatures; for the holy Scripture saith, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt serve. He professeth such honour in case of religion, to be due unto God alone, and therefore holdeth it unlawful, to give so much as the show thereof unto any creature, and never was acquainted with M. Bishop's distinction of worshipping creatures, as is meet for their degree. Neither was Hierome acquainted with it; for if he were, he spoke fond when he said; 
k Hieron. ad Ripar. Ne  quidem & lunan, non Angelos, non Archangelos, non Cherubin, non Seraphim, & omne nomen quod nominatur & in praesenti seculo & in futuro colimus & adoramus, ne seruiamus creaturae potiùs quàm creatori qui est Deus benedictus in secula.  We neither worship Sun nor Moon, neither Angels nor Archangels, neither Cherubin nor Seraphim, nor any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come, lest we serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is God blessed for ever. Yes, saith M. Bishop, we worship them as is meet for their degree, though not in the highest degree. But either Hierome disclaimeth this, or else he speaketh very idly when he thus wholly denieth to worship them, and yet meaneth to worship them in some degree. For conclusion, I would gladly know how M. Bishop fitteth that last part of his speech to the Images of Saints, because we have here to do with them also. What, must we think that as the Saints are servants to God, and therefore to be worshipped for God's sake, so the Images of Saints are servants to them, and to be worshipped for their sakes? Let us then say also, that the Sexton is servant to the Image, because he brusheth off the dust and keepeth it clean, and therefore the Sexton is to be worshipped for the Images sake. And I. S. is servant to the Sexton and helpeth him so to do, and therefore I. S. is to be worshipped for the Sexton's sake. I have derided this dotage of his 
l Of Images, sect. 11.  before, and thither I refer the Reader: I only note here how truly the holy Ghost having spoken of Idols, said; 
m Psal. 115. 8.  They that make them are like unto them, and so are all they that put their trust in them.     

CHAP. VIII. That justification before God consisteth not in proceeding from faith to works, but in the continuation of faith to faith, and that this faith notwithstanding cannot be separated from charity and good works.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
PAul saith, and we say the same, that the righteousness of God is from faith to faith, etc. to Chap. 9 The Apostle in express terms affirmeth, etc.  

W. 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 Christ more 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) the 
Rom. 1. vers. 18.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
I Am not ignorant that there are many expositions made of those words of the Apostle, which all or the most part are to be found in the collections of 
a Oecumen. in Rom. 3.  Oecumenius, and in 
b Tho. Aquin. in Rom. 1. Lect. 6.  Thomas Aquinas, his Commentary upon that place; who notwithstanding (Aquinas I mean) either omitteth that which is most likely and warrantable above all the rest, or else expresseth it not in such sort as were convenient. M. Bishop telleth us, that the exposition which he hath brought, is the most common, whereas I am persuaded, that as he hath set it down, he can bring no author of it but himself only. For although it be true that some construe it to be meant, from the faith of the old Testament, to the faith of the new, yet they apply the same to far other purpose than he doth. Some will have it that the Apostle would signify that it is faith, that justifieth and saveth both in the old and new Testament, so that the change from the old to the new, is but from faith to faith, that is, in effect no change. This Thomas Aquinas expresseth thus; 
c Tho. Aquin. ut supra. Ex side in fidem, id est, ex fide veteris testamenti procedendo in fidem novi testamenti, quia ab utroque homines iustificantur & saluantur per fidem Christi, quia cadem side crediderunt ventur● qua nos venisse credimus.  From faith to faith, that is, from faith of the old Testament, proceeding to faith of the new, because on both sides men are justified, and saved by the faith of Christ, for that by the same faith they believed that Christ should come, whereby we believe that he is come. Some other understand it of proceeding from faith, whereby we believe the Scriptures of the Prophets and old Testament, to faith, whereby to believe the Gospel. For 
d Theodoret. & Oecumen. in Rom. 3. Ex side in fidem; Oportet enim credere Prophetis & per illos deduci ad fidem evangelii.  we must believe the Prophets, saith Theodoret, and after him Oecumenius, and by them be brought to the faith of the Gospel. This I guess it was that M. Bishop aimed at, but he perversely applieth it to light given by the new Testament to the old, which was meant by his authors of confirmation given by the old Testament to the new. This literal sense therefore of his being neither literal nor sense, but a blind conceit of his own sconce, let us consider what we may most truly take to be the meaning of that place. The Apostle propounding, that 
e Rom. 1. 16.  the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, addeth for declaration and proof thereof, that in it or by it the righteousness of God is revealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from faith to faith. M. Bishop to obscure and darken the place, translateth as his Masters of Rheims have given him example, by faith into faith; to which we may wonder, how he can devise to fit the exposition which he himself hath set down. But it appeareth by that which I cited out of Thomas Aquinas, that the phrase which the Apostle useth, importeth a proceeding, and therefore that by the one preposition must be understood terminus à quo, the term of beginning, and the other must determine the progression and the end, to sound even as we translate, from faith to faith. And this is very expressly and clearly justified by Oecumenius, out of the Greek expositors, setting down the effect of St. Paul's words thus; 
f Oecumen. in Rom. 3. Ex fide in fidem, quia & in side incipit & in fidem terminari debet.  It is to begin in or with faith, and in faith to be determined. Hereto accord almost all the expositions that are made of that place; which cannot fitly be expressed but by that form of speech; from the faith of God promising, to the faith of man believing; from the faith of the old Testament, to the faith of the new; from the faith of the Preacher, to the faith of the hearer; from the faith of one article, to the faith of another; from faith present, to faith to come; to all which M. Bishop can as ill fit 
i Clem. Alexand. storm. l. 5. sub initio. Videtur Apost●lus duplicem fidem annunciare; potiùs verò unam annunciat quae augmentum susc●pit & perfectionem.  by faith into faith, as he can to his own sense. For further manifestation hereof, we are to note the like phrase in other places of holy Scripture, as where the Prophet David saith; 
g Psal. 84. 7.  They shall go 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Septuagint translate, that is, from strength to strength. So the Apostle speaketh, though by the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in steed of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet to the same effect, 
h 2. Cor. 3. 18.  We are changed into the same image, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from glory to glory: where the Rhemists' translating from glory unto glory, might have learned to translate here, from faith unto faith, but that they were perversely bend for their own advantage, to make the Apostles words less sensible than in themselves they are. Now therefore as in these places the holy Ghost noteth by that form of speech, a continuation and increase of strength and glory, so in the other he importeth a continuation of faith, and a proceeding and growing therein, to greater and stronger faith. Thus doth Ciemens Alexandrinus construe it, saying; The Apostle seemeth to speak of a double faith, but he speaketh rather of one, receiving increase and perfection. 
k Theophyl. in Rom. 1. Neque enim sat est priores fidem hanc excepisse, sed erit etiam fidei huius ductu ad persectiorem credulit●tem progre●i●●dum, ad im●●otu● 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 firmamental, qu●nta 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For it is not enough, saith Theophylact, to receive this faith at first, but by the guiding of this faith we are to go forward to more perfect belief, even to unmovable and firm assurance, to which purpose the Apostles used these words to the Lord, Increase our faith. And to this agreeth that which Oecumenius saith, 
l Oecumen. in Rom. 3. Hoc D●● 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 n●m 〈…〉tate excedentis, ex sola videlicet fide nos peccatis ianc mortuos viuisicar●a● s●scitare, etc. Verùm ad quid vivisicatur, inquit, qui credidit? Ad perfect●ssimam fide & immutabi●e habitus fortitudinem. Nam ex side in fidem est vivificatio.  This is the property of the justice of God, exceeding the kindness of man, even by faith only to quicken and raise us up that are dead in sins. And whereto is he quickened that hath believed? To most perfict faith and unchangeable strength of the habit thereof. For our quickening is from faith to faith. Here is then the justice of God, that is, the justification of man before God, described by the Apostle, that it beginneth with faith, and goeth forward by faith, and is more and more to be apprehended by increase and growth of faith. It is begun by faith only, and because the proceeding and perfecting thereof is according to the beginning, from faith to faith, therefore it is consummate and perfect in faith only. And this phrase of speech the holy Ghost seemeth to have directed purposely against the error of the Papists; who though they acknowledge the beginning of justification to be by faith, yet determine the process and perfection thereof to consist in works, so that our justification with them is not according to the words of the Apostle, from faith to faith, but contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle, from faith to works. 
m Bellarm. Recognit. lib. de justificat. Charitas verè & absolutè formalis justitia est, etc. fides propriè & simplicitèr justificat per modum dispositionis; for● malitèr autem simplicitèr & absolutè non iusti● ficat.  Charity, saith Bellarmine, is truly and absolutely formal righteousness; faith properly and simply justifieth in manner of a disposition, but simply and absolutely it doth not justify formally. And again, 
n Idem Recog. lib. de Grat. & lib. Arbit. Quamuis fides & spes necessariò requirantur ad justificationem, tamen id quod verissimè proprijssimèque justificat tanquam unica formalis causa charitas est.  Although faith and hope be necessarily required to justification, yet charity is it which most truly and properly justifieth as the only formal cause. So then where the Apostle saith, that 
o Rom. 3. 22.  the righteousness of God is by the faith of jesus Christ, and that 
p Vers. 30.  God justifieth by faith, we must think that he speaketh unproperly, he speaketh not formally, neither doth he name that wherein the justification of man most truly consisteth. Thus do they take upon them as the old Heretics did, to be 
q Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Audent dicere gloriantes emendatores se esse Apostolorum.  correctors of the Apostles, to reform their oversights, and to better their terms and phrases, even where they speak most uniformly and constantly, to deliver the doctrine of true faith. But we will not hearken to them, nor be led by them, but rather take that which the Apostle teacheth us, that the justification before God which is taught us by the Gospel, is from faith to faith, that it beginneth in faith, and continueth in faith, and from the beginning to the end, consisteth in faith only. And hereto agreeth that which the Apostle saith elsewhere; 
r Gal 2. 16.  We who are jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ that we might (or may) be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Where we see the process of justification, plainly described as we have said, from faith to faith, the Apostle professing to have believed in Christ, not thenceforth to be justified by works as Popery teacheth, but to be justified by faith, because being now believers they knew that by the works of the law no flesh should be justified. And this meaning is further confirmed by the proof which the Apostle bringeth of the words, whereof we speak; 
s Habac. 2 4.  as it is written, saith he, The just shall live by faith. For although those words of the Prophet do seem to attribute justification and life to faith, yet no otherwise do they infer it to be from faith to faith, but in that sort as I have said. Certain it is that but by faith no man can attain to be called a just man, and therefore in the very name of the just, is an implication of faith. The Prophet than teacheth, that a man being by faith become a just man, is not thenceforth to expect life by his justice, but to go on from faith to faith; the just, saith he, shall live, not by his justice, but by his faith. For this cause doth he express it, not by the present, The just doth live, as the vulgar corruptly readeth, but by the future tense, The just shall live by faith, as to note that the justice of God, that is, the justice for which God accepteth and justifieth us, as it began, so proceedeth even to the attainment of everlasting life, not by works, but by faith only. And of all this we have a notable example in our father Abraham, who is set before us as the pattern and example of all the faithful, of whom after that 
t Gen. 12. 1. 2, etc. Heb. 11. 8.  by faith he had obeyed God, to go out of his own Country, and had wrought many works of justice and righteousness, yet to show this continuation of the righteousness of God, from faith to faith, it is said; 
u Gen. 15. 6.  Abraham believed the Lord, and he counted that to him for righteousness. He was not first justified by faith, to be afterwards justified by works, but still his faith was it for which he was reputed righteous in the sight of God. By all this than we see a direct opposition betwixt the doctrine of the ancient Roman Church, and the doctrine of the Papists. The Papists say that the righteousness of God beginneth with faith, but the perfection thereof is in works, and that it consisteth most properly and truly in the righteousness of works, and that the just man though he become just by faith, yet must afterwards with God be justified, and attain to life by works. But the old Church of Rome was far otherwise minded, that justification before God beginneth in faith, and is determined in faith, and that the just man, be he never so just, must live, not by his justice, but by his faith; it being true of just men, as Hierome telleth us, which is said, 
x Hieron. adu. Pelag. l 2. Pro nihilo, inquit, saluos faciet illos: haud dubium qum justos, qui non proprio merito sed Dei saluantur clementia.  He will save them for nothing, as who are saved, not by their own merit, saith he, but by the mercy of God. For 
y Gregor. Moral. l. 8. c 9 justi perituros se absque ambiguitate praesciunt si remota pietate iudicentur, quia hoc ipsum quoque quòd justè videmur viu●re culpa est si vitam nostram cum judicat, hanc apud se divina miserecordia non excusat.  just men, saith Gregory, know beforehand that they shall perish without doubt, if God set mercy aside in the judging of them, because even that which seemeth our just life is but sin, if God's mercy, when he judgeth it, do not excuse the same. Hitherto than it appeareth that I want no armour or weapons to fight against him; yea who seethe not him rather to be a beggarly companion, who taketh upon him to contradict me upon no other but only his own word? As for poverty of spirit, he showeth his profaneness in jesting at it▪ because Christ hath pronounced a blessing to it; 
z Mat. 5. ●.  Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. But now before he give over that text, he will find a weapon there to fight against me. In the next verse, saith he, it is plainly showed that God did grievously punish all them who lived wickedly, notwithstanding they held the right faith. The words of that verse are these; 
a Vers. 18:  The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, which withhold the truth in unrighteousness. Where it being manifest that the Apostles words have reference to Gentiles and Heathens, who had no knowledge of God, but only by nature's light, the Apostle accusing them for suppressing and drowning even that which they understood, or might understand, by the creation of the world, I might question with what discretion it is that M. Bishop attributeth unto them, the holding of the right faith. But not to trouble myself or the Reader further than is needful, I let that pass, and look to his inferences that he maketh out of those words. Whence it followeth first, saith he, that men may have a true faith without good works. Which though it have no manner of sequel from the Apostles words, there being nothing, as I have said, which importeth the having or holding of true faith, yet with great opportunity he mentioneth, because he giveth me occasion to show that though the righteousness of God be only from faith to faith, yet that faith wherein this righteousness consisteth, never is, nor can be without due correspondence of good works and godly life. And to this belongeth that which the Apostle saith, that 
b Rom. 3. 31.  by faith we establish the law; because we do not by faith establish the law, if we preach such a faith as may stand with the contempt of the law, and wilful neglect of the commandments of God. Surely if faith may be without charity, and it be by an after-supply of charity, that we have the will to keep God's commandments, than should not the Apostle say that by faith, but rather by charity we establish the law. But because without saith there is no charity, and charity is the necessary sequel of the regeneration of faith, therefore the Apostle rightly saith, that by faith we establish the law, as whereby we 
c Gal. 3. ●4. Ezech. 36. 26. 27  receive the promise of the spirit of God, the effect and 
d Gal. 5. 22.  fruit whereof is charity, whereby 
e Rom. 7. 22.  we delight in the law of God, as touching the inward man, and are grieved at the remainder of carnal concupiscence, whereby we are hindered, that 
f Gal. 5. 17.  we cannot do the things that we would. The faith which the Gospel teacheth is that and no other, whereof we read, that 
g Acts 15. 9  by faith God purifieth our hearts, which is called, 
h Gal. 5. 6.  faith working by love, of which St. john saith; 
i 1. John 3. 3.  Every one that hath this hope, purgeth himself even as he is pure; 
k Ephes. 3. 17.  by which Saint Paul again saith, that Christ dwelleth in our hearts; and 
l Rom. 8. 10.  if Christ be in you, saith he, the body is dead as touching sin, but the spirit is life for righteousness sake. As for that faith which is without works, it is by equivocation only called faith, as the picture of a man is called a man; this being yielded to custom of speech, and to the conceit of men, who give names oftentimes for semblance and show, where there wanteth the substance and truth of them. To which purpose the words of Leo Bishop of Rome, are very remarkable; 
m Leode Quadrages. serm. 7. Charitas robur fidei, fides fortitudo est charitatis, & tunc verum nomen, & verus est fructus ambarum cum insolubilis man●t utriusque connexio. Vbi enim non simul fuerint, simu desunt, quia in●icem sibi & inuam●n & lumen sunt donec desiderium credulitatis impleat remuneratio visionis, & incommutabilitèr videatur & ametur quod nunc & sine side non dilig●tur, & sine dilectione non creditur.  Charity is the strength of faith, and faith is the strength of charity, and then is there the true name and the true fruit of both, when there abideth an inseparable conjunction of them: for where they are not both together, they are both wanting, because they are the help and light each of other; until reward of seeing fulfil the desire of believing, and that be unchangeably beholden and loved, which now is neither loved without faith, nor believed without love. Where we see a difference signified by Leo, betwixt the true name of faith, and that which is vulgarly termed faith; so that though sometimes we speak of faith without works, applying the name of faith to the outward profession of faith, as he himself also doth, yet 
n Idem de Collect. & eleemos. serm. 4. Multis quibus auserre non potuit fidem, sustulit charitatem, & agro cordis ipsorum avaritiae r●dicibus occupato, spoliavit fructu operum quos non privauit cons●ssione labiorum.  the true name of faith is not appliable, where there is not charity joined with it, neither can there be true belief where there is no love. Hereto accordeth 
Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 22. Fidem, Spem, Charitatem, ●tque operationem quamdiu in hac vita vivimus aequales sibi esse apud nosmetipsos invenimus, etc. Nam nunc & quantum credimus, tantum amamus, & quantum amamus, tantum de spe praesumimus. De fide quoque & operatione joannes Apostolus fa●etur dicens, Qui se dicit nosse Deum, etc. Notitia quip Dei ad fide pertinet, mandatorum custodia ad operationem. Cùm ergò vi●tus, & tempus, & locus operandi suppetit, tantò quis operatur, quamtò Deum noverat, & tantum se nosse Deum indicat, quantum pro Deo bona operatur, etc. unusquisque qui in hoc vitae exercitio versatur tantum credit, quantum sperat & amat: & tantum operatur. quantum credit, amat & sperat.  also Gregory Bishop of Rome; We find, saith he, that faith, hope, charity, and good works, so long as here we live are equal in us. For look how much we believe, so much also we love; and how much we love, so much we presume of hope. Of faith and works also St. john confisseth, saying, He that saith, he knoweth God and keepeth not his Commandments is a liar. For the knowledge of God appertaineth to faith; the keeping of the Commandments to works. When therefore power and time and place of working serveth, so much doth a man work as he knoweth God, and so much doth he show himself to know God, as he worketh good things for God's sake. To be short, every one, saith he, that is conversant in this exercise of life, believeth so much as he hopeth and loveth; and look how much he believeth, hopeth, loveth, so much he worketh. These words are plain enough, and yet the words of Sixtus the third, if that be his which they have lately published under his name, are somewhat more plain. 
p Sixt. 3. Epist. de malis Doctor. & oper. fidei. etc. Biblioth. sanct. Patrum tom. 5. Intelligere no● norunt ubicunque fidei fructus non sit, ill●● quoque nec ipsam fidem esse credendam. Caeterùm quis prudens addubitet, ubi fides sit, ill●● esse & ●●morem? & ubi timor sit, illic esse & obedientiam, & ubi obedientia sit, illig esse & i●stitiam▪ sicut ● cont●ario ubi justitia non sit, illic nec obedientiam, nec timorem esse nec fidem? Ita enim haec sibi inuic●m sociata atque connexa sunt, ut divisa penitus esse non possint.  Wheresoever is not the fruit of faith, saith he, it is not to be believed that there is faith. What wise man doubteth, but that where faith is, there is also fear? and where fear is, there is obedience; and where obedience is, there is righteousness? as on the contrary, where righteousness is not, there is neither obedience, nor fear, nor faith? For so are these coupled and joined together, as that they cannot in any wise be divided. The collection from these testimonies is very manifest, neither need I to declare it, but very plainly we see the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome according with ours, and condemning as we do the Popish separation that now is made betwixt faith and works. Thus then M. Bishops first conclusion is fallen to the ground, and as for the second it deserveth not to be stood upon, because it is no wonder that faith availed them nought, nor saved them from the wrath of God, in whom it appeareth by that that hath been said, that there was no faith.     

CHAP. IX. That the justification of man before God, is the imputation of righteousness without works.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
THe Apostle in express terms affirmeth imputation of righteousness without works, etc. to, Paul teacheth that eternal life, etc.  

W. 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: Not the hearers of 
Rom. 2. vers. 13.  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 imputation of 
See the place, Rom. 4. vers. 6.  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 powered into our hearts 
Rom. 6.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
cursed is the gloss, they say, that corrupteth the Text, but more accursed is the gloss, which to corrupt the text dissembleth and concealeth the words of it. I set down the imputation of righteousness without works, all in a special letter, as the words of the Apostle. M. Bishop in that special letter setteth down imputation of righteousness, and no more, but without works, he addeth in the common letter, as if they were mine only, and not the Apostles words; knowing that his devoted Reader, who he knew would not look into the Text itself, should hereby fail to see both the force of the words, and the simpleness of his answer. And with the like fraud it is that in the margin of his answer, he setteth down, see the place, Rom. 4. verse. 6. as to insinuate to his Reader, that if he see the place, he shall there see somewhat for his turn, whereas he knoweth that his Catacatholikes, for whose sakes he writeth, to keep his credit with them, would hold it sacrilege for them, to go about to see the place, for fear lest the handling of the new Testament should make them turn Protestants; neither durst he set down the words himself, lest they should even by this text grow to suspicion of his dealing with them. But I will do that for him which he himself durst not do, the words of the Apostle being these: 
a Rom. 4. 5. 6.  To him that worketh not, (that is, saith Photius, 
b Phot. apud Oecumen. in Rom. 4. Ei qui ab operibus siduciam non habet.  to him who hath no confidence by works) but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness, even as David pronounceth the blessedness of the man, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works; Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin. In which words we see how the Apostle affirmeth accordingly as I said, an imputation of righteousness without works; which he expresseth to be the reputing of faith for righteousness, for that thereby we obtain remission and forgiveness of sins. To this M Bishop answereth, that they hold with the Apostle, that works be not the cause of the first justification, nor do deserve it, though inspired with God's grace, they do prepare us and make us fit to receive the gift of justification. Where I wish it first to be noted, how he maketh works before the first justification, to be inspired with God's grace, whereas they hold the first justification to be the first infusion of the grace of God. Now they hold works before the first justification, not to be properly meritorious, and yet that works proceeding from God's grace, are properly desertful and meritorious, so as that we are come to have grace before grace, and works meritorious before they be meritorious, and I know not what, for what the painter list, that must stand upon the wall. But to let this pass, his answer to the place is otherwise, idle and impertinent; for though he 
c See of justification, sect. 21.  tell us, which yet he telleth us falsely and against himself, that works be not the cause of the first justification, nor do deserve it, yet he doth not tell us that either the first or the second justification is the imputation of righteousness without works, which is the thing by the Apostle spoken of. For in the imputation of righteousness without works, what is it that is reputed for righteousness? Faith, saith the Apostle, is reputed for righteousness. Tell us then M. Bishop; is faith with you reputed for righteousness without works? Spit out, man, and tell us, whether in your first or second justification you hold that a man for his faith is reputed righteous without works? This the Apostle teacheth, and do you teach the same? No forsooth, saith he, I dare not say so; though the Apostle taught the Romans so, when they were novices in the faith, yet that now serveth not our turn. Consider it well, gentle Reader, and thou shalt see that his answer is a mere mockery, and giveth no satisfaction to the point. And that it may appear further so to be, it is to be noted how the Apostle bringeth David for a witness, of that he saith; who having been long a faithful and justified man (that M. Bishop may have no shift by his pretence of the first justification) yet still out of his own present occasioned experience and feeling, pronounceth, as the Apostle saith, the blessedness of the man, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works. He was in great distress and affliction of bodily sickness, and in that misery he lay until God had thoroughly humbled him, and brought him to true and faithful acknowledgement and confession of his sin. Upon this confession and repentance God remitteth the sin, and mercifully releaseth him from the grievous punishment that had lain upon him, and hereupon he breaketh out into those words which the Apostle citeth; 
e Psal. 32. 1.  Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. Now therefore to speak of a man in the state of grace, as David was, this is his bliss, even the forgiveness of his sins, which is through faith, the imputation of righteousness without works. And for further confirmation hereof, David having so spoken of himself, addeth in general; 
f Vers. 6.  For this shall every holy man make his prayer unto thee. For this, that is, as Austin saith, 
g August▪ in Psal. 31. Pro qua hac? Pro ipsa vema peccatorum.  for the forgiveness of sins. And if the forgiveness of sins be as the Apostle expoundeth it, the imputation of righteousness without works, than th● prayer of every holy man, of every one that is godly, is this, that not having works whereby to be justified, he may by faith in Christ be reputed righteous, and accepted in the sight of God. Here we have M. Bishop fast tied, neither is there any way for him to break lose, because by comparing the Prophet's words and the Apostles application thereof, we find, that the holy or godly man looketh for bliss, by imputation of righteousness without works. Even the holy man prayeth with David a holy man; 
h Psal. 143. 2.  Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight no man living shall be found just; and therefore prayeth again as David by the exposition of the Apostle, hath taught the holy man to pray, that faith may be counted to him for righteousness; that the Lord will impute to him righteousness without works. Of this imputation of righteousness without works, St. Austin saith; 
i August. Retract. l. 1. c. 19 Omnia mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non sit ignoscitur.  All the commandments of God are reputed as done, when that is pardoned which is not done. And again; 
k Idem in Psal. 118. Conc. 3. In via side● pro non peccantibus habentur qu●bus peccata non imputantur.  In the way of faith they are reckoned for no sinners (and therefore are reputed just) who have not their sins imputed unto them. Thus Bernard saith, that 
l Bernard. in Cant. serm. 22. justitia in absolutione peccatorum.  Christ is made unto us righteousness in the forgiveness of our sins, and that 
m Ibid. ser. 23. Hominis iustit●● indulgent●a Dei.  God's pardon is man's righteousness. To the like purpose it is that Ambrose saith; 
n Ambros. in Psal. 118. ser. 7. Potest p●●●at●r ho● ipso justus esse q●●a accusator est ●●i.  A sinner may even hereby be just, for that he is the accuser of himself. And so saith Gregory Bishop of Rome; 
o Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 7. justus advocatus noster iust●s nos d●fendet ●● judicio quia 〈◊〉 ipsos & cognos●●mus & accusamus iniustes; Non ergò in s●etibus, non in actibus nostris, sed in advocati nostri allegatione considamus.  Our just Advocate will in judgement defend us for just, because we know and accuse ourselves to be unjust, and therefore let us not put confidence in our tears, or in our works, but in our Advocates allegation or intercession for us. If as touching works, we know and confess ourselves to be unjust, and yet notwithstanding be defended in judgement to be just, what can our justice be, but the imputation of justice without works? Against this M. Bishop allegeth, that we do not wholly exclude works from justification, because we require true repentance, which containeth many good works, as necessary thereto. But of this he hath received answer 
p Of justification, sect. 25.  before, that repentance doth only make the subject capable of justification, but is itself no part or cause thereof; that it is as the feeling and pain of a wound or sore, which causeth to seek the medicine for cure and ease, but itself healeth not; that it is as hunger and thirst, which feed not the body, but provoke the seeking of the meat, whereby it is fed. The penitent man touched in conscience with the guilt of sin, and seeing thereby the misery that lieth upon him by God's anger and indignation, denounced against the same, because he findeth nothing in himself or in his own works to help himself, doth therefore betake himself to jesus Christ, that through faith he may find in him that justification, which is the imputation of righteousness without works. Thus is 
q Gal. 3. 24.  the law our Schoolmaster unto Christ, that we may be justified by faith. For 
r Rom. 3. 20.  by the law is the knowledge of sin; 
s Rom. 4. 15.  the law worketh wrath; the law maketh it to appear, that 
t Rom. 3. 23.  all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. This true repentance believeth and acknowledgeth, and thereupon flieth to the Sanctuary, which God hath provided, 
u Vers. 24.  We are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ jesus; whom God hath set forth to be an atonement or reconciliation through faith in his blood. As for the good works which M. Bishop saith, are contained in true repentance, they are the fruits of repentance, not the parts of it; or rather the effects of that faith, whereby repentance becometh true repentance, 
x August. Epist. 120. Ex hoc quip incipiunt opera bona ex quo iustificamur, non quia pr●●esserunt iustificamur.  having their beginning then when we are justified, not going before that we should be justified thereby. Now what they hold concerning the second justification, it skilleth not to us; we know they hold many things which they might very well let go. He telleth us that the Apostle speaketh not a word against it, and we tell him that it is a sufficient reason for us to deny it, because the Apostle treating purposely and at large of justification, saith not a word for it. Albeit it is untrue which he saith, that the Apostle saith not a word against it; because he defineth, as I have showed, the justification of the just and godly man (to whom they refer their second justification) to be the imputation of righteousness without works. As for the words of the Apostle which he allegeth, 
y Rom. 2. 13.  Not the hearers of the law are just with God, but the doers of the law shall be justified, they are far from the intendment of their second justification. The Apostle though he speak not of their first and second justification, yet speaketh of two kinds of justification, the one presumed of man, the other taught and given of God; the one pertaining to the Law, the other to the Gospel; the one by works, the other by faith. The jews presumed of justification by the works of the law; they greatly gloried in their name and in the law; they attributed much to themselves above all other, for having the use and knowledge of it, and thought the Gentiles in that behalf much inferior unto them. But the Apostle telleth them, that 
z Vers. 11.  there is no respect of persons with God, and therefore if they sinned, no prerogatives otherwise could acquit them from his wrath. For as on the one side, 
a Vers. 12.  as many as have sinned without the law, saith he, shall perish also without the law; so on the other side, as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law, that is, shall receive that judgement that is pronounced by the law. For confirmation whereof he addeth the words which M. Bishop citeth; 
b Vers. 13.  For the hearers of the law are not just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified; thereby signifying that to have the law, or to be formal and zealous in the hearing of it, is not that that sufficeth to make a man righteous with God; and if any man would be justified by the law, he must be a doer of it, but if he were a trespasser, and sinned against the law, he could not be justified thereby. For the voice of the law is, 
c Gal. 3. 12.  He that doth these things shall line therein, and 
d Rom. 10. 5.  Moses thus describeth the righteousness of the law, 
e Levit. 18. 5.  that the man that doth these things, shall live therein. Which doing, to what measure and perfection it must extend is to be known by that sentence, which the Apostle reciteth out of the law; 
f Gal. 3. 10.  Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them. It is true then, that the doers of the law shall be justified, who denieth it? but they only are doers of the law, which continue to do all things that are written in the law. What is here then to M. Bishops second justification, when as this justification by the law requireth the doing of all, and of us even the best, it is true, that 
g Jam. 3. 2.  in many things we offend all, and that 
h Eccles. 7. 22.  there is not a man just upon the earth that doth good and sinneth not? Yea how crossly doth he deal, that whereas the Apostle useth these words to convince 
i Rom. 3. 9  the jews of sin, and to beat down their pride in opinion of righteousness by the law, he allegeth them to uphold himself in the same pride, and to defend thereby justification by the law? Mark, saith he, how by doing of the law men are justified with God. It is true, M. Bishop, and be you a doer of the law, and you shall be justified thereby. But take heed lest whilst you take upon you to be a doer of the law, there be found sin in you. If there be sin in you, you are not a doer, but a trespasser of the law, and must fear the reward of sin, and 
k ●●m. 6. 23.  the reward of sin is death. That made the Apostle say, that 
l Gal. 3. 10.  so many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse; 
m Cap. 5. 4.  they being voided from Christ, and fallen from grace, whosoever are justified by the law. Therefore he desired for himself, that 
n 〈◊〉 3. 9  he might be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness which is of the law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith; even that which he calleth in the place here questioned, the imputation of righteousness without works. But touching imputation of righteousness, M. Bishop saith, that the Apostle speaketh not like a Protestant, of the outward imputation of Christ's justice unto us, but of inherent justice. Where it is much to be observed, to what good issue this exposition sorteth, and how reasonably it standeth with the Apostles words. For if the imputation of righteousness be, as he saith, the imputation of inherent righteousness, then surely, because inherent righteousness is the righteousness of works, it must needs follow, that the Apostle by the imputation of righteousness without works, doth mean the imputation of the righteousness of works without works. Which interpretation, because he saw it could be taken for no other, but a mad and frantic dream, and yet perforce must use it, because he knew no better shift, therefore he thought good to colour it the best he could, by curtolling the words alleged, naming only imputation of righteousness, whereas the Apostle nameth imputation of righteousness without works. But let him take the words as the Apostle setteth them down, and then give us his answer, and we shall apparently see him to be a most impudent man, making no conscience of that he saith, but studying only to blind the Reader, from seeing that truth which he himself knoweth not how with any probable show to contradict. Yet he telleth us for conclusion▪ that there is only a bare sound of words for the Protestants, the true substance of the text making wholly for the Papists. So then the sound of the words, by his confession is for us, but inasmuch as the words are very plain and clear, how may we be informed that the true substance and meaning of them is wholly for the Papists, when as they contain in show a flat contradiction to the doctrine of the Papists? We see here the use of that caveat, which the Rhemists have given to their Reader, advertising him 
o Rhem. Testam. Argument of the Epistles in general.  to assure himself that if any thing in Paul's Epistles sound to him contrary to the doctrine of their Catholic Church, he faileth of the right sense. By this means if Saint Paul say, it is white, yet we must not think that he meaneth it to be white, if it please their Church to call it black. And therefore though here he speak of imputation of righteousness without works, and bring testimony of ancient Scripture for confirmation thereof, yet he must not be taken to mean that there is any such, or any other, but the imputation of the righteousness of works, because there is no other approved by the Roman Church. Well may we think the judgement of God to be fearful upon them, who are so blind as to be led with such fopperies and gross deceits.     

CHAP. X. That eternal life is merely and wholly the gift of God, and cannot be purchased by merit or desert.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
PAul teacheth that eternal life is the gift of God through jesus Christ, etc. to, He telleth us again and again, etc.  

W. 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 Saint 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 provedly this sentence of the same Apostle. God will render to every man according to 
Rom. 2. vers. 6. 7. & 8.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
whether M. Bishop or I may be thought more likely to flatter himself in an opinion, of having made a covenant with hell, I leave it to be esteemed by the whole process of this work, and the God of heaven shall make it one day more fully to appear. Against his solution of the objection here propounded, he knoweth well that I 
a Of Merits, sect. 8.  have returned a replication, which showeth the same to be infirm and vain, and seeing he can fortify it no further, the bare repeating of it is no other but womanish and idle talking. The Apostle telleth us that 
b Rom. 6. 23.  eternal life is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free grace or gift of God through I●su Christ our Lord. We teach, saith M. Bishop, that eternal life is the gift of God originally and principally. Thus by his shifting terms of originally and principally, he limiteth the Apostles words, and deludeth a main Theorem and Canon of Christian faith, leaving it to be understood, that though eternal life be originally and principally the gift of God, yet totally and absolutely it is not so. Which i● it be true, it must necessarily follow, that as the Apostle saith truly, that eternal life is the gift of God, because in part it i● so, so a man may truly say against the Apostle, that eternal life is not the free gift of God, because in part, and in some sort it is not so. And if no man may dare in this wise to gainsay the Apostle, than we must acknowledge that which Origen saith, that 
c Origen. in Rom. 4. Stipendia, inquit, peccati mors. Et non addid●● similitèr ut dic● et; st●pendia a●●● justitiae vita aterna, sed ait, Gratia autem De● v●●a aet●rna, ut st●pend ●m quod utique debi●o & mercedi similé est, retributionem poen● esse doc●●●t & mortis; v●tam ver● aternam soli gratiae consignare●.  the Apostle having said that the stipend of sin is death, did not add in the like sort that the stipend of righteousness is eternal life, but, eternal life is the grace of God, that he might teach, that the retribution of punishment and death is a stipend, which is like to a debt or wages, but might assign life eternal to grace only. And thus the Apostle himself teacheth us to conceive, when he saith; 
d Rom. 11. 6.  If it be of grace, than it is not of works; otherwise grace is no grace. For 
e August cont. Pelag. & Celestina. lib. 2. c 24. Gratia Dei non eri● grat●● vll● modo nisigrat●ita fuer●t omni modo.  grace, saith Austin, shall not be grace in any respect, except it be free in every respect. 
f Idem Epist. 120. c. 19 Haec est gratia quae gratis datur, non merit●s operantis said miseratione donantis.  That is grace, saith he, which is freely given, not for the merits of the worker, but by the mercy of the giver. Thus Hierome saith; 
g Hieron. Epist ad Dem●tr●ad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non op●ru● retributio sed donamis est largitas.  Where grace is, there is not reward of works, but the largesse and bounty of the giver, 
h Leo Epist. 84. Gratia nis● gratis d●tur, non est gratia, sed merces retrib●tion meritorum.  Grace, saith Leo, except it be freely given is no grace, but a reward and recompense of merits, leaving it consequent, that if it be the reward and recompense of merits, than it is not grace. Thus they determine grace and merit, to be things incompatible, and of so perfect opposition ea●h to other, as that the one cannot stand where place is yielded to the other. Sith then the Apostle teacheth that eternal life, is a matter of grace and free gift, we must conceive that it is not to be hanged upon man's merit, or if in any respect it be to be ascribed to the merit of man, it is not grace, because it is not free in every respect. M. Bishop's respects thereof of originally and principally, are to be sent to the Pelagian school, where they would be admitted as well as they are amongst the Papists, but in the school of Christ they are exploded, as derogatory to the grace of Christ, and yielding so much glory to man, as is the manifest impeaching of the glory of God. And yet so impudent is he, that he would make St. Austin the author of his respects, whom 
i Of Merits, sect. 8.  before I have showed to be far off from approving any such. Originally, forsooth, eternal life is the gift of God, because we must receive grace by the free gift of God, before we can do any thing that doth deserve the joys of heaven. So then eternal life itself is not the free gift of God, but only grace which enableth us to work by our free will, and so to deserve eternal life. And did St. Austin conceive this to be the meaning of the Apostle? Surely in the place before mentioned I have showed that St. Austin attributeth our good works, not originally only, but fully and wholly to the gift and work of God, and thereby disclaimeth the merit of man, because what shall man be said to merit by that, that is wholly and only Gods? Therefore he saith that God in rendering eternal life to good works, doth but give 
k August. de Grat. & lib. Arbit. cap. 8. Gratia est pro gratia.  grace for grace, one grace after and for another. M. Bishop would have him say, that God rendereth merit for grace, but St. Austin will acknowledge no other but only grace for grace. And the more to beat down the pride of merit, he saith; 
l Ibid. cap. 7. Si Dei dona sunt bona merita tua non Deus coronat merita tua t●nquam merita tu● sed tanquam dona sua.  If thy good works be the gifts of God, than God crowneth not thy merits as thy merits, but as his own gifts. Yea he plainly testifieth that therefore the Apostle saith, 
m Ibid. cap. 9 Maluit di●●re, Gratia Dei vit● aeterna ut hin● intell●g●r●mus non pro meritis nostris Deum nos ad vitam aeternam, sed pro ●iseratione sua perducere.  Eternal life is the grace or gift of God, that we should understand that God bringeth us to eternal life, not for our merits, but for his onene mercy's sake, alleging to that purpose the words of the Psalm, 
n Psal. 103. 4.  He crowneth thee with mercy and loving kindness. As touching his second limitation, that eternal life is principally the gift of God, because the whole virtue and value of our merits proceedeth 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, the nullity of it is plain by that that hath been said: because if the whole value of the work be to be assigned to the grace of God, then can no merit be reputed thereby to man; for what should man merit by that, in the worth whereof he can challenge nothing to be his? I have 
o Of Merits, sect. 3.  before showed that that whereby a man should be said to merit, must be of himself. If the value of the thing be of another, let the merit be ascribed to him of whom it is; but vainly doth he claim merit, who hath no propriety of that whereby he should merit. As concerning the value of good works, I shall have occasion further to speak in the thirteenth chapter, and therefore I forbear to stand upon it in this place. Only I wish M. Bishop to consider that which St. Austin briefly saith, that 
p August. de Temp. ser. 49. In comparatione resurrectionis illius stercus est tota vi●a quam genimus, & paulò priùs: unusquisque metiatur se quid est modò & quid erit tunc, & inveniet in comparatione illi●s iustiti● ista damna esse & stercora.  in comparison of the resurrection all the life that here we lead is but dung; let every man measure himself, saith he, what he is now, and what he shall be then, and he shall find that in comparison of the righteousness that shall be then, all now is but dross and dung. Now tell us M. Bishop your opinion; may we think dross to be worth gold, or the dung of this earth to deserve that righteousness and glory of heaven? What madness is it to imagine such a value of desert in that work, which is but dung in comparison of that that it should deserve? But at once to overthrow all that M. Bishop hath here answered, I will set down what Fulgentius hath delivered concerning the place here in hand. 
q Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 1. Gratia autem etiam ipsa non iniustè dicitur qui●●●on sol●●● donis s●is Deus do●●a sua reddit, sed quia tantum etiam ●bi gratia divina retributionis exuberat ut incomparabilitèr atque inessabilitèr omne meritum, quamuis bon● & ●● D●o dat● humanae voluntatis atque operationis excedat.  Therefore is eternal life, saith he, not without cause called grace, not only for that God rendereth his own gifts to his own gifts, but also for that the grace of God's reward doth there so much abound, as that incomparably and unspeakably it exceedeth all the merit of the will and work of man, although it be good, and given of God himself. By which words he plainly giveth us to understand as on the one side, that God in bringing us to eternal life, doth but proceed in giving, and consummate thereby the gift of salvation, which from the beginning he freely intended to us, and by calling and justifying and glorifying us, as by degrees, acteth that which he intended, so on the other side, that in the intermediate gifts of God, there is nothing to take away from the final gift, the name of grace, because there is no comparison betwixt the one and the other, that the one should be said in any sort to merit and deserve the other. But here it is worthy to be noted how M. Bishop trippeth and crosseth himself, who having first told us, that the whole value of our merits whereby we deserve eternal life, proceedeth of the dignity of God's grace in us, presently altereth the case and saith, that we must concur with grace to the effecting of good works, and this our working with the grace of God deserves heaven. Surely if the whole value of our merits do proceed of the dignity of God's grace, than the desert of heaven ariseth not of our working with grace; or if the desert of heaven do arise of our working with grace, than it doth not wholly arise from the dignity of grace. But hereby we may see that all the words which they use as touching grace, are but hypocrisy and deceit, and that their true resolution is, that the desert of heaven issueth out of the free will of man, using grace as a tool or instrument for the doing of works, whereby to deserve the same. Thus of gift they make no gift, and turn all wholly into merit, and by the free will of man do utterly overthrow the grace of God, carrying notwithstanding in the mean time a conscience of shame of that they teach, and colouring all with good works, as Pelagius the Heretic and his followers in the same case were wont to do. But M. Bishop will prove all that he saith by another sentence of the same Epistle to the Romans, 
r Rom. 2. 6.  God will render to every man according to his works, etc. where he saith, we may see in express terms eternal life to be rendered and repaid for good works. Where we rather see his pertinacy in error, who rather chooseth to make the Apostle to contradict himself, then to yield to the truth plainly delivered by the Apostle. But nothing can be devised more fit for answer to him, or more effectual to stop his mouth, then that which Gregory Bishop of Rome hath purposely set down for satisfaction to those words. 
f Gregor. in Psalm. Poe●itent. 7. Quòd si illa Sanctor● soelicitas miserecordia est & nö meritis acquiritur, ubi erit quod scriptum est; Et tu reddes unicuique secundum opera sua? si secundum opera redditur, quomodo miserecordia a stimabitur? sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, & aliud propter ipsa opera reddere. In co enim quod secundum opera dicitur, ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur, ut cui●s apparuerint bona opera, eius sit & retribut o gloriosa. Illi namque beatae vitae in qua cum Deo & de Deo vivitur nullus pot●st aquari labour, nulla opera comparari, praesertim cùm Apostolus dicat: Non sunt condignae passiones, etc.  If the felicity of the Saints be mercy, saith he, and be not obtained by merits, how shall it stand which is written; Thou shalt render unto every man according to his works? If it be rendered according to works, how shall it be esteemed mercy? But it is one thing, saith he, to render according to works, and another thing to render for the works themselves. For in that it is said, according to works, the very quality of the works is understood, so as that whose good works shall appear, his reward shall be glorious. For to that blessed life wherein we shall live with God and of God, no labour can be equalled; no works can be compared, for that the Apostle telleth us; The sufferings of this time are not comparable in worth to the glory to come, that shall be revealed on us. Where we see how he setteth it down as a thing without question to be confessed, that eternal life is mercy only, and is not to be purchased or gained by merits, and that the Scripture in saying, that God rendereth to every man according to his works, doth not import that God in giving reward unto good works doth any thing for the works sake, as if he regarded the merit or value thereof, but respecteth only the quality of our works, as using the same for a mark only, whereby he will take knowledge of them to whom he intendeth to show mercy. At these words of Gregory, me thinks I see how M. Bishop biteth the lip, and chafeth in his mind to hear him thus distinguishing like a Protestant, and seriously approving that which he with scorn hath rejected, being spoken by M. Perkins. 
t Of Merits, sect. 17.  O sharp and over-fine wit▪ saith he, doth God render according to the works, and doth he not render for the works? What, M. Bishop, will you mock Gregory in the same sort, and twit him with a sharp and over-fine wit? He hath taught us to distinguish thus; he telleth us that it is one thing to render for works, another thing to render according to works, which sith you admit not, why do you d●ale so impudently, in challenging to yourselves a full and perfect agreement with the ancient Church of Rome? I might further enlarge this matter out of Gregory by sundry speeches, tending to the disabling of all human works, but that it followeth more properly to speak thereof in the thirteenth Chapter.     

CHAP. XI. That concupiscence or lust is sin, even in the very habit and first motions of it.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
HE telleth us again and again that concupiscence is sin; to lust is to sin, etc. to, S. Paul saith of the spirit of adoption, etc.  

W. BISHOP.  
THe Apostle telleth us again and again, that our Saviour Christ jesus, was made 
2. Cor. 5. v. 21.  sin; and yet no Christian is so simple, as to take him to be properly sin, but the host or satisfaction for sin: so when the 
Rom. 8. vers. 3.  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 
L. b. 1. cont. duas Epist. Pelag. cap. 10. & Lib. 1. de Nupt▪ & Concupisc. cap. 23.  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: Who shall deliver me 
Ibid. vers. 25.  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 
Lib. 6. cont: julian. c. 23.  without the consent of our mind: 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 clearly delivered 
2. Cor. 12. vers. 8.  from that prick of the 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 concupiscence when it hath conceived 
jacob. 1. vers. 15.  (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.  

R. ABBOT.  
EVen so might the adulterer plead for himself, that as Christ is said to have been made sin, and yet is not properly sin: so adultery, though it be called sin, yet is not so called, because it is indeed and properly sin, but only because it is an effect of sin and draweth on to many sins. Surely in what manner the Apostle saith that adultery is sin, in the same manner doth he say that concupiscence is sin, and very untowardly and shamefully doth M. Bishop bring that as a speech of the like kind, whereby it is said, that 
a 2. Cor. 5. 2●.  Christ for us was made sin. As for that which he citeth out of St. Austin, I have 
b Of Original sin after Baptism, sect▪ 9  elsewhere before examined the places, and have showed at large how falsely and wickedly they abuse him, St. Austin never denying concupiscence in the regenerate to be sin, but only as sin implieth a guilt of punishment, which to the faithful is remitted, and therefore the condition of sin in that respect abolished. If we consider the nature of sin in the corruption and uncleanness of it, St. Austin acknowledgeth concupiscence to be such an evil quality as maketh us evil, which nothing can do but sin, yea he saith that it is 
c August. count. julian. l. 6. c. 5. Tale ac tammagnum malum, tantum quia inest, quomodo non tener●t in morte? etc.  so great an evil, as that only for that it is in us, it should hold us in death, and bring us to everlasting death, but that the bond (that is, the guilt) thereof is loosed in baptism by the remission of all our sins. I note these things but briefly, because I choose rather to refer the Reader to the treaty hereof at large. And thereby he shall perceive how untruly M. Bishop here saith, as by the doctrine of St. Austin, that if by the help of God's grace we repress concupiscence, we are delivered from the infection and guilt of it. Indeed St. Austin saith so much of the guilt, but never did he say or think, that we are or shall be deliuer●●● from the infection and uncleanness of it, 
d Aug. Epist. 54. Malos di●it propter vitia infirmitatis humanae donec totum quo constamus ab omni vitiositate sanatum transeat in eam vitam ubi nihil omninò peccabitur.  until all whereof we consist, healed from all corruption, shall pass into that life where there shall be no sin. But if St. Austin will not take his part, he will prove that which he saith by St. Paul himself, in the same Chapter. He demandeth, saith he, Who shall deliver me from this body of death, and answereth presently, The grace of God by jesus Christ our Lord. Where we see how according to his usual manner he setteth down the words, as to have his Reader think, that he tendereth him a proof of that which he saith, but never goeth about to show how that which he saith is to be deduced therefrom. And here his falsehood is the greater, for that he allegeth the Apostles words for that which he saith, whereas that which he saith is utterly overthrown by the words which he allegeth. For let me ask him; doth the Apostle by deliverance from this body of death, mean a deliverance from the infection of original sin? He will say, yes, because for proof thereof he citeth the Apostles words. Well, but tell us then, do you not believe that St. Paul was a partaker of the grace of God, and did thereby repress and resist the motions of concupiscence? Neither will he here dare to say, nay, and if he should, what Christian man would not spit at him? But then we will ask him again, if the Apostle by the grace of Christ did resist concupiscence, and every one that so doth, be delivered from the infection thereof, how standeth it that the Apostle did yet remain in case to be delivered from this infection? Mark, I pray thee, gentle Reader, the Apostle saith, who shall deliver me, giving thereby to understand that he was not as yet delivered. He saith, the grace of God shall deliver me, but he doth not say, it hath delivered me from the infection of concupiscence. Here M Bishop is mute; he hath taken a fall in his own trip, and knoweth not which way to recover himself. The Apostle St. Paul though by the grace of God he resisted the motions of concupiscence, yet was not as yet delivered from the infection of it. It is false therefore which M. Bishop saith, that if by the help of the grace of God we repress it, we are delivered from the infection of it. I have 
e Of Original sin, sect. 4.  before showed that the Apostle in naming this body of death, hath reference to this infection, meaning thereby 
f Rom. 6. 6.  the body of sin, as he hath termed it in the former Chapter, 
g August. de Temp. ●er. 45. Per concupiscentiam d●ctum est hoc nostrummortis corpus.  which is to be destroyed, and to which by and for concupiscence belongeth death. It is true than which M. Bishop saith, that the Apostle in desiring to be delivered from this body of death, did thereby intend a release from the infection of concupiscence; but where was his understanding that could not see that this maketh directly against himself, and plainly showeth that this release and deliverance is yet to come, and befalleth not unto us so long as we continue, clothed with mortality and corruption? But he telleth us yet further, that St. Austin out of the same sentence where concupiscence is called sin, (Now not I work it any more, but sin that dwelleth in me)▪ argueth very sound that the Apostle could not mean sin properly, which cannot, saith he, be committed without consent of the mind. He quoteth for this Lib. 6. cont. julian. cap. 23. whereas in that sixth book there are but thirteen Chapters. But the place which he meaneth I take to be in the eleventh Chapter of the same book, where St. Austin having mentioned those words of the Apostle, goeth on thus, 
h August. con●. julian. l. 6. c. 11. jam enim motus desideriorum malorum non ipse operabatur, quib● non consentiebat ad perpetranda peccata. Peccati autem nomine quod in illo habitabat, ipsam nuncupabat concupiscentiam, quia peccato facta est & si consentientem traxerit atq, illexerit, con●ipit paritque pecoutum.  For now did not he work the motions of evil desires, to which he did not consent to commit sins. But by the name of sin dwelling in him, saith he, he meaneth concupiscence, because it was caused by sin, and if it draw and entice a man to consent, doth conceive and bring forth sin. Where we may observe what a vein M. Bishop hath of racking and stretching, here being no cause for him to say that Austin argueth so sound, that concupiscence is not properly sin, and although it be true (the committing of sin being always understood of the outward act) that sin is not committed, but by the consent of the mind, yet neither doth St. Austin here deliver any such rule; and though he had, yet had it been nothing to M. Bishop's purpose, because here is no question of committing sin, but of the root and motions of sin before it come to be committed. Which distinction he may observe out of that which the same Saint Austin in the very same book answereth to julian the Pelagian, ask 
i August. count. julian. l. 6. c. 4 Explica, inquis, quomodo peccatii personae illi justè possit ascribi, quae peccare nec voluit nec potuit? Aliud est perpetratio propriorun; aliud alienorum contagio peccatorum.  how sin can justly be ascribed to that person (namely to the infant) which neither hath will nor power to sin; The committing of a man's own sins is one thing, saith he, the contagion of the sins of others is another thing. Now the sin whereof we speak here, is the contagion and infection of Adam's sin, 
k Rom. 5. 12.  in whom all have sinned, of which St. Austin denieth not, but rather freely confesseth, that as a punishment, it hangeth upon us, and presseth us down, not only without our will, but also against our will. And therefore whereas in one place he had defined 
l August. de duab. animab. count Manich. cap. 11. Peccatum est voluntas retinendivel cōsequ●di quod justitia vetat, & unde liberum est abstinere.  sin to be a will of retaining or obtaining that which justice forbiddeth, and whence it is in a man's liberty to abstain, as if there were no sin but by the will, he limiteth this definition in his Retractations to that 
m Idem Retract. lib. 1. c. 15 I● definitum est quod tantummodo peccatum est, non quod est etiam p●na peccati. Nam quando tale est ut idem sit & p●na peccati, quantum est quod valet voluntas sub dominante cupiditate nisi fortè si piaest v●●ret auxiliii, etc.  which is only sin, and is not also the punishment of sin. For in that sin, saith he, which is also the punishment of sin, how little can the will do under the dominion of concupiscence, save only if it be godly to pray for help. In which words he plainly acknowledgeth that that against which the godly will and mind prayeth for help, is not only the punishment of sin but also sin, and therefore in the place by M. Bishop cited, must be understood to restrain the name of sin to actual and committed sin, laying guilt upon him, by whom it is committed, which concupiscence, as he often teacheth, doth not lay upon him that fighteth against it, because to him it is already remitted and pardoned, and therefore according to that construction is by the same St. Austin in sundry places exempted from the name of sin, As for the words of the Apostle which M. Bishop urgeth, 
n Rom. 7. 17.  Now it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me, he might easily conceive that he saith not so, as to acquit himself absolutely from being the doer or worker, but only in some sort. For if he be not the doer, why doth he say, 
o Vers. 14.  I am carnal, sold under sin; 
p Vers. 15.  I do that which I hate; 
q Vers. 19  The evil which I would not that do I; and for conclusion; 
r Vers. 25.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; I myself, even very I, in my mind serve the law of God, and in my flesh the law of sin. And if he be not the doer, who shall it be said to be? He saith indeed that it is sin that doth it; but is sin a doer without the man? Can the accident be an agent without the subject? This negation therefore must be understood according to that whereby he would not do that which he did; according to the inner man, according to that wherein he was in part renewed, and desired to be wholly that that he was thereby. But as touching this also I have 
s Of Original sin, sect. 3.  before given full satisfaction, and M. Bishop might well have spared himself this trouble, to repeat the same again. His next argument showeth his learning in divinity, in that he plainly declareth that he knoweth not what the dominion of sin meaneth. Sin; saith he, hath no dominion over them that are under grace, as the Apostle teacheth. But this were false if concupiscence were properly sin. Why so, I pray? Forsooth it hath such dominion over every good body that they cannot avoid the motion and sting of it. This he hath sucked out of his own fingers ends; who would have made this argument but he? Let the Apostle himself tell us, what 
t Rom. 6. 12.  the dominion of sin is, who having said, Let not sin reign in your mortal body, addeth for exposition hereof, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof, as to note that then sin is said to reign in us, when we give obedience to it, to fulfil the lusts thereof. Hereupon St. Austin observeth thus; 
u August. in loan. Tract. 41. Non ait, Non fit, sed, Non regnet. Quamdiu vivis, necesse est esse peccatum in membrie tuis: salte● illi regnum auferatur; non fiat quod jubet.  He saith not, Let it not be, but, Let it not reign. So long as thou livest, sin must needs be in thy members; yet let the Kingdom thereof be taken away, let not that be done which it commandeth. Where we see that the dominion of sin is then understood to be when we obey, and do that which it commandeth; but the denial of this obedience and refusal to do the lust thereof, that is the taking away of the kingdom and dominion of it. To the same purpose Gregory Bishop of Rome speaketh of the same words, 
x Gregor. Moral. lib. 14. c. 9 Non ait, non sit, sed non regnet; quia non esse non potest, non autem regnare in cordibus bonorum potest.  The Apostle saith not, Let it not be, but, Let it not reign, because it cannot but be, but it may be without a kingdom in the hearts of good men. M. Bishop saith, that because it cannot but be in every good man, therefore it hath dominion over every good man; but Gregory saith, it cannot but be indeed, but yet it may be, and be without dominion in the hearts of good men. But somewhat more largely and effectually he speaketh hereof in another place; 
y Ibid. l. 21. c. 3. Peccatum in mortali corpore non esse sed regnare prohibuit, quia in carne corruptibili non regnare potest, sed von esse non potest. Hoc ipsum namque ei de peccato tentari peccatum est, quo quia quamdiu vivimus perfectè omnimodo non caremus, sancta pradicatio quoniam hoc expellere plenè non potuit, ei de nostri cordis habitaculo regnum tulit, ut appetitus illicitus etsi plerunque b●nis nostris cogitationibus occultè se quasi fur inserit saltem si ingreditur, non dominetur.  The Apostle forbiddeth sin not to be, but to reign in our mortal body, because it may be without reigning in corruptible flesh, but it cannot but be there. For even to be tempted of sin, saith he, is sin unto it; which because we cannot be altogether without so long as we live here, the holy preaching for that it cannot fully expel and drive it out, taketh away from it the kingdom out of the habitation of our hearts, that unlawful desire albeit as a thief, it privily thrust in itself many times amongst our good thoughts, though it enter into us, yet may not have dominion over us. In which words as we see particularly against that which M. Bishop here saith, that the motion and sting of concupiscence, which Gregory calleth unlawful desire or lust, though it cannot be avoided of the faithful in this life, yet is not therefore said to have dominion over them (the more absurdly doth he make application of his speech to St. Paul, as though concupiscence, because he could not be delivered from it, had therefore dominion over him) so we see also as touching the main question here in hand, that that motion or sting, even the very temptation of sin, from which we cannot be freed, so long as we continue in this life, is sin in us, though it have not any kingdom or dominion over us. Which is to be observed against the collection which he maketh of the words of St. james, as though there were no sin until concupiscence gain our liking and consent, which is false if that be true which Gregory saith, that the very temptation of sin, that is, the first motion of concupiscence is sin; so well do Gregory and he accord, as touching the meaning of St. james his words, which to have no such meaning as he pretendeth, I have plentifully showed 
z Of Original sin, sect. 6.  otherwhere. And that it may be the more fully understood, that Gregory in the point here handled, bore the same mind that we do, it shall not be amiss to set down what he hath further said, to declare his judgement therein. 
a Greg. Moral. lib. 18. c. 5. Sciendun est quòd sunt peccata quae à justis vitari possunt, & sunt nonnulla quae etiam à justis vitari non possunt. Cuius enim cor in hac corruptibili earn consistens in sinistra cogitatione non labitur, vel si usque ad consensus foveam non mergatur? Et tamen haec ipsa prava cogitare, peccare est, sed dum cog●tationi resistitur, à confusione sua animus liberatur. Mens ergò justorum etsi libera est à perverso opere, aliquand● tamen corruit in perversa cogitation. Et in peccatum ergò labitur, quia saltem in cogitation declinatur, & tamen unde semetipsampostmodum flendo reprehendat, non habet, quia antè reparat, quàm per consensum cadat.  We are to know, saith he, that there are sins which the just cannot avoid, and there are sins which may be avoided by them. For whose heart is there abiding in this corruptible flesh that doth not fall by sinister thought, though he be not drowned so far as to the pit of consent? And yet the very cogitation of evil things is sin; albeit whilst the cogitation is resisted, the mind is delivered from it own confusion. The mind therefore of the just although it be free from evil work, yet sometimes falleth by evil thought. It falleth therefore into sin, because there is a declining at least in thought, and yet it hath not whence afterwards with tears to reprove itself, because it first recovereth itself before it fall by consent. There is no obscurity in these words; there is here a plain confession that the evil cogitation before consent and without consent is sin, that to decline in thought is to fall into sin, and that this is the sin which the just cannot avoid so long as they live here. And to this purpose it maketh much, which elsewhere the same Gregory telleth us by occasion of those words of the Apostle, which M. Bishop before urged, 
a Idem exposit. in 1. Reg. lib. 6. cap. 2. Propè finem. Peccatum quod se non operari perhibuit, motum carnis intellexit: Peccatum autem in se inhabitans originalem culpam, etc. Ex originali culpa fit peccatum motionis carnis, etc. Manens in nobis illa culpa, nunc doctoris virtute perdi non potest.  Now it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me: By the sin, saith he, which the Apostle saith he worketh not, he meaneth the motion of the flesh, and by sin dwelling in him, he meaneth original sin, and of original sin is caused the sin of the motion of the flesh: that sin continuing in us, cannot now by the power of any teacher be destroyed. Here is the root, original sin still dwelling and abiding in us, and the motion of the flesh the immediate effect thereof itself also sin, the same so abiding as that by no teaching it can be destroyed, and why then doth M. Bishop tell us that original sin after baptism remaineth not, and that that which remaineth is no sin? Surely the faithful man will use David's confession with the same mind that David did, 
b Psal. 51. 5.  Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin hath my mother conceived me: and Gregory taketh it that David meant thereby, that 
c Idem i● Euangel. hom. 39 Nam cùm Propheta di●at, Ecce in iniq●itatibus, etc. sine culpa in mundo esse non potuit, qui in mundum cum cu●pa venit.  he could not be without sin in the world, who came with sin into the world, and expoundeth his words to this effect: 
d Idem in Psal. Poenitent. 4. Opus est Domine ut miserearis quia ab ineunte vitae primordio in peccati fou●am i●cidi & concupiscentiae carnalis sordibus inquinata nativitatis meae initia contraxi. Non in me illa quam novitèr admisi sola viget iniquitas; ●abeo in me etiam ex veteri quod ignoscas.  Lord. I have need that thou have mercy upon me, because even from the beginning of my life I am fallen into the pit of sin and have drawn my first birth defiled with the uncleanness of carnal concupiscence. Not only that iniquity which I have lately committed abideth in me; I have also in me f●r thee to pardon of the iniquity that was of old. Thus he confesseth that we are not in the world without the sin which we brought into the world; that for original sin we still stand in need of God's mercy, and have still thereof remaining in us that for which we must crave pardon at God's hands. This he spoke according to the ancient doctrine of the Roman Church, and shall we not rather believe him then M. Bishop, who according to the new learning of their new Church telleth us, 
e Of Original sin, sect. 10.  that in him that is newly baptised, there is no more sin than was in Adam in the state of innocency; and that original sin is utterly extinguished and concupiscence in the regenerate is become no sin? Yea, shall we not rather believe him then the Council of Trent, telling us, that 
f Concil. Trident. sess 5. In renatis nihil odit Deus, etc. ita ut nihil prorsus ca● ab ingress●● coeli remoretur.  in the regenerate there is nothing that God hateth; nothing to stay them from entering into heaven. These are absurd paradoxes, of new and late device; strange to true Christian ears, and abhorred of all true Christian hearts; contrary to the express and clear determination of holy Scripture, and fitting only them who have learned to say; 
g Psal. 12. 4.  With our tongues we will prevail, we are they that ought to speak, who is Lord over us?     

CHAP. XII. Of the spirit of adoption, giving witness to the faithful that they are the sons of God.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
SAint Paul saith of the spirit of adoption; The same spirit beareth witness, etc. to, Paul saith, the sufferings of this time, etc.  

W. 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; Si tamen 
Rom. 8. vers. 17.  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; There be some that for a time believe, 
Luc. 8. vers. 13.  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. Well, because of their incredulity they (the jews) 
Cap. 11. vers. 20.  were broken off: but thou (Gentile) by faith dost stand, be not too highly wise, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural boughs, lest perhaps he 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 〈◊〉 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
THis answer of M. Bishops is 
a Of the certainty of salvation, sect. 17.  before examined and exploded, and his new see thing of the same woorts will never prove to any good broth. We must believe nothing, he saith, by Christian faith, that is not assured and most certain. Well; and therefore that which the faithful believe, that they are the sons of God, is assured and most certain, because we are taught to believe it by Christian faith. For that which the spirit of God testifieth, we are to believe by Christian faith. But the spirit of God testifieth to the faithful, that they are the sons of God. Therefore by Christian faith they are to believe that they are the sons of God. 
b Rom. 8. 15.  We have not received the spirit of bondage to fear any more, saith St. Paul, but we have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father; The same spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the sons of God. The spirit of adoption is so called, as by the gift whereof God actually adopteth us to be his children. By this spirit it is that we have that inward conscience and feeling, whereby we can go unto God familiarly and confidently as unto our Father, and say unto him, as with the mouth so with the heart; Our Father which art in heaven. Hereby have we a testimony in our hearts that we are Gods children, because if God be our father, it necessarily followeth that we are the children of God. This comfort then the holy Ghost giveth, not by vocal speech, but by impression of affection, and not as of a thing to come, but as of a thing already acted and done, accordingly to that which the Apostle elsewhere saith; 
c Gal. 4. ●.  Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Now hereby we see that M. Bishop's answer, that the spirit doth not bear us witness absolutely and assuredly, that we are the sons of God, but under a condition which is not certain, is merely absurd, because the being of that that presently is, cannot be said to depend upon the being of any thing that is to come. Of that that is, we cannot say that it is not, unless such a condition be made good, but setting aside all respect of the condition, that that is must be acknowledged to be. The Apostle doth not say, ye shall be the sons of God upon such a condition, but he saith, Ye are sons, even as St. john saith: 
d 1. john 3. 2.  Now are we the sons of God; yea, and because ye are sons, saith he, therefore is it that God hath sent the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father, which spirit ye could not be partakers of but that ye are sons. This then being already certain, M. Bishop committeth a manifest error to tie it to a future condition, which he saith is not certain. Albeit in annexing this condition to the testimony of the spirit, he doth wilfully and manifestly falsifle the text. For the Apostle doth not say as he pretendeth, that the spirit beareth witness, that we are the sons of God, if we suffer with him, but saith affirmatively, This spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God. And having so said, he goeth on to show what dignity we receive by being the sons of God. And if we be sons, then are we also heirs, even heirs of God, and joint-inheritours with Christ. Now to declare how we be conjoined unto Christ to be inheritors with him, he addeth those words, if so be we suffer with him that we may also be glorified with him, not as to make a doubt of the witness of the spirit, but only to signify what way God hath appointed to bring them to their inheritance, to whom the spirit giveth witness, that they are the sons of God, namely by the 
c Phil. 3. 10.  fellowship of his afflictions, to be made thereby conformable to his death, by 
f 2. Cor. 4. 10.  bearing out about in our bodies the dying of the Lord jesus; by 
g Col. 1. 24.  fulfilling in our flesh the remainder of his afflictions. And yet neither is this condition, being taken so to be, any uncertain thing, because what God hath determined and appointed, he himself will effect and bring to pass; and therefore the Apostle saying of them, to whom that witness of the spirit is given, 
h Rom. 8. 29.  God hath predestinated us to be made like unto the image of his son, we cannot in that case doubt, but that the same God 
i Phil. 1. 29.  for Christ's sake doth give unto us, not only to believe in him, but also (if need be, and when time is) to suffer for his sake. We know not assuredly, saith M. Bishop, whether we shall suffer with him, and constantly to the end bear out all persecutions. But the faithful do believe and know that 
k 1. Cor. 10. 13.  God is faithful, and will not suffer us to be tempted above our strength, but together with the temptation will give the issue, that we may able to bear it. 
l Greg. Moral. l. 28. cap. 7. Inter h●c etiam qui redemit, non relinquit, etc. Novit enim conditor noster quando exurgere persecutionis procellam sinat, quando exurgentem reprimat. Novit pro custodia nostra restringe, e quod contra nos egredi pro nostra excitatione permittit, ut saeviens nos diluat procella, non mergat.  Amidst persecutions, saith Gregory hereupon, he that hath redeemed us doth not forsake us; our Creator knoweth when to suffer the storm to arise, and when to stay it from rising. He knoweth how to restrain that for the custody of us, which for the exercising of us he suffereth to go forth against us, that the raging storm may wash us and not drown us. And in another place by occasion of the same words, 
m Ibid. lib. 29. c. 12. Etiam tentationes adversary dispensando modificat ut aut multae simul non veniant, aut ipsae tatummodo quae ferri possunt illustratam tam à Deo anima tangant ut cum tactus sui ardore nos cruciant, perfectionis incendio non exurant.  He so dispenseth and ordereth, saith he, the temptations of the adversary as that they come not too many at once, or that those only which may be borne, do touch the soul which God hath enlightened, that albeit by the heat of the touch thereof they torment us, yet they may not by burning waist and consume us. Upon this therefore the children of God build themselves securely, standing always fully persuaded, that 
n Rom. 8. 38.  neither life nor death, neither things present, nor things to come, shall separate them from the love of God which is in Christ jesus our Lord, and bold to say with David, 
o Psal. 118. 6. Heb. 13. 7.  The Lord is on my side, I will not fear what man can do unto me; and with St. Paul, 
p 2. Tim. 4. 18.  The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly Kingdom. And of this resolution St. Austin notably instructeth us, where saying that 
q August. in Psal. 32. Conc. 2. Secura expectans miserecorditèr promitte●tem, miserecorditer & veracitèr exhibentem. Et donec exhibeat, quid agamus? Anima nostra patience erit Domino. Sed quid si in ipsa paticntia non durabimus? Immò planè durabimus, quoniam adiutor & protector noster est.  the soul securely expecteth the Lord, promising in mercy and performing in mercy and truth, he further questioneth and answereth himself in this sort: But till he perform his promise what shall we do? Our soul shall be patiented to wait upon the Lord. But what if we shall not endure or continue in our patience? Yes verily we shall endure, because he is our helper and defender. M. Bishop teacheth the faithful to say, We cannot tell whether we shall endure or not; but St. Austin instructeth them to another resolution by faith and trust in God, Yes verily we shall endure, because God is our helper and defender. But against this he giveth instance by the words of Christ, that there be some that for a time believe, and in time of temptation go away. Concerning which words I have answered him 
r Of the certainty of salvation, sect. 8.  before, and to answer him again need go no further then to the very text, whence he allegeth them. He chargeth me with a trick of a false merchant, as if I struck off the one half of the Apostles sentence, that the other might seem currant for me, (whether I have so done or not the Reader is to judge by that that hath been said) but here is a false trick indeed committed by him, in leaving out the words by which he saw and was advertised before, that his exception is made nothing worth. By the seed sown in stony ground our Saviour describeth them, 
s Luke 8. 13.  who when they hear receive the word with joy, but they have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. Where note first that Christ speaketh not this of the good ground, but only of the stony ground, and therefore it cannot be taken to appertain to them of whom we speak, to whom the spirit giveth witness, that they are the sons of God. But we are yet further to note what reason he giveth why those fall away, which is namely, because they have no root, and therefore are like unto the tree which for want of root fastened in the ground, is by every blast of wind easily overthrown. Now by saying that they fall away because they have no root, he giveth us to conceive that they who have taken root, or are rooted, do not fall away. But the faithful and children of God are rooted in the predestination and grace of God, they are 
t Col. 2. 7.  rooted and grounded in Christ, and established in the faith; and therefore 
u Psal. 1. 3.  their leaf shall never fade, because their 
x Prou. 12. 3.  root shall not be moved; God having made them a promise which he will not break, 
y jerem. 32. 40.  I will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall not departed from me. As for them which fall away, though in respect of outward show and profession, they be said for a time to believe, yet because their faith hath no root, therefore they never have true faith. And thus Gregory Bishop of Rome instructeth us, that 
z Greg. Moral. lib. 25. c. 8. Propheta intuens tantos hoc Ecclesiae tempore specietenus credere, quantos nimirunt certum est electorum numerum summamque transire, etc. Etiam hiad fidem specietenus regni veniunt.  they who are not of the number of the elect do believe but in show, that they come to the faith of the Kingdom but in show: and in another place, that 
a Ibid. lib. 34. cap. 13. Aurum quod pravis cius persuasionibus sterni quasi lutum potuerit, aurum ante Dei oculos nunquam suit. Qui enim seduci quandeque non reversuri possunt, quasi habitam sanctitat●m ante oculos hominum videntur amittere, sed eam ante oculos Dei nunquam habuer●t.  the gold which by Satan's wicked suggestions, cometh to be trodden under feet like dirt, was never gold in God's sight; that they who can be seduced never to return again, seem to lose holiness which they had after a sort before the eyes of men, but indeed never had it in the sight of God. To be short St. Austin telleth us, that 
b August. de Doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 32. Non reverà Domini corpus est quod cum illo non e●it in aeternum.  it is not indeed and in truth the body of Christ, which shall not be with Christ for ever. If they only be the true body of Christ, which shall abide with him for ever, they they only have true faith, whereby we become members of that body; and therefore they that fall away as they are no part of the true body of Christ, so are void also of true faith in Christ. Now therefore M. Bishop doth amiss in going about to shake the testimony of the spirit to the faithful, by the examples of them that fall away, because of all such they learn to say with St. john, 
c 1. john 2. 19  They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us they would have continued with us. But saith he, no man doth more plainly or roundly beat down their presumption, who assure themselves of salvation, than St. Paul. It is true indeed that the Apostle beateth down the presumption of them who assure themselves only by confidence of outward calling, but the assurance which he teacheth, and we from him, ariseth from the effect and testimony of inward grace. If any grow secure and proud upon opinion that they are members of Christ's Church, and partakers of his Sacraments, neglecting in the mean time that correspondence of duty that belongeth to such profession, them it concerneth which the Apostle saith, 
d 1. Cor. 10. 12.  He that thinketh he standeth, let him take heed lest he fall. But to true Christian souls, humbled in themselves, and rejoicing in God only, the Apostle speaketh far otherwise; 
e 2. Thess. 2. 13.  We ought to give thanks always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because that God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the spirit and faith of truth, whereunto he hath called you by our Gospel, to obtain the glory of our Lord jesus Christ. Now of the first sort it is true that many who have had the outward state and calling of the Church and members thereof, have been cut off from the state wherein carnally they have gloried and rejoiced; but of them who have stood indeed by true faith and sanctification of the holy Ghost, never any hath fallen away, as I have showed, but as they have been partakers of the beginning of the calling of God, so they have had the end also. The words therefore which M. Bishop citeth of St. Paul to the Romans, 
f Rom. 11. 20.  Be not high minded but fear; continue in his kindness; else thou also shalt be cut off, are so to be understood, as I have 
g Of the certainty o● salvation, sect. 10.  before showed, as to check the pride and security of carnal Gospelers and hypocrites, but not to impeach the hope and comfort of Gods elect. Albeit they have their use in respect of them also, because they serve God for spurs whereby to stir up and prick forward our dullness, and to awaken us from that sleep which by the drowsiness of the flesh, is oftentimes stealing upon us, thus to continue the standing of them of whom he hath determined that they shall never fall. Who because they stand not by their own strength, being in themselves and of themselves as subject to fall as any other, are terrified in respect of themselves, by such caveats and admonitions, that they may the more in stantly look, and so the more constantly cleave unto him, by whom only it is that they must stand. And to this effect God turneth also the falls of them that do fall away, whom when we have seen as likely to stand as ourselves, and yet notwithstanding in the end to forsake Christ and utterly to perish, we are moved thereby not to trust in ourselves, but to depend upon God only. 
h Gregor. Moral▪ lib. 34. c. 13. Quorum casus utilitate non modica electorum prosectibus seruit quia illorum lapsum dum conspiciunt de suo statu contremiscunt & ruina quae illos damnat istos humiliat. Discunt enim in superni adiutoris protectione consider dum plerosque con▪ spiciunt de suis viribus ●ecidisse.  Their fall, saith Gregory▪ yieldeth no small benefit for the f●rtherance of the elect, because whilst they see the fall of them they tremble as touching their own state, and the ruin which condemneth the one is the humbling of the other. For they learn to trust in the defence of him who helpeth from above, whilst they see others fall by resting on their own strength. Now therefore be it that some who not are, but see me to be in grace and to stand, do afterwards fall and be cut off, this maketh nothing against the assurance of them who are indeed in grace, and do truly believe in the name of the son of God, who 
i 1. john 5. 11.  believing the record that God hath witnessed of his son, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his son, are hereby taught 
k Vers. 13. 15.  to know that they have eternal life, and that they have the petitions that they desire of him. And thus Gregory saith, as touching the heavenly City, Ierus●lem which is above, that 
l Gregor. Exposit. in 1. Reg. l. 1. c. 1. Moral. Quam familiariter dil●git, suam esse indubitantèr credit. Suam namque hanc ciuitatemesse cognoverat qui dicebat, scimus quia si terrestris nostra domus, etc.  he that entirely loveth it, doth undoubtedly believe it to be his own, For, saith he, he knew this City to be his, that said, 
m 2. Cor. 5. 1.  We know that if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, we have a building which is of God, a house not made with hands eternal in heaven. And thus saith Leo, that 
n Leo de Resurrect. Domini, ser. 2. Quam idcò usque ad celerrim●m resurrectionem voluit esse mortalem ut credentibus in cum nec persecutio insuperabilis nec mors posset esse terribilis, cùm ita dubitandum non esset de consortio gloriae sicut dubitandum non crat de communione naturae. Si ergò incunctantèr cord credimus quod ●re profitemur, nos in Christo crucifi●i, nos sumus mortui, nos sepulti, nos etiam die tertia suscitati.  Christ would have his flesh to continue in case of mortality until his resurrection, that to them that believed in him, neither persecution might be unconquerable, nor death might be terrible, for that they were no more to doubt of being partakers of glory with him, than they were to doubt of his being partaker of the same nature with them. If, saith he, we steadfastly believe with the heart that which we profess with the mouth, we are crucified in Christ, we are dead, we are buried, we are also the third day raised again from the dead. 
o Ibid. serm. 1. Non haesitamus diffidentia, nec incerta expectatione suspendimur, sed accept● promissionis ex●rdi● fidei oculis qu● sunt futura iam cernimus & natura pronecti●ne gaudentes quod credimus iam tenemus.  We stagger not by distrust, saith he again, neither do we hang in uncertain expectation, but having received the beginning of the promise, we now see with the eyes of faith the things that are to come, and rejoicing for the advancement of our nature, we even now hold that which we believe. This is the assurance of the faithful, even an undoubted belief and knowledge, that the heavenly City is theirs; a certain and undoubted expectation of the glory of Christ, whereby they rejoice as being in him already raised again from the dead, and as already holding and possessing that which they do believe. Howsoever therefore men are to be shaken out of all carnal security and presumption of their salvation, yet the godly security and presumption of faith is not to be denied, and the more we grow in faith, the more doth the soul grow secure and undoubted of God to be our God; presuming, not of ourselves, where indeed we see nothing but cause of fear, but of God only, to say of him; 
p Psal. 71. 14.  I will go forth in the strength of the Lord God, and will make mention of thy righteousness only. And again, 
q Psal. 124. 7.  Our help standeth in the name of the Lord, which hath made heaven and earth. In a word one truth agreeth with another, and therefore M. Bishop in opposing some formal speeches of the holy Ghost, against other the like formal speeches, which in their true meaning stand very well and agree together, doth no other but deform the truth, and wickedly taketh upon him the patronage and maintenance of falsehood and untruth.     

CHAP. XIII. That the good works and sufferings of this life are not meritorious, or worthy of the bliss of the life to come.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
PAul saith, The sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed, etc. to, Paul saith nothing for those points, etc.  

W. 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; Which (persecutions) 
2. Thessal. 1. v. 5.  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 our tribulation, which for the 
2. Cor. 4. vers. 17.  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 elsewhere is bold to say, That 
2. Tim 4. vers. 8.  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 Saint Peter) deprave and misuse certain sentences of his, 
2. Pet. 3. vers. 16.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
HEre is nothing said but what hath been 
a Of Merits, sect. 10. 19 20.  already so fully and clearly answered, as that M. Bishop may justly be ashamed, thus altogether like a Cuckoo to sing over the same song again. I pray thee, gentle Reader, to see the places by me quoted, and take knowledge how this trifling wrangler laboureth to abuse thee, odiously and impudently insisting upon those things which by testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers are made so manifest against him, as that he hath nothing left to say for his own defence. He chargeth me with false translation, because I say that our sufferings are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed, whereas he saith the words truly translated are, Our sufferings are not worthy to the glory. And what is that, I pray? Our English phrase is, saith he; they are not to be compared to the glory. Well, admit it to be so; but wherein doth he mean they are not to be compared? Forsooth, our labours or pains are not either so great and weighty▪ or of so long endurance as be the joys of heaven. Thus whereas he acknowledgeth that the word signifieth worthy, he notwithstanding quite putteth out worthiness, and in steed thereof putteth in length and greatness. But if where the words are, they are not worthy to the glory, he will needs read, they are not to be compared to the glory, we suppose that his discretion should lead him to understand, that it is as touching worthiness, that they are not to be compared. And doth not their own translation instruct him so much, The passions of this time are not condign to the glory? for what will he make of condign, but comparable in worth, where there is, as Coster saith, 
b Coster. Enchirid. cap. 7. Est dignitas quaedam operis ad mercedem.  a dignity of the work to the reward; that is, a worthiness of the one, to merit and deserve the other? Which condignity being denied by the Apostle, as by their own translation is made good, it followeth that the passions of this time are denied to be comparable in worth to the glory to come, and therefore that we truly translate that they are not worthy of it. To add nothing further to that that formerly hath been said particularly of the place, I will only note in general what some writers of the Church of Rome have judged, concerning the worthiness of works, that according to my main purpose I may make it appear, that there is great difference betwixt that Roman Church that now is, and that that of old was. Hierome saith, that 
c Hieron. in Esai. lib. 6. c. 13. Cum dies judicij vel dormitionis advenerit, omnes manus dissoluentur, etc. quia nullum opus dignum Dei iusti●●a reperietur, & non just 〈…〉 abitur in eius conspectu omnis ●iuens, v●de Propheta dic●● in Psalmo, si 〈…〉 ui ta●es attend●s, Domine, quis 〈…〉 bitten?  when the day of judgement or death shall come; all hands shall be weakened or loosed, because there shall be no work found worthy of the justice of God, neither shall any man living be justified or found righteous in his sight; whence the Prophet saith in the Psalm, If thou, O Lord, wilt mark iniquities, who shall endure it? To like purpose Leo Bishop of Rome saith; 
d Leo in Annivers. serm. 1. N●que enim de qualitate operum nost●orum p●nd●t coelestium mensura donorum aut in i●●o seculo in quo tota vita ●etatio est, hoc vmc●●que retribuitur quod meretur, ubi si iniquitates Do●●●aus observaret nullus iud●cium suum su 〈…〉 t.  The measure of heavenly gifts dependeth not upon the quality of our works, neither in this world where our whole life is a temptation, is that rendered to every man which he deserveth, where if the Lord should mark iniquities, none should be able to endure his judgement. Both which places do plainly disable the works of men in the judgement of God, and do charge them with insufficiency to the meriting of heavenly reward; but the latter so far depresseth them, as that we cannot be taken thereby to deserve; or to be worthy of the benefits of God in this life, and therefore much less the glory of the life to come. But Gregory Bishop of Rome in this point is most clear, affirming that 
e Gregor. Moral. l. 8. c 9 justi s● pe●●turos ab●que 〈…〉tate praes●●int si remo●a p●etate 〈◊〉 quia hoc ipsum quod ius●● vidomur vivere, culpo est si vitam nostram cum i●dicat, h●●c apud ●● d●●ina miser●cordia non excusat, etc. Apud eum distric●è iudica●i, ●psi quoque m●cul●s ●nqu●nationis habent qui per munditiam sanctitatis lucent.  the just know before hand that without doubt they shall perish, if they be judged without mercy, because even that that we seem to live justly is faulty, if the mercy of God in judging our life do not excuse the same, and even they who shine in purity of holiness ●●ue also their spots of filthiness, if they be strictly and narrowly judged. 
f Ibid. c. 21. Quantalibet i 〈…〉 tia polleant, nequaqu●● sibi ad ●●●oc etiam vel electi s●fficiu●t si in judicio districte requirantur.  The very elect, saith he, howsoever. they excel in righteousness, have not sufficient in them for innocency if in judgement they be strictly dealt withal. Therefore he saith again, that 
g Ibid. l 9 c. 18. Si r●mola pi●tate d 〈…〉 mur opus nostrum p●na dignum est quod nos remunerar● pr●stolamur, etc. R●slat ut postquam bonum opus agitur lach●ymae expiatumis exquirantur quatenus ad aeterna praemia meritum rectiop●ris subuchat humilitas pos●●e lationis.  if we be judged without mercy, the work is worthy to be punished, which we expect to have rewarded, and therefore that tears of expiation are to be required, that humility of prayer may lift up the merit of good work to the obtaining of everlasting reward. And thus he maketh the holy man job to say; 
h Ibid. l. 9 c. 11. Etsi ad opus virtutis ex●reuero, ad vitam non ex meritis sed ex venia convalesco.  Albeit I grow to the work of virtue▪ yet I avail not to li●e by merits, but by pardon and favour. So he bringeth in David also saying, 
i Idem in psalm. Poenitent. 1. Non de meis meritis confidens ut me saluum facias supplico, sed de sola miserecordia tua praesum●ns impetrere quod de meis meritis non spero.  I pray thee to save me, not trusting to mine own merits, but presuming to obtain that of thy mercy only, which I have no hope of by mine own merits. Now if our just life be faulty, and in our righteousness we find not sufficient to approve our innocency in the sight of God; if in our best works we be worthy of punishment, and subject to perish, if God deal severely and strictly with us; if holy men acknowledge and confess according to truth, that they have nothing to presume of in their own merits, but that they trust only to God's mercy; if amidst our good works it be by humble prayer and request that we obtain the eternal reward, where is that worthiness of works which M. Bishop pleadeth for, and what cause hath he to be angry that we say by the Apostles words, that our good works are not worthy of the glory that is to come? Or if he will needs be angry, let him be angry with Ambrose, though not a member, yet a neighbour of the Church of Rome, who plainly expoundeth the Apostles meaning to be this, that 
k Ambros. Epist. 22.  hortetur ad passionè adiungit, quia omnia quae patimur minora sunt & indigna quorum pro laboribus tanta rependatur futurorum merces benorum, etc.  all the things that we suffer are too little and unworthy, that for the pains and labours thereof, so great reward of future good things should be rendered unto us. Which being so, we see how vainly M. Bishop dealeth, to tell us a tale how our works attain to so great worthiness, when as there is no such worthiness to be found in them. We receive this dignity, saith he, by being made members of Christ, and by the virtue of God's grace wherewith our works are wrought, and by the promise of God. Where it is wholly idle and impertinent, that he mentioneth the promise of God, for what hath the promise of God to do with the merit of man? God bindeth himself by promise where there is no merit, nor any thing whereof to merit, yea where there are demerits, to give him cause to forbear from promising. Thus saith St. Austin; 
l August. in Psal. 109. Quicquid promisit, indignis promisit ut non quasi operibus merces promitteretur, sed gratia à nomine suo gratis daretur, quia hoc ipsum quòd justè vivit in quantum homo po●est justè vivere, non meriti humani sed beneficij est divini.  Whatsoever God promised, he promised to us being unworthy, that it might not be promised as a reward to works, but being by name grace might accordingly be freely given, because to live justly so far as man can live justly, is not a matter of man's merit, but of the gift of God. And of this promise of God he saith again, that 
m Idem in psal. 88 Non secundum merita nostra, sed secundum miserecordiam illius firma est promissio.  it is sure not according to our merits, but according to his own mercy. Why then doth M. Bishop go about to build the merit of man upon the promise of God, which is only his free and voluntary mercy? As for the grace of God given unto us by being members of Christ, true it is, that all our virtue and goodness proceedeth therefrom; but to say nothing that man cannot be said to merit by that that is the work of God, so far are we from having the justice of God, hereby bound unto us in respect of our worthiness, as that God hath rather hereby occasion of quarrel against us, for disgracing those gifts whereby he hath graced us, and for blemishing and staining with our corruptions those good works, which he hath vouchsafed to do by us. For as the clearest water having a troublesome passage through a muddy and unwholesome ground, contracteth and gathereth the corruption and filth thereof, even so the grace of God having a troubled passage through the corrupt nature of man, which is continually casting up the mire and dirt of noisome and sinful motions and desires, gathereth thereof a soil and filth, by reason whereof there proceedeth nothing from man that is not corrupted and defiled. Thus Hilary teacheth, and is therein approved by Austin, that 
n Hilar. apud August. count julian. lib. 2. Memores & conscij corpora nostra vitiorum omnium esse materien, pro qua nihil in nobis mundum, nihil innocens obtinemus.  we are to remember that our bodies are the matter of all vices, by means whereof we have nothing in us innocent, nothing clean. 
o Greg. Mor. l. 1. c. 17. Quid est quod in hac vita sine quavis tenuissimi contagij inquinatione peragatur.  What is there, saith Gregory, that can be done in this life without some defilement of secret contagion? And again, 
p Ibid. l. 31. c. 5 El●cti qu●mdiu in hac vita sunt sine quamtulocunque culpae contagio esse non possunt.  The elect so long as they are in this life cannot be without some contagion of sin. Yea, 
q Ibid. l. 32. c. 4 Nullus in hac vita ita perfectus est ut quamlibet Deo devotus sit, inter ipsa quantumcunque pia vota non peccet.  there is none so perfect in this life, saith he, howsoever devoted unto God, as that he sinneth not amidst his most holy and religious desires. To be short, 
r Ibid. l. 35. c. 16. Si de his divinitùs districtè discutimur, quis inter is●a remanet salutis locus quando & mala nostra pura mal● sunt, & bona quae nos ●abere credimus pura bona esse nequaquam possunt?  if God do narrowly sift our doings, what place is there left for salvation, when as our evil doings are merely evil, but the good things, which we believe we have, cannot be purely good? If our good works cannot be purely good, if all that we do, be polluted and defiled with the contagion of sin, and in all that proceedeth from us, there be found uncleanness, if God by the eye of his severe judgement do strictly view and behold the same, then cannot any good works of ours be truly said to be worthy of the heavenly glory, yea they make us rather obnoxious to censure and punishment, if God do not mercifully remit the defaults of them. Neither do the places by M. Bishop alleged prove any thing contrary to that we say. The first saith only, 
s 2. Thess. 1. 5.  That ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, and it is one thing to be worthy in God's account and acceptation, which all the faithful are in Christ; another thing to be worthy by merit and perfection, which no man can be. Of the former St. Bernard saith: 
t Bernard. in dedicat. Eccles. ser. 5 Nos sumus sed ipsius dignatione, non dignitale nostra, etc. Nec dignatio locum habet ubi 〈…〉 rit praesumpti● dignitatis.  We are, but it is by God's dignation or vouchsafing us a● worthy, not by our dignity or worthiness; Yea, dignation or vouchsafing hath no place, saith he, where there is a presumption of dignity or worth. Of the latter chrysostom saith; 
u Chrysost. ad Coloss. homil 2. Nemo talem vitae conversationem ostendit ut regno dignus esse possit, sed totum donum est ipsius Dei.  No man showeth such conversation of life, as that he can be worthy of the Kingdom, but this is wholly the gift of God. His second proof is out of those words, 
x 2. Cor. 4. 17.  This momentany and light affliction worketh unto us beyond measure an excellent and an eternal weight of glory. But here we find nothing of our being worthy of that glory which our affliction doth work unto us, and so far is it from proving our merit and worth, as that Fulgentius useth it directly to prove the contrary. For having said, that 
y Fulgent. ut supra. cap. 10.  in eternal life the grace of God's reward doth incomparably and unspeakably exceed all the merit of the will and work of man, though being good and given of God, as I have before alleged; he bringeth for confirmation hereof both the words here capitally handled, The sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come, and also these words which M. Bishop here further citeth: This momentany and light affliction worketh unto us above measure an excellent and an eternal weight of glory. And very plainly doth it follow hereof; for how can the one be deemed to be worthy of the other, when as there is no measure of proportion, betwixt the one and the other? And may we not then think M. Bishop well wrought, to bring us a text for proof of a point, the contrary whereof hath been anciently deemed to be proved thereby? His third proof is out of those words of the same Apostle; 
z 2. Tim. 4. 8.  Henceforth is laid up for me a crown of justice, which God that just judge will render unto me at that day. Hereof he collecteth thus; 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. But thou seest, gentle Reader, that the point that tieth this sequel together, is his own word only; do thou deny it, and he hath no means to make it good. Let him lay his ground where he will; he shall find nothing whence to build that which he concludeth. If he allege that it is called a crown of justice, let him take his answer from St. Bernard; 
a Bernard. de Grat. & lib. Arbit. Est ergò quam Paulus expectat corona justitiae, sed justitia Dei, non suae. justum est quip ut reddat quod debet. Debet autem quod pollicitus est. Et haec est justitia de qua praesumit Apostolus, promissio Dei.  It is a crown of justice which Paul expecteth, but of God's justice, not his own. For it is just that God pay that which he oweth; and he oweth that which he hath promised. And this is the justice whereof the Apostle presumeth, even the promise of God. And to this purpose Ambrose saith, that 
b Ambros. in Rom. 3. justitia Dei dicta est quae videtur esse miserecordia quia de promissione origi●em habet & cùm promissum Dei redditur, justitia Dei dicitur. justitia enim Dei est quia redditum est quod promissum est.  it is called the justice of God, which seemeth to be mercy, because it hath his original from promise, and when the promise of God is performed, it is called the justice of God; for it is the justice of God that that be performed which is promised. The crown of justice than is that which God in justice yieldeth, not because we have deserved it, but because he himself hath promised it, and therefore M. Bishop here can have no proof to serve his turn. Neither doth he gain any thing by it, though we understand it to be the crown of our justice, or wherewith our justice is crowned (
c Greg. Mor. l 24. c. 5. justitia nostra dicitur non quae ex nostro nostra est, sed quae divina largitate sit nostra.  it being called our justice, as Gregory saith, not which is ours as of our own, but which by the gift of God becometh ours) because in crowning our justice, it is verified which the Scripture saith; 
d Psal. 103. 4.  He crowneth thee in mercy and loving kindness. Doth it follow which he concludeth, that because God vouchsafeth to honour our service with reward, therefore the service which we do is in just proportion worthy of the same reward? Surely of them which receive this crown of justice it is said, 
e Psal. 55. 7. Vulgat. Latin.  Thou wilt save them for nothing: 
f Hieron. adu. Pelag. l. 2. Pro nihilo, inquit, saluos faciet illos: haud dubium quin justos qui non proprio merito sed Dei saluatur clementia.  He meaneth undoubtedly the just, saith Hierome, who are not saved by their own merit, but by the mercy of God. If the just be saved by mercy, then cannot the crown of justice argue any thing for worth by merit and desert. And for this cause 
g Apoc. 4. 10.  the four and twenty elders, representing the whole company of Gods elect, do cast down their crowns before the throne of God, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power; thereby disclaiming and renouncing all worthiness in themselves, that they may yield the acknowledgement thereof as due unto God only. Another argument M. Bishop seemeth to take of that that is said, that God rendereth the crown of justice, as if it could not be said that God doth render, but only to the worth and merit of man. But thereto I answer with the words of Basil; 
h Basil. in psal. 114. Manet requies sempiterna illos qui in hac vita legitimècer. taverint, non tanquam debitum operibus redditum, sed ob munificentissimi Dei gratiam in quo speraverunt exhibita. See of Merits, sect. 13.  There is eternal rest laid up for all them that lawfully fight the fight of this life, not to be rendered according to the merit of works (or by way of debt unto works) but by the grace of our bountiful God, prepared for all them that trust in him. St. Austin saith, that 
i August. in Psal. 32. cap. 1. Non dicimus Deo; Domine, Red quod accepis●i, sed Redde quod promisisti.  we do not say unto God, O Lord, render that which thou hast received, but, render that which thou hast promised. God rendereth then for his promise sake; he rendereth of grace and favour, and therefore fond doth M. Bishop hereof go about to frame an argument for merit and desert. And as little help hath he by that he further urgeth that God doth this as a just judge; for will he say that a just judge is always tied to render according to desert? A malefactor hath deserved to die, but the law hath confirmed and published a pardon, or else hath yielded him this benefit that if he can read Clerklike, he shall thereby save his life; and shall not a just judge frame his sentence accordingly? Will M. Bishop say that he is no just judge in such a case, that dismisseth him with life that hath justly deserved death? If he will not say so, then let him be so wise here as to understand that just judgement proceedeth not always by deserts, but it is the part of a just judge to judge by laws. Now we know that as with men, so with God there are laws of rigour and extremity, and there are laws also of favour and mercy. The law of works is a law of rigour, 
k Rom. 4 15.  a law which causeth wrath, because 
l Gal. 3. 22.  it concludeth all under sin, by reason whereof 
m Vers. 10.  so many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse; for it is written, 
n Deut. 27. 26.  Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them, and there is no man that continueth to do all, because 
o jam. 3. 2.  in many things we offend all. Therefore the ministry of this law is called 
p 2. Cor. 3. 7. 9  the ministry of death, the ministry of condemnation; and the judgement which proceedeth according to this law, is called by St. Austin 
q August. in joan. tract. 22. Judicium damnationis.  the judgement of damnation, because no man escapeth damnation that undergoeth this judgement. Against this judgement David prayeth, when he saith: 
r Psal. 143. 2.  Enter not into judgement with thy servant, O Lord, etc. that is, as St. Austin expoundeth it; 
s August. de Temp. ser. 49. Ne st●● mecum in judicio e●●gendo à me omnia quae praecepisti & omnia quae iussist●. Name me invenies reum si in judicium intraue●is mecum. Opus est ergò mihi mi●●r●c●rdia tua potiùs quàm liquidissimo i●dici● tuo.  Stand not with me in judgement to require of me all that thou hast willed and commanded; for thou wilt find me guilty, if thou enter into judgement with me; I have need therefore of thy mercy rather than of thy mere judgement. The Apostle St. Paul bearing the same mind, and dreading the same judgement, desireth at that day 
t Phil. 3. 9  to be found in Christ, not having, saith he, mine own righteousness which is by the law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, even the righteousness which is of God through faith. And hereby he leadeth us to the consideration of another law, which he calleth elsewhere 
u Rom. 3. 27.  the law of faith, the tenor whereof is expressed by the words of our Saviour, 
x john 6. 40.  This is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seethe the son and believeth in him, should have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. This is a law of mitigation and mercy, whereby is administered grace and righteousness and life, which could not be obtained by the former law. To this law are annexed, and thereupon depend many favours and gracious promises which God hath made unto the faithful, grounded upon jesus Christ the Mediator of the new Testament, in 
y 2. Cor. 1. 20.  whom they are all Yea, and in him Amen, first granted for his sake, and for his sake faithfully performed. Now these things being thus decreed and established by law, God as a just judge dispenseth these favours and graces accordingly, even by just judgement, consisting here not in examination of merits, but in discerning the marks and qualities, whereby God will have them known, to whom by law the covenant of this grace and mercy doth appertain. This judgement St. Austin calleth 
z August. in joan▪ tract. 22. judicium discriminationis.  a judgement of distinction, whereby God putteth a difference betwixt the good and the evil, accordingly as the same St. Austin expoundeth those words of David, 
a Psal. 43. Vulg. 42. 1.  judge me O God, etc. 
b August. in Psal. 42. Distet intereum qui in te credit & eum qui non credit. Par infirmitas, sed dispar conscientia. Par labour. sed dispar desiderium.  Let there be difference betwixt him which believeth in thee, and him which believeth not. There is infirmity alike, but the conscience is unlike. They are equal in travel and labour, but they differ in desire. And by this judgement God maintaineth the cause of the righteous against the wicked, their cause being just howsoever their merit be nothing, and therefore yieldeth that to the justification of their cause, which yet they cannot claim by desert of works. And thus the Apostle in respect of the faithful calleth 
c 2. Thess. 1. 5.  it the just judgement of God, whereby he vouchsafith them the Kingdom of God; for it is just with God, saith he, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you which are troubled rest with us. It is just with God and just judgement▪ because it is so ordered and decreed in the law of faith, that they shall be reckoned worthy of the Kingdom of God, that do suffer affliction for the testimony thereof. And so the same Apostle being himself to receive sentence of death as a malefactor, at the hands of an unjust judge, comforteth himself in the goodness of his cause and the testimony of his conscience, that having fought a good fight and finished his course and kept the faith, he should of a just judge at that day receive a crown, whereby against that unjust sentence his justice and uprightness in that behalf, should be made apparent and manifest to the whole world. This judgement then proceeding by the law of faith, is tempered and mingled with mercy, as I have 
d Of Merits, sect. 19  elsewhere showed, God accepting what we have done, but not requiring what we have not done, testifying our righteousness, such as it is, but never questioning our sins. For 
e Aug. Epist. 29. Cum Rex justus sederit in thron●, quis gloriabitur se castum habere cor? aut quis gloriabitur se esse immunem à peccato? Quae igitur spes est nisi miserecordia superexultet judicium?  when the just King shall sit upon his throne, saith Austin, who shall glory that he hath a clean heart, or that he is free from sin? and therefore what hope is there unless mercy surmount judgement? And so in another place; 
f Idem in psal. 129. Apud te propitiatio est. Nam si non esset apud te propitiatio, si judex solum esse velles & miserecors esse nolles, obseruares omnes iniquitates nost●as & qu●reres ●as, quis sustineret? quis ante te staret & d●ceret, Innocens sum? quis staret in judicio tuo? spes ergo una est quoniam apud te propitiatio est.  There is mercy with thee; for if there were not mercy with thee; if thou wouldst be a judge only and wouldst not be merciful, but wouldst mark all our iniquities and seek after them, who could endure it? who could stand before thee and say, I am innocent? who should stand in thy judgement? Our only hope therefore is for that with thee there is mercy. If then with the just judge there be no hope without mercy, then surely it is not for merit, that the just judge rendereth unto us the crown of justice, but according to the law of faith he crowneth his own gifts in us, and us in them, even for his own mercy's sake. M. Bishop's arguments therefore are all vanished into wind, and the indifferent Reader may well perceive that the Protestants cause is better strengthened by St. Paul, then that it need to stand in fear of such Popish deluding sophisms. A blind shift he hath under pretence of 
g 2. Pet. 3. 16.  some things in St. Paul's Epistles hard to be understood, to colour his cavilling at those things which are professedly disputed and most plainly and clearly spoken. In all his Epistles, saith he, being understood as he meant them, there is not one word or syllable that maketh for the Protestants. But how I marvel should we attain to understand them as he meant them? May we learn it of M. Bishop, or are we to go to the Pope to know it of him? Surely a mad meaning shall we have of St. Paul's Epistles, if we will yield to take them after their meaning. What way hath M. Bishop or the Pope to understand St. Paul's meaning, that we should not understand it as well as they? or what reason can they give us why we should not by St. Paul's words understand his meaning, as well as by their words we understand theirs? Was St. Paul so hard of speech, as that he wanted words to declare his meaning? or was he so desirous to conceal his meaning, as that he would speak one thing and mean another, yea the contrary to that he spoke? Would he be a Protestant in words, when in meaning he intended to be a Papist? They bewray hereby what they are; be thou out of doubt, gentle Reader, that they are no well-willers to the Apostles meaning, that teach so many things contrary to the Apostles words. We see how perspicuously, frequently, constantly, he teacheth the same that we teach▪ where to give a meaning different from that which he saith, is no other but maliciously to pervert his meaning. Neither do we affirm any thing by his words, wherein we have not the certain testimony of the ancient Church concurring with us, as M. Bishop in all these points seethe to his own confusion; when as in the mean time it is enough with him to cite texts, but whether they make any thing for proof of that, for which he citeth them, it skilleth not. And this we shall see in that plenty of plain texts, which he saith he hath to produce for their uncatholike faith, which when I shall have examined, it will easily appear to the Reader, whether his discourse or mine be the more idle. If the taste that he will give us be no better than that which we have already tasted, it will utterly distaste the Reader, unless he be such a one as hath lost his taste.     

CHAP. XIIII. That the Scriptures are loosely and impertinently alleged by the Papists, for proof of their false doctrines, as namely of justification before God, of Free-will, of the Merit of single life, of Relics and Images, of the Mass and Transubstantiation, and sundry other such like.  
ANSWER TO THE EPISTLE.  
PAul saith nothing for those points, for the denial whereof M. Bishop condemneth us, etc. to, Well, M. Bishop, let us leave Peter and Paul, etc.  

W. BISHOP. §. 1.  
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 addeth 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 them, Ad fabulas convertuntur; they turn their ears away 
2. Tim. ●. vers. 4.  from truth (as the Apostle speaketh) and fall to fables; and one Robin goodfellow (I woene) 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 vnderpropt 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 Master Abbot hath made special choice off, to object against us.  

R. ABBOT.  
WE note well M. Bishop, that no Cook can f●t your diseased appetite, but such a one as is brought up in the Pope's kitchen, whilst you like better 
a Numb. 11. 5.  the fish, and leeks, and oinions, and garlic of Egypt, than Manna that came from heaven. We see it commonly so, as hath been before said, that corrupt stomachs are best pleased with the most gross and unwholesome meats, and as the horseleech sucketh out of the body the most noisome and putrefied blood, and the Spider in the garden or otherwhere gathereth that only which may be turned to venom and poison; so you out of the body of the Church draw that only which is noisome and poisonful, and nothing pleaseth your humour, but what serveth for the corrupting, both of yourself and other men. This is the cause why my premises and conclusions seem to you so lean, thin, and weak, which notwithstanding are hitherto found invincibly, grounded against all those silly oppositions, wherewith you have encountered them. The sentences which I have cited out of the Apostle, how simply, yea how shamefully are they discharged by you, only with an odious reiteration of those things which in my former answer have been already trodden to the ground? Some of them, you say, seemed to sound for us though they had in truth a far different sense, but what slender and miserable shifts have you used to frame them, to signify otherwise then they sound? Some have neither sense nor sound nor syllable for us, and yet it is found that both syllable and sound and sense, do wholly savour and sound out our doctrine against you. Which is so plain both in the thing itself, and in those justifications which I have used thereof, as that I doubt not but that in your own conscience, M. Bishop, I have gotten the conquest; only it is with you according to that which St. Austin saith, 
b August. de Civit. Dei, l. 6. c. 1. Ea putatur gloria vanitatis nullis cedere viribus veritatis.  This is esteemed the glory of vanity, never to yield to any force of truth. But here I wish thee, gentle Reader, to observe what a confession he maketh of that that I said, that St. Paul wrote nothing but what in show at least serveth the Protestants turn. It is, saith he, one of the truest words he there delivereth. But if it be true that all that St. Paul hath written, doth in show at least serve the Protestants turn, than my wonder is acknowledged to be just, namely that St. Paul should be a Papist, and yet should write nothing but what in show at least serveth the Protestants turn. M. Bishop will have it thought that in sense and meaning St. Paul is every where against us; but what a strange thing is it that St. Paul in meaning should be every where against us, and yet that in show and appearance of words he should speak altogether for us? Concerning this matter I noted what the Rhemists have said, advertising their Reader, that 
c Rhem. Testam. Argument of the Epistles in general.  where any thing in St. Paul's Epistles soundeth to him as contrary to the doctrine of their Church, he faileth of the right sense. Herein M. Bishop joineth with them, both confessing that St. Paul's words are against them, but bearing men in hand that the meaning always is otherwise then the words import. Thus they gull and abuse the simplicity and folly of them that will hearken unto them, persuading that that is improbable, incredible, impossible, that the holy Apostles directed by the spirit of God should speak one thing, as if they were Protestants, and yet mean another as if they were Papists; that in belief they should be Papists, and yet should say nothing for justification of Popery, save only by secret and concealed senses, which cannot be ●nforced or gathered by the words. justly are they given over of God to error and lies, that wilfully blind themselves from taking knowledge of such delusion. Now here I was disposed to dally a little with M. Bishop, and to tell him my imagination, that for anger that Peter and Paul had said nothing in their behalf, they might haply far as Robertus Liciensis did in another case before the Pope, spitting and crying out, Fie upon Peter, fie upon Paul, etc. M. Bishop being offended at this jest, as 
d 1. Kings 18. ●●.  Baal's Priests were at the jesting of Elias, telleth his Reader for want of matter, that I turn from the truth to fables, as the Apostle speaketh, (a text very untowardly applied, if there were occasion to examine it) and that for lack of a better I bring Robin goodfellow upon the stage. Now that Robertus Liciensis a Franciscan Friar was indeed a right Popish Robin goodfellow▪ of whom 
e Erasm. de rat. Concionandi, lib. 3.  Erasmus reporteth, that preaching on a time very instantly and earnestly, to stir men up to go against the Turks and Paynims, and coming at length to lament that none offered themselves to be Captains and leaders in this service, professeth in the end that rather than there should be any want in that behalf, he would not stick to cast off his Franciscan weed, and become himself a Captain or a Soldier amongst them. At which words he cast off his upper garment, and underneath was attired and furnished as a Soldier, and so prosecuted this matter for the space of half an hour, and being afterwards questioned why he thus did, confessed that he did it for his Minions sake, who had told him that she disliked nothing in him, but his Friar's weed. Whereupon he demanding in what attire he should best content her, and she answering that she could best like of him in the habit of a Soldier, he bid her be the next day at Sermon, and she should see him so, and then played Robin goodfellows part in that sort as I have said. In the same place Erasmus telleth of that Liciensis, the story to which I before alluded, 
f Erasm. ibid.  that being on a day to preach before the Pope and his Cardinals, when he saw them come in with that Princely pomp, and the Pope carried in a chair, and all men doing worship to him, without any other words beginneth to cry out, Fie upon St. Peter, fie upon St. Paul, spitting and turning this way and that way, and so gate him down again, leaving all astonished at him, some thinking him to be fallen mad, and other some imagining him to be become an Heretic or a Pagan. Being afterwards examined how he fell to such horrible blasphemy, he answered that he had prepared a far other matter to speak of, which he imparted to them, but when I saw you, saith he, come in with such pomp and live so deliciously, and withal considered with myself, how mean, how painful, and unpleasing a life the Apostles led, in whose places you succeed▪ I gathered with myself, that either they were fools that went so hard a way to heaven, or else that you go the direct way to hell. But of you, saith he, who have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, I could not misdoubt any evil. It remained therefore that I should detest the folly of them, who when they might have lived gloriously and pleasantly as you do, would rather through their whole life with fasting, and watching, and labour torment themselves. Now as in this case this Robertus Liciensis cried, Fie upon Peter and Paul, for their kind of life so unlike to the life of Popes and Cardinals; so I thought it might be likely that M. Bishop and his fellows in their anger might cry out upon them for their kind of doctrine, so unlike to the doctrine of Popery, and containing nothing at all for the trash and trinkets of their profession. M. Bishop saith, that there is no shadow of likelihood that one should tell the Pope such a tale to his face, or that Erasmus being in most points a Catholic would report it. But for the inducing of his Reader to this opinion, see a trick of this honest man. For if he had truly quoted the place as he found it by me set down, he thought his Reader would perhaps look the place, and so would find it to be as I had said. But to prevent this, whereas I had noted in the margin, Erasm. de rat. Contion. lib. 3. he setteth down in steed thereof; Erasmus de ratione, that the Reader when he should search for such a book of Erasmus, and find no such written by him, might think me to be as very a cozener as Doctor Bishop himself now is found to be. Let me tell him once again that Erasmus hath written a work, entitled Ecclesiastes or de ratione Concionandi, in 
g Pag. 291. as it was printed at Basil by Frobenius, 1535.  the third book whereof he hath left to future memory those worthy stories of Robertus Liciensis, which I have before reported. For conclusion of this passage he termeth me a poor Robin, simple and poore-blinde, that can find nothing in the Apostles writings for their Catholic cause, telling us that he hath showed the contrary already, and will further show it in those very points, which I myself have made choice of. But what he hath done already we have seen; it remaineth to examine the rest that follow that it may appear whether the simple Protestants do well or not, in taking the Apostle St. Paul to be wholly for them.    

W. BISHOP. §. 2.  
TO begin with the first, there is plain testimony, that we are justified before God by works, which I cited before: With God the doers of the law shall be 
Rom. 2. vers. 13.  justified. There is much for free-will, witness this: Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, 
Ibid. 6. vers. 12. & 13.  that you obey the concupiscence thereof, but neither do you exhibit your members instruments of iniquity 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. For that which was impossible to the law, 
Ibid. cap. 8. v. 3.  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 justification 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 love to be the fullness of the law, having 
Ibid. v. 9 & 10.  before said, that he who loveth his neighbour fulfilleth the law. And as for that certainty of salvation, which many Protestants brag of, the Apostle doth wholly dispossess them of it: first in the place before cited, where he willeth them that stand right in the true 
Rom. 11. ver. 20.  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. Elsewhere he adviseth us with fear and trembling to work our 
Philip. 2. ver. 12.  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: We have access through faith 
Rom. 5. vers. 2.  into this his grace, wherein we stand and glory in the hope of the Sons of God. Also, For by hope we 
Ibid. 8. vers. 24.  are saved. Item, we give thanks to God, etc. for the 
Clooss. 1. vers. 5.  hope that is laid up for you in heaven. With whom S. Peter consorteth: Blessed be God and the Father of 
1. Pet. 1. vers. 3.  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; Abraham 
Rom. 4. vers. 19  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
H 〈…〉 M. Bishop beginneth to muster his abundance of 〈◊〉 like an army of men, whereof some want a●mes, some legs, some look another way, some turn quite about and fight against him. He setteth down a number of places▪ but whether they hit, or cross; or come short, what careth he? let the Reader look to that. He saith they prove this or that, but how they prove it, id populus curet scilicet; he is too busy to trouble himself about it. As for example, There is plain testimony, saith he, that we are justified before God by works; namely, 
a Rom. 2. 13.  with God the doers of the law shall be justified. But it doth not follow that because the doers of the law shall be justified with God, therefore we are justified before God by works, because it doth not appear that we are doers of the law. Let him put in for his minor proposition; But we are doers of the law, and then his absurdity appeareth, because it is manifest, and our consciences force us to confess, that we are not doers of the law. For to be a doer of the law, requireth the doing of all that the law commandeth to be done. For 
b jam. 2. 10.  he that keepeth the whole law, and yet faileth in one point, he is guilty of all; that is, he is a transgressor of the law which commandeth all, and because he is a transgressor of the law, therefore cannot be called a doer of the law. We therefore who are all transgressors of the law, cannot be said to be doers of the law, and because we are not doers of the law, therefore cannot by the law be justified before God. And thus the Apostle telleth the jews, that 
c Rom. 2. 13.  not the hearers but the doers of the law shall be justified, but chargeth upon them that they were 
d Vers. 17. etc.  not doers of the law; and groweth to this conclusion, that 
e Chapt. 3. 9  all both jews and Gentiles are under sin, and hence inferreth further, 
f Verse 20.  Therefore by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God. Hath not M. Bishop now brought us a goodly proof, that we are justified before God by works, when as the Apostle useth those very words to enforce the contrary, that we are not justified by works. As handsomely doth he deal for the proof of free-will. There is much for free-will, saith he, witness this; 
g Rom. 6. 12. 13.  Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies, that you obey the concupiscence thereof, etc. Hence he inferreth, that it is in the power and will of every man endued with God's grace, to do well. And who denieth but that it is so? who maketh doubt but that the grace of God giveth us a power and will to do well? The question only is, whether there be in us any such power of ourselves, which is not the effect of the grace of God? Thereof we say with St. Austin; 
h August. de Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. l. 2. c. 18. Laborant homines invenire in nostra voluntate, quid boni sit nostrum, quod nobis non sit ex Deo, & quomodo inveniri possit ignor●.  Men labour to find in our will what good is ours, which is not in us of God, and how it may be found we do not know. Otherwise we deny not free-will, for we say that we are 
i Rom. 6. 22.  freed from sin, and that 
k john 8. 36.  the son [of God] doth make us free. We deny not the power and will to do well, for we say that 
l Phil. 2. 13.  God doth work in us both to will and to do. But because we say that God doth work it in us, and God doth make us free, therefore we deny Popish free-will, which is a faculty and power of nature, whereby by an act of our own, which is not of God, we apply ourselves to the grace of God, and adjoin ourselves to work with it. He again collecteth, that sin hath no such dominion over us, but that we may do well if we will concur with God's grace. True it is, but still the issue is whence we have this will, or whose work it is, that we do concur with the grace of God? We say as St. Austin saith; 
m August. in Psal. 77. Gratia facit sibi cooperantem hominis spiritum in opere bonorum factorum.  It is the grace of God that maketh the spirit of man concurrent with it in the doing of good works, and with St. Bernard; 
n Bernard. de Grat. & lib. Arbit. Coadiutorem facit cùm facit volentem, hoc est, voluntati suae conse●ticu●em.  God maketh a man concurrent, when he maketh him willing, that is, consenting to his will. It is true than that man doth concur with the grace of God, but it is grace itself that worketh it in man to concur with grace. But to open himself further, he saith, that it is not grace which doth all, but a man must work with grace, and exhibit the powers of his soul as instruments, to the producing of good works. Where again we admit the latter part of his words, that we must work with grace, and exhibit the powers of our souls as instruments of good works, but we say again that so to do is the gift of God. 
o Leo de jejune. ser. 1.  in nobis formam suae bonitatis inveniat, dat unde ipsi quoque quod operatur operamur.  Who, saith Leo, that he may find the image of his goodness in us, giveth us whence to work or do● the same that he doth. But in the first part of the words he bewrayeth his heretical meaning, taken out of the school of Pelagius, when he saith; it is not grace that doth all. For hereby he will have it understood, that man hath somewhat of his own, which is not any work of grace, and that by this power which he hath naturally of himself, he worketh with grace, and exhibiteth the powers of his soul unto good works. But Gregory Bishop of Rome was not of this mind, who saith of the elect and faithful, 
p Gregor. in Psal. Poenit. 7. Qui nihil boni sibi, sed totum gratiae Dei tribuunt, scientes se nihil habere quod non acceperunt: hoc enim operatus est in eyes, qui vasa misericordiae ●ecit eos.  They attribute no good to themselves, but all wholly to the grace of God, knowing that they have nothing which they have not received; for he hath wrought it in them, who hath made them vessels of his mercy. It is not grace that doth all, saith M. Bishop ●● the just do attribute all to grace, saith Gregory. See how well the doctrine of the new Church of Rome agreeth with the old. What the old Church of Rome taught in this behalf, the same also we teach, not that we have a power of free-will in nature, whereby we can follow whither grace doth lead: but what Gregory saith of Paul, the same is true in us, that 
q Gregor. in Ezech. hom. 9 Praeveniens gratia liberum in eo arbitrium fecerat in bono; libero arbitrio eandem gratiam est subsecutus in opere.  the preventing grace of God maketh the will free in that that is good, and then we by free-will do in work follow the same grace. For 
r Idem Moral. lib. 16. cap. 10. Superna pietas priùs agit in nobis aliquid sine nobis, ut subsequente quoque nostro libero arbitrio bonum quod iam appetimus a▪ got nobiscum.  the heavenly grace, saith he again, doth first of all without us work somewhat in us (which is that which St. Austin saith, 
s Aug. de great. & l. arbit. c. 17.  velimus sine nobis operatur.  Without us he worketh in us to will, and St. Bernard, 
t Bernard. de great. & lib. arbit. Creatio (in libertatem voluntatis) facta est & sine nobis.  the creating of us (to freedom of will is wrought without us) that our free-will following he may ●oe with us that good whereto we are now become willing. And again in the same place, 
u Gregor. Moral. ut supra. Divina nos bonitas & innocentes faciat praeucnit; eandem gratiam nostrum liberum arbitrium sequitur.  The goodness of God pr●●tenteth us to make us innocent, and our free-will followeth the same grace. Thus 
x August. de Grat. & lib. Arbit. cap. 5.  converteretur gratia Dei era● sola.  our conversion, as St. Austin saith of the Apostle Paul, is the grace of God only; but when by conversion he hath reform our will, and wrought in us the love of righteousness, we by this work of grace in us do thenceforth apply ourselves to work with grace, and the work that we do is God's work, and it is our work, but no otherwise ours, but that by the gift of God it is wrought in us, and so becometh ours. Therefore we do not say that the grace of God so doth all as that we do nothing, but whatsoever we do the grate of God it is that worketh in us to do it. 
y August. cont. a Epist. Pelag. lib. 1. c. 6. Nos quidem ambulamus, verum est, nos obseruamus, nos facimus, sed ille facit ut ambulemus, obseruemus, faciamus.  We walk, saith Austin, it is true, we observe, we do, but he maketh us to walk, to observe, to do●. Even so we suffer not sin to reign in our mortal bodies, as the Apostle teacheth us, but it is ●● that maketh us not to suffer it to reign. We give the pours of our souls as instruments, to the producing of good works, as M. Bishop speaketh, but it is he that maketh us to give them to be so, who 
z August. de Praedest. sanct. cap. 11. Promittit facturum se ut faciant quae jubet ut fiant.  promiseth to cause us to do those things which he commandeth to be done. Therefore ●ee p●each to the people of God, as Leo Bishop of Rome did, 
a Leo in Epiphan. serm. 5. Cooperatores simus grati● Dei operantis in nobis; non enim dormientibus proue●it regnum coelorum nec otio de●●d a●● torpentibus beat●tudo ●tern●tatis ingeritur.  Let us be joint-workers with the grace of God that worketh in us, for the Kingdom of heaven befalleth not to sleepers, neither is the bliss of eternity thrust upon idle and slothful persons. But yet withal we say with Gregory, that 
b Gregor. Moral. lib. 29. c. 13. Quòd verba praedicationis d●i ab auribus ad corda des●ē. lunt, solo divino munere agitur, etc. Per internam gratiam solus omnipotens Deus praedicantium verbis ad corda and 〈…〉 'em inutsibilitèr aditum pr●stat.  it is by the only gift of God that the words of the preacher do descend from the care to the heart; that it is only the almighty God, who by inward grace invisibly giveth passage for the words of the preacher, to the hearts of them that hear. Yea with Leo himself we say, that 
c Leo de Quadrag, serm. 101 Quod (deitatis hab●tacu●um) licet inchoari & perfici sine suo authore non possit, habet tamen ab 〈…〉 sicante donatum ut etiam labore proprio quaerat augmentum.  the habitation and temple of God (which is every faithful man) which can neither be begun nor finished without the author of it, hath it given of God by it own labour to seek it own furtherance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It wo●kein then with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself to God, but it hath it given to ●● of God 〈◊〉 to work with God. By it own labour it seeketh it own increase; but it is the gift of God whereby it laboureth for this increase. In a word we say with Fulgenti●● 
d Fulgent. ●d 〈…〉 bruiter prohibemtam in nostra side quàm in nostro opere ●tanquam nostrum nob●t aeliquid vendcare.  We in no sort s●ffer nay we by who 〈◊〉 doctrine forbidden 〈◊〉 in our suit or in our works to challenge to ourselves any thing for our own, Nothing is ours but in 〈◊〉 sort as Gregory faith; 
e Gregor. Moral. l. 24. cap. 5. justitia nostra dicie●r non quae ex nostro nostra est, sed quae diuin●●argitate fit nostr●.  It is called our righteousness which ●● not ours as of our own, but which by the gift of God is made ours; or as Hierome saith; 
f Hieron. Epist. ad Deme●riad. Velle & nolle nostrumest, ipsamque quod nostrum est sine miseratione Dei nostrum non est.  To will and to nill is ours, but that which is ours, without the mercy of God is none of ours. This was the doctrine of the old Church of Rome concerning free-will; this we approve and teach; and because we approve this, therefore we detest the doctrine that is now taught in the Church of Rome, which is quite contrary to this. But here M. Bishop being come away from justification, and fallen to a new matter, yet bethought himself upon a sudden that he had some what further to say of it, and therefore leapeth back again. He was departed from it to free-will; and yet before we depart from i● faith he▪ you shall hear more of ●● out of the same Apostle, And whar shall we hear? He teacheth expressly, saith he, that it man in the state of grace may fulfil the law. The words which he citeth for this purpose are these; 
g Rom. 8. 3.  that that was impossible for the law in that it was weakened by the flesh; God sending his some in the similitude of sinful fl●sh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in ut, which walk not after the flesh but after the spirit. Concerning which place I have given full answer and satisfaction 
h Of justification, sect. 38. 43.  before, to which Prefer the Reader, all 〈…〉 it shall not be amiss here also to say somewhat of it. And first it is worth the while to observe with what discretion he bringeth this place to prove in ●s here an ability to fulfil the law, when as the place ministereth to us a certain and infallible argument to prove the contrary. For the Apostle here affirmeth an impossibility in the law to justify and save us, not by any defect of itself, but by reason of the weakness of the flesh. So long then as this weakness of the flesh continueth, so long must the same impossibility continue also: But this weakness of the flesh continueth so long as we live here. So long therefore as we live here, there shall be an impossibility of being justified by the law. For 
i Rom. 8. 7.  the flesh is not subject unto the law of God, nor can be; 
k Rom. 7. 23.  it rebelleth against the law of the mind, and holdeth us captive to the law of sin: 
l Gal. 5. 17.  it lusteth against the spirit, and these are contrary one to another, so that we cannot do the things that we would, and therefore cannot fulfil the law. Why will M. Bishop go about to dispute against so certain, so clear, and manifest truth? Now then understanding the justification of the law, as he doth of the righteousness commanded by the law, it is true that the end of Gods sending his Son was, that sin might be condemned in the flesh, that the power and life thereof in us might be abolished, and it utterly destroyed, that sin being taken away the justification or righteousness of the law, may be entirely and perfectly fulfilled in us for ever. This we say, that God hath intended to do, and hath already begun to bring it to effect, but he hath begun only and no● perfected this work, nor will do till this body of ours raised again from death and out of the dust of the earth, have cast the slough of sin, and become clothed with immortality and incorruption. In the mean time 
m August. de civit. Dei. l. 19 c. 27. Ipsa justitia nostra tanta ●st in hac vita, ut potiùs remissione peccatorum constet, quàm perfectione virtutum.  our righteousness in this life, saith St. Austin, consisteth rather in the forgiveness of sins, then in the perfection of virtues; and 
n Greg. Mor. l. 5. c. 9 Ipsa perfectio nostra culpa non caret, nisi hanc severus judex in subtili lance examinis misericorditèr penset.  our very perfection, saith Gregory, is not free from blame unless God in the precise balance of his examination do mercifully weigh the same. And from Gregory did St. Bernard learn to say, that 
o Bernard in fest. omn. Sanct. fer. 1. Si districtè iudicetur iniusta invenietur omnis justitia nostra & minus habens. Sir Greg Mor. l. 9 c. 11. & l. 21. cap. 15  all our justice or righteousness, if it be narrowly sifted, will be found unjust and defective, because 
p August cont. julian l. 2. Memores & conscij illa ipsa corpora vitiorum omnium esse materiem, pro qua polluti & sordidi nihil in nobis mundum, nihil innocens obtinem▪ ex Plilario.  being polluted and filthy by reason of the corruptions of our sinful bodies, as Austin allegeth out of Hilary, we have nothing in us clean, nothing innocent, 
q Hilar. in psal. 118. Gimel. Et nisi glorificat● in naturam spiritus corpore vita vera in nobis non potest esse natura.  neither can there be in us, saith he, the nature of the true life, until the body be glorified into the nature of the spirit. Now seeing the case of our righteousness in this life i●●a●h, certain it is that the righteousness of the law is not so fulfilled in us in this life, as that thereby we can be justified in the sight of God. Yea 
r Leo in Annivers. suo. ser. 1. In isto seculo si iniquitates Dominus obseruaret nullus iudiciùm suum sustineret.  in this world, saith Leo, according to the words of the Psalm, if the Lord would take knowledge of iniquities, none should be able to bear his judgement; and therefore it remaineth which the same Leo elsewhere saith, that 
s Leo Epist. 81 In quo solo homo se invenit innocentem.  in Christ only a man findeth himself innocent or just; 
t Greg. Moral. lib. 3. cap. 11. Per hoc cuncta justificat, quod eum qui sine peccato est pro peccatoribus damnat.  God hereby justifying us, as Gregory saith, for that for us sinners he condemneth him who is without sin. 
u Idem in Ezech. hom. 7. Justus advocatus noster justos nos defendet in judicio quia nosmetipsos & cognoscimus & accusamus iniustos.  Our just Advocate therefore, saith the same Gregory, will in judgement defend us for just, if we know and accuse ourselves to be unjust, 
x Idem in Euangel. hom. 25. Paratus est poenitentiam nostram nobis ad innocentiam deputare.  God being ready (for his sake) to repute unto us our penitency for innocency. Here is then our justification before God, not in that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, but in that upon our true repentance God reputeth us innocent for Christ's sake, and in Christ, whom as a sinner he condemned to death and punishment for our sakes. Now by that that hath been said, appeareth the answer to his next place, 
y Rom. 13. 8. 10.  Love is the fulfilling of the law, and he that loveth his neighbour fulfilleth the law. For what is said of justice or righteousness, must be also understood of love, because our righteousness inherent consisteth in love, and according to the measure of our love, so is the measure of our righteousness. 
z August. de Nat. & Grat. c. 70. Charitas inchoata, inchoata justitia est; charitas provecta, provecta justitia est; charitas magna, magna justitia est; charitas perfecta, perfecta justitia est.  Charity begun, saith Austin, is righteousness begun; charity increased, is righteousness increased; great charity, is great righteousness; perfect charity, is perfect righteousness. Sith then our justice or righteousness is very defective and unperfect, as hath been showed, the like must be conceived of our love; and therefore though love be the fulfilling of the law, yet in us it is not the fulfilling of the law, because in us it is unperfect, and far short of that which the law requireth. As we have the beginnings of love, so we have the beginnings of fulfilling the law, but that is not sufficient to justification by the law, because the law requireth absolute 
a Gal. 3. 10.  continuance in all that is written therein. Therefore St. Austin very directly to our purpose saith▪ 
b Aug. Epist. 29. Plenissima charitas qua iam augeri non potest quamdiu hic homo vi●it est in nemine. Quamdiu autem aug●●●i potest, prosectò illad quod minus est quàm debet ex vit●o est. Ex quo vitio non est justus in terra qui facit bonum & non peccat. Ex quo vitio non iustificabitar in co● spects Dei omnis vivens.  The most perfect charity which can now no further be increased, so long as a man liveth here is found in none, and so long as it may be increased, that that is less than it ought to be, is by reason of some vice or corruption in us, by reason whereof there is not a man just upon earth, that doth good and sinneth not; by reason whereof no man living shall be justified in the sight of God. In a word love is the fulfilling of the law, when as there is love according to the tenor of the law. The law saith, 
c Deut. 6. 5. Luke 10. 27.  Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, with all thy soul, with all thy strength. But 
d August. de perfect. justitiae Rat. 17. Cum est adhac aliquid con●up s●●a●ie carnalis quod vel continendo sraenetur, non omnimodo ex tota anima d●ligitur Dens. No● en●m taro sine an●ma concup●s●●t quavis caro concup●ctre dicatur quia carnaliter anima concupisc●t.  so long as there is any carnal concupiscence saith Austin, which by temperancy or continency is to be refrained, God is not perfectly loved with all the soul. For the flesh lusteth not without the soul, though therefore the flesh is said to lust because the soul lusteth according to the flesh. It followeth therefore that so long as there remaineth any concupiscence of the flesh, so long there is not that love which is the fulfilling of the law. But so long as here we live, there is found in us the concupiscence of the flesh. Therefore so long as here we live, we never attain to the fulfilling of the law, and therefore cannot be justified thereby. Neither doth the Apostle in the place by M. Bishop alleged intent any thing concerning justification, but speaketh of fulfilling the law, according to the model of human life and conversation, wherein we set the law before us as the rule of our life, and the mark whereat we a●me and whereto we tend, to which we approach so much the nearer, by how much the more we abound in love, though we never attain so far as to be justified thereby. In the next place he again opposeth against the certainty of salvation, citing the words of the Apostle, 
e Rom. 11. 20.  Thou standest by faith; be not high minded, but fear, etc. Which text he hath cited 
f Chapt. 12.  a little before, and hath there had answer of it, and therefore I omit it here. To th●s he addeth another like a two edged sword cutting two ways at once. The Apostle saith; 
g Phil. 2. 12.  Work your salvation with fear and trembling. Mark, saith he, how two points of the Protestants doctrine be wounded in one sentence, and two of ours confirmed. But it is neither so nor so; the place neither hurteth us nor helpeth him. We must work our salvation, saith he, it comes not then by faith only. But that followeth not; for it doth come by faith only, and yet we must work our own salvation. The title and right of salvation cometh by faith only, but we must work to ourselves the possession of it, our good works being, as St. Bernard saith, 
h Bernard. de Grat. & lib. Arbit. in sine. Si propriè appellentur ea quae dicimus nostra merita, via sunt regni, non causa regnandi.  the way to the Kingdom, though not the cause for which we obtain the Kingdom. 
i Ephes. 2. 8.  By grace we are saved through faith, not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast; and yet 
k Vers. 10.  we are his workmanship created in Christ jesus unto good works, which he hath prepared for us to walk in, so to bring us to the fruition of that salvation, which by faith only he hath given us freely for Christ's sake. As we are said 
l Acts 2. 40.  to save ourselves, so are we said to work our salvation, not for doing any thing by virtue whereof we are saved, but for embracing the means, and following the course whereby God hath ordained to give effect and way to that salvation which Christ only hath purchased for us. And thus our salvation is said 
m 2. Cor. 1. 6.  to be wrought in the enduring of afflictions, not for that afflictions have any power to save us, but because God, having of his own mercy in jesus Christ appointed us to be 
n 1. Pet. 2. 5.  lively stones, for the building of his spiritual Temple, useth afflictions as his axe, whereby to hue us, and square us, and fit us to be laid in this building, and 
o Col. 1. 12.  maketh us meet, as the Apostle speaketh, to be partakers of inheritance with the Saints in light. To be short, the Apostles intention is plain to exhort the Philippians, and by them us, that being entered into the state and way of salvation by faith in jesus Christ, we go on forward and continue constant in our way, till God by his mercy bring us to be partakers thereof, even as if he had said accordingly as we translate, make an end of your salvation in fear and trembling. But if with fear and trembling, we are not then, saith M. Bishop, assured of it before hand by the certainty of faith, which excludeth all fear and doubt of it. Which foolish paradox runneth strongly in his head: a conceit he hath gotten, and his babble he will not leave for the tower of London. Faith, saith he, excludeth all fear and doubt. But who knoweth not that there is greater faith and lesser faith, and that the greater faith is, the less there is of fear and doubt, but yet all manner of faith excludeth not all fear and doubt. If he scorn to learn of me, let Gregory Bishop of Rome be Master in this behalf, both to him and me. 
p Greg. Mor. lib. 22. cap. 14. Fides ipsa quae ad bona alia capessenda nos imbuit, plerunque in exordijs suis & nutat & solida est; & tam certissimè habetur, & tamen de eius siducia adhuc sub dubitatione trepidatur. Pars namque eius priùs accipitur ut in nobis postmodum perfectè compleatur.  Faith, saith he, which seasoneth us to the receiving of other graces, commonly in the beginnings thereof is both wavering and sound; we already most certainly have it, and yet of the assurance thereof we fear and doubt; for we first receive a part of it that it may be afterwards perfectly fulfilled in us. He bringeth for example hereof the poor man in the Gospel, to whom Christ said, 
q Mar. 9 23. 24.  If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth; and he answered, Lord, I believe; help my unbelief. 
r Ibid. uno codemque tempore clamabat se ctia credere & adhuc ex incredulitate dubitare.  At one and the same time, saith he, he cried that he did believe, and yet did still doubt by unbelief. 
s Idem in Ezech. hom. 15. uno codemque tempore is qui necdum perfect crediderat simul & cred●bat & mer●du●us erat.  At one and the same time, saith he in another place, he which did not perfectly believe, did both believe, and was also unbelieving. And yet again in another place he saith; It often falleth out that faith now is growing in the mind, and yet by doubting it languisheth in some part; that certainty of sound faith strengtheneth one and the same mind, which notwithstanding the wind of doubtfulness shaketh by some mutability of unbelief. As namely he saith 
Idem Moral. l. 10. c. 8. Saepe ●ontingit ●t fides in men●e iam vi●eat, sed tamen ex part aliqua in dubietate contab●scat. unam candemque mentem & cer●●uao solidae sid●i roborat, & tamen ex aliquantula mutabilitate perfidy aura dubictatis versat.  of the man before mentioned; that 
u Ibid. Per sidem sperans & per infidelitatem fluctuans dicebat, etc. Et exerare certus iam po sidem coeperat, & adhuc incertus undas persidiae ex incredulitate ●●lerabat.  hoping by faith, and wavering by unbelief, he said, Lord, I believe; help my unbelief. He began to pray, saith he, certain now by faith, and yet being uncertain, he bore the waves of unbelief. We see here beside all that hath been formerly said, that saith and unbelief, certainty and uncertainty, assurance and doubt, be blended together in one and the same man, and why doth M. Bishop then professing to be a Romanist, thus absurdly cross the old doctrine of the Church of Rome? why doth he tell us so often, that faith excludeth all fear and doubt? But he committeth here a further error in wresting 
x See hereof the question of the certainty of salvation, sect. 10.  the Apostles words to doubting fear, which is distrustful of God, whereas the Apostle speaketh of that godly fear, whereby we are distrustful of ourselves, that we may trust in God only. The Apostle doth not say, Work your salvation in fear and trembling, so as to be always in fear and doubt of your being saved, but so as that you never dare trust to yourselves, or attribute any thing in this behalf to your own power or work, but always to give glory unto God, and to depend upon him, seeking to be enabled and strengthened by his arm, because though you be willed to work your own salvation, yet you must know that it is God that worketh in you both to will it and to work it, even of his own good will. David in the Psalm saith; 
y Psal. 2. 11.  Serve the Lord in fear. What meaneth this, saith St. Austin? 
z August. in Psal. 65. Quid hoc sihi vult? Audi vocem Apostoli. Cum timore, inquit, & tremore, etc. Quare cum timore & tremore? subiecit causam; D●us est enim, etc. si ergò Deus operatur ●●te, Dei gratia benè operaris, non viribus tuis. Ergo si gauds & time, ne fortè quod datum est humili auscratur superbo.  Hear what the Apostle saith, with fear and trembling work your own salvation. Why with fear and trembling? He addeth the cause, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do. If God then work in thee, thou workest well by the grace of God, not by thine own strength. Where we see how St. Austin understandeth fear in the Apostles words, as he doth in the words of David, and would M. Bishop be so absurd as to understand David to say, serve the Lord, so as to be continually in fear and doubt of your own salvation? And whereas St. Austin saith that the Apostle to give a reason why he saith, in fear and trembling, addeth those other words, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do, will M. Bishop be so mad as to couple these speeches in this sort, Work your salvation, being always in fear and doubt thereof, because it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do. What, is it a reason for us to doubt of our own salvation, because it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do? The same St. Austin in another place citing the same words of the Psalm, Serve the Lord in fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling; saith that 
a August. de corrept. & great. cap. ●. Quid ostendens nisi eos esse commonitos qui ambulant in via justa ut in ti● more Deo seruiant, id est, non altum sapiat sed timeant, quoth significat, non superbiant sed humi●es sint, etc. exultent Deo sed cum tremo●e, in nullo gloriantes quando nostrum nihil sit ut qui gloriatur in Domino glori●tur; ne perceant de via justa in qua iam ambulare coeper●t dum sibi ●oc ipsum assignant quò● in ea sunt. His verbis usus est & Apostolus ubi ait, cum timore, etc. & ostendens quare cum timore & tremore, ait, d●us est ●●m, etc.  they who walk in the right way are admonished thereby not to be proud, but to be humble, to rejoice unto God but with trembling, not glorying in any thing because nothing is ours, that he that rejoiceth may rejoice in the Lord, lest they perish out of the right way wherein they have begun to walk, whilst they attribute it to themselves, that they are in the way. Whereupon he addeth, The like words the Apostle also useth; With fear and trembling work your own salvation; and to show why with fear and trembling, he saith, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do. The fear then which the Apostle commendeth to us, is not a doubting fear, such as is contrary to assurance of faith, but such as is contrary to presumption and pride and trust in ourselves, and importeth humility, lowliness of mind, distrust of our own strength, that we may rely upon the strength and power of God. Why doth M. Bishop then forego a plain and manifest construction, to force a meaning upon the Apostle, which can by no means be sitting or agreeing with the words? from hence he goeth forward to prove, that we ought to have a firm hope of salvation. But why doth he take such pains to prove that which we deny not? or how is it that he seethe not that the proof of that is his own reproof? For if we must firmly hope for salvation, than we must not stand in fear of our salvation. But he saith, 
b Of the certainty of salvation, sect. 10.  we must stand in fear of our salvation; we must fear whether we shall be saved or not. Therefore we ought not firmly and steadfastly to hope for it. These two cannot stand together: we cannot firmly hope for salvation, if we must stand in fear and doubt whether we shall be saved or not. Last of all he quarreleth us as touching the nature of true faith. The very faith, saith he, whereby we are justified, is no such kind of faith as the Protestants claim to be justified by. What is it then? Forsooth, it is that faith whereby we believe all things to be true which God hath revealed. And how doth that appear? Marry, St. Paul declareth 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. Which his base and undivine conceit of Christian saith, I have exagitated 
c Of justification, sect. 18.  elsewhere, and I should wonder, but that it is his manner so to do, that the absurdity thereof being so displayed, he would thus repeat it again, almost in the same words. It shall be here sufficient thence briefly to answer him, that the justifying faith of a Christian man is not incident to the Devil. But the Devil is capable of believing all ●o be true which God hath revealed. The Devil could believe that God according to his promise would give Abraham a son, and make him the father of many nations. Therefore justifying faith is more than to believe all to be true which God hath revealed. That more is plainly gathered of that which Cyprian saith, 
d Cyprian. de dupl. martyrio. Non credit in Deum qui non in ●o solo collocat totius foelicitatis suae fiduciam.  He believeth not in God that doth not place or repose in God only the confidence and trust of his whole felicity and happiness. justifying faith then is the reposing of trust and confidence in God only, to obtain of him eternal bliss and happiness, through the merits and mediation of jesus Christ. And this was Abraham's faith, not a carnal belief only, that God would give him a son, and a great posterity of many nations, but a belief of a spiritual 
e Gen. 12. 2. Gal. 3. 8. 9  blessing in his seed, according to the promise of God, both to himself, and to all the nations of the earth. And this we see in the place which M. Bishop citeth where the Apostle alleging that Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness, addeth; 
f Rom. 4. 23.  Now it is not written for him only, but also for us to whom it shall be imputed for righteousness. What? to believe that old and barren persons may have children if God say the word, as M. Bishop in the place before mentioned, very rudely expresseth the faith of Abraham? Nay, but to believe in him that raised up jesus the Lord from the dead, who was delivered to death for our sins, and rose again for our justification. This was it which the faith of Abraham respected. By belief of the promise of God 
g john 8. 56.  he saw the day of Christ. He believed that of his seed should come a Saviour both to himself and to us, who should be delivered to death for our sins, and rise again for our justification, and by this faith he was justified. For the same faith saved Abraham that now saveth us, as hath been before showed. But the faith that saveth us is the faith of the Gospel, the faith of jesus Christ, the faith of his Cross, the faith of his Blood, the faith of his Death and Resurrection. Therefore this was also the faith that saved Abraham. Thus M. Bishops heaps of testimonies prove for his part heaps of chaff, and not of corn; they carry a show of multitude, but say nothing at all for him. He is a ●ai●e man that goeth about by such allegations to impeach any piece of the Protestants justification. When he hath spent all his paper-shot, the Protestants justification will remain still.    

W. BISHOP. §. 3.  
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: That the care of the single and unmarried 
1. Cor. 7. vers. 32 33. & 34.  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 certain widows worthy of damnation, because 
1. Tim. 5. v. 12.  they broke the same former vow of chastity. And S. Paul himself shore his head in Cenchris because 
Act. 18. vers. 18.  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 built upon the right foundation, hay, 
1. Cor. 3. vers. 13.  stubble, and such like trash, shall notwithstanding at the day of our Lord be saved; yet so as through fire. Which the ancient Doctors do take to be the fire of 
SS. Aug. in psal. 37. Hieron. lib. 2. cont. jovin. 13. Ambros. in hunc locum. Gregor. in psal. 3. Poenitentialem.  Purgatory. Now if many, whiles 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
THou mayest here see, gentle Reader, M. Bishop's tergiversation and manifest shifting. I propounded out of Theodoret that the Epistle to the Romans containeth all manner doctrines of faith. Upon this ground I noted that the doctrine of Popery is to be condemned, for that it containeth so many points as necessary articles of faith, whereof there is nothing to be found in the Epistle to the Romans. Herewith M. Bishop found himself greatly distressed. On the one side he durst not openly reject the testimony of Theodoret, fearing lest that haply might be some prejudice to him. On the other side he saw he could not find their religion in the Epistle to the Romans. Now therefore silently he stealeth away and betaketh himself to the rest of Paul's Epistles, not upon any hope that he hath that he can thence make good his cause, but for that he findeth there some speeches delivered upon occasions, whereby he can better give colour to some doctrines of theirs, of which the Apostle never thought. He telleth his Reader, that I say there is nothing in St. Paul for the merit of single life. But my saying was, that in the Epistle to the Romans which Theodoret affirmeth to contain all kind of doctrine, there is nothing said for the merit of single life. Well, let him yet have his way; let us give him full liberty of the rest of St. Paul's Epistles, and what hath he there for the proof of it. Forsooth, he telleth us, that the Apostle saith, that the care of the single and unmarried is to please God, and their study to think upon those things that appertain to God, and how they may be holy both in body and in spirit; which, saith he, must needs be more acceptable in God's sight then to be carking for this world, and caring how to please their yoke-mate. But here he blindeth his Reader, by compounding those things, which for the discerning of the truth are to be divided. For he will not say that single life in itself is a caring to please the Lord, and to be holy in body and spirit; for then the Vestal Virgins of the Romans, and the Hierophantaes of the Athenians, and all single persons of all sorts shall be pleasers of the Lord, and all holy both in body and spirit. If in itself it be not so, then for itself it is not acceptable in God's sight, but the thing which God accepteth is our care to please him, and to be holy and undefiled before him. Now if marriage equal single life in holiness and care of pleasing God, what hindereth in this case, but that marriage is as acceptable to God as single life? But the Apostle noteth this to be the preferment of single life, that we are thereby for the most part better opportuned to attend the things of God, and to do him service, being thereby freed from many burdens of cares and troubles, wherewith the husband and the wife are commonly much distracted. Which notwithstanding must be understood where the gift of continency is had, because the fire of an incontinent mind causeth much more entangling of the thoughts, and withdrawing of the heart from God, then do any troubles that belong to married estate. But doth it follow that because single life giveth greater liberty to serve God, therefore single life itself is a matter of great merit with God, the vow thereof the merit of heaven, a work of great perfection, a satisfaction for sins, both for a man's own sins, and for the sins of other men? This is the merit of single life whereof I spoke, and which Popery maintaineth, and will this foul tail hang to the words of the Apostle? Are you not ashamed, M. Bishop, thus to dally, and to tell us one thing when you should prove another? It is true that the care of pleasing God, and being holy in body and spirit, is much more acceptable unto God, then carking for this world, and caring how to please a wife; but will you hereof conclude a merit of single life? Is not single life many times more careful of the things of the world than marriage? and is not the unmarried often more busied to please his harlot, than the husband is to please his wife? And will you then argue so absurdly, and thus wilfully delude them that are not able to understand you? From thence he cometh to Monkish vows, of which, he saith, that if I were a good Abbot, I would speak more respectively. But an Abbot whether to him good or bad, I yield them no other respect, but to say of them, that as Popery hath framed and practised them, they are full of sacrilege, impiety, blasphemy, hypocrisy, and one of those monstrous abominations, wherewith Antichrist hath defiled the Church of God. And what hath he now to say for them? Somewhat forsooth St. Paul hath of the vow of chastity, which is one of their principal vows. Well, let the other vows sink or swim, he careth not; but being a chaste man he will give us a proof for the vow of chastity, and that shall be a sure one. St. Paul avoweth, saith he, certain widows worthy of damnation, because they broke the same firmer vow of chastity. But what; will he thus wilfully belie the Apostle? Will he set down words of his own, and make the Reader believe that they are the Apostles words? The Apostle speaketh of some having damnation, because they had broken the first faith, and will he dare to turn the first faith, into, the former vow of chastity? As touching this place I have given him such answer 
b Of vows, sect. 7.  before, as that it is unpossible for him with any good colour to reply. I have showed that the first faith here spoken of, is the faith and profession of Baptism, and that Athanasius, Hierome, and Vincentius Lyrinensis, by allusion to this place do so give us to understand. Moreover, that those young widows of which the Apostle spoke, did by living in idleness fall to wantonness, and in their new marriages did wholly forsake the faith of Christ. I declared further by chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact, that the Apostle seeing such mischief to grow of choosing young women to be Church-widomes, did wholly disclaim all choice of such, and willed that those who were already chosen, though they had promised to continue single and unmarried, yet for eschewing all danger of the like inconvenience, should betake themselves to marriage. I have showed by Cyprian, by Austin, Hierome, and Epiphanius, tha● they who have vowed single life, if afterwards they cannot, or will not contain, that it is much better for them to marry then to continue unmarried. What doth he mean thus to allege this text again, when it so plainly appeareth by the testimony of so many Fathers, that that is false which they would gather thereby? He would hereby prove their Popish vow of single life, binding men simply and perpetually from marriage, which it appeareth is hereby condemned as a wicked tyranny, and a cruel usurpation upon the consciences of frail and unstable men. In the next citation he playeth his prize. For proof of their vows he allegeth 
c Acts 18. 18.  that St. Paul shore his head in Cenchris, because he had a vow. As well might he allege the jews sacrifices of Bulls and Goats, to prove their sacrifice of the Mass. As well might the Turks and Saracens allege 
d Acts 16. 3.  Paul's circumcising of Timothy, to prove that it is still lawful for them to circumcise. As well might he prove that every woman after her childbirth is to offer a pair of turtle Doves, or of young Pigeons, because 
e Luke 2. 24.  the Virgin Mary did so. He saith, the vow of the Apostle was the vow of a Nazarite, and the vow of the Nazarites was wholly a ceremony of the law of Moses, and will he go about to bring the ceremonies of Moses law into the Church of Christ? Hath he not read what Tertullian saith; 
f Tertul. de Prescript. sub finem. Quis nesciat quoniam Luangelica gratia evacuatur si ad legem Christum redigit?  Who knoweth not that the grace of the Gospel is made frustrate and void, if it bring Christ unto the law? What, doth every man know this, and doth not M. Bishop know it? Did he never read that which St. Hierome saith, and Austin confirmeth, 
g Aug. Hieron. Epist. 19 Pronuncias ceremonias judaeorum quicunque obseru● verit, sive ex Judaeis, sive ex Gentibus, eum in barathrum Diaboli devolutum. Ego hanc vocem tuam omnin● confirmo.  Whosoever either of the jews or Gentiles observeth the ceremonies of the jews, he tumbleth himself into the devils mouth. What have we then to do with the vow of the Nazarites, that it should be any confirmation of vows, to be used amongst us? But to show himself notable in his art, he telleth his Reader, that that vow was not much unlike to the vow of religious persons, and biddeth him thereof to see the sixth Chapter of the book of Numbers, as if looking there he should find it so to be. Now for their pupils and scholars, who must yield to enlarge their throats, to swallow all their Master's googeons, he knew well enough that they would never, nay they dare not look the Chapter, and as for others though they find him a liar, what cares he for that? He that looketh into that Chapter, or any other, what shall he find that may give him cause to think the vow of the Nazarites, like to the vow of religious persons? The vow of religious persons is a vow of perpetual poverty, chastity, and obedience, and what is there in the vow of the Nazarites, that carrieth any semblance of these things? 
h Num. 6. 2. 3. etc.  He was to forbear wine and strong drink, and all things of the grape, to suffer no razor to come upon his head, but to let the locks of his hair to grow; to come at no dead body, not his father, his mother, his brother, or sister, and by these ceremonies to separate himself to the Lord: but of giving away all his goods to live in poverty; of forbearing marriage or the company of a wife; of living under obedience to any man's rules or laws, there is nothing, I say nothing to be found. Now who can think it safe to trust M. Bishop, that is not ashamed thus wilfully to falsify, that which is so plainly reported by the holy Ghost? As for Saint Paul's taking upon him that vow of a Nazarite, which Saint Luke recordeth, it was but a yielding for the time to the infirmity of the jews, becoming 
i 1. Cor. 9 20. 21  to the jews a jew, that he might win the jews, as he professeth otherwhere. For although in the death and resurrection of jesus Christ, the ceremonial law of Moses were at an end, and now to be abolished, yet there was a time to be yielded for instruction and teaching of the jews, thereby to withdraw them from the opinion of those things, which so long and by so great authority even from God himself, both they and their fathers had observed, that the sudden relinquishing thereof might be no scandal or offence unto them. St. Austin saith notably hereof, that 
k Aug. Epist. 19 Cum venisset fides qua priùs illis obseruationibus praenunciata post morte & resurrectione Domini revelata est, amiserant tanquam vitam officij sui; veruntamen sicut defuncta corpora necessariorum officijs deducendae ●●ant quodammodo ad sepuituram, nec simulatè sed religios●, non autem deserenda continuò, vel inimicorum obtrectationibus tanquam canum morsibus proijcienda.  when the faith foreshowed by those ceremonies, was after the death and resurrection of Christ revealed, they lost as it were the life of their office or use, but yet as the dead bodies of friends, they were by the office or service of friends religiously to be brought to their burial, and not to be presently forsaken or cast to the slanders of enemies, as to the bitings or gnawings of dogs. But though 
l Ibid. Illo tempore quo primùm gratia fidei revelata est, hoc non crat pernicious: progressu verò temporis perniciosum erat nisi obseruationes illae ab omnibus Christ ani● desererentur.  it were not hurtful, as he there saith again, that these ceremonies at the first preaching of the faith, were for a while observed, yet in process of time it had been pernicious, that they should not have been forsaken of all Christians, yea it should have been impious to retain them. And hath not M. Bishop then for proof of their vows made good choice of an example, which it were pernicious and impious to retain in the Church of Christ? But he found there the name of vow, and that he thought was enough to sop them, who he knew would take any thing that he should tell them. From vows he ●larteth to prayer for the dead, and saith that it is not true that in St. Paul there is nothing for prayer for the dead. And what is there, I pray, for it? He teacheth, saith he, that some of the faithful who have 
m 1. Cor. 3. 13.  built upon the right foundation hay stubble, and such like trash, shall notwithstanding at the day of the Lord be saved▪ yet so as through fire. But what is this to prayer for the dead? Marry, the ancient Doctors do take this to be the fire of Purgatory and if many while the dross of their works is purged do lie in fire, it will easily follow that every good soul will pray for the release of them. Thus he telleth us what some Doctors do think, and what he himself gathereth thereof, but otherwise of St. Paul himself he can tell us nothing. It appeareth not by St. Paul himself that that fire is Purgatory fire; it appeareth not by St. Paul himself that we are to pray for the dead, & therefore in all this M. Bishop hath said nothing, because it is not the question what some have gathered of an obscure sentence of St. Paul, but what St. Paul himself hath delivered, and that in the Epistle to the Romans where Theodoret witnesseth, as I have said, all doctrines of faith to be contained. But he dealeth here after the very manner of Heretics, who are wont to make choice of some figurative and allegorical and dark speeches of Scripture, which they may construe at their own pleasure, and allege them according to their own construction, to prove their falsehoods and heresies by them, when as notwithstanding the plain and evident testimonies of Scripture do make against them. St. Paul speaketh of purpose to give instruction of our carriage towards the dead, where of Purgatory or prayer for the dead he teacheth nothing. 
n 1. Thess. 4. 13.  I would not, brothers, have you ignorant, saith he, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not as other which have no hope; for if we believe that jesus is dead and is risen, even so them which sleep in jesus, will God bring with him. And then showing in what sort God will bring them with jesus, he concludeth, Wherefore comfort yourselves one another with these words. Is it possible that the Apostle should here omit to give charge of praying for the dead, if it were religion to pray for them? Nay he telleth us of the faithful departed, that they sleep in jesus, and of them that sleep in jesus, 
o Apoc. 14. 13.  the spirit saith, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord (which sleep in jesus) for they rest from their labours; and if they be blessed and at rest, than they are not labouring in the restless fire of Purgatory, and therefore need none of our prayers for release. Albeit if we grant M. Bishop his Purgatory, yet what is he the nearer for prayer for the dead, seeing they tell us that Purgatory is 
p Rhem. Testam. Anno●. Mat. 5. 26. in mark  the prison, spoken of by our Saviour Christ, from which there is no coming forth, until thou have paid the uttermost farthing. If there be no coming forth until the utmost farthing be paid, why do we vainly trouble ourselves in praying for them? When they have paid all, than they shall come forth, but till that be done, there is no release. This were a lamentable hearing at Rome, yea and throughout the whole Popish clergy; for by this means there shall be no use of all their Offices, and Obsequies, and Pardons for the dead, and thereby what a large collop shall be cut from them? They are the cause of it themselves; they tell us that Purgatory is the prison, whence there is no redemption till thou, not till another for thee, but till thou have paid the uttermost farthing. But yet let them alone; grant them Purgatory, and they will shift; they will make their advantage good enough. The worst is that in the words of St. Paul there is not strength enough to draw it in. The old Father Origen in an approved work of his, hath laid a shrewd block in M. Bishop's way, who citing the words of the Apostle; 
q 1. Cor 3. 12.  If any man build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is, saith hereupon; 
r Origen. count. Cel●. lib. 4. Si quis docore potest corporalitèr intelligendum esse malos superstrucre lignum, foen●●, stipulam, apparebit etiam materialem ignem intelligendum & sensibilem: quòd si evidentèr figurata est locutio dum mali hominis opera significantur lignorum, foeni, stipularunque nomine, qui fit ut non statim succurrat quomodo ignis accipiendus sit qui contumat ●igna huiusmodi?  If any man can show that it is corporally to be understood, that evil men do build upon the foundation wood, and hay, and stubble, it shall appear that we are also to understand a material and sensible fire; but if it be evidently and apparently a figurative speech, in that the works of evil men are signified by the name of wood, and hay, and stubble, how is it that we conceive not how the fire is to be understood, that consumeth these things? Indeed it is in common sense very unprobable, that the words of foundation, building, gold, silver, pearls, wood, hay, stubble, should all be construed as figuratively spoken, and the name of fire only should be understood properly of a material Purgatory fire, specially when as the Apostle himself forceth it to another understanding, by saying, Yet so as it were by fire; for what is that but as to say, not by fire indeed, but in such sort as may fitly be resembled and set forth by fire. Yet it is true that some have expounded those words of a temporary purging fire, as Austin, Ambrose, and Gregory, whom M. Bishop citeth; for as for Hierome he wrongeth him, who only mentioneth 
s Hieron. adu. lovin. lib. 2. Ipse saluabitur, non tamen absque probatione ignis.  trial of fire, according to the letter of the text, but saith nothing to expound what that fire is. But as they expound it of Purgatory fire, so some other there be that expound it of hell fire, as namely chrysostom, Theophylact, and Photius in Oecumenius; who where it is said, He himself shall be saved, do understand it that he shall be reserved, and not consumed to nothing, and so take the meaning to be, 
t Oecumen. ex Phot. in 1. Cor. 3. Ad hoc manet & servatur ut per ignem puniatur in seculum. Sic Chrysost. & Theophylact. ibid.  that he abideth, and is kept to be punished by fire for ever. Now it may fall out shrewdly on M. Bishop's part, if where he looketh for Purgatory he find Hell; but hereby it certainly appeareth, that there was no tradition of the Church, to draw Purgatory out of those words of the Apostle. Which notwithstanding shall much better appear, if we shall further consider the variableness and uncertainty of writers, in expounding that place, even of them who have expounded and applied it in that sort. First Saint Austin though in a Sermon to the people, he yielded to their conceit then growing of Purgatory fire, and were content thereto to make application of the Apostles words here in question, yet in divers other places where with due meditation he pondereth and weigheth the same words, he still maketh other construction of them. As namely when Dulcitius propounding certain questions to him, he by occasion falleth upon the handling of these words, he deriveth thither what he hath spoken in two other places concerning the same, now approving it the third time, that 
u August. de 8. Quaest. Dulcit. q. 1. ex lib de Fide & Operibus. c. 16. Si circa divitias suas carnali qu●dam teneretur affec. tu, etc. propter carnale, ut dixi, quem in eyes habebat affectum quo talibus bonis fine dolore carere non posset, ●dificaret super fundamentum lignum, foenum, s●●pulam, etc. Quoniam affectu dilecta carnali non sine dolore amittuntur, etc. in corum amissione passi detriment● per ignem quendam dolori● perveniunt ad salutem.  by hay, and wood, and stubble, the Apostle meant the too much carnal desire and love of temporal things, which is often found in the faithful, though not in so high degree, but that when they come to trial, they are content rather to forsake all then to forsake Christ. These he saith are saved for the foundations sake, which is Christ, whom they so prefer before all, but 
x Ibid. ex Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 68 Est quidem ignis tentatio tribulationis, etc. Isle ignis in hac interim vita facit quod Apostolus dixit, etc. sal●us est quidem, sic tamen quasi per ignem, quia urit eum rerum dolor quas dilexcrat amissarum.  yet so as by fire, whilst they are vexed with the grief and sorrow of the loss of those things, which they have too much loved. For fire, he saith, is the temptation of tribulation, and this fire in this life doth that which the Apostle saith. In the very like sort doth he again in another place expound it; 
y Idem de civitat. Dei lib. 21. cap. 26. Sic quasi per ignem; quod enim sine illiciente amore non habuit, sine urente dolore non perdet.  Yet so as by fire, because what he hath not had without enticing love, he will not lose without vexing grief. And that it may appear that he afterwards did not like that exposition, which M. Bishop citeth, he upon another Psalm handling the words at large, expoundeth them as in all these places he hath done, 
z Idem in Psal. 80. Qui aedificat amorem terrenorum super fundamentum regni coelorum, etc. ardebit amor rer●m temporalium & ipse saluus erit per idoneum fundamentum. ●t paulo ante; Grau●tèr conturb●ntur; foenum & stipula & ligna ardent. Si tristis perdis, saluus eris tanquam per ignem.  He that buildeth the love of temporal things upon the foundation of the Kingdom of heaven, that is, upon Christ, his love of temporal things shall burn (namely by sorrow and grief in the loss of them) but he himself shall be saved by the right foundation. Thus very constantly doth he understand the fire spoken of by the Apostle, of the grief and tribulation that God layeth upon the faithful, in bereaving them of those earthly goods which they have over-carnally affected and desired. Now in all these places it is to be noted, that Saint Austin was so far from expounding that text of the Apostle concerning Purgatory, as that in every of the former he hath signified expressly that he doubted thereof, and in the last of all denieth it expressly. In the first place he saith, 
a De ●ide & Oper. c. 16. Si●● in ha● v●●a tantum homines ista patiuntur, sive etiam post hac vitam ●alia quae d● judicia subsequn●●r, non abhorret quantum arb●●ror à ratione veritatis iste intell●ctus b●●us ●●ntentiae.  Whether in this life only men suffer such things, or whether after this life also some such judgements f●llow, the meaning which I have given of this sentence, as I suppose, abhorreth not from the truth. In the second place he saith; 
b Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 69. Tale aliquid 〈◊〉 pest hanc vitam ●eri, incredibile n●a est, & utrum ita sit quaeri potest, & aut inveniri, ●ut latere n●nnullos fidel●s per ignem quendam p●rgatoriii, quatò magis un●usue b●na pereuntia d●lexerunt, tanto tard●●s citi●s●● salvari.  That s●me such thing there is also after this life, it is not incredible and may be inquired of, whether it be so or not, and either be sound or remain hidden, that some faithful by a kind of Purgatory fire, by how much they have either the more or the l●sse loved transitory goods, are either the sooner or the more slowly saved. The repeating of both these places to Dulcitius without any revocation or alteration, may serve in steed of a third testimony of his doubting of it. And in the last place he saith again, 
c De ci●. D●● lib. 21. cap. 26. Post istius cor●oris mortem, etc. si hoc 〈◊〉 ●t●ruall● 〈◊〉 tus defunctorum eiusmodi ignem dicunt●r perpeti, etc. s●●● ibi tantum, s●u● & 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut noa ibi sec●laria quam●●s à damnatione vemalia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inveniant, non redarguo qui● forsi●an ver●m est.  After the death of this body, if the souls of the dead, in this mean time till the resurrection be s●id to suffer some such kind of fire, and whether there only▪ or both here and there, or whether here they find a fire of transitory tribulation, burning their secular desires, that they may not find it there, I reprove it not▪ I say not against it, because perhaps it is true. Here we find, it is not incredible, and it may be disputed whether it be so, and perhaps it is so: but upon his best advice he could not find in the Apostles words, or in any other place of Scripture, that certainly it is so. Yea in the last place which is worthy to be noted, propounding to answer some, who by pretence of the Apostles words here in question, hoped to be saved by a Purgatory fire, he useth these words; 
d In Psal 80. 〈◊〉, per 〈◊〉 salaus e●o. Nam quid est quod art Apostolus; fundamentum aliud, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 das esse volo; 〈◊〉 est enim non vobis dare securitatem malam. Non dabo quod non 〈◊〉 t●meus terreo, securos vos saccrem, si securus ●i●rem ego. Ignem aeternum tin. ●●. Non 〈◊〉 nisi ignem aeternum; de quo ●lio loco Scriptura dicit, etc.  Brethren I am very fearful; it is not good to give you any evil security; I will deliver nothing but what I receive; in fear I terrify you; I would secure you if I could secure myself; I fear eternal fire; I receive or learn no fire but that that is eternal, of which the Scripture saith in another place, Their fire shall never go out, and so he goeth on to expound the place in such sort, as I have said. Mark this well. St. Austin will deliver nothing but what he hath received, and he professeth to have received no other fire but only eternal fire. Therefore very definitely he saith elsewhere; 
e Hypognost. l. 5. Tertum lo●um penitus ignoramus, un mò nec esse in Scriptures invenimus.  We are utterly ignorant of any third place yea and we find in the Scriptures that there is none, and therefore he divideth all the souls of the dead, either to perpetual joy or perpetual torment, as I have showed 
f Answer to Doctor Bishop's Epistle, sect. 10.  otherwhere. As Austin, so Gregory also, though he expound the place concerning Purgatory as M. Bishop citeth, yet saith elsewhere, that 
g Greg. Dial. 〈…〉 c. 39 Hoc de ●●●e tribulationis in hac nobis vita ad●nbito potest intelligi.  the same may be understood of the fire of tribulation, applied unto us in this life, and if it may be understood of tribulation in this life, then can it be no proof for warrant of a Purgatory in the life to come. Now it is true indeed that Gregory was superstitiously conceited concerning Purgatory, although allowing of it only 
h Ibid▪ De quibusdam 〈◊〉 culpis; de paruts minim●●que peceatis.  for very small and light offences; but it is worth the while to note, how sometimes the truth forcing itself upon him, he crosseth himself in this behalf, and putteth that down in one place which he buildeth in another. For he writing upon job, he saith; 
i Greg. Mor. l. 8. c. 8. Quem nequaquam modo miserecordia eripit, sola post praesons seculum justitia 〈◊〉. Hinc Salomo ait quia lignum ta quocunque loco ce●●derit, etc. qua ●um humani casus tempore five sanctus, fi●e malignus spiritus egredientem amn●a claustra carnis acceperit, in 〈◊〉 secum 〈◊〉 pern●●tat 〈◊〉, ater●is suppli●iis ultra ad remedium creptionis ascendat.  Whom mercy now delivereth not, him justice only after this world imprisoneth. Hereof Solomon saith, that in whatsoever place the tree falleth, whether towards the South, or towards the North, there it shall be: because when at the time of a man's death, either the good spirit or the evil spirit shall receive the soul going from the body, he shall hold it with him for ever without any change, that neither being exalted, it can come down to punishment, nor being drowned in eternal punishments, can thence forth rise to any remedy of salvation. If after death there be no deliverance, if there be no change, but as the Angel either good or bad receiveth the soul out of the body, so it continueth for ever, either exalted to joy or drowned in punishment, than there can be no Purgatory, than there can be nothing, but either heaven or hell, where they that come shall abide for ever. He citeth for this the same words of Solomon that we do, and of which Olympiodorus a writer of the same time saith; 
k Olympiodor. in Ecclesi as●. cap. 11. In quocunque loco seu illustri seu tene 〈◊〉 depre●edatur ●omo cum moritur, mood gradu atque ordine pori●●net in aeternum; nam vel requiese●● in lumine foelicitatis aeterae cum justis & Christo Domino, vel in tenebris cruciatur cum iniquis & huius mundi princip● Diabolo.  In whatsoever place either lightsome or dark a man is taken when he dieth, in the same degree and order he abideth for ever; for either he resteth in the light of eternal felicity with the just and with Christ our Lord, or else he is tormented in darkness with the wicked, and with the Prince of this world the Devil. But Gregory again writeth an Epistle to his friend Aregius a Bishop, to comfort him, concerning the death of some belonging to him, wherein it is worthy to be observed, how consonantly he carrieth himself to the doctrine of the Scriptures. Amongst other words we read these; 
l Gregor. lib. 7. indict. 2. Epist. 111. Indecens est de illis taedio afflictionis add●ci, quos credendum est ad veram vitam moriendo perve. nisse. Habent for sitan illi iustam longi doloris excusationem qui vitam alteram nesciunt, qui de hoc seculo ad m●lius transiti● esse non confidunt: nos autem qui novimus, qui hoc credimus & docemus, contristarinimium de ob●●ntibus no debemus, ne quod apud alios tenet pietatis speciem, hoc magis nobis in culpa sit. Name dissidet●c quodamod● genus est cotra hoc quod quisque pradicat torqueri moestitia, dicente Apostolo, Nolumus autem vos ignorare, fratres, etc. Hac itaque ratione perspecta, studendum nobis est ut sicut dix●mus, de mort●●● non essl●gamur, sed affectum viventibus impendamus quibus & pictas ad 〈◊〉 & sit ad s●uct● 〈◊〉.  It is undecent for us to give ourselves to long affliction of sorrow for them, whom we are to believe to have come by death unto the true life. They have haply just excuse of long sorrow, who know not any other life, who do not believe the passage from this world to be to a better world; but we who know, who believe and teach this, are not to be too heavy for the dead, lest that which with others carrieth a show of piety, be to us rather a matter of blame. For it is in a manner a kind of distr●st, to be tormented with heaviness, contrary to that which he himself doth teach. Hereof he citeth the words of Saint Paul to the Thestalonians, which I have before set down, and then addeth; This therefore seeing we know, we are to have care, as I have said, not to be afflicted for the dead, but to bestow our affection upon the living, to whom our piety or denotion may be profitable, and our love may yield fruit. Surely he leaveth no place for Purgatory, that teacheth to believe that the faithful in death do attain unto true life, and that their passage from this world is to a better; neither doth he acknowledge any use of Prayers, of Masses and Trentals, and other Offices and Obsequies for the dead, who saith that our devotion and love yieldeth no fruit or profit to them. He would not have bidden Aregius not to be afflicted for the dead, but to bestow his affection upon the living, if he had thought the dead to be in a Purgatory, where they should and might be relieved by the devotions of the living. Thus he believed and taught, where he taught advisedly, according to the Scriptures, and thus we believe accordingly, and what he casually taught otherwise, we reckon it for wood, and straw, and stubble, which he built upon the true foundation, which now the daylight of the Gospel hath revealed, and the fire of God's word consumeth, though he himself by the faith of the said foundation hath attained peace. And this we hold to be the only true application of the Apostles words, and most fitting to the process of the text, the Apostle making himself a builder by his preaching, laying Christ for the foundation of his doctrine, and therefore consequently understanding gold, silver, pearls, wood, hay, stubble, to be the rest of the doctrine that is preached concerning Christ; either true, signified by gold, and silver, and pearls; or false, signified by wood, and hay, and stubble. So did Tertullian of old understand it; 
m Tertul. cont. Marc. l. 5. Super quod prout quisque superstruxerit dignam scilicet vel indignam doctrinam, opus ●ius per ignem probabitur, merces ●i●s per ignem rependetur.  As every man, saith he, buildeth upon the foundation doctrine worthy or unworthy, his work shall be tried by fire, his reward shall be repaid him by fire. In the like sort doth Ambrose expound it; 
n Ambros. in 1. Cor. 3. Tria genera posuit praeclara in mundo in quibus bonam doctrinam significavit, etc. Tria alia genera posuit sedfrivola. In his corrupta & vana doctrina designata di n●scitur.  He setteth down three kinds of things that are excellent in the world, (gold, silver, pearls,) by which he signifieth good doctrine: three other things he setteth down which are but base, (wood, hay, stubble,) and by these corrupt and vain doctrine is designed. Now if by these things doctrine be designed, than the fire whereby trial must be made of these things must be understood accordingly. That cannot be of the Popish Purgatory fire; for it cannot in this sense be fitted to Purgatory fire, which the Apostle saith; Every man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare●, because it shall be revealed by fire, for it is not declared or manifested by Purgatory fire, whether doctrine be true or false, sith itself is so obscure and dark, as that no man knoweth where it is. Is it made manifest to us by Purgatory fire, whether ours or the Popish doctrine be the more true? Nay, but by the word of God this trial is made, and thereby it appeareth what is truth, and what is falsehood, what is right, and what is wrong; and the truth as the gold and silver is approved and justified thereby, but error and false doctrine, as wood, and stubble, and hay, is thereby consumed and brought to nought. And thus Cyril saith, as Aquinas allegeth him, 
o Cyril. apud Tho. Aquin. in Luc. 12. Ignem veni mittere, etc. Mos est sacrae Scriptur● ignem quandoque dicere sacros & divinos sermons.  that it is the manner of the holy Scripture to call the sacred words of God by the name fire: and chrysostom one where alluding to the words here handled, expoundeth 
p Chrysost. de Penitent. hom. 8. Igne examinemus, verbo scilicet doctrinae.  fire to be the word of doctrine; who though they both make the application of that construction to reformation of manners, yet considering what hath been said, do both justify the same construction to our use. Now all these things being well weighed, it well appeareth how little hold Popish Purgatory hath in those words of the Apostle, and because in the fall of Purgatory is the fall of prayer for the dead, therefore M. Bishop hath yet said nothing out of St. Paul for prayer for the dead.    

W. BISHOP. §. 4.  
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 the Images of 
Heb. 9 v. 4. & 5.  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, That all happened to them in figure, and were written 
1. Cor. 10. v. 11.  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 that jacob by faith adored the 
Heb. 11. ver. 21.  top of joseph's rod, 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?  

R. ABBOT.  
THou mayest not wonder, gentle Reader, if it grow wearisome to me, to follow the sent of this Fox, who only casteth dust in mine eyes, to stop me from pursuing him too fast, as being afraid to be otherwise suddenly gripped to death. Observe I pray thee, what proofs he hath here brought for Images and Relics. He doth not only omit wholly the Epistle to the Romans, whence he was required the proof, but bringeth arguments so ridiculous, so idle, so impertinent, as that even hereby it is easily to be discerned, that it is a desperate cause which he hath in hand. For Images he saith, that St. Paul maketh honourable mention of the Images of the Cherubims; where he putteth in the Images, as thinking it should be some grace to him, that the Reader not looking the place, should believe that the Apostle had named Images. But see further how he stuffeth this scarecrow with his litte● of idle word's. He maketh honourable mention of the Images of the Cherubins, placed gloriously in the uppermost part of the Israelites Tabernacle, which for the holiness thereof was called Sancta Sanctorum. A simple man would think that this strowting tale should certainly import some special matter, but it is like the picture of Bevis, that makes a great show, and strikes never a stroke. 
a Heb. 9 5.  Over the Ark, saith the Apostle, were the glorious Cherubins, shadowing the mercy seat; but what is this to M. Bishop's purpose? Marry, saith he, the same Apostle saith, 
b 1. Cor. 10. 11.  that all things happened to them in figure, and were written for our instruction. Be it so, and what then? May not we then gather thereby, saith he, that Images are to be placed in Churches? You may indeed, M. Bishop, but it shall be no otherwise then as Spiders do, which gather poison of sweet flowers. It is true, though it be not proved by the words which he unduly citeth, that all things happened to the Israelites in figure, but did the Cherubins prefigure the having of Images in our Churches? If they did, we desire that he make it appear to us, which I think he hath not so little wit as to undertake. If they did not, what a foolish conclusion hath he made, that because there were the Cherubins in the jewish Tabernacle, figuring something for our instruction, therefore we may set up Images in Churches. 
c Heb. 9 11.  The Tabernacle, as the Apostle teacheth us, prefigured the body of our Lord JESUS Christ. The Ark, was the place where God yielded 
d Exod. 25. 22. Numb. 7. 89.  his presence to his people to dwell amongst them, and from which he spoke and declared his will unto them. The Cherubins, as 
e Of Images, sect. 8.  M. Bishop himself acknowledgeth, betokened the Angels, priest and ready in the presence of God to do his will. What shall now the thing figured be, but that God in jesus Christ is always present with us, and his Angels still assisting in his presence to receive commandments for our behoof, being 
f Heb. 1. 24.  ministering spirits, as the Apostle saith, sent forth to minister for their sakes, which shall be heirs of salvation? And must we now let this truth go, that ministereth strength and comfort to our faith, that we may give M. Bishop room for his blind Idols? But see withal how handsomely this matter is peeced together. The Cherubins did represent the Angels. What the shape or fashion of those Cherubins was, neither M. Bishop can tell, nor any man else, as I have 
g Of Images, sect. 8.  before showed. They were set in the Sancta Sanctorum, as he confesseth, where they were wholly out of sight, and whither no man came, but 
h Heb. 9 7.  the high Priest only, once every year●. And doth not he then very fitly and substantially allege the example of these Cherubins, for their Images of Men and Women, to be set up openly in Churches, not only that the people may behold them, but that they may also fall down to them, worship them, pray to them, offer and burn incense to them, according to all the abominations of the Heathen, accustomed to their Idols? Doth he find that the jews took thereby warrant to set up in the Temple the Images of Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob, and other holy Fathers, to do the like to them? Doth he not know that he abuseth his Reader hereby, and will he yet go forward so to do? But for an express and brief answer to him, I cannot say any thing more fitly, then that which Tertullian of old answered to them, who for defence of their Image-making, when it was condemned, objected, 
i Tertull. de Idololat. Cur ergò Moses in eremo simula●hrum Serpentis ex aere fecit? scorsum figurae qua dispositioni alicui arcanae praestruebantur, non ad erogationem legis sed ad exemplarium causae suae, etc. Benè quòd idem Deus & lege vetuit similitudinem fieri, & extraordinario praecepto serpentis similitudmem indixit. Si eundem Deum obseruas, habes legem eius, Ne feceris similitudinem. Si & praeceptum factae postca similitudinis respicis, & tu imitare Moysen; Ne facias adversus legem simulachrum aliqu●d nisi & tibi De●t● i●sserit.  Why then did Moses in the wilderness make the similitude of a brazen Serpent? He presumeth, that which M. Bishop urgeth, that all things befell to that people by way of figure, but saith, we are to set figures here aside, which were appointed for some secret signification; not for the prescribing of a law, but for sampling the cause of the appointing of them. It is well, saith he, that the same God did by his law forbidden any image or similitude to be made, and by an extraordinary charge appointed the similitude of the Serpent. If thou regard the same God thou hast his law, Thou shalt not make the likeness of any thing. If thou look to the Commandment of making a similitude afterwards, do thou imitate Moses; make no image against the law, unless God himself command thee. Even so say we to M. Bishop, that the making of the Cherubins by an extraordinary commandment of God is no warrant for us to break the law of God. We have the law of God, and that we are to follow, but what God commanded for special use and signification, we must not draw to an example of imitation. But to go beyond the example, and from the making of an image for typical use and construction, to proceed to give to images spiritual worship and devotion, this is a sin inexcusable, and hath no colour of defence by any example of the word of God. Now as this, so that which he saith for Relics also deserveth no other but contempt. The Israelites by the special commandment of God kept 
k exod. 16. 33.  a pot full of Manna, that their posterity might see with what bread the Lord had fed them. By the like commandment of God 
l Numb. 17. 10.  the rod of Aaron which had blossomed and brought forth fruit, was laid up and kept for a token to the rebellious, that they might not dare to murmur against Aaron and his Sons, concerning the Priesthood. By God's commandment also, 
m Exod. 40. 20.  the tables of the Testament were put into the Ark there to be kept, both that and all the rest, being said to have been done, 
n Vers. 21.  as the Lord had commanded Moses. Now here I say to M. Bishop again, let him in this behalf also imitate Moses, and if God have given any commandment concerning Relics, let him by virtue thereof challenge devotion to them. But if God have commanded nothing thereof, why doth he bring the example of things expressly commanded of God, for warrant of those things that have been superstitiously devised by men? But it is worthy here to be questioned, by what Chemical trick it is, that the golden pot of Manna, and Aaron's rod, and the tables of the Testament, are turned into Relics, and given us for examples of Popish Relics? Popish Relics are the bodies of Saints, or pieces of their bodies, or such things as they have worn, or have been applied unto them, as their coats, their shirts, their shoes, the chains and fetters wherewith they have been bound; the instruments of the tortures that have been done to them. These they lay up and keep as matters of great devotion and holiness; in their solemn Processions they carry them gloriously about, and make the people do great reverence to them; they show them that the people may behold them, touch them, kiss them, worship them, pray before them, offer to them; they teach them to hang them and wear them about their necks, with great confidence thereby towards God and the Saints, whose Relics they are, to find help at their hands; they vow long Pilgrimages to go to the places where these Relics are, in belief that God will hear their prayers, rather there then otherwhere; they promise to them that perform these devotions to them, large Indulgences and Pardons, to deliver their souls from Purgatory; in the taking of oaths they lay their hands upon them, as making the Saints their witnesses, that they say truth. To these Relics they require such honours to be done, under pretence that 
o Concil. Trident. c. de Reliq. Sanct. Sanctorum Martyr●● & aliorum cum Christo vivenlium sancta corpora quae viva membra fuerunt Christi & templa Spir. sancti ab ipso ad aeternam vitam suscitanda & glorificanda à fidelibus veneranda esse, etc.  the bodies of the Saints were the living members of Christ, and the temples of the holy Ghost, by him to be raised up again, and glorified unto eternal life. Now I marvel how M. Bishop will apply these things to the golden pot of Manna, to Aaron's rod, and to the tables of the Testament? Were these the members of Christ, or the temples of the holy Ghost? or had they any such application to the bodies of any Saints, as to receive holiness from them? Might he not as well tell us that the Ark was a Relic, and the Tabernacle, and the Temple, and all the utensils and implements thereof? And where I marvel are the devotions that were done to those Relics of his? Did the people bow down to them, did they worship them, or pray to them, or practise those abominable idolatries to them, which they do to their Relics? What an impudent man is he to mock the unskilful Reader with such impertinent allegations, nothing at all concerning those things for which he bringeth them? As for that which they allege for a reason of those abominations, which they practise about their Relics, or as they term it of the honour which they do unto them, namely, for that they have been the members of Christ, and temples of the holy Ghost, the use of that reason was conceived of old, to serve for the burying of them in the earth; not for the raking of them out of the earth, to do worship and devotion to them. And therefore St. Austin affirming, that 
p August de Civitat. Dei, Lib. 1. Cap. 13. Nec idcòtamen contemnen, da sunt & abijcienda corpora defunctor●, maximeque iusto●ū atque fidelium, quibu● tanquam organis & vasis ad omnia bona opera usus est sanctu● spiritus, etc. unde & antiquorun justorum funera offici●sa pictate curata sunt, & exequiae celebrated, & sepultura provisa ipsique dum viue● ent de sep●liendis vel eti● transferendis suis corporibus filijs mandaverunt, etc.  the bodies of the just and faithful, which the holy Ghost hath used for instruments and vessels to all good works, are not to be despised and cast away, inferreth that therefore the funerals of the just of old were with all officious piety regarded, their exequys celebrated, and their burial provided for, and they themselves whilst they lived gave charge to their children for the burying of them, or else for transferring them from the place where they were to be buried otherwhere. He allegeth examples, that Toby in burying the dead, is commended to have pleased God; that our Saviour Christ commended the good work of the religious woman, which powered the precious ointment upon his body, as of purpose for his burial; that they are laudably mentioned in the Gospel, who took the body of Christ from the Cross, and used care to have it diligently and honourably buried. And thus Origen professing 
q Origen. count. Cells. lib. 8. Solas rationales animas honorare novimus & earli instrumenta solenni honore sepulturae dignamur. Meretur enim rationalis animae domicilium non temerè proijci sicut brutorum cadavera, praesertim quod fuit anima benè ac sanctè instrumento su● in certa●inibus usae recept●culum.  to honour only the souls endued with reason, showeth what this honour is, Their instruments, that is, their bodies, we vouchsafe the solemn honour of burial. For the habitation of the reasonable soul is of more worth, then carelessly to be cast away, like the carcases of brute beasts; specially that which hath been the receptacle of a soul, that hath in spiritual fights and combats well and holily used the body. Now if it be the honour that is to be done to the bodies of the Saints, to bury them in the ground, then is it a barbarous dishonour that is done to them in Popery, under the name of piety, to pull them out of their graves, and to rend them in pieces, and carry one piece this way, and another another way; the skull to one place, the toe or finger to another; one tooth hither, and another thither, as amongst them hath been accustomed to be done. Wherein how far they have departed from the ancient Church of Rome, appeareth by Gregory Bishop of Rome, who for his time affirmeth, that 
r Gregor. lib. 3. Epist. 30. In Romanis & totius Occidentis partibus omnino intolerabile est atque sacrilegum si sactorum corpora tagere quisquam fortassè praesumpserit. Quod sl praesumpserit, certum est quia b●c temeritas impunita nullo m●do remanebit.  in the Roman Church and whole Western parts, it was a thing altogether intolerable, and a matter of sacrilege to presume to touch the bodies of the Saints; and if any man do presume so to do, saith he, certain it is that his rashness shall by no means remain unpunished. And having showed divers examples of them, who adventuring too near to the stir●ing or touching of the bodies of some holy persons, were thereupon greatly frighted, or by death miscarried, he concludeth; 
s Ibid. Quis tam temerarius possit existere, ut h●c sciens ●orum corpora, non dico tangere, sed vel aliquatenùs praesumat inspicere?  Who then knowing these things can be so rash as that he will presume, I will not say, to touch the bodies of such, but in any sort to look upon them? How is the world now changed in the Church of Rome, that they dare not only look upon such buried relics, but pull them out of their graves, touch them, kiss them, carry them about as hath been before said; and will M. Bishop still notwithstanding be so impudent, as to say that the religion of the church of Rome, is now the same that of old it was? For conclusion of this passage he allegeth, 
t Heb. 11. 21.  that jacob adored the top of joseph's rod, which was a sign of his power, which, he saith, giveth all judicious men to understand, that the Images of Saints for their holy representation ought to be respected and worshipped. But what a spi●e hath the Apostle put him to, thus to seek for Images upon the top of joseph's rod? What meant he to be so sparing in the behalf of the Roman Church, as that he would not name so much as one holy man, to whom an Image had been set up to be worshipped in his name? But the Apostle knew no such; Marry, M. B●shop is able by a Romish art to supply that want, by fetching an image out of the top of joseph's rod. He had heard of Garnets' image in the straw, and he thought the top of a 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  rod or staff to be much more capable of an image. But for the bringing of this about, he betaketh himself to a translation which is manifestly false, the Greek text not saying, that he worshipped the top of his rod, but ● he worshipped upon the top of his rod, that is, as we translate it, he worshipped God leaning upon the end or top of his staff. This Thomas Aquinas acknowledgeth, and telleth us the whole reason hereof. 
u Tho. Aquin. in Heb. 11. sect. 5. Super fastigium, ut habetur in Graeco, etc. Ipse erat senex, & ideò portabat virgam; vel recepit sceptrum Joseph donec i●rasset, & antequam redderet ei, adoravit, non ipsam virgam, nec Joseph, ut quidam malè putaverunt; sed ipsum Deum, innixus ad cacumen, vel super fastigium virgae cius.  jacob was an old man, saith he, and therefore carried a rod (or staff) or else he took the sceptre of joseph until joseph had sworn (namely that he would bury his father in Canaan, according to his desire) and before he restored it to him he worshipped, not the rod, nor joseph, as some have thought amiss, but God himself▪ leaning at the top or upon the top of his rod. We need no more; this is enough to dash M. Bishop out of comfort, and to bereave him of all hope to find any succour for his Images in this place. But if any man desire further satisfaction, let him see this place handled at large in the question of Images the sixteenth section.    

W. BISHOP. §. 5.  
WIth as great facility and no less perspicuity, we do collect out of S. Paul, that the Saints in heaven are to be prayed unto: for he doth heartily crave the 
Rom. 15. ver. 30.  Romans to help him in their prayers, and hopeth by the help of the Corinthians prayers, to be delivered 
2. Cor. 1. ver. 11.  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 charity never faileth, but is marvelously increased 
1. Cor. 13. ver. 8. Ephes. 2. ver. 19  in that heavenly Country. Also, that 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, and 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: In part we know, and in part we prophesy; but 
1. Cor. 13. ver. 9 ●0. & 12.  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-eyed Doctor S. Augustine 
De Civitat. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 29.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
WE collect, saith he, as though it were any thing to us what they collect, when the question is what the Apostle teacheth. It is true that the Apostle hearty craveth the Romans 
a Rom. 15. 30.  to help him in their prayers, and hopeth by the help 
b 2. Cor. 1. 11.  of the Corinthians prayers to be delivered from great dangers, but what of that? Marry, saith he, hence we reason thus; If such a holy man as Paul was stood in need of other men's prayers, much more need have we poor wretches of the prayers of Saints. But doth not the wise man see that he here maketh a rod to whip himself? for if such a holy man as Paul was, standing in need of other men's prayers, yet craved not any prayers of the Saints that were dead, but only of the brethren that were alive, doth he not teach us to do the like, that though we be to beg the help of other men's prayers, yet we beg the same of the living only, not of them that are dead? Yea, but the Saints in heaven, saith he, are more charitable and desirous of God's honour and our spiritual good, more forward to pray for us, and more gracious in God's sight to obtain our requests. But why then, say I, did not St. Paul rather seek to the Saints in heaven, then to men living upon the earth? Why did he not say, O Abraham, Isaac, jacob, pray for us? Why did he not desire God that by the merits and intercession of the holy Virgin, of Saint Stephen, St. james, St. joseph, and such others, he would have mercy upon him? Why did he seek to them that were far meaner than himself, when he might have gone to those that were superiors to himself, and more gracious in God's sight? Did not he know that charity is marvelously increased in that heavenly Country? that they tender dearly all our suits? that they can hear us, and do perfectly know our prayers made unto them? Why did he omit then rather to crave their prayers, than the prayers of the Romans, the Corinthiaus, and others, to whom he wrote? M. Bishop cannot here answer any thing to give satisfaction to any reasonable man, yea it plainly appeareth by the Apostles example, that all his collections are but vain and fantastical speculations. Against which we oppose briefly, that it is 
c jam. 5. 15.  the prayer of faith which saveth, and true faith hath it seat 
d Rom. 10. 10.  in the heart, and God heareth every man's prayer, 
e 1. Kings 8. 39  as he knoweth his heart, and 
f Ibid.  he only knoweth the hearts of all the children of men, and therefore the Saints know not our prayers, because they know not our hearts. And thus the Prophet Esay saith; 
g Esay 63. 16.  Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel is ignorant of us. Whereupon St. Austin concludeth: 
h August. de cura pro mort. gerenda. c. 13. Si tanti Patriarch● quid erga populum ex his procreatum ageretur ignora●erunt, quibus Deo credentibus populus ipse de illorum stirpe promissus est, quomodomortui suorum rebus atque actibus cognoscendis adiu●ādisque miscentur? Quomodo dicimus cis fuisse consultum, qui obierunt antequam venirent mala quae illorum obitum consecuta sunt, si & post mortem sentiunt quaecunque in vita humanae calamitate contingunt? Et paulò pòst: Ibi sunt ergò spiritus defunctor um ubi non vident quaecunque ag●tur aut euen●●nt in ista vita hominibus.  If so worthy patriarchs did not know what was done, as touching the people that was descended of them, to whom believing God the same people was promised to come of their stock, how have the dead to do with the knowledge or helping of the state and doings of theirs, and how do we say that they were provided for, who died before those evils came, which ensued after their death, if after death they understand what evils befall in the calamity of this life. He concludeth; The souls of the dead are there where they see not what things are done or happen to men in this life. This M. Bishop cannot abide to hear of from St. Austin, because he thinketh it to be great disadvantage to him, and on the contrary to advantage himself by St. Augustine's authority, he sticketh not most wilfully and absurdly to bely him, calling him in the mean time the Eagle-eyed Doctor, after the manner of the 
i Mat. 23. 30.  Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, who garnished the Sepulchres of the Prophets, but their doctrine they could not abide. First, he setteth down St. Augustine's ground in the Apostles words, 
k 1. Cor. 13. 9  We know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is unperfect shall be done away. And again, 
l Vers. 12.  We see now by a glass in a dark sort, but then face to face. Hereof he saith that St. Austin doth deduce, that the knowledge of the heavenly Citizens is without comparison far more perfect and clear, then ever any mortal man's was, of things absent and to come. Yea, he allegeth these as the very words of Austin, If then 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. For this he quoteth August. de civit. Dei. lib. 22. cap. 29. Now would not a man marvel that M. Bishop should dare to cite such a sentence, as out of Austin, when Austin hath no such? And yet he doth so most folsly and unhonestly, St. Austin saying nothing in that place of the immortal souls now in heaven, but only of the body and soul conjoined after the resurrection. The very thing that he propoundeth to speak of in the beginning of the Chapter, is this; 
l August. de Ciu. Dei, l. 12. c. 29. Nunc iam quid actari sint in corporibus immortalibus atque spiritualibus fancti, non adhuc e●rum carne carnaliter sed spiritualitèr iam vivente, quantum Dominus dignatur adiware videamus.  What the Saints shall do in their immortal and spiritual bodies, the flesh now living no longer carnally but spiritually. To set forth the sight and knowledge of things, which the Saints shall then have, he taketh a conjecture from the example of Elizeus, 
m Ibid. Si Propheta Helizeus pucrum ●uum G●eziabsens c●rpore vid●t accipientem munera quae dedit et Naaman Syrus, etc. quantò magis in illo corpore spirituali videbunt sancti omnia non solum sioculos claudant, verum●tiam unde sunt corpore absentes? Tunc enim erit perfectum illud de quo loquens Apostolus, Ex part, inquit, scimus, etc. Itane cum venerit quod perfectum est nec iam corpus corruptibile aggravabit animam sed incorruptibile nihil impediet, illi sancti ad ea quae videnda sunt ●culis corporeis, quibus Helisaeus absensad servum suum videndum non indiguit indigebunt?  who being absent. yet saw his servant Gehezi taking gifts of Naaman the Syrian; How much more, saith he, shall the Saints in that spiritual body see all things, not only though they shut their eyes, but also where in body they are absent? fir than shall be the perfection, saith he, whereof the Apostle speaketh, citing the words which are before set down, and then inferring again, When that is come which is perfect, and the corruptible body shall no longer clog the soul, but being incorruptible shall nothing hinder it, shall the Saints need bodily eyes for the seeing of things, which Elizeus needed not for the seeing of his servant? I will not stand here to dispute of the strength of this collection, nor of St. Augustine's application of those words of the Apostle, but we see that here is no such matter as M. Bishop pretendeth; but by his collecting head he bathe merely coined a sentence of his own. St. Austin in the one place denieth that the Saints now are acquainted with our matters, and in the other place saith nothing to the contrary, but speaketh only uncertainly of the state that shall be after the resurrection from the dead, and is not M. Bishop in the mean time a trusty man, thus to bolster a false matter with a forged proof? I conclude with a brief answer to his ground, that our craving of each others prayers living is a request of mutual love, but Popish prayers to Saints are prayers of adoration and religion performed to them. In the one we pray only as fellow members in compassion; in the other the Saints are made to pray as patrons by mediation. The one therefore hath no fellowship or agreement with the other, and very deceitfully doth M. Bishop deal, to bring the pretence of the one for the colouring of the other.    

W. BISHOP. §. 6.  
NOw to the Mass. The same profound divine Saint 
Aug. Epist. 59 ad Paulinum. Ambros. & Chrysost. in hunc locum.  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: I desire that obsecrations, prayers, postulations, 
2. Tim. 2. vers. 1.  thanks-givings, be made for all men, etc. declaring how by these four words of the Apostles, are expressed the four different sorts 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 knoweth what the Mass is, may by these words of the Apostle, see all the parts of it very lively paintedout, 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: Sacri Altaris oblatio; the oblation or sacrifice 
●pistola. 59  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: This is my body which shall be delivered 
1. Cor. 11. v. 23.  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 maketh 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 
Rom. 1. vers. 8.  renowned in the whole world, and after, Your obedience 
Rom. 16. ver. 19  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 treated of.  

R. ABBOT.  
NOw to the Mass, s●ith M. Bishop; but there is no wise man that readeth what he hath here written, but would think that he had done much more wisely to keep him from the Mass. I cannot tell whether more to pity his folly, or to detest his wilfulness. See with what a grave preface he entereth to a most ridiculous and childish proof. The same profound divine St. Austin 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 St. Paul in these words, I desire that obsecrations, prayers, postulations, thanks-givings, be made for all men. This phrase of skimming over the Scriptures, he learned of his Masters of Rheims, who upon those words of St. Paul alleging by that place of Austin, and some other Fathers, that all those kinds of prayers were publicly used in the liturgy of the Church, conclude thus: 
a Rhem. Testam. Annot. 1. Tim. 2. 1.  So exactly doth the practice of the Church agree with the precepts of the Apostle, and the Scriptures, and so profoundly do the holy Fathers seek out the proper sense of the Scriptures, which our Protestants do so profanely, popularly, and lightly skim over, that they can neither see nor endure the truth. So than it seemeth we must dive very deep to find the Mass in the Scriptures, but we are in doubt that they which go about to dive so deep, will certainly be drowned, and never find that that they seek for. And tell us in good sooth, M. Bishop, did St. Austin in your opinion find in those words, all the parts of your Mass? Nay, did he find that at all, to which the name of the Mass is by you properly referred? You hold the Mass to be a proper real sacrifice of the very natural body and blood of Christ, offered to God for propitiation of the sins, both of quick and dead, and doth St. Austin speak any thing to that effect? or could he find all the parts of the Mass, without finding this? Yea, that the impudence of him, and his Rhemish Masters, may the better appear, doth St. Austin say any thing there, but what properly belongeth to our Communion, and not to their Mass? Thou shalt understand, good Reader, that Paulinus wrote to Austin, to be instructed by him of the difference of those sorts of prayers, which St. Paul commendeth to Timothy, in the words aforesaid. St. Austin answereth him, that 
b Aug. Epist. 59 Illa planè difficillimè discernuntur, etc. Aliqua singulorum istorum proprietas inquirenda est, sed ad ●a liquidò pervenire difficile est. Multa quip hinc dici possunt quae improband● non sint, sed eligo in his verbis hoc intelligere quod omnis vel penè omnis frequentat Ecclesia, ut precationes accipiamus dictas quas facimus in celebratione Sacramentorum antequam illud quod est in Domini mensa incipiat benedici: orationes cum benedicitur, & sanctificatur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur, quam totam petitionem ferè omnis Ecclesia Dominica oratione concludit▪ Interpellationes sive postulationes fiunt cum populus benedicitur. Tunc enim antistites velut advocati susceptos suos per manus impositionem miserecordissimae offerunt potestati. Quibus peractis & participato tanto Sacramento gratiarum actio c●ncta concludit.  they are very hardly discerned; that there is some propriety of every of them to be inquired of, but very hard it is certainly to attain unto it. For many things, saith he, may be said hereof which are not to be disliked, but I make choice to understand in these words, that which the whole Church, or almost the whole accustometh, to take those to be called precations, obsecrations, as M. Bishop termeth them out of their vulgar Latin, which we make in the celebration of the Sacraments, before that which is upon the Lord's table, begin to be blessed; Prayers, those which are used when the same is blessed, and sanctified, and broken to be distributed, all which petition almost the whole church concludeth with the Lords prayer: Intercessions, or postulations, which are made when the people is blessed; for then the Priests as advocates do offer to the most merciful power, them whom they have received by imposition of hands. All which being done, and after the participation of so great a Sacrament, thanksgiving concludeth all. Now what is there in all this that doth concern the Mass? M. Bishop telleth us, that St. Austin findeth all the parts of the Mass, here touched by the Apostle, and see, saith he, all the parts of it very lively painted out, but can any man but think that he was scant sober when he looked upon the place, and therefore his eyes being troubled, thought he saw that which he saw not? Here is the celebration of a Sacrament, the setting of bread and wine upon the table of the Lord, the blessing and sanctifying thereof, the breaking of it to be distributed to the people, the people's participating of the Sacrament, and in the mean while prayers, supplications, intercessions, giving of thanks, the very true description of our Communion, but who seethe any thing here appertaining to the Mass? What, M. Bishop▪ is there no end of your trifling? will ye still go on to play the wiseman in this sort? But to help the matter he telleth us, that though he calleth not that celebration of the Sacrament by the name of Mass, yet he doth give it a name equivalent, Sacri Altaris oblatio; the oblation or sacrifice of the holy Altar. It is true indeed that St. Austin nameth the oblation of the holy Altar, but nothing at all to M. Bishop's use. For willing to give a reason why the prayers used in the very act of the administration of the Sacrament, are termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he taketh the same from the composition of the word, and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used to signify a vow, therefore he saith, that 
c Ibid. Ea propriè intelligenda est oratio quam facimus ad votum, etc. Voventur autem omnia quae offeruntur Deo, maximè sancti Altaris oblatio, quo Sacramento praedicatur aliud nostrum votum maximum quo nos vovimus in Christo esse mansuros, id est, in compage corporis Christi. Cuius rei Sacramentum est quòd unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. Ideo in huius sanctificatione, & distributionis praeparatione existimo Apostolum iussisse propriè fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, orationes.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the prayer that is made at, or upon a vow. Now all those things are vowed, saith he, which are offered unto God, specially the oblation of the holy Altar, by which Sacrament is set forth our other greatest vow, whereby we have vowed that we will abide in Christ, to wit, in the unity of the body of Christ. The sign or Sacrament whereof is in this, that we being many are one bread, and one body. Therefore do I think that in the consecration of the Sacrament, and preparation for the distribution of it, the Apostle appointed those prayers to be made, which he setteth down by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where it is worthy to be noted by the way, how St. Austin crosseth M. Bishops Popish doctrine, concerning vows, as if the same were only 
d See of Vows, sect. 1. etc.  of arbitrary devotions, not of necessary duties, whereas St. Austin maketh it our greatest, or one of our greatest vows, whereby we have vowed to abide in Christ, and in the unity of the body of Christ, therein upholden by Leo Bishop of Rome, who maketh it 
e Leo in Annivers. serm. 3. Quid tam sa●erdotale quàm vovere de conscientiam puram, etc. Quod cùm omnibus per Dei gratiam commune sit factum.  the most Priestly work of all Christians▪ to vow unto God a pure conscience, which are not a matter arbitrary, but necessary for us. But as touching the point in hand, what St. Austin calleth here the holy Altar, we see how he hath before called it, the table of the Lord. And that the Altar was no other, but a table of wood, it appeareth very plainly by Optatus, who mentioning the Donatists breaking of the Altars, saith, that 
f Optat. cont. Parmen. lib. 6. Quod ut immundo opere sacrilegis haustibus ●iberetur calida de fragmentis Altarium facta est. Et post. Quis fideliuns nescit in peragendis mysterijs ipsa ligna linteamine operiri? Inter ipsa Sacramenta v●lamen potuit tangi, non lig●um.  they warmed their wine with the fragments or pieces of the Altars, and who knoweth not, saith he, that in the administering of the holy Sacraments, the wood, that is, the wooden table, is covered with a linen cloth, so that the cover may be touched but not the wood. This table was termed an Altar, by imitation of the jewish custom of speech, for that 
g Ibid. Altaria, in quibus vota populi & membra Christi portata sunt, etc. Quid est Altare nisi sedes & corporis & sanguinis Christi?  the people's vows, as Optatus speaketh, that is, their offerings, and the members or body of Christ, were borne and laid thereupon, the Altar being, as he saith, the seat or place of the body, and of the blood of Christ. This consecration of the body and blood of Christ, they called an oblation or sacrifice, 
h De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Hoc est. Vocatur ipsa immolatio car nisquae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significant mysterio.  as it was called the Passion, Death, and crucifying of Christ, not in the truth of the thing, but in a signifying mystery, because it was the Sacrament and commemoration of Christ's oblation, and sacrifice of his own body and blood. For 
i Aug. Epist. 23. Nun semel in seipso immolatus est Christus? & tamen in Sacramento non solùm per omnes Paschae solennitates, sed omni die populis immolatur: nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari. Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudine ear● rerum quarum sunt Sacramenta non baberent omninò Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sient ergò secundum quendam modum Sacrament● corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, etc.  Sacraments, saith Austin, have a semblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments, and because of this semblance, they take the names of the things themselves. As therefore the Sacrament of the body of Christ, is after a certain manner the body of Christ, according to the former phrase of Optatus, so though Christ in himself were but once offered, yet in the Sacrament he is said every day to be offered for the people, namely, because there is every day in the Sacrament a memorial and semblance of that once offering. It is truly said by Cyprian, that 
k Cypr. l. 2. Epist. 3. Passio est Domini sacrificium quod offerimus.  the passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer, and because the passion of Christ is not now really acted, therefore the sacrifice which we offer, is no true and real sacrifice. Now therefore, the oblation of the Altar, of which St. Austin speaketh, hath no reference to the Mass, which they hold to be a proper and real sacrifice, but is described by himself here again, to import only our Communion, which is the celebration of the passion of Christ, when of the prayers which he referreth to the oblation of the Altar, he saith again, as we have seen, that the Apostle appointed the same to be made at the sanctifying or consecrating of the Sacrament, and preparation for the distributing thereof. The sanctifying and distributing of the Sacrament, is our Communion, but as for the Popish Mass, it importeth not any distribution to the people, but only offering to God, albeit they mock both God and Men, by retaining still the words of the old Communion, saying every day; 
l Canon. Missae.  quotquot ex hac Allarts participatione sacrosanctum 〈◊〉 tui corpus & sai guinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti & gratia repleamur.  That all we who by this participation of the Altar shall receive the sacred body and blood of thy son, may be fulfilled with thy heavenly benediction and grace, whereas save only the Priest, none are partakers of the Sacrament, but only once in the year, and then partakers only of the Sacrament of Christ's body, but secluded from his blood. But now strange it should seem, that the Apostle in those words should be thought to have any intention of the sacrifice of the Mass, who in the Epistle to the Hebrews, if it were he, whilst he destroyeth the jewish Priesthood, for the advancing of the Priesthood of Christ, argueth impregnably to the disavowing of all real sacrifice, thenceforth in the Church of Christ. Whilst he affirmeth, but 
m Heb. 7. 23. 24  one Priest in the new Testament, in steed of many in the old, he absolutely taketh away all the rank and succession of Popish Priests. Therefore Cyril saith, and is therein approved by the Council of Ephesus, 
n Cyril. Epist. 10. ad Nestor. Nec praeter ipsum alteri cuipid homini sive sacerdotij nomen, sive rem ipsam ascribimus.  We ascribe not the name of Priesthood, or the thing itself, to any other but to Christ only. 
o August. count. Faust. l. 22. c. 17 unus verus Sacerdos, Mediator Dei & hominum, etc.  The only true Priest, as St. Austin calleth him, 
p Ibid. l. 20. c. 18. Verum sacrificium, etc. quo eius Altare solus Christus implevit.  Who only, saith he, hath filled God's Altar with true sacrifice. Whilst he limiteth the sacrifice of Christ, to his 
q Heb. 7. 27. & 10. 10.  once offering of himself, 
r Heb. 9 12.  by the shedding of his blood, and denieth plainly his 
s Heb. 7. 27. & 9 1. 25.  often offering, he disclaimeth the Popish sacrifice, which is often offered, not from year to year only, but from day to day, after the manner of the Levitical sacrifice, which is therefore argued not to have taken away sins, 
t Heb. 10. 1. 2.  because it was often offered. For 
u Vers. 18.  where there is remission of sins, there is no more offering for sin. Where there is therefore still offering for sin, there is a denial of the purchase of remission of sins. But in the 
x Mat. 26. 28.  shedding of the blood of Christ, who doubteth but that there is remission of sins? Who then can doubt but that after the shedding of the blood of Christ, there is no more offering or sacrifice for sin? Therefore St. Austin saith; 
y Aug. count adversar. leg. & proph. lib. 1. cap. 18. Singulari & solo vero sacrificio Christi pro nobis sanguis effususest.  For the sovereign and only true sacrifice, the blood of Christ was shed for us. If the shedding of the blood of Christ be the only true sacrifice, then is there no true sacrifice in the Popish Mass, and therefore St. Austin never understood the Apostles words of any Popish sacrifice. Well, though the Apostle say nothing for the sacrifice, yet he saith somewhat. M. Bishop telleth us, for the principal part of the Mass which is the Real presence. But what? is the Real presence now the principal part of the Mass? They will have us by the Mass to understand a sacrifice; and the Real presence may stand without any sacrifice, and so by this means we shall have a Mass without a Mass. But what saith the Apostle for the Real presence? Forsooth, he delivereth it in as express terms as may be, even as he had received it from our Lord, This is my body which shall be 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. We see the words; we read them daily; but we cannot see in them the Real presence. Christ saith there, This is my body, but he doth not say, This is my body really present. He telleth us that the unworthy receiver incurreth judgement for not discerning the Lords body, but he doth not tell us that this is for not discerning his body really present. M. Bishop should here have given us a sound reason, that these words do necessarily enforce a real presence, and cannot be verified, but by the granting thereof. For if there may be another interpretation of these words standing well with Scriptures, approved by Fathers, confonant and agreeable to the nature of all Sacraments, then how childishly, how vainly doth he deal only to set down the place, and to say it is a proof for the real presence? Nay, see how by alleging places in this sort he circumventeth himself, and destroyeth by one place that which he seeketh to fortify by another. For whereas Transubstantiation is the foundation and ground of Real presence, the latter place which he citeth is the bane of Transubstantiation, and giveth us a convenient and true exposition of the former words, without any necessity of Real presence. For how can it stand which the Apostle saith. 
z 1. Cor. 10. 16.  The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ, if the Popish doctrine of transubstantiation be true, that there is no bread to break? It is true which St. Paul saith, that it is bread which we break: therefore it is false which the Papists say, that the bread by consecration is substantially turned into the body of Christ, and ceaseth thenceforth to be bread. And this the Apostle inculcateth again and again in the former place, 
a 1. Cor. 11. 26. 27. 28.  As oft as ye shall eat of this bread, etc. Whosoever shall eat of this bread, etc. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, etc. and yet notwithstanding all this, it must be denied to be bread. But of this bread he telleth us, that it is the communion or participation of the body of Christ, and thereby giveth us a true and certain exposition of the words of Christ, This is my body, that is, this bread is the communion or participation of my body, signifying that though in natural substance and being it be but bread, yet by sacramental understanding and effect, it is to the due and faithful receiver the communion of the body of Christ. For by God's institution and ordinance, 
b Cypr. serm. de Resurrect. Christi. Quod videtur, & nomine, & virtute Christi corpus censetur.  the visible element, as Cyprian saith, is accounted both in name and power the body of Christ, and therefore in the due receiving of the Sacrament, is the participating of Christ's body, as on the other side, the not discerning of the Sacrament, is the not discerning of the body of Christ, which to us the Sacrament is, though in itself it be not so. Now the body of Christ is here understood, as given for us, and his blood, as shed for us, and therefore the communion of the body and blood of Christ, is the participation of his Passion, Death, and Resurrection, so that the Sacrament is to us as Optatus saith, 
c Optat. cont. Parmen. lib. 6. Pignus salutis aeternae, tutela sidei, spes resurrectionis.  the pledge of eternal life, the protection of our faith, the hope of our resurrection. There was cause therefore why our Saviour Christ should say of the Sacrament, This is my body, because to us it is in effect the body of Christ, though really it be not so, but 
d Tertu●l. count. Marc. lib. 4 Hoc est corpus m●um, id est figura corporis mei  the figure of his body, as Tertullian expoundeth; 
e August. count. Adima ●t. c. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum daret signum corporis sui.  the sign of his body, as St. Austin speaketh; 
f Hieron. in Mat 16.  veritatem corporis & sang●●is sui rep●aesentaret.  the representation of his body, as Saint Hierome understandeth it; 
g Gelas. count Eutych. & Nestor. Imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Domini in actione mysteriorum celebratur.  the image and similitude of his body, as Gelasius termeth it; 
h Chrysost. in Mat. Op. imperf. hom. 11. Non verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis eius.  not his very body, but the mystery of his body, as chrysostom most expressly teacheth. For conclusion of this section, he poppeth without any division, into a speech of the Church of Rome. I made it a wonder, that S. Paul writing to the Romans, should say never a word of the prerogative of that Church, or of the Pope. M. Bishop for answer to this saith, that he speaketh of the Church of Rome, being but then in her cradle, most honourably. And how? forsooth, he saith to them, 
i Rom. 1. 8.  Your faith is renowned in the whole world, and again, 
k Rom. 16. 19  Your obedience is published into every place. In which places we see a great testimony and commendation of their faith, that then was, but yet we see no privilege or prerogative of that Church. What he said of the Romans, the same he said of the Thessalonians, 
l 1. Thess. 1. 8.  Your faith which is towards God, is spread abroad in all places, and what hath the Church of Rome to challenge ther● by, more than the Church of Thessalonica? We see M. Bishop doth as his fellows do; he will needs be saying something, though that which he saith be as good as nothing. He saw well enough that he had said nothing; but mark, how thereupon he bewrayeth his own shame. No marvel, saith he, 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. O wisdom, and what hindered that he spoke nothing of S. Peter's supremacy in that Church? Marry, because as yet he was scarcely well settled there, neither did that appertain to the matter he treated of. Just the nail on the head. In all his book he hath not uttered a truer speech; the supremacy of S. Peter did not indeed appertain to the matter the Apostle treated of. I showed before out of Theodoret, that the Epistle to the Romans containeth all kind of Christian doctrine. The supremacy of S. Peter appertained not thereto, and therefore the Apostle hath said nothing of it in that Epistle. But if it had been a part of Christian doctrine, had it not been as pertinent to the matter he treated of, to write somewhat of it, as it was to write 
m Rom. 16. 3. 5. etc.  so many salutations to so many private and particular men? Was it appertaining to the matter he treated of, to commend to the church of Rome 
n Ibid. Vers. 1.  Phoebe a servant of the Church of Cenchrea, and did it not appertain thereto, to commend unto them Saint Peter, the supreme Pastor and Bishop of the whole Church? And what though he were not as yet well settled there? would not S. Paul therefore put to his helping hand, that he might be settled? He saith for Phoebe; 
o Vers. 2.  that ye receive her in the Lord, as it becometh Saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of your aid; and would he not request them as much for the receiving of S. Peter to his place, and assisting him therein? And what though the supremacy belonged not to the Church or people of Rome, but to Saint Peter? did it not yet concern the Church and people of Rome, to know the supremacy of S. Peter? And though the supremacy belonged to S. Peter, did there no prerogative thereby grow to the Church of Rome? Pope Benedict saith, that 
p Extravag. comm. l. r. tit. 3. Sancta Romana. Mater universorum Christi fidelium & Magistra.  the Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all that believe. Pope Nicholas the third saith of Peter and Paul; 
q Sext. de clect. c. Fundamento. lsti sunt qui Romanam Ecclesiam in hanc gloriam provexerunt, ut sit gens sancta, populus electus, c●uitas Sacerdotalis & R●gia, per sacram b●alt Petri sed● caput totius orbis effecta.  These are they who have advanced the Roman Church to this glory to be a holy nation, an elect people, a Priestly and Kingly City, being by the holy s●ate of S. Peter, made the head of the whole world, and what should the Apostle then mean, if this be true, to say nothing of all this glory? M. Bishop himself hath told us before, that 
r Chapt. 1. §. 2  the church of Rome is the Rock, upon which the whole Church is built, and against which the gates of hell shall never prevail; that all Churches ought to agree with the Church of Rome, for her more potent principality; that falsehood in matters of faith can have no access unto the See of Rome. Can all these things be so, and yet the Apostle writing to them, to say nothing hereof? Surely M. Bishops dunghill reasons (give me leave, gentle Reader, so to call them as they be) are very unsufficient to satisfy any wise man, but that the Apostle in that large Epistle would certainly have said somewhat of the dignity of the Roman Church, and the Supremacy of St. Peter, and the Bishops there, if it had been so 
s Bellarm. Epist. ad Blacwel. Archipresbyt. unum ex pr●cipuis fidei nostrae capitibus & religionis Catholicae fundamentis.  chief a point of Catholic religion, as they would now have it taken to be.    

W. BISHOP. §. 7.  
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. And whom you have pardoned any 
2. Cor. 2. vers. 10.  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.  

R. ABBOT.  
MAy we not think it strange, that M. Bishop should thus dare in the sight of God and the world, to abuse the holy word of God? He knoweth well that in the Scriptures there is nothing to give any signification of the Pope's Pardons? It is an abomination brought into the Church of latter time; a thing unknown to the ancient Fathers, and never heard of for a thousand years or more, after the time of Christ. Sylvester Prierias, one of the Pope's great champions, confesseth with a mouth full of blasphemic; 
a sylvest Prior. cot. Luther conclus. 56. Indulgentiae non innotuêre nobi● author●tate Scripturae, sed authoritate Ecclesiae Romanae, Romanorumque Pontificum quae maior est▪  Indulgences or Pardons have not been known to us by the authority of the Scriptures, but by the authority of the Church of Rome, and Bishops of Rome, which is greater than the Scriptures. 
b Alphons de Cast. adu. haer. lib. 8. tit. Indulgentiae. Inter omnes res de quibus in hoc opere disputamus nulla est, quam minùs apertè sacrae literae prodiderint, & de qua minùs vetusti scriptores dixerint. Et post; pro indulgentiarum approbatione sacrae Scripturae testimoni● apertum deest.  There is nothing, saith Alphonsus de Castro, which the Scriptures have declared less plainly, or whereof the old writers have said less. There is no plain testimony of Scripture for the approving of them. And yet M. Bishop, no skimmer over the Scriptures, I warrant you, but a man of great observation and insight into them, will take upon him to have found where S. Paul teacheth of Pardons, not obscurely, or darkly, but in very formal terms. He citeth to this purpose the words of S. Paul, concerning the incestuous excommunicated Corinthian, now much humbled by repentance, and having given thereof great satisfaction and testimony to the Church; 
c 2. Cor. 2. 10.  Whom you have pardoned any thing, I so do also; for myself also what I have pardoned, for your sakes I have done it in the sight of Christ, that we be not circumvented of Satan. Here he saith, that the Corinthians and S. Paul himself did give a pardon: he did release some part of the penance of that incestuous Corinthian, which is properly to give pardon or indulgence. Just as well fitted as if he had put a Goose quill to a Woodcocks tail. He might even as well have alleged our Bishops as givers of Popish Pardons, because they do release to men upon occasion some parts of penance, enjoined them for criminal demeanours; and had he not made a great speak, if he had so done? What, are we come to understand by the Pope's Pardons, the releasing of Penitents, from the bond of excommunication, for the restoring of them again to the communion of the Church? It is true which he saith of this, that if S. Paul could so do, S. Peter could do as much, and other principal Pastors of Christ's Church have the same power and authority; who doubteth hereof? But we speak of a power which the Pope challengeth as proper to himself, to give Pardons and Libels of Indulgence, or to give authority to others, to give the same out of the Church treasury, of the supererogations of Saints, not for absolving Penitents in foro Ecclesiae, but in foro Coeli, for releasing of souls from Purgatory, and for giving of them remission for so many days, or years, or hundreds, or thousands of years, not only to men for themselves living, but also for their friends dead, and that for doing such and such devotions, or paying so much money for such or such use, or aiding him in his wars against Christian Princes, or doing any other work and service that he requireth. A lewd and wicked devise, and practise of the Popes of some latter ages, and as lewdly coloured by M. Bishop, by pretence of that that doth in no sort appertain unto it. For all that the Apostle intendeth in the words alleged, is that, which St. Ambrose briefly expresseth thus, 
d Ambros. in 2. Cor. 2. Orat ne adhuc exulcerato adversum illum animo, durum esset illis habere cum illo communionem Ecclesiae.  He prayeth them that they would not any longer by a mind exasperated against him, be hard to have with him the communion of the Church. This is the forgiveness, this is the pardon that he desireth in his behalf, that inasmuch as he hath sufficiently showed himself penitent for his fault, they will no longer forbear to have Christian society and fellowship with him. M. Bishop therefore would never have brought us this place for Pope's Pardons, but that by a resolute course of impudence, he maketh choice to say any thing, rather than to say the truth.    

W. BISHOP. §. 8.  
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 mark them that make dissensions and scandals, 
Rom. 16. ver. 17.  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, Commanded 
Act. 15. vers. 41.  them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and of the Ancients. Item, when they passed through the Cities, they delivered unto them to keep the decrees 
Act. 16. vers. 4.  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, To 
1. Tim. 6. ver. 20  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 him to commend to faithful 
2. Tim. 2. vers. 2.  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: Therefore Brethren stand and 
2. Thess. 2. v. 15.  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, as well 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
HEre M. Bishop playeth the juggler again, and casteth a mist before his Readers eyes, by altering the state of the question betwixt us and them. For the question is not whether the doctrine of truth have been at any time delivered by Tradition, that is, by word of mouth without writing, but whether after the old and new Testament written, and the Canon of the Scriptures established and confirmed, there be any thing further to be received for doctrine of faith and truth, appertaining to salvation, that is not contained in the Scriptures. Tradition as he here speaketh thereof is confounded with Scripture, because it is one and the same doctrine, first preached by word of mouth, and afterwards committed to writing in the Scripture, but Tradition, as we question it, is divided against Scripture, and importeth doctrine over and beside that, which is now taught us by the Scriptures. We know well that the doctrine of salvation, until the time of Moses, was only taught by word of mouth, but is that an argument to prove that now that we have the Scriptures, we must also receive unwritten Traditions besides the Scriptures? Nay, when it seemed good to the wisdom God, to commit his word to writing, he would not do it in part only, but fully and perfectly; so that 
a Exod. 34. 4.  Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and said of that which he wrote, 
b Deut. 12. 32.  What I command thee, that only shalt thou do unto the Lord; thou shalt put nothing thereto, nor take aught therefrom. Therefore, although the word of God were afterwards also delivered by word of mouth in the Preach and Sermons of the Prophets, yet were they in their Sermons to preach no other doctrine, neither did they, but what had authority and warrant by Moses law. Now their Sermons being also written for exposition and application of the law of Moses, and a further supply added of the Scriptures of the Apostles and Evangelists, how much more ought we to content ourselves with the Scriptures, without adding to them, or taking from them, receiving and believing only those things that we are taught thereby, as being assured of that which the Scriptures themselves teach, that 
c 2. Tim. 3. 15.  the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ jesus. Hereby then appeareth M. Bishops fallacy, in the citing of those texts which he hath here alleged. St. Paul willed the Romans 
d Rom. 16. 17.  to mark and avoid them, that made dissensions and scandals, contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. True it is, and what then? But the doctrine, saith he, which they had then learned, before St. Paul sent them this Epistle, was by word of mouth and Tradition, for little or none of the new Testament was then written. Mark what he saith, before St. Paul sent them this Epistle; for hereby he in a manner acknowledgeth that St. Paul comprised in this Epistle the doctrine, which they had before learned by Tradition. The Apostles intendment than appeareth plainly to be this, that they should shun those which dissented from the doctrine which they had hitherto learned by Tradition, that is, by preaching and word of mouth, the sum whereof he had now sent them written in this Epistle, that they might henceforth learn to shun them that dissented from the same doctrine, delivered to them in the Scriptures. How ill-favouredly then doth M. Bishop argue out of these words, that we are now to receive other doctrines than are contained in the Scriptures? There can no argument be rightly framed out of that text, whereof it can be any harm to us to grant the conclusion. If he will set it in due order, it must be this; The doctrine which the Romans had learned, they had learned hitherto by Tradition; but the Apostle teacheth them to avoid such as dissented from the doctrine which they had learned; therefore he teacheth them to avoid such as dissented from the doctrine, which they had hitherto learned by Tradition. This we grant, and what will he conclude thereof? Surely, if he will infer any thing against us, he must go on and say; But they learned somewhat then by Tradition, which is not since delivered in the Scriptures. Which if he will say, we require proof of it, and the text which he here allegeth, will yield none. We say that the whole doctrine which the Apostles first delivered by Tradition and word of mouth, they committed afterwards to writing, each his part as God inspired and directed for comprehending of the whole. Seeing therefore they were tied to shun all that dissented from the doctrine received by the Tradition and Preaching of the Apostles, we having the same doctrine contained in the Scriptures, are likewise tied to shun all doctrine, that hath not testimony of the Scriptures. Albeit it is here further to be noted, how rashly M. Bishop saith, that the doctrine which the Romans had learned, they learned only by Tradition and word of mouth, inasmuch as the Apostle telleth us, that the Gospel, as it 
e Rom 1. 2.  was promised in the Scriptures of the Prophets, so was also 
f Rom. 16. 26.  preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets, so that St. Luke telleth us, that the noble jews of Berhea hearing the Apostles preaching, 
g Acts 17. 11.  searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so, and that our Saviour Christ when he sent them forth to preach, 
h Luke 24. 45.  opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, that so they might be enabled for their preaching. I have 
i Chap. 4. §. 5.  before showed out of Gregory and others, that the whole faith which the Apostles preached, they received from the Scriptures of the Prophets, and therefore they delivered not the Gospel only by Tradition, but what they taught, they confirmed by the Scriptures. So then the Apostles admonition to the Romans, will fall out to be this, that they should avoid them that dissented from the doctrine which they had learned by the Scriptures, though not yet by the Scriptures of the new Testament, yet by the Scriptures of the old, 
k Luke 24 27. 44.  the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms, 
l Aug. count 2. Gaudent. lipist. l. 2. cap. 23. Quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis.  which Christ named for his witnesses, and whereof he said; 
m John 5 39  Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me. The two next proofs which he bringeth, are such, as that he justly deserveth to be dubbed for them. It is of record, saith he, how St. Paul 
n Acts 15. 41.  walking through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches commanded them to keep the precepts of the Apostles, and of the Ancients, and 
o Acts 16. 4.  when they passed through the Cities, they 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 the faith. And what hereof? It appeareth, saith he, that those decrees were made matter of faith, and necessary to be believed to salvation, before they were written. Yea were? But did not you know, M. Bishop, that those decrees were written when they were first made? Did you not read that james so propounded, 
p Acts 15. 19 20.  My sentence is that we writ unto them, etc. Did you not find that it was executed afterwards accordingly; 
q Vers. 23.  They wrote letters after this manner, etc. and namely to the brethren that were in Syria and Cilicia, of whom you speak? But all is one: any thing will serve the turn to tell them that will never search whether you lie or not. With as much discretion and fidelity doth he allege the other places which follow. Paul chargeth his Disciple Timothy 
r 1. Tim. 6. 20.  to keep the depositum, that is, saith he, the whole Christian doctrine delivered unto him by word of mouth, as the best Authors take it. But who are those best Authors, that so take it? Forsooth, Doctor Allen and the rest of his Rhemish Masters; for other he can name none: we should certainly have heard of them if he could. Again, Paul saith to Timothy, 
s 2. Tim. 2. 2.  Commend to faithful men the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses. Was not this, saith he, to preach such doctrine as he had received by Apostolic Tradition without writing? No, M. Bishop, there is no necessity to take it so. He received the doctrine of the Gospel by the preaching of the Apostle, but it doth not follow, that therefore he received it not in writing, yea the Apostle even there telleth him as I have before alleged, 
t 2. Tim. 3. 15.  The Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ jesus. To answer him in a word as touching that depositum, and the things which Timothy had heard of Paul, he himself will not doubt, but that those things which are written do appertain thereto. The words then having a necessary construction of those things that are written, how will he make it appear to us, that they have further reference also to some things that are not written? They must perforce grant that a great part of those things is written, and how do they prove that not the whole? The same do I answer him, and have answered him before, concerning the words which he citeth to the Thessalonians: 
u 2. Thess. 2. 15.  Hold the Traditions (the things delivered unto you) which you have learned, whether by word, or by our Epistle. He calleth Traditions those things which he had written to them in that Epistle. He had not set down in that Epistle all the doctrine of the Gospel, which is contained in other Scriptures, which all notwithstanding he had by word preached unto them. He willeth them therefore to hold fast, both the things which he had written to them in his Epistle, and all the things which he had preached unto them, which are written otherwhere, this we are sure of; but how may we be sure, that he meant to commend to them the holding fast of those doctrines, which are neither written in that Epistle nor otherwhere? Surely, if the words may have a sufficient meaning, being understood of those things which are written, though not in that Epistle, yet in other either Gospels or Epistles, then vainly are they alleged as a necessary proof, for receiving of doctrines which are not written any where. And therefore whereas M. Bishop inferreth; You see that some Traditions went by word of mouth, from hand to hand, aswell as some others were written, he showeth that he himself seethe not what he saith, because the place proveth only that the Apostle wrote not all in the Epistle whereof he speaketh, but that all otherwise is not written, it proveth not, and that all is written that is necessary to eternal life, I have before sufficiently proved out of the very doctrine itself of the ancient Roman Church. Now therefore it is neither ignorance nor insolency, nor impudence in me, to say that the Apostle saith nothing for Popish Traditions, but it is M. Bishop's treachery, to bring texts to that purpose, to deceive thereby simple men, when as they have plain and clear construction otherwise.    

W. BISHOP. §. 9  
I Can (were it not to avoid tediousness) add the like confirmation of most controversies, out of the same blessed Apostle; as that the Church is the pillar and 
1. Tim. 3. ver. 15.  ground of truth: wherefore any man may most assuredly repose his faith upon her declaration. That Christ gave Pastors and Doctors to the edifying of that his mystical 
Ephes. 4. verse 11. & 13.  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 that Priests are chosen from 
Hebr. 5. vers. 1.  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 Priests are 
1. Cor. 3. vers. 9  Gods coadjutors and helpers, and not only idle instruments. That S. Paul and Timothy did save other 
1. Cor. 9 ver. 23.  men, and therefore no blasphemy to pray to Saints, to help and save us. That S. Paul did accomplish those 
1. Tim. 4. v. 16.  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 gloried in preaching the Gospel of free cost, 
* Coloss. 1. v. 24.  which was a work of supererogation. That 
a Ephes. 5 v. 32.  Marriage 
1. Cor. 9 ver. 16.  is a great Sacrament. That 
b 1. Tim. 4. v. 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 and defence of the Roman faith. This (I doubt not) will suffice to confront his shameless impudence, that blusheth 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: Ho● si 
Lib: 1. cont. Adimant.  imprudens fecit, nihil caecius; si autem sciens, nihil sceleratius: If M. Abbot did ignorantly affirm Saint 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.  

R. ABBOT.  
Mark here, I pray thee, gentle Reader, how warily M. Bishop speaketh. He saith that he could in most controversies add the like confirmation, willing hereby to have thee understand, that as all his confirmations hitherto have been nothing worth, so all the rest should be stark nought. And that thou mayest believe him herein, he taketh course presently to give thee assurance of it. St. Paul saith, 
a 1. Tim. ●. 15.  The Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Wherefore any man, saith he, may most assuredly repose his faith upon her declaration. Well; but ask him hereupon, Why then do not you, M. Bishop, repose your faith upon the declaration of the Church of England? Not so, will he say; for this is the proper privilege and prerogative of the Church of Rome. Wisdom, and how cometh this to be proper to the Church of Rome? Doth your book tell you so? Do you not see that the Apostle useth those words, namely of the Church of Ephesus, where Timothy was Bishop, and therefore leaveth them appliable in the like sort to every particular Church, and therefore as well to the Church of England, as to the Church of Rome? And what exception hath he to the contrary, but that as the Church of the living God hath been from the beginning of the world, so it hath been from the beginning of the world the pillar and ground of truth? and can he make it good that there hath been from the beginning a Church privileged, thereby from being led into error, that all men might always infallibly rest themselves upon the sentence of that Church? If not, how can he upon this ground conclude that now, which was not then, and what he cannot find to have been in the Church of Jerusalem, what likelihood is there, that it should be now found in the Church of Rome? But it hath been sufficiently declared before, that 
b Part. 3. Confutation of Doctor Bishops Answer to Master Perk●ns Advertisement, etc. sect. 2.  to be the pillar and ground of truth, is the common duty of every Church, not any prerogative of the Roman Church, and noteth what the Church always by calling aught to be, not what in act and performance it always is. Therefore this first confirmation of M. Bishops is but a paper shot; it maketh a great noise, but woundeth not. The second is like the first. 
c Ephes 4. 11.  Christ gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, and Doctors, for the gathering together of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, and for the edification of the body of Christ, till we all meet together in the unity of faith, and knowledge of the son of God, etc. Hence he inferreth thus; therefore the Church shall not fail in faith, until the day of judgement, nor be invisible that hath visible Pastors and Teachers. Urge him here a little further as touching this not sailing in faith, and thou shalt see how he will go from the Church to the Church of Rome, and from the Church of Rome to the general Council, and from the general Council to the Pope, and all both Pastors, and Doctors, and Church, and Council, serve but for a saddle whereon the Pope rideth in his royalty, saying as a Council of old upbraided him, 
d Avent. Annal. l. 7. In cuius fronte nomen contumeliae scriptum est; Deus sum, errare non possum. Synod. Reginoburg.  I am God and cannot err. They rest the privilege of not erring in the Pope, and may we not think this text well alleged, to prove that the Pope cannot err, who is in truth neither Pastor nor Doctor, but a Hireling and a Thief? The words of the Apostle serve to instruct us that Christ jesus being ascended up on high, provideth for his Church, raising up Pastors and Doctors, for the ends which he there expresseth, but he doth not say that Pastors and Doctors are always answerable to those ends. God gave the Priests and Levites for the like blessing unto Israel, and it was said of them, 
e Deut. 33. 10.  They shall teach jacob thy judgements, and Israel thy law. And yet there was a time when it was said of them, 
f jerem. 2. 8.  The Priests said not, Where is the Lord? and they that should minister the law knew me not: the Pastors offended against me, and the Prophets prophesied in Baal, and went after things that did not profit. And again, 
g Malach. 2. 7.  The Priest's lips should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts; but ye are gone out of the way; ye have caused many to fall by the law, etc. And again, 
h Os● 9 8.  The watchman of Ephraim should be with my God, but the Prophet is the snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God. And is it not so also many times in the state of the Church of Christ? Is it not so often times that they whom he hath given for Pastors and Doctors to his Church, become 
i Apoc. 6. 13.  stars fallen from heaven to earth, void of true light themselves, and therefore giving no light to others? Have there not been infinite complaints hereof in the Church of Rome, of the negligence and ignorance, and inability of them, who have sitten in place of Pastors and Doctors in the Church? Did M. Bishop never read in Matthew Paris, an Epistle devised as sent from hell, 
k Math. Paris. in Wil Conq. Satanas & omne contubernium infernorum omni Ecclesiastico coetui gratias e●●sit quòd cum in nullo voluptatibus suis deessent tantum numerum subditarum sibi animarum suae praedicationis incuria paterentur ad inferna descendere quantum secula nunquam retroacta viderunt.  wherein Satan and all the company of hell, did send thanks to the whole Ecclesiastical order, for that whereas in nothing they were wanting to their own pleasures, they suffered by their neglect of preaching such a great number of souls under them, to go to hell, as no ages past had seen the like. Was there in this mean time no failing in faith, when Clemangis, as Espencaeus witnesseth, complaining of the want of the knowledge, and reading of God's word, said, 
l Claud Espenc. Digress. in 1. Tim. l. 1. c. 11. Vbi id nec legitur, nec auditur, fidem perire & labefactari necesse est, ut hody, proh dolour, omnibus ferè locis cernimus ut ad tempora propinquare videamus, de quibus Dominus, putas filius hominis, etc. ex Clemang.  Where the word of God is neither read nor heard, needs must faith perish and decay, as now a days, alas, in all places almost we see, so as that we see, it approacheth to the times, whereof our Saviour saith, Think ye when the son of man cometh, he shall find faith upon the earth? or when things 
m Ibid. ex Agobert. Antiphonarium correximus, amputatis quae superflua, levia, falsa, blasphema, ridicula, phantastica videbantur.  false, blasphemous, ridiculous, 
n Pius 5. Offic. Beat. Mar. in Princip. Huiusmodi ferè omnia officia vanis superstitionum erroribus reserta.  erroneous, superstitious, were brought into the service of the Church, and 
o Li●dan. apud Espenc. ut supra. Preces secretae mendis turpissimis conspurcatae.  the prayers thereof were filthily corrupted? or when 
p Cor. Agripp. de vanit. scient. cap. 17. hody tanta in Ecclesijs Musicae licentia est, ut ●●●am unà cum Missae ipsius Canone obscoenae quaeque cantiunculae interim in organis par●s vices habeant.  filthy songs had equal place or course with the Canon of the Mass? And what? will not M. Bishop say as all his fellows do, that the Pastors and Doctors of all the Eastern parts have gone astray? will he not acknowledge that all those Churches have failed in faith? What is become of the Church of Ephesus, to which the Apostle wrote these words now in question? What of the Church of Corinth, of Colosse, of Thessalonica, and the rest? If this, the truth of the Apostles words reserved, might befall to them, what saith he for other Churches, more than he doth for them? If M. Bishop will say that the words have some special reference to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church of Rome, we hold him a most ridiculous man, that taketh upon him to see, that which amongst so many ancient interpreters of the place, never any man saw before him. Once again I say that Christ hath given Pastors and Doctors to his Church, as of old, 
q Ezech. 3. 17. & 33. 7.  he gave watchmen to the house of Israel. He hath prescribed them their office and duty, and appointed the work that they shall do. When they perform their duty faithfully and carefully, they are the salvation of the people, and bring many unto glory. But if they neglect their duty, and leave the work of God undone, the people perish under them, and they become guilty of their destruction. And thus it befalleth often in the public state of the Church, even to the ruin thereof, that thieves and robbers thrust themselves, or creep by stealth into the places of Pastors, who sometimes cannot, sometimes will not teach, and sometimes teach error and lies, in steed of truth, whilst they measure their teaching by 
r Tit. 1. 11.  filthy lucre, and by 
s Rom. 16. 18. Thil. 3. 19  serving their bellies, in steed of serving jesus Christ. The Apostle doth not say they cannot err: he doth not say that the Church under them cannot fail in faith. Only God amidst all ruins and desolations provideth for his Elect▪ and in the want and default of ordinary Pastors, raiseth up other spirits, and useth other means, for the effecting of his good purpose concerning them, so guiding them, not as that they never err in faith (they err often grievously, and are misled with the customs and superstitions of their times) but so as that they never err finally as touching any truth, the knowledge and faith whereof he hath made necessary to eternal life. Now whereas M. Bishop concludeth out of the same place, that the Church shall never be invisible, as which hath always visible Pastors and Teachers, he therein showeth his absurd looseness and carelessness of arguing, because though the Apostle affirm Pastors and Teachers in the Church, yet he doth not so much as intimate any way, that they are always visible. What is there in the Apostles words, whence he should in any sort gather, that there is a perpetual visible state and succession of Pastors and Teachers? Be it that there is a perpetuity of succession to be gathered from hence, yet it doth not follow that there is a perpetual visibility thereof. It is enough here thus to reject him as an idle Sophister, and indeed not worthy of so much as the name of a Sophister, that will bring a conclusion there where he hath no sl●ew of footing for it; otherwise of the visibility or invisibility of the Church, I have spoken sufficiently 
t Part. 3. Answer to Doct. Bishop's Preface, sect. 17. and Confutat. of his Answer to M. Perkins Advertisement. sect. 6.  otherwhere, and it were too long to dispute here. His next matter is a bare recital of a text without any collection made therefrom, imagining in his blind understanding, that it is a plain assertion of that that he would prove by it. He maketh St. Paul to say, 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. Where it is first to be noted how to serve his own turn, he falsifieth the Apostles text, and readeth, Priests are chosen from amongst men, for that the Apostle saith, Every high Priest is chosen from amongst men. By saying Priests, ho would extend the words as to be understood of their Popish Priesthood in the Gospel, whereas the Apostle by naming a high Priest, appropriateth his words to Aaron's Priesthood in the law. For even in the Popish Priesthood there is no high Priest, the power of sacrificing being indifferently common to them all, and no more belonging to Popes and Bishops, then to the meanest hedge-Priest or Curate in the world. Seeing then the Apostle speaketh of a Priesthood which admitteth a high Priest, which the Popish Priesthood doth not, certain it is, that the words can have no reference to Popish Priesthood. Therefore the Fathers universally apply this text, as the drift of the holy Ghost most plainly leadeth them, to the Levitical Priesthood only, neither did they ever dream of any evangelical Priesthood intended herein. Ambrose declareth the purpose of the Apostle to be this, 
u Ambros. in Heb. 5.  consueto Sacerdotum more qui in lege fuit, ad altius, id est, Christi sacerdotium eos perd●ceret qui adhuc infirmi fuerunt, & propterea modum carnalis Pontificis introducit.  that by the accustomed manner of the Priests in the law, he might bring them being weak, to the higher or more excellent Priesthood of Christ; therefore, saith he, doth he bring in or set down the manner or condition of the carnal high Priest. Theodoret saith, 
x Theodoret. ibid. Docens quòd etiam in lege non Angelus ut pro hominibus sacerdotio fungatur electus est, sed homo pro hominibus, etc. Haec dixit Apostolus non nobis Pontifi●atus regulas volens ostendere, sed ad dicendum de Pontificatu Domini viam muniens.  He teacheth that even in the law there was not an Angel chosen to execute the office of Priesthood for men, but a man was chosen for men, and, The Apostle, saith he, speaketh these things, not to set down rules of the high Priesthood, but to make way to the Priesthood of Christ. We see they both take the words as spoken of the Priests in the law, of the carnal high Priest and Priesthood, and to make way to the treaty of the Priesthood of Christ, and therefore not to be understood themselves of Christ's Priesthood, either executed by himself, or by him instituted, if there were any such, to be executed by men. But this appeareth more plainly by chrysostom, who saith, that 
y Chrysost. in Hebr. hom. 8. Vult ostendere beatus Paulus quàm multò melius sit testamentum h●c quàm vetus.  the Apostle here goeth about to show, that the new Testament is much better than the old. Where Theophylact saying the same, addeth further; 
z Theophyl. in Heb. 5. Vult arguere nowm vetere Testamentum longè esse praestantius, orditurque sacerdotalia munera ipsa confer, cum priscorum sacerdotum illorum, tum Christi, ostenditque maximum in modum excellere Christi sacerdotium.  He beginneth to compare the Priestly duties, both of those old Priests and of Christ, and showeth that the Priesthood of Christ doth most highly excel. Oecumenius goeth yet further, and particulateth the difference; 
a Oecumen▪ in Heb. 5. Vult hic osten. lere nonum testamentum praestantius esse veteri, & hoc intcrim facit velut ind●cta à sacerdotibus comparatione quòd illud quidem homines habuit sacerdotes, hoc autem Christum.  He goeth about to show, saith he, that the new Testament is more excellent than the old, and this he doth by bringing in a comparison of the Priests, that the old Testament hath men for Priests, but the new hath Christ. Now if there be here an intention of a comparison, betwixt the old Testament and the new, and the words cited by M. Bishop, belong to a part of the comparison, to set forth the Priesthood of the old, then doth he very absurdly apply them to an assertion of Priesthood in the new, and by taking away the distinction of the parts, doth utterly overthrow the whole comparison. Yea, and if one part of the difference betwixt the two Testaments, consist in this, as Oecumenius hence observeth, that in the old Testament men are Priests, then more absurdly doth M. Bishop deal, to force these words to the maintenance of their Popish Priesthood, whereby men are Priests in the new Testament, as well as in the old. But there is yet further proof that the words belong only to the Levitical Priesthood, in that he nameth it a Priesthood, appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, there being herein implied another difference, that in the old Testament the Priests offered gifts and sacrifices for sins, but in the new Testament, Christ our Priest offereth up himself. And this opposition Theophylact expresseth out of these words in question; 
b Theophyl. in. Heb. 5. Qui Patrem conciliandi gratia seipsum obtulit, a●ij verò alia quaeda, donum videlicet & sacrificium.  Christ, saith he, to reconcile us to his Father offered up himself, but the other offered other things, to wit, gifts and sacrifices. The same Primasius also setteth down from the same words, 
c Primas. ibid. Quod dicit, v● offeral dona & sacrificia, etc. illi pro suis delictis offerebant sacrificia, boves scilicet, arietes, hircos & caetera talia, Chrislus ve●● seipsum.  They offered for their sins sacrifices of Oxen, Rams, Goats, and such like, but Christ offered himself. If the words than have their understanding of a Priesthood; offering other sacrifices than Christ offereth, who hath offered up himself, and do import an opposition betwixt the Priesthood of Christ, and the jewish Priesthood, then can we not here understand M. Bishop's Priesthood, wherein they take upon them to offer the same that Christ offered, even Christ himself, and to be Priests of the same order as Christ is. Here than we see what conscience M. Bishop useth in the allegation of this text, for their Priesthood and Sacrifice of the Mass, when as it hath no affinity or agreement with it, but goeth wholly another way. Yea his iniquity, and the iniquity of his fellows in this behalf, is so much the greater, in that it being the Apostles drift in this Epistle, to exclude all Priesthood and Sacrifice for sin, save only the personal Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ only, they dare presume thus to wrest some sentences, spoken by the way of the jewish Priesthood in the law, as if they extended to another Massing Priesthood, to be continued in the Gospel. But against this their devised Priesthood, pretending daily to sacrifice Christ, when as it is no other, but a mere blasphemy, and derogation to the sacrifice of Christ, we are armed by that the Apostle telleth us, that 
d Heb. 7. 27.  Christ needeth not daily to offer up sacrifice, that 
e Heb. 9 25.  he is entered into heaven, not to offer himself often, because 
f Heb. 10. 14.  by one offering he hath made perfect for ever them that are sanctified, having thereby purchased 
g Mat. 26. 28.  remission of sins, and 
h Heb. 10. 18.  where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin. The words are plain, every eye may discern them, that because by Christ's once offering there is remission of sins, therefore there is now no more offering for sin, and therefore no Priesthood for that use. Howsoever therefore use and custom have brought the name of Priesthood into the language of the Church, yet as touching the propriety and truth thereof, we say as before with Cyril, 
i Cyril. ad Neslor. Epist. 10. Nec praeter ipsum alteri cuipiam homini sive sacerdotij nomen sive rem ipsam ascribimus.  We ascribe not the name of Priesthood, or the thing itself, to any other man, save to Christ, and therefore do wholly disclaim M. Bishop's Priesthood. To which notwithstanding to get some further colour, he falsifieth another text of the Apostle, as if it had been said; Priests are Gods coadintours and helpers, whereas the Apostle hath no name of Priests, nor any intendment at all of such Priests as M. Bishop speaketh of, but of Apostles, Preachers, and Ministers of the Gospel, he saith; 
k 1. Cor. 3. 9  We are Gods helpers, or labourers together with God. Now who denieth this? who saith that Preachers are only idle instruments, as he here objecteth? who doth not rather imagine that he is scant right, that maketh motion of such a causeless and idle quarrel? But much more may we think that his head stood awry in his next conclusion; That St. Pauld and Timothy did save other men; and therefore it is no blasphemy to pray to Saints to help and save us. For tell us M. Bishop, do not you tell your Disciples, that the end of your calling and travel is to save souls? Do not you bear them in hand that to save them, you adventure the loss of your own lives? And what? because you in your opinion do save them, must all men in your opinion also make prayers to you, to help and save them? or will you have men before due time to say. O St. William, help us, and save us? 
l jam. 5. 20.  He that converteth a sinner from going astray, saveth a soul from death, and doth it follow that thenceforth we must pray unto him, to help and save us? Yea many a time it cometh to pass, that he which thus saveth another, is found a reprobate himself, and doth it yet follow that we must pray to him? Paul and Timothy saved men as all Preachers do, by preaching the way of salvation, by 
m Acts 11. 14.  speaking the words unto them, by which they were saved. They saved them, to whom they preached; them to whom they preached not, they saved not, nor can be said to save us otherwise, then as God's instruments, they have left unto us in writing the word of the Gospel, by the faith whereof we obtain salvation. And doth it follow, that because they thus saved men when they were alive, therefore we must pray to them when they are dead? or because they saved men by their preaching when they were alive, must we pray to them to help us and save us by their merits and intercessions, now they are dead? or because Paul and Timothy saved men by their preaching, must we pray to our Lady, to holy Virgins, and other Women, that they will help us and save us, that preached not? What sharp eyesight do men get by being at Rome, that can look as far into a text as they do into a millstone, and can see more in it, than ever they thought of that were the writers of it? Can we doubt but that the Roman religion may be proved by Scripture, when as we see so pregnant places for the proof of it? or may we not rather think them besotted and bewitched, that rest their faith and salvation upon such proofs? The like faculty and dexterity we see in the next proof; St. Paul did 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. Of which place and his construction thereof I have 
n Of Satisfaction, sect. ●.  formerly said so much, and so plainly laid open his abuse of it, as that for very shame he should have for borne to apply it any more to that effect. There is no Father of the Church, no ancient writer that hath either so expounded the place, or affirmed the doctrine that they gather from it. It is a mere Antichristian devise, full of blasphemy and indignity to the Son of God, forged only for advantage of filthy lucre and gain, so that we may justly wonder that they dare thus wrist holy Scripture to the defence of it. But doth St. Paul say any thing there that soundeth for satisfaction? He telleth us that for the Church's sake he fulfilleth for his part, that which is wanting, or yet behind of the afflictions of Christ, but doth he any way import that this is to satisfy for sin, or to redeem the Church either from temporal or eternal punishment? The Father 
o Heb. 2. 10.  hath consecrated jesus the Prince of our salvation through afflictions. 
p Luke 24. 26.  It behoved him first to suffer, and so to enter into his glory. God then having 
q Rom 8. 29.  predestinated us to be made like unto the image of his son, it followeth, that 
r Vers. 17.  we must also suffer with him, that we also may be glorified with him. And because we are members of Christ, who hath made the Church 
s Ephes. 1. 23.  his body, and the fullness of himself, and hath called the whole, himself the head, and us the body, by the one name of 
t 1. Cor. 12. 12. Gal. 3. 16.  Christ, professing expressly, 
u M●●. 25. 4●, 45.  What ye have done to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me, therefore our afflictions and sufferings are called 
x 2. Cor. 1. 5.  the sufferings and afflictions of Christ, whero● therefore there shall be some what behind, and to which there shall be still somewhat wanting until the passions and sufferings of the whole body, even of all the elect, shall be accomplished and fulfilled. To St. Paul then it belonged, being a member of the body of Christ, to drink of this cup, and to be baptised with this baptism, but no otherwise did it belong to him, than it belongeth to all the faithful, neither doth he profess any thing here to be fulfilled by him, but what must successively, and in order be fulfilled by them all. Thus and no otherwise did Gregory Bishop of Rome understand the Apostles fulfilling of the remainder of the afflictions of Christ. 
y Gregor. Expo●t in 1 Reg. lib 4. cap 4. poop finem. No omnia nostra Christus explevit. Per crucem qui. dem suam omnes redemit, sed remansit ut qui redimi & cum eo regnore nititur crucifigatur. Ho● profectòre fiduum viderat qui dicebat, si compatimur, & conregnabimus; quasi dicot, Quod expl●uit Christus non valet, nisi ei qui id quod remansit adimplet. Hinc beatus Petrus Apostolis dicit, Christus passas est pro nobis, etc. H●nc Paulus ait● A●●mpleo ●a quae desunt p●sso● Christ●m co●pore meo  Christ, saith he, did not fulfil all that appertaineth to us. By his Cross indeed he redeemed all, but it remaineth that he that seeketh to be redeemed and to reign with him, must also be crucified. This, saith he, he saw to be remaining which said, If we suffer with him, we shall reign with him; as if he said, That which Christ fulfilled availeth not, but to him who fulfilleth that which yet remaineth. Hereof St. Peter saith; Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example that ye should follow his steps. Hereof St. Paul saith; I fulfil in my body those things which are yet wanting to the passion of Christ. He attributeth redemption which is the satisfaction for our sins, wholly to the Cross of Christ, but signifieth withal that God hath appointed, that they shall be joined with Christ, in 
z Phil. 3 10.  the fellowship of his afflictions, that shall be partakers of his redemption, and that this is the fulfilling of that that is wanting of the passions of Christ. Now whereas he saith that he doth this for the Church's sake, he meaneth no other thereby, then when he saith to the Corinthians; 
a 2. Cor. 12 15.  I will most gladly be bestowed for your souls, and to the Ephesians; 
b Ephes 3. ●.  I am a prisoner in the Lord for you Gentiles, and to the Philippians, 
c Phillip 2. 17.  I will gladly be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, and to Timothy; 
d 2. Tim. 2. 10.  I suffer all things for the elects sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ jesus with eternal glory. What; did he intent in all these places by his sufferings, to satisfy for their sins, or to purchase salvation for them? Nay, but to confirm and strengthen them in the faith of Christ, whereby they should attain forgiveness of sins and salvation; to encourage and comfort them, to bear the Cross of Christ, and to suffer in the same-sort, because that is our way to come to Christ, the Apostle adding immediately in the place to Timothy; 
e Vers. 11.  It is a true saying, that if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him; if we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him. To be short, to the same purpose St. john saith, 
f 1. john 3. 16.  Christ hath laid down his life for us; therefore ought we also to lay down our lives for the brethren, namely as St. Austin expoundeth it, 
g Aug. in joan. tract. 47. Sic & nos debemus ad ●dificandamplebem, ad fidem offerendam anima● pro fratribus ponere.  for the confirmation of the faith, for the edification of the people of Christ, and 
h Idem in 1. joan. tract. 5. Nolite dubitare m●ri pro confessione veritatis ut caeteri vos imitentur.  doubt not, saith he again, to die for the confession of the truth, that others may imitate and follow you. I do thee wrong, gentle Reader, to trouble thee here again with so long answer to these words; I refer thee to the place before quoted, where thou shalt find more large and full satisfaction concerning the same. M. Bishop addeth further, that Paul gloried in preaching the Gospel 
i 1. Cor. 9 15.  of free cost, which was a work of supererogation. Works of supererogation, they call those which have no commandment of God to bind us to the doing of them, but they are wholly subject to the election and will of man, adding great perfection to a man if he do them, but leaving him still in the state of justice and righteousness, though he do them not. But this work of the Apostle is not a work of that sort, because, as the case then stood, if he had done otherwise then he did, he had failed in his love to God, and in the care that he was to have of the success of the Gospel of Christ. It is true indeed, that 
k 1. Cor. 9 14.  the Lord hath ordained that they which preach the Gospel should line of the Gospel, and hath given them liberty and authority, to require and take a retribution of things, belonging to the use and necessity of this present life. But this, as all other, 
l 2. Cor 13. 10.  power is given of the Lord for edification, and not for destruction, and therefore where the use thereof standeth, not with edification, but tendeth rather to destruction, it concerneth a man in his duty of fidelity towards God, to for bear his liberty, and to abridge himself of claiming that which otherwise were lawful for him. And this was the Apostles case, who seeing that by his receiving maintenance of the Corinthians, he should grow obnoxious to the slander of the false Apostles, and that likely to prove to the great disadvantage of the Gospel of Christ, chose rather to supply his wants by the labour of his hands, and by the benevolence of other Churches, and so to preach the Gospel without being chargeable unto them, that so there might be no let to the passage of it. All this the Apostle himself signifieth, when he saith in the place cited, 
m 1. Cor. 9 12.  We have not used this power, but do suffer all things, that we should not hinder the Gospel of Christ; that is, saith Primasius, 
n Primas. in 1. Cor. 9 Ne illi quibus Euangelizamus per not offendant, adversarijs accepta occasione devorantibus. Sic Hi●. ron. ibid.  that they to whom we preach offend not by our means, whilst the adversaries hereby take occasion to devour them. And again: 
o Vers. 18.  I make the Gospel of Christ free from cost, that I abuse not mine authority in the Gospel. Had it been no fault to abuse his authority in the Gospel? Had it been no fault to hinder the Gospel of Christ, when it lay in his power, though with some wrong to himself, to do otherwise? If this could not be without fault, than the Apostles preaching the Gospel of free cost, was here a necessary duty, neither could he in this case otherwise do without breach of that trust, that was committed unto him by jesus Christ. The application that St. Ambrose maketh of this example, cleareth the matter very fully; 
p Ambros. in 1. Cor. 9 Forma vult esse caeteris, ut ubi vident non expedire, etiam licitis non utantur; si quo minu●, de licit● fient rei quod sic sumunt ut ad detrimentum proficiat.  The Apostle, saith he, will be an example to others, to forbear the use of things lawful, where they see the same not to be expedient, or if not, even by that that is lawful they become offenders by taking the same so as groweth to detriment and hurt. He alludeth to that, which the same Apostle saith in another place, 
q 1. Cor. 10. 23.  All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not, giving to understand that things absolutely lawful, when by a circumstance or upon occasion they fall out not to be expedient, become thereby so far forth unlawful. And 
r August. de adulterin coniug. lib. 1. c. 18. Tunc non ex●edit, id quod licitum est quando permittitur quidem, sed usus ipsius potestatisali●s affert impedinentum salutis.  then, saith Austin, is that not expedient which is lawful when it is permitted or left to our power, but the use of this power causeth to others a hindrance of salvation. In which case to relinquish our power, and to remit our liberty of things lawful, is not a work of supererogation, but a duty of charity, which 
s 1. Cor. 13. 5.  seeketh not her own only, but regardeth what may stand with the profit and salvation of our brethren. Neither is there only herein an office or duty of charity towards men, but also towards God; who requiring us 
t Luke. 10. 27.  to love him with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, with all our strength, bindeth us thereby to use all our power, and to apprehend and entertain all means and occasions to further and advance the glory of God. 
u Leo in jejune. sept. mens. ser. 5.. ● In nullo nos. vult ab amoris suivinculis relaxari.  In nothing, saith he, will he have us to be released from the bonds of his love; 
x Greg. Mor. l. 10. c. 4.  qui perf●ctè D●o placere▪ d●sideret, sibi de se ●ihil relinqua●.  He will have a man, saith Gregory, leave himself nothing of himself. The Apostle therefore in preaching the Gospel to the Corinthians of free cost, though he omitted therein a liberty which God by special provision and ordinance hath yielded in that case, yet the occasion weighed where he did it, he did no more than in generality of duty God requireth and commandeth, who will have his favours so to be a commodity unto us, as that they be no wrong to him, and our liberty so to be urged and used, as may stand with charity, that it be not a snare to our brethren, or a wound to them whom we should seek to heal. M. Bishop therefore is yet to seek for his works of supererogation: St. Paul will yield him no help for them; and a simple man would I hold him for alleging this text for the proof thereof, but that I know he is tied to go that way, that other Roman Hackneiss have gone before him. Next, and for conclusion, he cometh to the Sacraments, and although he cannot bring colour for their whole five superadded Sacraments, yet he showeth his good will, by alleging somewhat for two of them, but still hath ill hap and cometh too short of the mark that he aimeth at. For marriage he allegeth the words of St. Paul, as commonly they do, 
y Ephes. 5. 32.  This is a great Sacrament. Sacrament, say they, out of their vulgar Latin, whereas considering the use of the word Sacrament that now is, they should rather say mystery or secret as we do. Albeit if the very word Sacrament in their vulgar translation, be sufficient to prove a Sacrament in that sense, wherein the number of Sacraments is questioned betwixt us and them, they may tell us of a greater number than now they do, and add 
z Ephes. 1. 9  the Sacrament of the will of God; 
a Ephes. ●. 9  the Sacrament hidden from the ages past; 
b 1. Tim. 3. 16.  the Sacrament of Godliness; 
c Apoc. 1. 20.  the Sacrament of seven Stars; 
d Apoc. 17. 7.  the Sacrament of the woman sitting upon the Beast, and sundry other, of which their interpreter useth the word Sacrament, as well as he doth concerning Marriage. But the Masters of Rheims acquit themselves in this behalf, affirming that 
e Rhem. Testam. Annot. Ephes. 5. 32.  they do not gather this only of the word Mystery in Greek, or Sacrament in Latin, both which, they say, they know have a more general signification, and that in the Scriptures also, which being so, how idly doth M. Bishop deal, only to bring us the very word for proof, that Matrimony is one of the Sacraments, properly so called of the grace of Christ. But the greater is his fault, and the fault of his fellows also, in drawing this text to that purpose, inasmuch as the Apostle expressly declareth, that the mystery or secret, which he intendeth, is concerning Christ and his Church. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and his Church; that is, saith Hierome, in his lesser Commentary, 
f Hieron. in Ephes. 5. Ego hoc, inquit, in Christo intelligendum dico & in Ecclesia.  I say that this is to be understood in Christ and in the Church. And thus Leo Bishop of Rome wholly understandeth it, saying, 
g Leo Epist. 22. Quicunque in Christo non confitetur corpus humanum, noverit se mysterio incarnationis indignum, nec eius Sacramenti habere consortium, quod Apostolus praedicat dicens, Quia membra sumus corporis eius, etc. Et expone●s quid per hoc significaretur adiecit, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo & in Ecclesia.  Whosoever confesseth not in Christ an human body, let him know himself unworthy of the mystery of the incarnation, and that he hath no participation or fellowship of that Sacrament, whereof the Apostle speaketh, saying, for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones; for this shall a man leave Father, and Mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh, and expounding what was signified hereby, he addeth, This is a great Sacrament; but I speak of Christ and of the Church. He useth the word Sacrament, as the Latin Fathers commonly do, as it extendeth to all things that are mystical and spiritual; but as touching the place, is so far from conceiving Marriage, here intended to be made a Sacrament, as that he referreth the Sacrament or secret here spoken of, altogether to the mystery of the incarnation, and the spiritual conjunction, and union betwixt Christ and his Church. To the very same effect speaketh St. Austin, and much more to the purpose, because he toucheth the very point in hand; 
h August. in joan. Tract. 9 Illud unum quatum mysterium de Christo continet quod praedicat Apostolus dicens; Et erunt duo in carne una, Sacramentum hoc magnum est. Et nequis istam magnitudinem Sacramenti in singulis quibusque hominibus uxores habentibus intelligeret, Ego a●tem dico in Christo, etc. Quod est hoc Sacramentum magnum, Erunt duo in carne una? Cum de Adam & Bua Scriptura Geneseos loqueretur, unde ventum est ad haec verba: Propterea ●●linquet homo patrem, etc.  That one thing which the Apostle mentioneth, saying; They two shall ●e one flesh, this is a great Sacrament, how great a mystery doth it contain concerning Christ? And that no man should understand this greatness of Sacrament in all men that have wives, he saith, But I speak of Christ and of the Church. What is this great Sacrament, saith he, They two shall be one flesh? Marry, when the Scripture of Genesis spoke that whence it proceedeth to those words, for this cause shall a man leave Father and Mother, etc. In which words we see that St. Austin is so far from M. Bishops Popish construction and application of this Text, as that he plainly denieth the matter of Sacrament here spoken of, to appertain to the common Marriage of Men and Women, and referreth the same wholly unto Christ and his Church, figured and resembled in our first Parents Adam and Eve, and that in some things proper to them only. Hereto belongeth that which he saith; 
i Ibid. Paulò pòst. Dormit Adam ut fiat Eva; moritur Christus ut fiat Ecclesia. Dormienti Ad● fit Eva de latere, mortuo Christo lancea percutitur latus, ut pro●luant Sacramenta quibus formetur Ecclesia.  Adam sleepeth that Eve may be made; and that the Church may be made Christ dieth. Whilst Adam sleepeth Eve is made for him out of his side; and the side of Christ being now dead, is stricken through with a spear, that the Sacraments may issue forth, by which the Church is framed. Whereof Leo also addeth in the place before cited, 
k Leo ut supr. Quae de Sponsi ●arne prodijt quando ex latere crucifixi manante sanguine & aqua, Sacramentum redemptionis & regenerationis accepit.  The Church came out of the flesh of her Bridegroom, when blood and water issuing out of the side of him being Crucified, she received the Sacrament of redemption and regeneration. Where when they teach as the rest of the Fathers do, that the Sacraments of grace, whereby the Church is framed, issued after a sort out of the side of Christ, and do note, which of itself is plain, that two only Sacraments in water and blood issued out of the side of Christ, the Sacrament of regeneration in Baptism, and the Sacrament of redemption in the Lord's supper, they give us plainly to understand that there are only two Sacraments properly so called, which are the seals of grace, and of the righteousness of faith, and therefore that the Popish addition of five Sacraments, whereof they name Matrimony for one, is utterly to be exploded. And we may further question with them, as touching Marriage, namely, how it standeth, or with what reason that it should be with them a Sacrament, a holy institution, a sacred action, ministering grace of justification, and yet should withal in respect of their Clergy and Monkery be unholy and profane? Gregory of Valentia telleth us, and so doth Bellarmine, that 
l Gregor. de Valent. de coeli ba●t. cap. 5. Consuetudo con●ugalis etsi per se ipsa peccatum non sit, tamen turpitudinem q●anda atque pollutionem ex peccato p●ouenientem habet etc. Maioris sactitatis gradus decet cosqui sanct●ssimum sacrificiumtractat●●i sunt. Idem Bellar. l. de Cler. c. 19  the company of Man and Wife, though it be not sin in itself, yet hath a turpitude and pollution proceeding of sin, and that a greater degree of holiness becometh them, that are to meddle with the holy sacrifice. But how then doth another puney jesuit tell us, that 
m Answer to Bells challenge, art. 3. ch. 1. §. 9  lawful copulation is a good work, and giveth grace, and is meritorious, and impetratorious of God's favour and reward; yea, that it is the consummation of a Sacrament; for 
n Ibid. §. 8.  though Marriage have the essence, saith he, yet hath it not the perfection of a Sacrament before copulation: 
o Ibid. §. 10.  it beginneth to be a Sacrament by the mutual consent of the parties, but it is perfected by their copulation? What? is it a good work, sacramental, meritorious of grace and reward, and yet is there in it turpitude and pollution? Albeit we much more wonder, that thus affirming of conjugal copulation, they tell us notwithstanding, that 
p Coster. Enchir. cap. 15. Sacerdos si fornicetur aut domi co●cubinam fo●eat, etsi gravi sacrilegio s●se obstringat, gravius t●men peccat si contrahat matrimonium?  a Priest if he commit fornication, or keep a concubine at home, though he commit great sacrilege therein, yet sinneth more grievously if he marry a wife. What? is open sin more tolerable in their Priests, than a holy Sacrament? can Priesthood stand with fornication, and can it not stand with the meritorious and sacramental work of Marriage? have they been content in this behalf to wink at filthiness and uncleanness, and to give toleration of it, when they have in the mean time condemned the ordinance of God? May I not here say as Saluianus of old said; 
q Saluian. de provident. Dei lib. 5. Quid ag●s stulta persuasio? peccata interdixit Deus, non matrimonia.  What meanest thou, O fond conceit? God hath forbidden sins; he hath not forbidden Marriage. What, M. Bishop? is this your making of marriage a Sacrament? Give me leave to tell you as the truth is, the Devil himself, yea all the Devils in hell, could not devise to bring Gods holy institution into contempt, or to give way and furtherance to filthiness and uncleanness, more cunningly than you have done. Your next pretended proof is, that holy Orders is a Sacrament, because St. Paul saith, that grace was given to Timothy by the imposition of the hands of Priesthood. The words of the Apostle are; 
r 1. Tim. 4. 14.  Despise not the gift or grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery or Eldership. To which those other words are answerable, which he useth afterwards; 
s 2. Tim. 1. 6.  I put thee in remembrance to stir up the gift or grace that is in thee, by the putting on of my hands. Where we see well what the Apostle ●aith, but how M. Bishop should from hence conclude, that there is a Sacrament of Order, we cannot see. For as for the grace whereof the Apostle speaketh, it is manifest, that it is a grace or gift of calling and office, not any sacramental or justifying grace. So speaketh he otherwhere, 
t Rom. 12. 6.  seeing we have graces or gifts that are divers, according to the grace that is given unto us, whether prophesy, or office, or teaching, or exhorting, etc. so again, 
u Ephes. 4. 11.  Christ ascending gave gifts unto men, some Apostles▪ some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, and Teachers, signifying that he appointed these callings, and raised up men furnished with correspondent gifts and graces, for the edification of his Church. Of such gifts St. Peter exhorteth, 
x 1. Pet. 4. 10.  Let every man as he hath received the gift so minister the same one to another as good disposers of the manifold grace of God. Such a gift, such a grace Timothy had received, by being called to be an Evangelist, and endued with gifts of the holy Ghost, for the fulfilling of the work thereto belonging. Thus Theophylact expoundeth it; 
y Theophyl. in 1. Tim. c. 4. Doctrinae hoc loco gratiam dicit quam ille cum Episcopi munere fungeretur accepit.  He meaneth the grace of teaching which he received, when he should perform the office of a Bishop. So Primasius; 
z Primas. ibid. Negl●git gratiam qui acceptum talentum non exercet, etc. Cum ordinatione acceperat gratiam vel docendi vel intelligendi.  He neglecteth this grace who doth not exercise the talon which he hath received. Timothy with ordination received the grace either of teaching or understanding. In like sort Oecumenius; 
a Oecumen. ibid. Gratiam, hoc est, doctrinam vel Episcopi munus; nam gratiae Dei erat quòd juvenis meruisset Pastor fieri.  Grace, that is, doctrine or the office of a Bishop; for it was of the grace of God that he being young attained to be made a Pastor. Ambrose also speaketh to the same effect: 
b Ambros. ibid. Si rector popult ab his dissimulat, negligit gratiam d●tam sibi.  If the guide of the people fail to teach and exhort, he neglecteth the grace that is given to him. By all these it appeareth, that the grace here meant, is only a temporary gift, belonging to the exercise of a function in the Church given in those times miraculously, and in extraordinary wise, so as that the same was sensibly apprehended, as appeareth by that that is said of Simon Magus, that 
c Acts 8. 18.  he saw that through laying on the Apostles hands, the holy Ghost was given, and is otherwise also plainly to be perceived. Very absurdly therefore doth M. Bishop apply this place to their Sacrament of Orders, where it is manifest that no such grace is given, yea and to prove it to be a Sacrament, because here is mention of grace given; whereas the grace of Sacraments is no temporary gift, but that invisible eternal grace of remission of sins, and sanctification of the holy Ghost, whereby the inner man is renewed from day to day, and the soul prepared and furnished unto eternal life. And thus we are come to an end of his proofs of their religion out of St. Paul's Epistles. He telleth us that he should be too long if he would prosecute all, but be thou assured, gentle Reader, that he hath made here as good choice of his proofs, as his wit would serve him, and thou seest what they are, and mayest by these esteem what all the rest would be, impertinent, idle, detorted, wrested, strained, carrying no show, no colour, when they are looked into of any such matter as he pretendeth. Albeit thou art also to remember that all this while he hath sitten beside the cushion, the thing propounded being that of Theodoret, that the Epistle to the Romans containeth in it all kind of doctrine; whence I inferred, that sith the doctrine of Popery teacheth so many things, whereof there is nothing to be found in the Epistle to the Romans, it cannot be that doctrine which was at first delivered to the Church of Rome. To this he should have directly answered, and have showed us that their Popery is to be proved by the Epistle to the Romans. But from this he stealeth away, and to daub up this breach as well as he can, he maketh a scambling shift out of the rest of the Epistles, and catcheth here and there a sentence, as much to the purpose as if he had said nothing. But the trimmest jest of all is his answer to that which I urged as touching St. Peter, whom they have made the founder and head of their Church, that it is strange that he should forget the triple crown; that he should say nothing for Popery, no not a word; that nothing hindereth in either of his Epistles, but that he must be taken for a Protestant. What doth M. Bishop say to this? Mark it well, gentle Reader, for it is a learned answer, and such as may give thee great satisfaction in the cause. As for St. Peter, saith he, I will wholly omit him, because the Protestants have no confidence in him. Where I may very well use the words of St. Austin, as touching the like dealing of Petilian the Donatist; 
d Aug. contlit. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 57 Videatis quàm invictè positum sit, contra quod ille nihil tutius invenire potuit qu●m silentium.  Mark how invincibly this is set down, against which he could find no way more safe then to say nothing. What? St. Peter to be theirs, so nearly, so entirely, and yet to say nothing for them? to be wholly the same that the Papists now are, and yet writing two Epistles, to write nothing tending thereto? to say nothing at all, but what we say? Look upon the Epistles which they attribute to the Bishops of Rome that succeeded, and what a work is there in them, concerning the exaltation of St. Peter, concerning the dignity and authority of the Church of Rome by him, over all other Churches? and what? is it not strange that St. Peter himself, if he had been of the same spirit, should say nothing thereof? nothing of all the religion which is now proper to the Church of Rome? nothing, but what wholly standeth with the Protestants religion? Will M. Bishop thus ridiculously babble that the Protestants have no confidence in St. Peter, when as he can allege nothing that St. Peter saith against them? or can we be persuaded that the Papists have any confidence in him, when as they can tell us nothing that he hath said for them? M. Bishop, you object to me in this matter shameless impudence, but I wish the Reader to consider by this answer of yours, to whom the title of shameless impudence doth most justly belong. As for your forked argument, I doubt not but you yourself see and know that I am out of the danger of it, but I fear that the one grain of it hath already given you a deadly wound. I am afraid that it will be found that you have wittingly and wilfully rebelled against God. I fear there is a sting in your conscience, pricking and vexing you day and night, which howsoever you for the present violently oppress, yet you are not able to pull out. Take heed and beware in time; if you do not glorify God by your conversion and confession of his truth, God will certainly glorify himself in your destruction.     
FINIS.   

Errata.  
PAge 18. line 24. so, read to. p. 19 l. 11., for all, r. for all, ibid. l. 33. you, r. your. p. 27. l. 11. accordeth, r. accorded. p. 28. l. 2. in mark scrip. sit. r. scripsit. p. 66. l. 19 in mark Part. 1. r. Chapt. 1. p. 144. l. 2. Achan, only, r Achan only. p. 179. l. 10. in mark cedite. r. incedite. p. 214. l. 33. these Kings? to whom have they, r. these Kings to whom they have. p. 245. l. 34. in mark creatum, quae, r. creatum secundum piam fidem, quae. p. 291. l. 21. they they, r. then they. p. 334. l. 19 widomes, r. widows. p. 363. l. 21. a matter, r. matters.