THE THIRD PART OF THE DEFENCE of the Reformed Catholic:  
Against DOCT. BISHOPS Second part of the Reformation of a Catholic, as the same was first guilefully published under that name, containing only a large and most malicious Preface to the Reader, and an Answer to M. PERKINS his Advertisement to Roman Catholics, etc.  
Whereunto is added An Advertisement for the time concerning the said DOCT. BISHOP'S Reproof, lately published against a little piece of the Answer to his Epistle to the King, with an Answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. higgon's lately become a Proselyte of the Church of Rome.  
By R. ABBOT Doctor of Divinity.  Cypr. l. 1. epist. 3. 
Haec est verè domentia, non cogitare nec scire quòd mendacia non diu fallant; noctem tamdiu esse quamdiu illucescat dies, etc.  
LONDINI Impensis GEORGII BISHOP. 1609.   

THE PREFACE to the Reader.  
GOOD Christian Reader, thou shalt understand, that until the greater part of this Book was printed, I thought I had given thee therein an answer to all that Doct. Bishop had published under the name of his Second part. But being at Southwell not long since to do my duty to the most Reverend Father, the L. Archbishop of York, his Gr. being pleased to use speech to me concerning a point in the said Second part, and showing me thereof the book itself, I perceived a defect in that that I had answered, finding there handled the other questions of the Reformed Catholic which he had left untouched in his former book, and whereof in the book which I had received, there was contained nothing. In turning the book I found a fault of the Print in the answer to the Advertisement, corrected in the end of the questions, whereby I presently perceived that he first printed his ungodly Preface here contained, and the said answer, & for some cunning device (what it might be I leave to thee to guess) did thus publish the beginning and end of the book, and left the middle part to be added at his pleasure afterward. As it first came forth, so I received it, inquiring after no more, because I thought I had received all, and knowing of no more, I have written to no more, and had I known of the rest before I had printed so much of this, I would have suppressed this till I had confuted that as I have done this. And hereby thou understandest the cause why I have in divers places of this book taxed M. 
Preface. sect. 22 pag. 190. Advert. sect. 1. pag. 193. etc.  Bishop for the omitting of those questions, because he himself had then divulged his book without them, neither had I heard that he had written any thing of them: which taxations though now I cannot alter, yet by this Preface I revoke, and do wish thee to pass them over, as if they were not there at all. Albeit where I might alter them I have so done, and therefore recalled from the Press the copy of my Preface and advertisement here adioyved, wherein I had further noted that omission; by means whereof, and for the adding of an answer to some few exceptions taken against me by M. higgon's, lately revolted from us, so soon as I could get the sight thereof, this book hath been somewhat longer in coming forth than otherwise it should have been. To which, being, though not by my default, thus maimed and unperfect, I have done some disgrace by withdrawing from it the Dedication which I had intended; being notwithstanding, good Reader, to entreat thy gentle patience to take this in good part, till God shall give me opportunity hereafter to add the rest. Hereafter I say, because it shall first be necessary for me to return a Counterproofe to Doct. Bishop's Reproof, lately published against a little piece of my answer to his Epistle. Concerning which work of his, (being such as I presume will in the end make him odious and hateful to all men that will take knowledge of it) I have here added some advertisement for the time, and given an answer to his Preface, wherein he hath taken upon him to have said so much as may suffice to discredit me with all indifferent men, that whereas it will require some longer time to examine his Reproof in that sort as I intent it, I may notwithstanding in the mean time somewhat abate the edge, and remove the scandal of it, whilst by discovery of some of his jugglings (if at least being so gross and palpable, they deserve to be called jugglings) the Reader shall be able to conceive what he is in all the rest. I will here amplify nothing further, but refer thee to those observations that I have given thee thereof. God give his blessing both to my writing and to thy reading, that we may both grow in hatred of Antichristian error, and in the knowledge and love of the truth of God.  
Thine in the Lord R. ABBOT.   

THE ANSWER TO Doctor BISHOP'S Preface to his second part of the Reformation of a Catholic, etc.  

1. W. BISHOP.  
CHristian Reader, I suppose it shall please thee better, if I do entertain thy studious mind with some serious discourse, than if I went about to court it, with the ordinary compliments of a curious preamble. Wherefore I purpose (by thy gentle patience) to handle here a matter of marvelous great importance, which M. PERK. towards the latter end of his book, layeth out against us in manner of a most grievous complaint: it is, that we Catholics, among many other capital crimes by us (as he fableth) defended, do bolster and uphold the most heinous sin of Atheism. The man is not a little troubled to devise wherein we do maintain any such point of impiety: For, compelled by the clear evidence of truth, he confessed that we do rightly acknowledge the unity of the Godhead in the Trinity of persons: yet that he may seem to say something therein against us, he flieth unto the threadbare rags of their common slanders of man's merits and satisfactions, and such old stuff: and stretching them on the tenterhooks, yet one nail further than his fellows, striveth to draw out of them a certain strange kind of Atheism, in this manner: The Roman religion makes the merit of the works of men, 
Rom. 11.6.  to concur with the grace of God, therefore it overthrows the grace of God. Item, they acknowledge the infinite justice and mercy of God, but by consequence both are denied: for how can that be infinite justice, which may any way be appeased by human satisfaction? And how shall God's mercy be infinite, when we by our own satisfactions must add a supply to the satisfaction of Christ? There needs apretie wit (I ween) to understand how these points appertain to Atheism. For suppose that we defended, that the merit of the works of man concurred with God's grace, as two distinct agents, which we do not; for we hold that no works of man have any merit, unless they spring and proceed from the very grace of God: but let that be granted, what kind of Atheism or denying of God were this? or how followeth it thereof, that the grace of God (which is the principal agent, and far more potent than the other) must thereby needs be cast to the ground and foiled? this is so silly & simple, that I know not what to term it: for he doth untruly slander our doctrine, and that to no end and purpose. To this second cavil I answer in a word, that we teach (as he knoweth right well) the infinite justice of God to be appeased no other way, than by the infinite satisfaction of Christ's passion: And that our satisfactions are only to pay for the temporal pains remaining yet due after the infinite are paid for by Christ. Now whether any such temporal pa●ne remain or no, after the sin is remitted, is a question between us: but to say (as M. PER. doth) that we be Atheists, and do deny God to be God, for that we hold some temporal punishment of man to be due, after pardon granted of his greater pain, is most apparently a very senseless assertion. As wide from all reason is his third instance: That God's mercy cannot be infinite, when by our own satisfactions we add a supply to the satisfaction of Christ. For if Christ's most perfect and full satisfaction, can well stand with God's infinite mercy: far more easily may man's satisfactions agree with it, which are infinitely less than Christ's. But the infinite riches of God's mercy appeareth especially, in that it pleased him freely to give unto us (so mean creatures and wretched sinners) his own only dear Son, to be our Redeemer and Saviour; and both Christ's satisfaction and ours are rather to be referred unto God's justice, than to his mercy: wherefore very unskilfully doth M. PERK. compare them with God's mercy. Neither is it possible to distill any quintessence of Atheism out of it, more than out of the former: nay, they both uprightly weighed, are so far off from Atheism, or derogating any thing from God's glory; that they do much magnify and advance the same. For albeit we hold our good works to be both meritorious and satisfactory: yet do we teach the virtue, value, and estimation of them, to proceed wholly from the grace of God in us, whereby we be enabled and helped to do them; and not any part of the dignity and worthiness of the works, to issue from the natural faculty or industry of the man that doth them. So that when we maintain the merit or satisfaction of good works, we extol not the nature of man, but do only defend and uphold the dignity and virtue of God's grace: which Protestants do greatly debase, extenuate, and vilify, not allowing it to be sufficient to help the best minded man in the world, to do any work that doth not offend God mortally. Thus much concerning our supposed Atheism against God: now of those that be (as he imagineth) against Christ the Son of God.   

R. ABBOT.  
MAster Bishop here promiseth us a serious discourse, but it proveth in fine to a lewd and slanderous libel; which, though he court it not, as he trimly and finely telleth us, with the ordinary compliments of a curious preamble, yet he foully corrupteth with the ordinary Popish compliments of foolish malice and wilful fraud. A man may here see in him the true Image and picture of a Popish Doctor, who seeing himself unable to contend further by sound argument, to make his part good, betaketh himself to this impudency and importunity of lying and slandering. Albeit in the first part thereof as touching his main drift I will not at all repugn him, the same serving to clear them of an imputation of Atheism, charged upon them by M. Perkins, but indeed amiss, as I cannot but ingeniously and freely confess, because it is conceived and drawn from forced and impertinent grounds, and therefore breedeth rather cavillation against him, than accusation against them. The crime of Atheism belongeth properly to them with whom God is either not at all acknowledged, 
Atheism in what sort to be imputed to Popery.  or not regarded, and either wholly denied to be, or accordingly esteemed as if he were not. But where there is 
a Rom. 10.2.  the zeal of God though not according to knowledge, howsoever by want of knowledge there may be misconceits of God and godliness, yet Atheism is not to be upbraided there. It is true indeed, as M. Perkins saith, that Atheism is either open or coloured, but coloured Atheism must be the same in the heart, that professed Atheism is in the mouth, so to be affected as if there were no God. And this covert and coloured Atheism is it which the Scripture for the most part speaketh of, whereby 
b Psal. 14.1.  the fool saith, not with his tongue, but in his heart, There is no God; it being a thing very rare that any man so professeth with the mouth, but very common with men 
c Tit. 1.16.  to profess that they know God, but by their deeds to deny him 
d Cyprian. de dupl. martyr. Quemadmodum bona opera profitentur deum; ita mala qu●dammodo loquuntur Non est deus, nee est Scientia in excelso.  for naughty doings, as Cyprian teacheth, do after a sort say, There is no God, nor any knowledge in the most high. Now in Popery we cannot doubt but that many there are who in simplicity professing the errors and superstitions alleged by M. Perkins, have notwithstanding in that ignorance a zeal of God, and an intendment of devotion to jesus Christ, and are so far from denying God, as that in dread of the Majesty of God, and in expectation of the judgement to come, they are careful, according to their manner, religiously to serve him. To these men then to impute Atheism, by a consequence so far fetched, as bringeth all misdeeming of religion within the compass thereof, I confess, stood not with that advisedness and due consideration which had been requisite in a matter of so great moment and effect. Much rather should M. Perkins have sought for Atheism in the practice and policy of them who have been and are the maintainers of that Roman Hierarchy; who making gain and advantage of the superstitions, wherewith they have entangled the souls of men, and resolving by all means to uphold their trade, have in this employment quenched in themselves all inward light and sense of religion, sometimes openly professing, and sometimes covertly dissembling their denial and contempt of God, and impious conceit of the nullity of all the service and devotion that is done unto him. Whereof we have notable example in their 
e See the Beehive of the Romish Church; the sixth book; the third Chapter.  Popes, of which divers have openly showed themselves to be mere Atheists, as Boniface the eight, and john the three and twentieth, who both denied the immortality of the soul; as Clement the seventh, who lying at the point of death confessed that all his life he had doubted of three things, whereof now he should be resolved; whether there were a God; whether the soul be immortal; and whether there be any life after this life: as julius the third, who commanded to bring him his Pork in despite of God: as Leo the tenth, who made but a fable and a toy of all that we believe concerning Christ. Many other of them have there been of the same stamp, most damnable villains, the very monsters of mankind, utterly devoid of all remorse and conscience of piety towards God, and thereby given over to all dissoluteness and abomination of wicked and sinful life. From them, and their appendents hath this poison spread itself, not only into the whole Court and City of Rome, but into all Italy, insomuch that in the Italian tongue the name of 
f Hespinian. de Origine Monachatus lib. 6. c. 66.  a Christian is by custom grown to signify a fool. M. Bishop well knoweth what the curse of the Wolf is, a most horrible blasphemy there used, not fit for the mouth of any Christian to speak, or the pen of any Christian to write; to which though the Pope for his credit's sake, have of later time assigned some kind of punishment, yet well he woteth that it is more general than that his Law can work the restraint of it. Out of Italy, or at least from birds of the Pope's hatching, came the book De tribus mundi impostoribus, whereby Moses and Christ as well as Mahomet, are made but deluders and deceivers of the world. Out of Italy came Machiavels' precepts, whereby he hath taught men to cast off all yoke of religion, and to useit only to serve turn; which notwithstanding according to that conceit that he had of religion could say, that 
g Machiavelli. Disputat. de resubls. l. 1. c. 12. Nusquam m●nus vel pietatis vel religionis est quam in ijs hominibus qui Romae vicin●ores habitant.  there was no where less faith or piety, than in them that dwell nearest to Rome. Whose rules, as they are at this day the managing of the Papacy, and familiar to all states that are confederated therewith, so specially are they entertained and practised by the jesuits, who having taken away the honour from Friar Dominick, of being the pillar of the Lateran Church, and being become the special upholders of the declining kingdom of Antichrist, are discovered by the secular Priests, and namely by their Proctor Watson, to be very Atheists, not regarding religion at all, but only for a cloak to hide their villainies, and for the compassing of their wicked and ungodly designs. Thus Atheism, albeit it be not contained in the positive Doctrine of the Roman Church, yet becometh a sequel thereof whilst having no true grounds for the justifying of it, and therefore being driven to support itself by carnal policy, it begetteth in the Politicians that practise for it, a striving and fight against God, whereby religion is quite banished out of the heart, and only an outward colour remaineth for their maintenance of outward state. Now therefore I will not question them of Atheism upon M. Perkins grounds, but leaving his conclusion, will only examine so far as need requireth M. Bishops defence of the propositions, from which he draweth that conclusion, there being nothing here, but what either hath been before, or must afterwards be further spoken of. First M. 
Popery overthroweth the grace of God.  Perkins propoundeth that the Church of Rome making the merit of men's works, to concur with the grace of God, overthroweth the grace of God. Which to be true, appeareth by the words of the Apostle; who mentioning 
k Rom. 11 6.  the election of grace, inferreth thus; If it be of grace, it is not of works; otherwise grace is no grace: or if it be of works, it is not of grace, otherwise work is no work: importing plainly that grace and work cannot be so reconciled as that what is of grace may truly be said to be of works, or what is of works, may truly be said to be of grace. For grace as Hierome expoundeth it, importeth 
i Hieron. Rom. ca 11. Gratuitum munus appellatur.  a free gift; so that 
k Iden epist●ad V●metriad. uli gratià, non operum retributio, sed donatis est largitas.  where grace is, there is not rewarding of works, but largesse and bounty of gift: For 
l Leo epist. 84. Quae vt●que nisi ●atis detur non est gratia sed merces, retributi●o; merito●ū.  grace, saith Leo bishop of Rome, except it be freely given, is not grace, but the reward and recempense of merits or works; implying that if it be the reward of merits, than it is not freely given, and therefore cannot be calied grace. Therefore when the Apostle saith, 
m Rom. 6.23.  Eternal life is the grace (or gift) of God through jesus Christ our Lord, we must understand it according to the words of the Psalm; 
n Vulgat. Latin. Psal. 55.7.  Pro●ihilo saluos facies illos; Thou wilt save them for nothing; 
o ●●eion. ad P●●●g lib 2. Hand 〈◊〉 quio justos qui nou propr●●●cr●to sed de: salu●ntur clementia.  meaning the just, saith Hierome who art not saved by their own merit, but by the mercy of God. To this M. Bishop telleth us that they do not make the merit of man's work, and the grace of God two distinct agents, but hold that no works of man have any merit unless they proceed and prin● from the very grace of God. Where, not to question what he meaneth by giving the name of an agent to the merit of man's work, answer him to the rest, that his answer is unsefficient and vain, because the Apostle knew well that we have no works wherewith to move God, but only such as proceed from the grace of God; and yet resolveth that God's election if it be of works cannot be said to be of grace. Whencesoever the works proceed, this rule standeth still most firm and sure, that that cannot be said to be freely given and for nothing, that is repaid to the merit of works. But whilst they will have only works of nature excluded by the Apostles words, and not the works that are wrought by grace, they necessarily fall into the heresy of the Pelagians that the election of grace dependeth upon the foresight of those works which our free will should do by the help of grace. Which if they will not grant, as I trow they will not, they must perforce confess that the Apostle here excludeth not only works of nature but generally all works whatsoever. And the rather must they so confess that they may not make the Apostle speak so idly as by that construction he doth; If it be of grace, than it is not of works done without grace; and if it be of works done without grace, than it is not of grace; as if the Apostle had had to do with men who thought that by works of nature they had obtained the election of grace. Again that shift of theirs is so much the worse, for that the works of which M. Bishop speaketh are not totally the effects of grace, but arise in part from the free will of man. For although he tell us that grace is the principal and more potent, yet he will not grant us that it is the whole agent, which not being so, look what is attributed to the free will of man, falleth out to be the impeachment of the grace of God, so that eternal life being ascribed to our good works, shall not be ascribed wholly to grace, because those good works proceed not wholly from grace but partly from our own free will. Neither is he any whit helped by that whereon he insisteth again in the end of this division, that albeit the works be partly of our free will, yet the dignity and worthiness of the works ariseth wholly of the grace of God; for howsoever he wholly refer the dignity of works to grace going before, yet he thereby taketh away the nature of grace from that that followeth after, because the latter grace cannot be said to be freely given if it be due to the merit of any work that is gone before. Albeit the vain man should see that hereby he quite overthroweth all merit of man; because if the value and worth of the work grow wholly and only on God's part, then can it not be that man may be said to merit or deserve any thing thereby (for what should I deserve of God by that that is wholly Gods and none of mine?) or if man do truly merit, then doth not merit arise wholly from the grace of God.  
As touching the second point, whereas he saith the infinite justice of God is no other way appeased but by the infinite satisfaction of Christ, and yet that there are temporal punishments due beside for which we are afterwards to satisfy by ourselves, he ignorantly crosseth himself, and by one part of his speech giveth check to the other. For by what other justice of God do these temporal punishments fall upon us, but by his infinite justice? what are they else in their own proper nature but the first fruits of his eternal wrath and indignation against sin? And if there can no other be imagined but 
p See here of the question of satisfaction. sect. 3.  only his infinite justice from which they proceed, than it is not in us to pay satisfaction to God for them, because by M. Bishops own confession, the infinite justice of God is no other way to be appeased but by the infinite satisfaction of the blood of Christ. Now if he will say that finite and temporal effects cannot proceed from an infinite cause, he is controlled by the whole course of this world; because all the proprieties of God which are infinite as they are immanent in himself, yet in their transitive and foreign effects are stinted and limited to the model and state of the creature wherein the same effects are wrought.  
In the third point it appeareth that he understood not what M. Perkins said. God's infinite mercy showed itself in providing for us an infinite satisfaction in the person of jesus Christ, whereby to exhaust and empt the most bottomless depth of all our iniquity and sin. This the Scripture every where nameth as the effect of 
q joh. 3.16. Rom. 5.8. Eph. 2.4.  the love and mercy of God; and therefore M. Perkins did not amiss to refer it accordingly. Now M. Bishop, took it that M. Perkins had named God's mercy, as requiring satisfaction, not as providing and yielding the same to us in Christ: and therefore for an answer sendeth us a dream: that if Christ's infinite satisfaction may stand with the mercy of God, much more easily may ours. But let him consider better of the matter, and tell us at more leisure how the mercy of God can be said to be infinite in the satisfaction of Christ, if it be so limited and restrained as that in respect of temporal punishments, the same is wholly frustrate, and leaveth us still to make satisfaction for ourselves. If the satisfaction of Christ be infinite, it must necessarily be extended to all that is to be satisfied for. If it extend not to all that is to be satisfied for, it cannot be called an infinite satisfaction. But of this enough in the question of satisfaction.  
He goeth on and telleth us that their doctrine of merits and satisfactions is so far from Atheism, or derogating from God's glory, as that it doth much magnify and advance the same. Of Atheism I will say nothing; but it is untruth which he saith that their doctrine doth not derogate from the glory of God: and a greater untruth, that it doth magnify and advance the same. The glory of God appeareth not in the pride of our merits, but in the forgiveness of our sins. For howsoever he colour the matter in saying that the value and estimation, the dignity and worthiness of our merits and satisfactions ariseth wholly from the grace of God; yet manifest it is that there is still somewhat left for us to rejoice in, for that we by our free-will, as they teach, are the doers of the work. Therefore the Apostle saith, that 
r Rom. 3.27.  rejoicing or glorying is excluded, not by the Law of works, wherein we have our part, but by the Law of faith, whereby we believe that God doth all, according to his free promise for his own mercy's sake. So in another place, having said that 
f Eph. 2.5.6.  we are saved by grace through faith, not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, he addeth; not of works lest any man should boast: still importing that boasting cannot be excluded so long as the title of salvation is assigned to our works. Therefore God though he could have made us fully perfect, and wholly free from sin, yet chose rather, as S. Austin well noteth, 
t August. con. julian. Pelag. l. 4. c 3 Ideò factum est in loco infirmitatis huius ne superbè viveremus ut sub quotidiana peccatorum remissione vivamus.  that we should live under daily remission of sins, that we may not be proud: 
u Idem de spir. & lit. c. 36. ut etiam justorum emus os obstruatur in laud sua & non aperiatur nisi in laudem dei.  that every mouth of man may be stopped in their own praise, and may not be opened but to the praise of God; 
x Bernard. in Cant. ser. 50. sciemus in di● illa quia non e● operibus justitiae quae fecimus n●s, sed secundum miserecordiam suam saluos nos fecit.  that we may know at that day, as Bernard saith, that not for the works of righteousness which we have done, but of his own mercy he hath saved us. Why will M. Bishop go about to rob God of this honour by such fantastical speculations of the value and estimation, the dignity and worthiness of our works? And if he say that this is all of God, doth he any more than the Pharisee did, who said, 
y Luk. 18.11.  I thank thee, O God, that I am not as other men are, etc. 
z Hieron. adu. Pelag. lib. 3. Ille agit gratias deo quia illius misericordia non sit sicut caeteri homines.  He thanketh God, saith Hierome, that by his mercy he is not like other men; he acknowledgeth his righteousness to be the gift of God; but yet he is rejected whilst with M. Bishop he flattereth himself in opinion of the value and estimation, the dignity and worthiness of his works. Now the Protestants indeed are not of that Pharisaical humour thus to plead the reputation of their own works, and do take M. Bishop therein to be a foolish vain man, and yet they do not therefore debase and vilify the virtue of the grace of God, as he objecteth, as not allowing it to be sufficient to help the best minded man in the world to do any work that doth not mortally offend God; but do confess and teach that the faithful by the grace of God do many good works very highly pleasing unto God, whilst 
a Psal. 103.13.  as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord is merciful to them that fear him, remembering whereof we be made, and considering that we are but dust, and being ready when he seethe our willing endeavours to pardon the obliquities the defects and deformities of our doings, the same being perfumed by faith with the sweet incense of the obedience of jesus Christ. So then according to rigour of judgement the Protestants say, 
b Esay 64.6.  All our righteousness is as a defiled cloth; 
c Dan. 9.7.  To thee, O Lord, belongeth righteousness, but to us shame and confusion of face. They subscribe that which Gregory saith: 
d Greg. Moral. l. 8. c. 9 justice peritaeros absque ambiguitate praesciunt, firemota pietate iudicentur, quia hoc ipsum, quò justè videmur vivere culpa est, fi vitam nostram cù judicat, hanc apud se divina misericordia non excusat.  The just know that without all doubt they shall perish if they be judged without mercy, because even our just life, as it seemeth, is but sin if God's mercy do not excuse it, when he shall give judgement of it. But yet the Protestants know also that by the mediation of jesus Christ, 
e Rom. 12.1.  the giving up of our bodies to be a living and 〈◊〉 sacrifice is accepble unto God, and that 
f 1. Pet. 2.5.  we are made aspirituall house and holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices which are acceptable to God by jesus Christ. In a word, the Protestants know that the Saints of God 
g Apoc. 4.10.  cast their crowns down before the throne of God, as arrogating no part thereof to themselves, but ascribing all to God; and therefore cannot but condemn M. Bishop and the Papists, though not of Atheism, yet of Pelagianism and heresy, for that they teach men to keep their crowns in part upon their own heads, and to take some part of glory to themselves to the derogation of the glory of God.   

2. W. BISHOP.  
First he argueth thus. He that hath not the Son, hath not the Father: and he that hath neither Father nor Son, denies God: now the present Roman religion hath not the Son, that is jesus Christ God and man: For they in effect abolish his manhood, by teaching of him to have two kinds of existing; one natural in heaven, whereby he is visible, touchable, and circumscribed: the other against nature, whereby he is substantially according to his flesh in the hands of every Priest, invisible and uncircumscribed.  
Answer. M. PER. and all Protestants know right well, that we believe jesus Christ to be perfect God, and perfect man, and therefore we have both the Son and the Father; and his reason against it, is not worth arush: for we do not destroy the nature of man, by teaching it to have two divers manners of existing or being in a place. When Christ was transfigured before his Apostles, he had another manner of outward form and appearance, than he had before: yet was not the nature of man in him thereby destroyed; and after his resurrection he was (when it pleased him) visible to his Apostles, and at other times invisible; and yet was not his manhood thereby abolished as M. PER. would make us believe: no more is it when his body is in many places at once; or in one place circumscribed, and in the other uncir cumscribed. For these external relations of bodies unto their places, do no whit at all destroy their inward and natural substances, as all Philosophy testifieth: wherefore hence to gather that we deny both the Father and the Son to be God, doth savour (I will not say of a silly wit) but of a froward will, peevishly bend to cavil and calumniate.   

R. ABBOT.  
As touching the existing of the body of Christ, we believe what the holy Scripture hath taught us, 
The body of Christ locally circumscribed.  and therein we rest, as the ancient godly fathers did; neither will we listen to the frantic dreams of new devising heads, who for the maintenance of one absurdity not sparing to undergo another, have broached a manner of the being of the body of Christ according to the fancies of Martion, Manicheus, Apollinaris, Eutyches and such other like Heretics, who, howsoever they admitted the name of a body, yet denied the truth thereof. What other is it but a fantastical body which they affirm to be in their consecrated host, where there is the savour and taste of bread, the colour and appearance of bread, to sense and feeling no other but bread, and yet there is no bread, but a body of flesh and blood, as they tell us, or rather a body which hath neither flesh nor blood? M. Bishop coloureth the matter by telling us of a divers manner of existing or being in a place; but why do neither Scriptures nor Fathers tell us of this divers manner of existing or being? I know that to make some show of antiquity they allege a few sentences of the Fathers far enough from the purpose; but this matter could not have so passed with a by-sentence or two, when there were so many and so great occasions fully to declare it and to insist upon it, if it had been believed then as it is taught now. They clearly and plainly taught, that 
a Aug. in joan. tract. 50. secundum carnem quam verbum assumpsit, ascendit in coelum & non est hic.  Christ according to his body is ascended into heaven and is not here: and against the Manichees; that 
b Idem cont. faust. Mavich. l. 20. c. 11. sacundum praesentiam corporalem, simul & in sole & in luna & in cruse esse non posset.  Christ according to bodily presence could not at once be in the Sun and in the Moon and upon the cross; that is, in many places, and that 
c Idem in joan. oer. 31. Cùm ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco unde venit non est.  When he is come to another place he is not in the place from whence he came, and therefore; that 
d Vigil. count Eutich. lib. 4. Quando in terra fuit (caro Christi) non erat vti● in coelo: & nunc quia in coelo est, non est utique in terra.  The body of Christ, when it was upon earth, was not in heaven; and now because it is in heaven, it is not upon the earth: that 
e Ambr. in Luc. l. 1. c. 24. Ergo non supra terram nec interra nec secundum carnem ti quaerere debemus. si volumus invenire, etc. Stephanus tetigit quia quaesivit in coele.  If we will find Christ, we must not seek him in the earth nor upon the earth nor according to the flesh, but in heaven. They would never have spoken thus without any limitation or exception, if they had believed that which M. Bishop here would make us believe out of the doctrine of the church of Rome, that the body of Christ may be in infinite places at once, that it may be together both in heaven and earth, with form and without form, both visible and invisible, both circumscribed and uncircumscribed, that is to say by a plain contradiction, both that that it is, and that that it is not. Surely they would have said as we do; If it be visible, it cannot be invisible; or if it be invisible, it cannot be visible: if it have form, than it is not without form; or if it be without form, how should it be said to have any form? both these cannot stand together. True saith M. Bishop, in one and the same manner of existence and being. And say I, if it be but one and the same body, it can at once have but one manner of existing and being: for according to the same, or totally, to be thus & not thus, cannot agree to one and the same thing. As for his instances whereby he would take away the improbability of this fancy, they are altogether ridiculous. Christ, saith he, when he was transfigured, had another manner of outward form and appearance than he had before; and after his resurrection when it pleased him he was visible to his Apostles, and at other times invisible. And what then? Ergo Christ's body may be in many places at once; it may together be both visible and invisible, and whatsoever pleaseth them. But a man may even as well say: M. Bishop is sometimes hot and sometimes cold, sometimes asleep, sometimes awake; sometimes sober, sometimes merry; sometimes like a scholar, sometimes like a swaggerer; sometimes at Rome, sometimes in England; ergò he may at one time be together both asleep and awake, both visible and invisible, both at Rome and in England, and in many places at once; so that though by Parson's procurement he were fast laid up in prison, yet he might at the same time be personally before the Pope to acquaint him with the appeal of the secular Priests and the exorbitant dealing of the jesuits against them. What, will he not call him a dreaming Sophister that should conclude thus? Well then; let him for his pains take his fellow to him, and learn to argue more wisely another time. But mark here gentle Reader, that M. Bishop maketh Philosophy a witness of this matter. We have thought heretofore that they rested the same wholly and merely upon the omnipotent power of God; and have observed how their schoole-philosophers when they speak of relation of bodies to their places, do except this matter of the real presence as a matter of irregularity, not coming within compass of the rules of Philosophy, but far transcendent above all their learning. Now M. Bishop will make us believe that it standeth with good Philosophy, and that all their Philosophers have all this while been deceived; marry it is worth the while to note in what terms and how warily he hath set it down. The external relations of bodies unto their places, do no whit at all destroy their inward and natural substances, as all Philosophy testifieth. You say well, M. Bishop, and very wisely. Indeed it is not relation to a place, but the want of relation to a place that taketh away the nature of a body. For 
f Aug. epist. 50. spatia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt, & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt.  take from body's space of place, saith Austin, and they shall be no where; and because they shall be no where, they shall not be at all. 
g Cyril de Trinit. lib. 2. si corpus, & in loco omninò, & in magnitudine & in quantitaete, & si quanta facta esset, non effugeret cireumscriptionem.  If it be a body, saith cyril, then verily it is in a place, and hath greatness and quantity, and if it have quantity, it cannot be but that it must be circumscribed. 
h Didym. de sp●sancto. l. 2. si spiritus veritatis juxta naturas corporum circumscriptus est certo spacio, alium deserens locum ad alium commigravit.  It is the nature of a body, saith Didymus, to be circumscribed in a certain space, and therefore by coming into one place, it must forsake another. You therefore affirming the body of Christ uncircumscribed, and having no commensuration or space of place, and coming into one place without the leaving of another, do thereby utterly destroy the nature of a body. 
i Ibid. Impossibile est & impium, ista quae diximus in corporalibus credere.  It is impossible and a thing impious, saith Didymus, to believe these things concerning bodily substances. This was the Philosophy that these Fathers had learned. They knew by Philosophy and by truth that a body must have extension of parts, and one part different and distant from another, and place correspondent to every part, so that where one part is, there another cannot be, and the whole so limited to one place, as that without leaving that place, it cannot be in another; but neither did Philosophy nor Divinity teach them that uncircumscribed body which M. Bishop speaketh of.   

3. W. BISHOP.  
Secondly, Master PERKINS chargeth us with disgrading Christ of his offices: saying, that for one jesus Christ the only King, lawgiver and head of the Church, they join unto him the Pope not only as a Vicar, but as a fellow, in that they give unto him power to make laws: binding in conscience, to resolve and determine infallibly the sense of holy Scripture: properly to pardon sin: to have authority over the whole earth, and a part of hell: to depose Kings, to whom under Christ every soul is subject: to absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance, etc.  
Answer. Here is a bead-roll of many superfluous speeches: for not one of all these things (if we admit them all to be true) doth convince us to have disgraded Christ of his offices, which are these: to appease God's wrath towards us: to pay the ransom for our sins: to conquer the Devil: to open the Kingdom of heaven: to be supreme head of both men and Angels, and such like. He may (without any derogation unto these his sovereign prerogatives) give unto his servants; first, power to make laws to bind in conscience, as he hath done to all Princes, which the Protestants themselves dare not deny: then, to determine unfallibly of the true sense of holy Scripture, which the Apostles could do, as all men confess; and yet do not make them Christ's fellows, but his humble servants: to whom also he gave power properly to pardon sins: 
Luc. 24. joan. 20. Mar. 16. Matt. 28.  Whose sins you pardon on earth, shall be pardoned in heaven: and finally, to them he also gave authority over the whole earth: go into the universal world. Over part of hell no Pope hath authority; and when he doth good to any soul in Purgatory, it is per modum suffragij, as a suppliant and entreater, not as a commander. Whether he hath any authority over Princes and their subjects in temporal affairs, it is questioned by some: yet no man (not wilfully blind) can doubt, but that Christ might have given him that authority, without disgrading himself of it; as he hath imparted to him and to others also, faculties of greater authority and virtue, reserving nevertheless the same unto himself, in a much more excellent manner. As a King by substituting a Viceroy, or some such like deputy, to whom he gives most large commission, doth not thereby disgrade himself of his Kingly authority, as all the world knows: no more did our Saviour Christ jesus bereave himself of his power or dignity, when he bestowed some part thereof upon his substitutes. He goes on multiplying a number of idle words to small purpose: as that we for one Christ the only real Priest of the new Testament, join many secondary Priests unto him, which offer Christ daily in the Mass. We indeed hold the Apostles to have been made by Christ, not imputative or fantastical, but real and true Priests: And by Christ his own order and commandment, to have offered his body and blood daily in the sacrifice of the Mass; what of that? see that question. Furthermore he saith, for one jesus the all-sufficient mediator of intercession, they have added many fellows to him, to make request for us: namely as many Saints as be in the Pope's Calendar: yea and many more too. For we hold that any of the faithful yet living, may be also requested to pray for us: neither shall he in haste be able to prove, that Christ only maketh intercession for us, though he be the only mediator that hath redeemed us.   

R. ABBOT.  
Christ by his office is our Prophet, our Priest and our King. 
Christ degraded by the Pope.  As a Prophet he hath declared fully and finally the whole counsel and way of God for the attainment of eternal life. As a Priest, he hath offered a sacrifice for our redemption, and by virtue of that sacrifice is our Mediator to entreat mercy for us. As a King, he prescribeth laws whereby to govern us, and having 
a Matt. 28.18.  All power given to him both in heaven and earth exerciseth the same to safeguard and defend us. In all these offices, (of which M. Bishop speaketh as if he understood not what they mean) the Church of Rome offereth most high indignity to the Son of God. To take the points spoken of in order as they are; first they are injurious to the kingdom of Christ, in that they give the Pope authority to make laws to bind in conscience, which Christ only hath authority to do. 
b See hereof part. 2. pag. 17.18.  To bind in conscience, is to tie the conscience and inward man to an opinion of holiness and spiritual devotion in the thing which is done, so as to account the same a worship of religion whereby God is truly served and honoured, yea and further, according to Romish fancies, the means of remission of sins, and the merit of eternal life. This whosoever doth, showeth himself a deceiver and an Antichrist, and the Pope in so doing is found to be he, of whom the Apostle prophesied, 
c 2. Thess. 2.4.  that he should sit as God in the temple of God, domineering in the hearts and consciences of them of whom it is said, 
d 2. Cor. 6.16.  Ye are the temple of the living God. If Prince's attempt to make laws in this sort, they are therein unjust and presumptuous against God. Otherwise to speak of Prince's laws, God himself bindeth the conscience to yield the outward man in subjection to the Prince, when notwithstanding the conscience itself remaineth free as touching the thing which the Prince commandeth. I know that in outward things it is true which the Apostle saith, 
e 1. Cor. 6.12. & 10.23.  All things are lawful for me, I may do all things; God hath given me no restraint. To eat or not to eat, to wear such a garment or not to wear it; to do thus or thus it is all one with God: I am no whit the better the one way, nor the worse the other way. Nevertheless if my Prince command me either way, God requireth me to abridge myself of the outward use of that liberty which he otherwise hath given me and to perform obedience to my Prince, yet still retaining inwardly the same opinion and persuasion of the thing in itself that I had before; and therefore content to tie myself outwardly to do thus, because I know inwardly that it is indifferent to God either to do thus or thus.  
The second presumption of the Pope against Christ is in taking upon him infallibly to determine the sense of holy Scripture. By which pretence he most impudently carrieth himself, bringing all abominations into the Church, and corrupting all religion and service of God, and yet affirming that he doth nothing contrary to the Scripture, because whatsoever the words of Scripture are, yet the sense must be no other but what he list. But well might we be thought to be without sense, if so senseless a tale should prevail with us; a thing which in the ancient Church for so many hundreds of years amidst so many questions and controversies was never dreamt of. What needed the fathers so much to busy themselves, and out of their own exercise and experience prescribe rules to others for finding out the true sense of Scripture, when as a Pope with a wet finger could have helped them to the certain and infallible truth thereof? Yea why have we so many commentators of the Church of Rome, so various and divers in their expositions and interpretations of Scripture; and why doth not the Pope rather by one commentary of his illuminated understanding reconcile all differences, dispatch all doubts, and resolve at once infallibly what is the certain meaning of every place? Are those holy father's loath of their labour, or are they so busied in other or greater affairs as that they have no leisure to attend to such trifles? Satisfy us, M. Bishop, as touching these matters; otherwise we must take this devise to be as indeed it is the cover of your shame, the cloak of your apostasy, which can no otherwise be shadowed but by this pretence: That the Pope's sense is the very truth of Scripture, being notwithstanding wholly repugnant & contrary to the words. In a word, the Pope thrusteth out the laws of Christ which are expressed in the words of Christ, and by his sense setteth up his own laws under the name of Christ.  
To give power to the Pope properly to forgive sins, as M. Bishop doth, is a wicked blasphemy and an Antichristian exalting of him into the place of Christ. When the Scribes said within themselves, 
f Mar. 2.7.  Who can forgive sins but God only? our Saviour Christ did not contrary them therein, but partly by discovering the thoughts of their hearts, and partly by the miracle that he wrought, taught them to understand him to be God the Son of God, and therefore that he had power to forgive sins. He hath left it therefore so to be conceived of us, that power to for give sins belongeth to God only. 
g Cyprian de Lapsis. Nec remittere aut donare indulgentia sua servus potest quod in dominum delicto graviore commissum est. . The servant, say he Cyprian, cannot for give that which by heinous traspasse is committed against the lord 
h Cyril. in joan. lib. 2. cap. 56. Certè solius reri dei est ut possit à ptceatis homines solvere: cui enim alij praevaricatores legis liberare â peccato licet nisi legis ipsius authori?  Surely it belongeth only to the true God, saith cyril, to be able to release men from their sins; for who but the maker of the law, can free them from offence that are trespassers of the law? As for that which M. Bishop objecteth that Christ said to his Apostles; 
i john 20.23.  Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained, it no more importeth a power of forgiving sins, than the ministers 
k 1. Tim. 4.16.  Saving them that hear him, importeth a power of saving. For as the minister saveth not properly by any power of saving, but only by teaching the way of salvation; so he also forgiveth sins, not properly by any power thereof, but by preaching the Gospel of remission of sins, and designing them to whom belongeth this remission. God hath made us not Lords but 
l 2. Cor. 3.9.  Ministers of the new Testament, and of the spirit, neither hath he given us the power but 
m cap. 5.18.  The ministry of reconciliation; for God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing unto them their sins: to us he hath committed (only) the word of this reconciliation, namely whereby we preach and testify in the name of jesus Christ remission of sins and reconciliation to God to all that repent and believe the Gospel. But this whole commission of forgiving sins shall be the better understood by those instances by which cyril exemplifieth the same, 
n Cyril. ut supra. Erit autem id duobus ut arbitror modis, primò baptismo. acinde penitentia. Nam aut credentes & vitae sanctimonia probates homines ad baptismum inducunt; & indignos diligenter expellunt, etc.  First in baptism, and afterward in repentance. Them that believe and approve themselves by holiness of life, the minister addmitteth to baptism; (this is to forgive their sins) but carefully he repelleth and putteth back them that are unworthy (this is to retain them.) But of this forgiveness of sins in baptism we must remember that which S. Austin saith, if at least that book be his; 
o August. scal. Paradis. cap. 3. Officium baptizandi dominus concessit multis, potestatem verò & authoritatem in baptismo remittendi peccata sibi soli retinuit.  The Lord jesus gave the office of baptizing to many, but the power and authority to forgive sins in baptism, he reserved to himself only. For the noting of which difference he rightly allegeth the words of john Baptist: 
p joh. 1.26.33.  I baptise with water, but he it is which baptizeth with the holy Ghost. Now if to baptise with water to the remission of sins be to remit sins in that sense which our Saviour intendeth in that speech; and to baptise with water to remission of sins importeth no power for forgiving sins, but only a ministry for publication and for the applying of God's seal for exhibiting and confirming thereof, it followeth so far forth that those words of Christ do not give to the minister any power properly to forgive sins. Therefore chrysostom though he term this ministry in some sort a power, yet to show in what sort it is to be conceived, most notably saith; 
q Chrysost in joan. hom. 85. Quid sacerdotes dico? Neque Angelus, neque Archangelus quicquam in his quae a deo data sunt efficere potest, sed pater & filius & sp. sanctus omma facit: sacerdos & linguam & manus praebet.  Not the Priest only but neither Angel nor Archangel worketh any thing in those things that are given of God, but the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost doth all; the Priest putteth too but his tongue and his hand. The other instance which Cyrill giveth is, 
r Cyril. ut suprà. Aut ecclesia filijs peccantibus quidem increpant, paenitentibus autem indulgent. 1. Cor. 5.5.  When the minister giveth check to offenders, and to the penitent release. Whereof he giveth example in the incestuous Corinthian, whom for fornication the Apostle delivered to Satan for destroying the flesh that the spirit might be saved, and afterwards received again that he might not be overwhelmed with overmuch sorrow. here the Corinthians did forgive, and the Apostle himself did 
s 2. Cor. 2.7.10.  forgive, and thus the term of forgiving hath always his place and use, but this forgiveness is disciplinary for reconcilement to the Church: it is not forgiveness of sins spiritually and properly so called, though by the ordinance of Christ it must be to the peritent a necessary introduction to the assurance and comfort thereof, as 
t See the Answer to the epistle dedicatory sect. 28  before hath been declared. I conclude this point with that which Hierome writeth upon the words of Christ to Peter 
u Matt. 16.19.  whatsoever thou bindest in earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou losest on earth shall be loosed in heaven, for declaration whereof he saith, that 
z Hieron. in Matt. 16. Quemodo ibs sacerdos leprosum facit mundum velimmundum (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 Et Presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxij; sed pro officio 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 (properly and 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 lose, not bind them which be 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. Not so then as that in propriety of speech he either remitteth or retaineth sins, but only discerneth and notifieth who is to be taken for bound with God, and who for loosed; whose sins must be holden either to be remitted or retained 
y Idem in Mat. 18. ut sciant qui à talibus condemnantur sententiam humanam divina sententia roborari. . Which sentence of man they who are thus condemned, as Hierome again saith, must know to be strengthened and made good by the sentence of God himself; namely when it proceedeth according to those rules and directions which God hath prescribed in this behalf; for otherwise, 
z Idem in Mat. 16. Cùm apud deum non sententia sacerdotis, sed reorum vita quaeratur.  it is not the sentence of the Priest but the life of the parties that is inquired of with God. Here then the Pope is a manifest usurper, first against God in that he taketh upon him a power properly to forgive sins, and thereby seateth himself in the throne of jesus Christ; secondly against the Church of God in challenging to himself a propriety of that which was spoken 
a Gregor. in 1. Reg. l 6. cap. 3. universali ecclesiae dicitur, Quodcunque ligaveris, etc.  to the universal Church, and wherein every one that is a successor of the Apostles hath as great power and authority as he.  
Christ, saith he, gave his Apostles authority over the whole earth; Go into the universal world. But by this, Christ gave no more authority to one of them, than he did to another, and whatsoever he gave them what is it to the Pope, that he should thereby challenge 
b Deecret. Greg. de foro competenti, cap. Licet. & de Appellat. ca ut debitus. in glossa Papa unusomnium hominum ordinarius.  the whole world to be his diocese, and should define that 
c Extrau. de maior. & obed. c. unam santam subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae pronunciamus omninò esse de necessitate salutis.  it concerneth every human creature upon peril of damnation to be subject unto him? And what authority did Christ give them hereby other then S. Matthew expresseth; 
d Mat. 28.19.  Go, teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. This was their authority; they had no power to command but what Christ had commanded them. Let the Pope conform himself to the tenor of this commission, and he will then renounce his Popedom, and we shall acknowledge him the disciple and servant of jesus Christ.  
Over a part of hell he saith no Pope hath authority, signifying thereby, according to their partition, the hell of the damned. But how then did Clement the sixth not doubt to say in one of his Bulls, 
e Bale in Clem. 6. Nolumus quòd paena inferni sibi aliquatenus infligatur.  we will that the punishment of hell in no sort be laid or inflicted upon him; and how was it that Gregory delivered the soul of trajan out hell, as 
f See Bellarm. de purgatorio. lib. 2. cap. 8.  Damascen hath reported, and sundry authors of the Church of Rome as Bellarmine acknowledgeth have steadfastly believed? If M. Bishop tell us that Gregory did that only by way of entreaty and request, he himself granteth the Pope to have no other over Purgatory, and therefore over hell and Purgatory he hath authority both alike. When he doth good to any soul in Purgatory it is per modum suffragij, as a suppliant and entreater, not as a commander, saith he. But how then did the same Clement the sixth say, concerning them who should die by the way as they were coming to his jubilee at Rome; 
g Bale. ut supra Nihilominus prorsus mandamus angelis Paradisi quatenus animam à purgatory pentius absolu tam in Paradisi gloriam introducant.  We command the Angels of Paradise that they bring the soul of such a one into Paradise being fully freed from Purgatory pains. And what; is all this power no more now but to supplicate and entreat? Have they mocked the world all this while, & made men believe that the Pope not only hath power to deliver souls out of Purgatory himself, but can also impart the same to others, and is all come now to supplication and entreaty? Why, M. Bishop can supplicate and entreat as well as the Pope, and what reason have we but to think that God is as ready to hear his prayer as the Popes, and so by that means he shall have as great power over Purgatory as the Pope. Such are the mockeries of Popery; such are their doctrines of religion; they themselves can not well tell what to make of them.  
Further he saith, Whether the Pope hath any authority over Princes and their subjects in temporal affairs, it is questioned by some. The more shame is it, M. Bishop, for them by whom it is questioned. Tertullian reporteth the mind of the ancient Church in this behalf, 
h Tertul. ad scapul. Colimus im●eratorem ut hominem à deo secundum & quicquid est à deo consecutum solo deo minorem.  We honour the Emperor as the man next to God, and as having received of God whatsoever he is, being inferior to God only. And is it now come to be questioned whether the Pope even in temporal affairs have authority over Princes, who in their kingdoms respectively are the same that the Emperor than was? But is it questioned only M. Bishop and not determined? We may indeed admire their impudence therein, that they, who so much pretend antiquity, should resolve a matter so contrary to the doctrine and example of all antiquity; but yet they have so resolved, that either directly or indirectly the Pope hath superiority over Princes even intemporall affairs. 
i Treatise tending to Mitigation, etc. in the Preface to the Reader. sect. 22.  The Canonists do commonly defend the first part, saith the Mitigatour, that is, directly: but Catholic Divines for the most part the second (that is indirectly and by consequence) but both parts fully agree that there is such an authority left by Christ in his Church. They agree in deed, but it is like Herod and Pilate against Christ. Accordingly as they carry themselves in this point, so they deserve to be credited in all the rest. But M. Bishop telleth us that Christ might have given him that authority without degrading himself. And I answer him that the question is not what Christ might have done, but what he hath done. Therefore his instance of a King substituting a Viceroy will not serve his turn; for he that without any commission from the King taketh upon him to be a Viceroy, and under pretence thereof impugneth his Prince's laws, and maketh construction of them at his own pleasure, and to serve his own turn, howsoever he seem to do all in his Prince's name, yet is indeed a traitor and a rebel to his Prince. This is the Pope's case, and therefore under the name of the Vicar of Christ, he is no other but a traitor and a rebel against jesus Christ. As for those faculties of greater authority and virtue, because we read nothing thereof in the Gospel, no not in S. Peter himself thov faculties which they attribute to the Pope, therefore we hold them and that justly, to be the Popes own presumptions, the flatteries of Parasites, the devices of ill disposed men, 
k Tit. 1.11.  who speak things which they ought not for filthy lucers sake.  
The Popish Priesthood is not true and real, but merely fantastical: for a true and real Priesthood, such as they boast of, requireth a true and real sacrifice for sin, which they have not. For after the sacrifice which purchaseth forgiveness of sins, 
l Heb. 10.18.  there is no more offering for sin. But in the death of Christ is a full purchase of the forgiveness of sins. Therefore after Christ's death there is no more offering for sin. We say then of Priesthood as cyril hath taught us to say; 
m Cyril. epist. 10 ad Nestor. 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 but to Christ only. See that question, saith M. Bishop. But where? for he himself hath said nothing of it, and whatsoever he would say, it is already prevented in 
n Sect. 27.  answer of his Epistle to the King.  
To the last objection that for one jesus the all-sufficient Mediator of intercession, they have made as many as be in the Pope's Calendar; he answereth, yea and many more to. What M. Bishop, so many Mediators, when the Apostle saith plainly, 
o 1. Tim. 2.5.  There is one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and man, even the man jesus Christ? We hold, saith he, that any of the faithful yet living, may be also requested to pray for us. True M. Bishop, yet not as Mediators, as if we may plead any thing that they have done or can do for us for our own access to God, but only as fellow-members of one body affected in compassion one towards an other, pleading for ourselves, and each for other that which Christ hath done for all. Wherefore as the greater prayeth for the less so doth the less also for the greater; not only S. Paul for the Romans, the Ephesians, the Collossians, but also the 
p Rom. 15.30.  Romans, the 
q Eph. 6.19.  Ephesians, the 
r Col. 4.3.  Colossians for S. Paul. And although we thus request the prayers one of another, yet do we not pray to God that he will hear us for their sakes whom we request to pray for us, but all expect mercy only for Christ's sake. But Popish prayers are of a far other nature: 
s The golden Litany.  By the holy name of Marie have mercy upon us: by the intercession and merits of S. Peter, S. Paul, S. john the Evangelist and other of thine Apostles have mercy upon us; by the virtues and merits of the holy fathers, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, S. chrysostom, S. Ambrose and all other have mercy upon us. This is one of the abominations of Popery, that they do not only idly entreat the Saints to pray for them, but do also allege to God their merits and intercessions by virtue thereof to obtain mercy at God's hands. But he saith it shall be hard for us to prove that Christ only maketh intercession for us. Yea M. Bishop: but why then doth S. Austen say, that 
t Aug. in Psal, 64. solus ibi ex his qui carnem gustaverunt interpellat pro nobis.  in heaven of all that have been partakers of flesh Christ only maketh intercession for us? Did he speak more than he could prove? Deceive not yourself M. Bishop; he could prove this matter well enough, but you cannot prove that which so injuriously to Christ the only Mediator you affirm and teach that Mediation of intercession belongeth to the Saints; it being a thing unreasonable and absurd to think that Mediators for us stand in need of a Mediator for themselves.   

4. W. BISHOP.  
Lastly saith M. PERKINS for the only merits of Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased, (what was he not well pleased with his Apostles?) they have devised a treasury of the Churches, containing besides the merits of Christ, the overplus of the merits of Saints, to be dispensed to men at the discretion of the Pope, and thus we see that Christ and his merits be abolished.  
Answer. The good man is somewhat mistaken, for we hold not any overplus of merits in Saints, the which we acknowledge to be by God fully rewarded in heaven: but we affirm that some Saints and blessed Martyrs have suffered more pains in this life, than the temporal punishment of their own sins deserved: Who therefore might truly say with that just man job, 
job. 6.1.  would to God my sins, whereby I have deserved wrath, were weighed with the calamity that I suffer, even as the sands of the sea, this should be the heavier. Now part of these sufferings of God's Saints (as being needless for their own satisfaction) are reserved in the Church's storehouse, and may by the high steward of the Church (to whom the dispensation of her treasure belongeth) be communicated to others, as very reason teacheth us; for who is fit to dispose of any man's goods, than he to whom the charge thereof is given by his testament? And thus I hope every reasonable man doth find us Catholics to be far off from transforming Christ into an Idol of man's conceit, as M. PERKINS dreameth: only we see a misconceited man, labouring in vain to deface Christ's benefits towards us, to calumniate his chief servants, and to skirmish against his own fantasies, then against any doctrine of ●●rs.   

R. ABBOT.  
Whether M. Bishop or M. Perkins do mistake, 
The Pope's storehouse merits lately built.  let the Reader judge. The Pope saith that 
a Extravag. de poenit. & remiss. cap. unigenitus. Ad cutus thesauri cumulum beata dei genetricis & omnium electorum à primo usque ad ultimum merita adminiculum praestare noscuntur.  the merits of the holy Virgin, and of all the elect from the first to the last are known to yield supply or help to the store of his treasury: M. Bishop saith that they do not hold any overplus of merits in Saints, and therefore denieth any merits to be laid up in that storehouse. If M. Bishop say true, than the Pope lieth: If the Pope say true, then M. Bishop lieth: And if there be no overplus of merits in Saints, we desire to know what reason they have then to crave mercy of God by the merits of the Saints, as we have already seen in the former section. But M. Bishop doth not love to be demanded a reason of all matters; he will have us to take his time though it be without reason. Well, though there be no merits, yet what else may we think is laid up in that storehouse of the Pope? forsooth some Saints and Martyrs have suffered more pains then the temporal punishment of their sins deserved. Full wisely spoken; the temporal punishment of their sins deserved pains. But let that pass; and what I pray of those pains? forsooth the sufferings of the Saints which were needless for their own satisfaction, are reserved in the Church's storehouse, and are to be dispensed by the Pope. And therefore job is brought us for an example, who complaineth that 
b job 6.3.  his calamity was heavier than his sins. Indeed the holy man job considering the course of God's judgements in this world, and knowing the clearness of his conscience, and the uprightness and innocency of his life, might well and truly answer his friends that his strange fall and so unspeakable calamity was more grievous than could be expected out of that condition of life which he had lived. God had another end in the afflicting of job which job himself understood not, and therefore wondered at that which befell unto him. Whatsoever he suffered, he is therein set before us for an example of patience; but as touching matter of satisfaction we read nothing. Nay as Paul in that respect said of himself, so must it be said of job also, 
c 1. Cor. 1.13.  Was job crucified for you? Albeit we would gladly know of M. Bishop what became of the overplus of jobs satisfactions for so long a time? for the storehouse, of which M. Bishop speaketh, was of far later time. The matter of it was prepared by Heretics, the Pope gave it ground, and the Schoolmen built it. Where then was the superabundance of jobs sufferings and of others all that while reserved to the Pope's use? yea or how may it appear that the disposing thereof is committed to the Pope? Who is fit, saith M. Bishop, to dispose of any man's goods then he to whom the charge thereof is committed by his testament? Alas good man, and do ye now appeal to the Testament of Christ? Bring us forth the Testament, M. Bishop; and show us where it is that Christ hath made the Pope supervisour of any such goods. He is a lewd man that belieth and falsifieth the Testament of another man; what are you then that thus bely the Testament of Christ? Of this blasphemous fancy enough hath been said before in the question of 
d Sect. 4. & 7.  satisfaction. His parenthesis, what, was not the father well pleased with his Apostles? such a wise one as it is, is answered also 
e Of Merits. sect. 2.  before. He was well pleased with his Apostles, but it was Christ alone in whom he was well pleased towards his apostles, and is well pleased towards us. 
f Greg. in Ezechiel. hom. 8. In solo sibi redemptore nostro complacuit pater quia in solo non invenit cu●pam, etc.  In Christ only, saith Gregory, the father was well pleased, because in him only he found no sin.   

5. W. BISHOP.  
He layeth lastly a third kind of Atheism against us, for worshipping of God not with such respect as is suitable to his nature. For (saith he) our worship is mere will worship for the most part, without any allowance or commandment of God, as Durand in his Rationale in effect acknowledgeth: it is a carnal service standing of innumerable bodily rites and ceremonies, borrowed partly from the jews, and partly from the Heathens: it is divided between God and some of his creatures, in that they are worshipped both with one kind of worship, let them paint it as they can, etc.  
Answer. Ipse dixit: Pythagoras hath pronounced his sentence; yet you need not believe him, unless you list, because he fableth so formally: doth Durand acknowledge that all our worship is mere will worship, and that it hath no allowance of God? O egregious and impudent deceiver! For that learned devout Author Durand, doth nothing else in all that Book, than set out the Majesty, and declared the meaning of the worship of God, used daily in our service throughout the whole year: And therefore doth entitle his book Rationale Divinorum, the reasons of divine service. And as for bodily rites, we use but few, and those very decent, full of reverence, and most fit to stir up and cherish devotion. We be not spirits, and therefore must serve God by bodily ceremonies, although the life and virtue of them proceed from the spirit, employing all parts of the body, in his worship, and to his honour that made it: neither be they borrowed of jews nor of the Heathens; albeit they might perhaps (the one by the commandment of God, the other by the light of nature (use some such like: but ours were devised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, (the heavenly guide and director of the Catholic Church) to move us to serve God more devoutly, and with greater reverence. Now to say that we give the same worship to any Saint that we give to God, is a stolen jest, that hath long sithence lost all his grace, being found to be nothing else, but a notorious untruth very often confuted; as by others else where, so by me more than once in this book: where also these other slanders here cast upon us, are more at large in their several places discussed: this therefore may serve in this place for an answer to those imputations of Atheisms, which Master PERKINS objecteth against us.   

R. ABBOT.  
It is not the majesty of God's worship that Durand setteth forth, but the foolery and absurdity of Popish superstition. 
Popish worship of God is but carnal service.  Of how many idle ceremonies doth he imforme us, and what great mysteries doth he make of them? for which when he bringeth no allowance or commandment of God, doth he not acknowledge in effect that they are 
a Col. 2.22.23.  wilworships, according to the doctrines and commandments, of men? Which being so, God asketh thereof, 
b Esay 1.12.  who required these things at your hands? and by the Prophet complaineth; 
c Esa. 29.13.  Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men. His excuse of these carnal rites and ceremonies is false, for contrary to that that he saith, they are infinite in number, and a great number of them apish and ridiculous in use, not fit to stir up and cherish devotion, but rather to busy and entangle the senses of the body, and thereby to sequester and extinguish the devotion of the mind. S. Austin complained in his time that 
d Aug. ep 119. Tam multis praesumptionib. sic plena sunt omnia etc. Quamuis nequ● hoc inveniri possit quomodo contra fidem veniant, ipsam tamen religionem quam paucissimis & manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis miserecordia dei liberam esse voluit seruilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditio judaeorum qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint, tamen legalibus sarcinis, non humanis praesumptionibus subijciuntur.  all was so full of human presumptions; and that albeit it could not be found how they were against the faith, yet the religion which the mercy of God would have free with a very few and those most manifest mysteries and Sacraments, was thereby clogged with servile burdens, so that the condition of the jews was more tolerable, who though they knew not the time of liberty, yet were subject not to the presumptions of men but to the burdens of God's law. What would he say if he were now alive to see Durands Rationale divinorum, and those infinite presumptions wherewith Popish superstition hath clogged and oppressed the Church. Of which some are preposterous imitations of the Levitical and jewish ceremonies, other taken from the abominations of heathenish Idol-service; a thing so plain as that M. Bishop denieth not, but that they used some such like, indeed the same, only he setteth upon them a false colour of being devised by the inspiration of the holy Ghost, not knowing Chrysostom's rule, that 
e Chrysost. de sanct. & orando spiritu. Ex quo non legit haec scripta sed ex se ipso loquitur manifestum est quòd non habet sp. sanct.  because they read not these things written but speak of themselves, it is manifest that they have not the holy Ghost. We be no spirits, he saith, but yet he should know, that the true worshippers leaving 
f Gal. 4.9.  beggarly rudiments & 
g Heb 9.10.  carnal rites should 
h joh. 4.24.  worship the Father inspirit and truth. Whereas he allegeth that the life and virtue of bodily ceremonies proceedeth from the spirit, he saith nothing but what was true, and necessarily required in the jewish service, and therefore may as well be pleaded for the continuance of their ceremonies, as for the excusing of others devised in steed of them. To that that M. Perkins saith that they give the same worship to Saints that they do to God, he answereth that that is a stolen jest which long since hath lost all his grace, but he should have told us that they themselves have long since lost all grace by maintaining such filtherie and abomination in the Church. Bodin telleth us that 
i Bodin. method. h. c. 5. A plerisque in Italia & Gallia Narbonensi ardentiore voto, certe maiore metu colitur D. Antonius quàm deus immort●lis.  in Italy and a part of France that which is called Narbonensis, S. Antony is commonly worshipped with greater devotion and fear then almighty God. Lud. Vi●es saith that 
k Lud. Vives. in Aug. de ciu. dei. l. 8. ca 27. Multi Christiani divos divasque non alitèr venerantur quàm deum; nec video in multis quod sit dis●i●men inter eor●●opinionem de sanctis & id quoth gentiles putabant de suis dijs.  many Christians (he was loath to say how many) do no otherwise worship the Saints then as God himself; and in many saith he I see not what difference there is between their opinion of the Saints and that which the heathens deemed of their Gods, Yea Bellarmine confesseth that 
l Bellarm. de sanct. beatitud. lib. 1. cap. 12. Omnes ferè. actus exteriores communes sunt omni adorationi.  in a manner all their outward worships (he might have said their inward also) are common both to the one and to the other. And so we see they pray to the one, they pray to the other: they kneel to the one, they kneel to the other: they offer, they vow, they fast, they build Churches and Altars, they keep holy days, they profess trust and confidence both to the one and to the other, only forsooth we must think that they retain 
m Ibid. Latria inclinatio voluntatis cum apprehensione dei, etc. Dulia inclinatio voluntatis cum apprehensione excellentiae plus quam humanae & minùs quàm divinae.  an apprehensive and intellectual difference betwixt the one and the other. As if aman giving the crown and royal honour of the king to a subject, should think to discharge himself by saying that in his mind, for all that, he retained a far higher opinion of the king then of the subject. Which if it acquit not with men, surely we should know that the infinite excellency of God above all his creatures should be a reason to withhold us from daring to join any creature in any part of communion or fellowship with him. Your idolatry, M. Bishop, in this behalf is so stolen as that it is grown extremely sour, and the time will come when you shall see it will be taken for no jest. As for your confutations and your answers, you should have made them good before you had boasted of them. A wise man would not have written a latter book before he had made it appear that he could defend the former.   

6. W. BISHOP.  
And for that this crime of Atheism is the most heinous that can be, as contrariwise, the true opinion of the Godhead and the sincere worship thereof, is the most sweet and beautiful flower of religion: let us therefore, here (to hold due correspondence with Master PERKINS) examine the Protestants doctrine, concerning the nature of God, and their worship of him; that the indifferent Reader, comparing judiciously our two opinions thereof together, may embrace that for most pure and true, that carrieth the most reverent and holy conceit thereof. For out of all doubt, there can be no greater motive to any devout soul, to like of a religion, then to see that it doth deliver a most sacred doctrine of the Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, and doth withal most religiously adore and serve him: Whereas on the other side, there is not a more forcible persuasion to forsake a religion before professed, then to be given to understand, that the Masters of that religion, teach many absurd things concerning the Godhead itself, and do as coldly and as slightly worship God almighty, as may be. Mark therefore, I beseech thee (gentle Reader) for thy own soul's sake, what evidence I shall deliver in against the Protestants, touching this point of Atheism, and following the same method that M. PER. observeth, I will first touch their errors against the most blessed Trinity and Deity: secondly, such as are against our Lord jesus God and man: lastly, I will speak one word or two about their service and worshipping of God: All which shall be performed in a much more temperate manner, than the gravity of such a matter requireth; that it may be less offensive, Concerning the sacred Trinity, it is by the doctrine of certain principal pillars of their new Gospel brought into great question. 
Lib. 1. In stit. ca 13. ss. 23.25. Con. rationes Camp. p. 152.  For john Caluin in divers places teacheth, that the second and third persons of the Trinity, do not receive the Godhead from the first, but have it of themselves, even as the first person hath. And in this he is defended by M. Whitaker, and preferred before all the learned Fathers of the first Counsel of Nice. Out of which position it followeth, that there is neither Father nor Son in the Godhead: for according unto common sense, and the uniform consent of all the learned, he only is a true natural Son, that by generation doth receive his nature and substance from his Father. We are called the Sons of God, but that is by adoption and grace: but he only is the true natural Son of God, that by eternal generation received his substance: that is, the Godhead from him. If therefore the second person did not receive the Godhead from the first, but had it of himself as they do affirm: then certainly he is no true Son of the first, & consequently the first person is no true Father. For (as all men confess) Father & Son be correlatives, so that the one cannot be without the other. Thus their doctrine is found to be faulty in the highest degree of Atheism. For it overthroweth both Father and Son in the Trinity. And further, if it were true, then doth the holy Ghost proceed neither from the Father, nor from the Son: for it receiveth not the Godhead from them at all, as they hold; but hath it of himself, and so proceedeth no more from them, than they do from him, and consequently is not the third person: Wherefore finally they do everthrow the whole Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost.   

R. ABBOT.  
We are now come to the beginning of M. Bishop's libel, for introduction whereof he telleth his Reader a goodly smooth tale of the important weight of the true opinion of the Godhead and the true worship thereof, 
Caluin truly teacheth the Godhead of Christ.  and what a motive it is to like of that religion that delivereth sacred and sound doctrine concerning the same, faring as if he had bloody inditements in this behalf against us, calling the jury, putting in his evidence, and in the end all cometh to nothing; Parturit Oceanus, prodit de gurgite squilla. In the very first accusation he showeth abundance of malice, but great want of wit, for that he is found a liar even in the very place which he himself citeth. He chargeth Caluin to have taught that the second and third persons of the Trinity do not receive the Godhead from the first, but have it of themselves as the first person hath. He citeth Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 13. ss. 23.25. which no man would think that he would so precisely set down but that he read the place. Now in the latter of those two sections Caluin saith thus: 
a Caluin. Instit. lib. 1. c. 13. sect. 25. Deitatem ergò absolute ex seipsa esse dicimus; Vndc & filium quatenus deus est, fatemur ex seipso esse sublato personae respectu; quatenus verò filius est, dicimus esse ex patre: ita essentia eius principio caret, personae verò principium est ipse deus.  we say then that the Godhead absolutely is of itself; and therefore that the Son as he is God, setting a side the respect of the person, is of himself; but as he is the Son, we say, that he is of the Father. So then the essence of the Son is without beginning; but the beginning of his person is God the Father; which he showeth in the other section alleged to be 
b Ibid. sect. 23. Cum filio essentiam communicavit. R●s●at ut tota & in so●idum patris & filii sit communis.  by the Father's communicating his whole essence to the Son. What can be more plainly or more truly spoken? He affirmeth that the Godhead whereby Christ is God, is of itself, that is to say, not of any other; but yet that Christ as he is the second person in Trinity is not God, of himself, but of the Father. In the former meaning he termeth Christ to be God of himself, understanding the name of God absolutely, that is, that he is that one God who is God of himself and not of any other, but that the second person in Trinity receiveth not the Godhead from the first, Caluin never wrote it, never thought it, and most lewdly doth M. Bishop deal so falsely to charge him with it. Yea Bellarmine himself though he will seem to condemn Caluin for the manner of his speech in styling Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of himself, yet indeed fully and wholly doth acquit him; for he telleth us that 
c Bell de Christo l. 2. c. 19 Causa fuit quia Valentinus Gentilis perpetuo iaes abat soium patrem esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & per hoc nomen intelligebat solum patrem habere essentiam verè divinam & increatam: silium autem & sp. sanctum habere aliam essentiam productam à patre & ideo quoad essentiam eos non esse autotheos. Calu. igitur occurrere volens Valentino contrarium asseruit, nempe filium esse autotheon quoad essentiam, id est, in eo sensu quo id à Valentino negabatur.  the cause which moved Caluin so to write, was because Valentinus Gentilis (a new Arian heretic) was still prating that the Father only was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and meant thereby that the Father only had the essence truly divine and uncreated, and that the Son and the holy Ghost had another essence produced of the Father, and therefore that as touching essence neither of them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Caluin therefore willing, saith he, to meet with Valentine, avoucheth the contrary, namely that the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of himself as touching the essence, that is, in that sense wherein Valentine denied the same. Accordingly of his arguments he saith: 
d Idem. Respondeo hoc argumentum benè concludere contrà Gentilem, etc.  This argument concludeth well against Gentilis; this argument also concludeth well against Gentilis. How grossly then are these men blinded with malice, who acknowledging Caluins words to be spoken only in a certain meaning against his adversary, & that in that meaning they are true, and that his arguments do conclude rightly and strongly to that purpose, do notwithstanding cavil against him by wresting his words to another meaning then by their own confession he intended in speaking of them? He took occasion of so speaking by his adversary. And is there any man who having to deal against an adversary will not use his adversaries own words to dispute against him? And is there any fault herein, when in the very place he expoundeth himself, and taketh away all occasion of misconstruction, saying: 
e Caluin opusc. Explicat. perfidiae Valent. Gent. ex Acts. Quead essentiam sermo est deus absque principio: in persona autem filii habet principium à patre.  As touching the essence, the word is God without beginning, but in the person of the Son he hath his beginning from the Father? for what will they say? is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name wholly unlawful to be attributed unto Christ the Son of God? Why more than by Elias Cretensis he is called 
f Elias Cret. in Gregor. Nazian. Orat. 5.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by Origen 
g Origen. in joan. tom. 32.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which being of the same composition, must then be subject to the same blame? Nay Bellarmine himself confesseth that Christ may in some sense be called 
h Bellarm. ut supra ex Epiphan. haer. 69.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by Epiphanius is so called as to signify that he is God himself, most verily and truly God. And could not his wisdom see that Caluin in effect meant no other but only so? for because Christ could not be verily and truly God unless he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that meaning wherein Valentinus spoke, therefore Caluin to avouch the true Godhead of Christ, affirmed him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the very true God, God of himself that is, by that one only essence which is of itself, and whereby God, speaking absolutely, is of himself and is truly God, and not as Valentinus wickedly taught, by another inferior essence made and produced of the Father as a superior God, whereby it should come to pass that he were not God at all. And when he saw that by Caluins own words he that is called God of himself is also affirmed to be God of God, the Son of God, why could he not excuse that manner of speaking in him as well as in S. Austin, who in the like sort saith that Christ is 
i August. Orat. contra jud. Pagan. & Arian. cap. 6. Fi●●us & de se & 〈◊〉 patre splendens.  the Son of God shining both of himself and of the Father? To shine of himself what is it but to be God of himself? As he shineth of himself, so he is God of himself: that is, according to his essence as he is absolutely God; according to his person he shineth of the father and so he is God of God, the Son of God. In this therefore justly doth M. Whitakers defend Caluin, not praeferring him before all the learned Fathers of the first Council of Nice, as M. Bishop fond cavilleth, but joining with him to maintain the same true Godhead of Christ against new Arians, which the Fathers of that Council professed and taught against Arius of old. This matter then being cleared, and it being apparent that neither Caluin nor any of us saith any thing to the contrary, nay we steadfastly believe and teach that the second person of the Trinity receiveth his Godhead from the first, and that the holy Ghost proceedeth both from the Father and the son, there is nothing here more to be spoken of; and therefore as touching Atheism we will leave M. Bishop in his chair to consider more wisely of his taleagainst the next time.   

7. W. BISHOP.  
Secondly, they may be truly styled Atheists, who think any one to be God, that hath not in him all singular perfections, in the most perfect sort that can be, but either wanteth some of them, or else hath them in a meaner degree than any other: they therefore that teach our Saviour Christ, in his Godhead to be inferior unto his Father, stand justly charged with Atheism. Such a one is 
* Epist. ad Polo. p. 940. & seq. In cap. 26. Matt. 24. con. Stancar. in locis, cap. de Con. Harding, art. 17. in confuta. of the Papists slanders.  Caluin who informal terms doth avouch and say, that Christ according to his Godhead, is less than his Father. And else where he affirmeth, the Father to hold the first rank of honour and power, and the Son to obtain the second, which he might have learned of his great master Melancthon, who taught that the Son according to his divinity, is his Father's subject and minister. Further, that in Christ there was something of the nature of God; some other thing then, belike, was wanting. Again. that the Godhead of Christ was obedient unto his Father: with whom our countrymen jewel and Fulke do jump, who affirm that the divine nature of Christ offered sacrifice unto his Father. Briefly, all Protestants who hold Christ according to his divine nature, to have been a mediator) make his Godhead inferior to God his Father. For to be (as a mediator must needs be) a suppliant unto another: to pray and offer sacrifice to him, is to acknowledge him to be his better, and that something lieth in his power to do, which the other of himself cannot do, but by suit must obtain of him. join hereunto that they do expound most of the texts of holy Scripture, used by the ancient Fathers to prove the blessed and sacred Trinity, even as the old Arrians did, reproving the ancient Father's exposition; which cannot but argue, that they in their hearts (though they be yet ashamed to confess it) decline apace from those holy Father's steps, to favour Arrianisme. This little therefore may suffice to demonstrate, how the chief pillars of the Protestants religion, do shake the very foundations of the Christian faith, by their strange glosses and speeches about the sacred Trinity, and by their divers derogations to Christ's divinity.   

R. ABBOT.  
How vain this second imputation is, it plainly appeareth by that that hath been said of the former. For seeing both Caluin and all our writers acknowledge the eternal generation of the Son of God to be as before was said the Father's communicating of the whole essence of the godhead to the Son, they must consequently of necessity be understood to acknowledge the whole perfection and majesty of the Godhead in the Son of God, because in the whole essence of God there can be nothing unequal or inferior unto God. This is argument enough, neither needeth there any more to approve in this behalf the integrity of our faith; because to attribute to the Son the whole essence of the Godhead, and yet to make him unequal to the Father, are things incompatible, 
Christ as God how equal and how inforior to the Father.  and can by no means stand together. Well, yet M. Bishop telleth us that Caluin in an Epistle to the Polonians in formal terms avoucheth that Christ according to his Godhead is less than his father. But how untrue this is may easily be esteemed, for that the Polonians to signify their agreement in faith with Caluin and with other Protestant Churches, thereby to clear themselves of some jealousy that was had of them, did in their Synod by Faelix Cruciger writ thus to him and others: 
a Foelix Crucig. inter epist. Caluin. 311. Credimus patrem omnipotentem; filium ei per omnia aequalem quoad naturam essentiam vel deitatem: minorem eo tantum quòd cum in forma Dei esset seipsum exinanivit, seu ut uno verbo complectamur ratione officij mediationis.  We believe the Father to be almighty; the Son also as touching his nature, essence, or godhead to be in all respects equal to the Father; but inferior only in that when he was in the form of God, he humbled himself, or in a word to speak it, in respect of his office of mediation. Now if this were Caluins' belief, and in his Epistle to the Polonians he profess no other but this, as indeed 
b Caluin epist. ad Polonos interopuscula. Inscitè ex Mediatoru titulo infertur Christum patre esse minorem quando haec optime inter se cohaerent unigenitum dei filium eundem & unius cum patre essentiae fuisse deum & tamen fuisse quasi inter deum & creaturas, etc.  he doth not, shall we not think M. Bishop a man very formal in telling an untruth, who maketh Caluin simply thus to say, that Christ according to his Godhead is less than his Father? But yet by his Master Bellarmine, we guess what the bone is whereupon he gnaweth, who mentioneth one 
c Bellar. in prefat. ad controv. 2. general. de Christo, etc.  Stanislaus Sanricius for a patron of Arianism, for that he said that in respect of the office of mediation Christ even in his divine nature is inferior to the Father. From which assertion how the jesuit should gather Arianism, it is very hard to say, inasmuch as Arianism importeth the Son to be intrinsically and essentially inferior to the Father, whereas his wisdom and learning if he would have used it, might discern that there is no meaning here of any intrinsical and real minority, but only of an extrinsical, a dispensative and voluntary demeaning of himself, whereby he is in some sort inferior to himself also, reconciling us in the person of a Mediator to himself as he is absolutely God. And could he not conceive this to be as tolerable and true a speech in us as in Maldonatus his fellow jesuit, who in the same terms affirmeth 
d Maldonat. in joan. c. 14. Minor non quoad divinitatis inequalitatem, sed quoad munus & voluntatem redemptionis.  the Son to be inferior to the Father, not as touching any inequality of Godhead, but as touching the office and will of our redemption? The same Maldonatus telleth us also another respect wherein Christ is said as touching his Godhead to be inferior to the Father, 
e Ibid. Non quoad naturam substantiae sed quoad relationem originis.  not as touching nature of substance, but relation of original and beginning. Wherein he is not alone, but the Greek Fathers who most vehemently impugned Arius the Heretic, yet take part with him, as 
f Sixt. Senens. biblioth. sanct. lib. 6. annot. 1705. Obseruandum est Graecos patres non reformidare hanc locutionem qua filius patre minor asseritur, non substantia quidem sed origine: juxta quam rationem frequentissimè apud Grecos Theologos pater dicitur principij dignitate authoritate & maiestate antecellere filium.  Sixtus Senensis testifieth, and citeth to that purpose Origen, Cyrill, Chrysostom and Basil, and of the Latin Fathers Hilary, some of these, and beside them 
g Athanas. con. Arian. orat. 2. pater maior non magnitudine aut aetate, sed quia filius ex illo ortum habebat.  Athanasius and 
h Tertul. adu. prax. pater filio maior dumalius quigenerat, alius qui generatur, etc.  Tertullian in that sense expounding of the divine nature the words of Christ, 
i john 14.28.  The Father is greater than I Now if in this meaning Caluin should have said as is secondly alleged, that the Father holdeth the first rank of honour and power, and the Son the second; in which sort Tertullian also saith, that 
k Tertul. ut suprae. ut tertium gradum ostenderet in Paracleto, sicut & nos secundum in filio propter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obseruationem.  the Son hath the second degree, and the holy Ghost the third, not meaning it of any disparity of essence, but of the order of the persons, would M. Bishop be no wiser but through Caluins' side to wound so learned a jesuit as Maldonatus, yea and so many Fathers both Greek and Latin, and at once to bring them all within the compass of Atheism? But thou must understand gentle Reader, that M. Bishop very perfidiously abuseth thee in this citation; the words of Caluin being spoken of the manhood of Christ being advanced to sit at the right hand of God. 
l Caluin. in Mat. cap. 26. ver. 64. Dicitur Christus ad dexteram patris sedere quia rex summus constitutus qui eius nomine mundum gubernet, quasi secundam ab eo honoris & imperijs sedem obtinet.  Christ saith he, is said to sit at the right hand of the Father, because being constituted the highest king, in his name to govern the world, he obtaineth a seat of honour and power as it were second or next to God. M. Bishop I trow understandeth the Articles of the Creed, and thereby knoweth who it is that is said to sit at the right hand of God. There followeth next Melancton, who disputing against Stancarus, for that he held Christ according to his manhood only to be our Mediator, though he use not expressy the words which M. 
Christ our ●●diator as he is both God & man.  Bishop hath set down, yet acknowledgeth and defendeth that Christ according to his divine nature was sent of the Father, and submitted himself in obedience to the Father to perform the office of Mediation betwixt God and man, but yet so as that he excepteth out of Cyril, that 
m Melanct. Respond. a●l contro. stanc. M ssio & obedientia non tollunt equalitatem potentiae, ●●ut express Cyrilius inquit.  this sending and obeying do not take away from the Son equality of power with the Father, because they are not matters concerning state of nature, but only arbitrary designment of will. Surely amongst men in society and equality a man may be sent and may yield himself to be sent and employed by the rest without derogation to his equality with the rest. As Peter and john were 
n Acts ●. 14.  sent by the Apostles to Samaria, and yet M. Bishop will not admit that therefore Peter was inferior to the rest of the Apostles. And if he will not grant that the Son of God, the second person in Trinity did in some sort submit himself to do service to the Father, let him tell us how he is called in Scripture according to his divine nature, 
o Gen. 6.7.13 I●d. 13.3.22.  The Angel of the Lord. Surely to be an Angel, that is to say, a Messenger, is in some sort to be a subject or minister. Seeing Christ therefore the second person of the Godhead hath taken upon him to be the Lords Angel to declare the messages of God to men, let him show us how it may be avoided but that he hath in some sort taken upon him subjection or service to the Father. Nay let him tell us how it standeth that the Syrmian Council saith, that 
p Hilar. desynod. ex contil. syrmiens. st quis Christum filium dei obsecutum patr●m creatione omnium non confitetur, ana●●em. ●sit. Et pavio post Non exaequamus patri filium sed subi●ctum inte●iginius.  the Son in the creating of all things did obey the Father; and that we do not equal the Sin to the Father, but understand him to be subject, and that Hi●arie saith, 
q Hila. ibid. Non coaequatur filius patridum su●ditus per obedientiae obsequelam est.  that by yielding obedience he is subject to the Father, who notwithstanding spoke these things amidst their definitions and resolutions against the Arian Heretics. Yea let him tell us how Christ saith; 
r joh. 6.38  I came down from Heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of the Father that hath sent me: not speaking as in the nature of man, as 
s Tertul. de Tri. Descendit dei verbum quod ihi fuit, etc. veniendo inde unde homo venire non potuit, deum se ostendit venisse.  Tertullian rightly argueth, but as in the person of the son of God, according to which it was that he was sent & came down from heaven, and abased himself to do his Father's will in taking upon him the nature of man. And hereupon Maldonatus the jesuit aforesaid, truly observeth, 
t Maldonat. in Mat cap. 6. fecit quidem Christus non suam sed patris voluntatem, sed idipsum sponte & volunt 〈◊〉 sua fecit: itaque non sequitur eum esse ●●norem patre.  that Christ indeed did not his own will, but the will of his Father; but he did it voluntarily and willingly, not by constraint; and therefore that it followeth not that he was inferior to the Father. As he did his Father's will, so and no otherwise was he subject and obedient to the Father. But that doing of his Fathers will being voluntarily undertaken, argueth no essential minority or subjection in the Son. Therefore neither doth the same follow of his being so far forth subject and obedient to the Father. And so Hilary briefly resolveth; 
u Hilar. d● sin. pietatis subiect●o non est essentiae diminutione● religionis officium degenerem facit naturam & patri & obsequio subiectus & nomine: ita tamen ut subiectio nominis proprietatem naturalis atque indisserentis testetur essentiae.  subjection of piety is no diminution of essence, neither doth office of devotion put nature out of kind. He is subject to the Father both by service and by name, but yet so, as that subjection of name testifieth a propriety of natural and no way different essence. And this point the Apostle S. Paul manifesteth when he saith, that 
x Phillip 2 6.  Christ being in the form of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equal with God, yet abased himself and took on him the form of a servant, and was made like unto men. Where when he thus expresseth who it was that abased himself, he that was in the form of God, and whereto he abased himself, to take upon him the form of a servant, he signifieth plainly that in the form of God he, as it were, 
y Tert. de Trin. Authoritas diu●m verbi ad sus●piendum h●minem interim conquiescens ne● se suis viril us exercens deijcit se ad tempus atque deponit du●a hominem sert quem suscepit.  stooped down voluntarily to take the nature of man, thereby to do the office of mediation betwixt God and man, not foregoing or impeaching the form of God, but content in that wherein he owed no service to become a servant and to do that service unto God. And to this purpose Cyrill urgeth those other words of the same Apostle, that 
z 2. Cor. 8.9.  Christ being rich, for our sakes became poor, for how shall we understand it that Christ became poor? Shall we say of Christ as man, that of rich he became poor? That cannot be, because the manhood of Christ was rather enriched and infinitely dignified and honoured by being joined unto God. Shall we say that the Godhead of Christ became poor simply in itself? Neither may we say so, because the Godhead in itself is immutable and not subject to any change. It remaineth therefore as Cyril concludeth, that 
a Cyril. resp. ad Theodoret. anathem. 10. Quoinodo pauper factus est? Quia cùm esset deus natura & filius de●ac patris sactus est homo, etc. seruilemque mensuram subijt, hoc est, humanam, is qui in forma dei & patris est.  Christ as God, the Son of the Father, became poor in being made man and undergoing the condition of a servant, that is, of a man. Now then, as Christ according to his Godhead became poor, not simply as God, but as God incarnate and made man, so he became also subject and obedient, a minister and servant to the Father as God in man, the body and manhood of Christ being 
b Athana apud Cyril, ut supra anat. 11. si videamus eum quasi per instrumentum sut corporis divino modo operantem vel dicentem, cognoscamus quòd deus existens omnia operetur.  the instrument, as Athanasius calleth it, wherein and whereby God the Son of God wrought whatsoever was needful to reconcile us unto God. And thus doth the Apostle say, that 
c Act. 20.28.  God purchased the Church with his own blood, that 
d 2. Cor. 5.19.  God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not as by communication of proprieties, to affirm of one nature that which simply belongeth to the other, but to note the act of the whole person in the offering of that sacred blood for the redemption of mankind. Therefore M. jewel and M. Fulke and we all do rightly affirm, that Christ neither as God only nor as man only, but as God and man, offered sacrifice both to himself, as Cyrill speaketh, and to the Father. Otherwise how should the Apostle say, that 
f Heb. 9.14.  by his eternal spirit he offered himself to God? If by his eternal spirit, than it was not the act of the manhood only; or if it were done only by the manhood, it could not be said to be done by his eternal spirit. But this matter is briefly resolved by Cyrill, who amongst other propositions, set down against the Nestorian Heretics and their favourites, setteth down this: 
g Ibid. Pontificem & Apostolum confessionis nostrae factum esse Christum divina dicit scriptura obtulisseque se pro nobis in odorem suavitatis deo ac patri, siquis igitur Pontificem & Apostolun nostrum factum dicit non ipsum quod ex des est verbum & caro & homo nobis similis est factum, sed ut alium ab ipso proprie (seorsim) hominem ex muliere, etc. anathema sit.  The holy Scripture teacheth that the high Priest and 
e Cyril. ut suprà anathem. 10. Non alteri celebrat immolatienis modum sed magis sibi & patri.  Apostle of our profession offered himself for a sweet smelling savour unto God: if any man therefore say that the word which is of God being made flesh and man for us, is not our high Priest and Apostle, but as it were another from him properly or severally the man borne of woman, accursed be he. And again; 
h Ibid anath. 12. si quis non confitetur verbum dei carne esse passum, carne crucifixum, & mortem carne gustasse, primogenitum ex mortuis factum quemadmodum vita est & vivificans sicut deus, anathema sit.  If any man do not confess that the word suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, tasted death in the flesh, was made the first borne of the dead, according as he is life, and giveth life as God, accursed be he. Whereby he giveth to understand, that the person of Christ in the work of our redemption is not to be divided, but what we believe concerning Christ in the flesh, we are to believe that God did and suffered the same in the flesh; not as hereby to attribute to the word in itself either suffering or death, but to signify that it was the act of whole Christ both God and man to offer himself by suffering in that nature wherein he was capable of suffering. And surely by that whole disputation of Cyrill approved by the Ephesine Council, and inserted into it, it most plainly appeareth that that parting of the Godhead and the manhood whereby Christ is made our high priest and Mediator only according to his manhood, savoureth more strongly of the heresy of Nestorius than they would have it seem that are the defenders of it. Certain it is that Bellarmine in that point affirmeth nothing that was not acknowledged by Theodoret and those other party-Nestorians against whom Cyrill there disputeth, and his arguments and reasons make as much against him and the Council as they do against us. And as for those things which M. Bishop here urgeth, that to be a Mediator is to be a suppliant, and that to pray and to offer sacrifice is to acknowledge him to whom he so doth, to be his better, and that something lieth in his power to do, which the other of himself cannot do, but by suit must obtain of him, these are in effect but the weapons of those Nestorians, & of the Arians, the one seeking thereby to dissolve the union of the person of Christ, the other to destroy the Godhead of Christ. But let him take the answers that Cyril giveth to such objections: 
i Cyril. ut supra Anath. 11. Dicet quispiam parum & indignum esse deo verbo plorare, mortem timere, poculum deprecari, pontificem esse. Vtique sic dix er●m & ego ipse quòd eminentiae divinae naturae ac gloriae parva sunt haec sed in his contemplabimur paupertatem quam pro nobis sponte tulit. Quando tibi molesta videtur ignobilitas ista exinanitionis, admirare magis dilectionem filii erga nos. Quod tu parum esse dixisti, hoc sp●nte fecit propter te.  Some man will say, it is base and unworthy of God to weep or cry, to be afraid of death, to pray that the cup may pass from him, to be a Priest. Verily so say I also that these things are base to the excellency of the divine nature and glory, but in these things we will behold the poverty which of his own accord he took upon him for our sakes. If this baseness of humbling himself seem amiss to thee, wonder the rather at the love of the Son towards us. For that which thou sayest is base, that did he for thy sake. And again, 
k Ibid. Incongruum esse dicis deo verbo humanitus sacrficium ministrarepro ●er personam Ergo aufer personam, nega constanter factam incarnationem verbi propter quam nominatus est etiam pontif●x.  Thou sayest it is unfitting for God the Word according to man to offer sacrifice as touching the person. Then take away the person; deny flatly that there is any incarnation of the Word by means whereof he is also named the high Priest. To be short, be questioneth with his adversary in this sort: 
l Ibid. Quomodo unitum dicis ei qui exs●mine david est ex deo verbum sisol● qui ex sentine D●uid est Pontificatum attribuis? si vera est unto, non duo utique sunt sed unas & solus ex am●obus intelligitur Christus.  How dost thou say that the Word which is of God is united unto him that is of the seed of David, if thou attribute Priesthood to him only who is of the seed of David? If there be true union, saith he, than there are not two, but Christ of both is understood only one: leaving it to be consequent which he afterwards concludeth, that 
m Ibid. in fine: Ipsion●ma tribuimus tanqu●m rni.  we are to attribute all to Christ as one, not making him our high Priest, as man only and not as God, but acknowledging the whole person God and man, to be our high Priest and mediator unto God. The Arians also as I have said, laboured by the same objections to overthrow the Godhead of Christ. That the Son was inferior to the Father they would prove for that Christ saith of himself, that he came to do the will of his Father. But Athanasius answereth, that 
n Athanas. de co. essentia patris & fi ij, etc.  God fulfilleth the willer desire of them that fear him, and yet this is no abasing of him. The same they inferred because Christ is brought inº ask or requesting of the Father. 
p Ibid. Affirmat haereticus minorem esse potentem datore, si igitur patrem petentem inverias, quid hic respenacas? Et nunc Israel quid dominus tuus à te petit, etc.  The heretic affirmeth, saith Athanasius, that he that requesteth, is inferior to him that giveth. What wilt thou answer then, saith he, if God request? 
q Deut. 10.12.  And now O Israel, saith Moses, what doth the Lord thy God 
* The Hebrew word is the same as Psal. 2.8.  ask or request of thee, but that thou fear him. He leaveth it to be understood, that God notwithstanding doth not thereby become inferior to us. Sundry other like examples might be alleged: but in brief I answer as before, that the things which in this behalf we affirm concerning Christ, do no more bereave him of equality with God, than a King by vouchsafying of his Princely grace to do some act of special office to a subject, doth thereby divest himself of the majesty of a king. And this the ancient Fathers saw well, who though they make the manhood of Christ the subject and matter wherein and whereby this mediation is performed, and in that respect do sometimes refer it only to the manhood, yet do otherwise acknowledge that the acting and effecting thereof, belongeth to the whole person both God and man. Therefore Ambrose saith, that 
r Ambros. in 1. Tim. ca 2. ut ex utroque esset mediator.  on both parts he is a mediator; that 
s Idem in Heb. 7. In aeternum divinitate & humanitate mediator inter deum & homines semper vivens est etc.  both by his Godhead and by his manhood, he is the mediator betwixt God and man. So saith Austin, that 
t Aug. Orat. cont. judaeos, Pagan & Arian. c. 8. Nobis mediator sactus est homo totus & deus, verbum, amma, cara, unus Christus.  whole Christ both God and man, the word, the soul and the flesh being one Christ is made our mediator. Yea and out of the very nature of a Mediator it followeth that he must be so understood, not only as man, but as God also. For 
u Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom. 7. Id mediatoris est proprium utrorumque participem fieri quorum suerit mediator. etc. Quia duarum naturarum medius suit Christus, ambarum oportuit esse participem.  it belongeth to a Mediator, saith chrysostom, to be partaker of them both, betwixt whom he is a mediator: therefore because Christ was a mediator betwixt two natures, he was to be partaker of them both. 
x Theophylact in 1. Tim. c. 2. Nequaquam purus est deus; neque enim homines hunc excepissent qui esset intercessor futurus: nec simplex homo quip qui deum esset allocuturus.  He is not only God, saith Theophylact, for then men could not have admitted him to be intercessor for them; neither is he only man, because he was to deal with God. Hence therefore doth he take an argument, to prove that Christ is God, 
y Ibid. Quòd deus sit filius liquet ex eo quia & conciliator fit & mediator effectus.  because he is made an intercessor or mediator. And in the same sort Theodoret reasoneth against Arius the heretic: 
z Theodoret. in 1. Tim. cap. 2. si ut vult Arius filius patris substantiae non est particeps, quomodo est intercessor?  If Christ be not partaker of the substance of his Father, how is he then a mediator? Now if a mediator, as a mediator must be God, why doth M. Bishop with his fellows bear us in hand that Christ as he is God is not a mediator? Why are they so fond to make our assertion an inducement of Arianism, when they see the Fathers to have made it a ground to dispute against Arius? for the avouching of the Godhead of Christ in this person of a mediator did Melancthon use those other words (if at least he did use them, for I find them not) which M. Bishop taxeth; There must needs be in him somewhat of the divine nature. Where because he saith somewhat, M. Bishop inferreth; some other thing then belike was wanting. Full wisely I warrant you. But I pray let us ask him, when Thomas Aquinas said that 
a Tho. Aquin. in 1 Tim. cap. 2. lect. 2. Christus mediator est similis utrique extremo, scilicet deo & homini inquantum deus & homo, quia medium debet habere aliquid de utroque extremorum & haec sunt homo & deus.  Christ the Mediator was like to God and man in respect that he was both God and man because the Mediator must have somewhat of both the extremes which are God and man, did he mean thereby that Christ had a part of the Godhead, and wanted another part; or a part of the nature of man and not the whole? If not, how little doth M. Bishop's head serve him to conceive there a partition meant of the essence of God where there is only intended a distinction of two natures in one Christ? Melancthons' meaning is plain, that as Christ had somewhat whereby he was truly man, so he had somewhat also whereby he was truly God; even the perfect nature and substance both of God and man. As for his last cavil, that we expound the texts of Scripture used by the Fathers against the Arians in the same sort as the Arians did, because it nameth no man, it deserveth no answer. His master Bellarmine from whose dunghill it is that he gathereth all his muck, accuseth Erasmus in that respect, but I hope M. Bishop will not say that Erasmus was a Protestant. Whatsoever he was, or howsoever he faulted therein, so little is he approved or followed by the Protestants, as that Beza in 
b See Beza. Annotat. in Coloss. 1.15. Philip. 2.6. 1. Tim. 3.16 Tit. 2.13.  sundry places professedly disputeth against him, and rechargeth against the Arians those places from which he seemeth to discharge them.   

8. W. BISHOP.  
But this shall appear yet much more perspiciously, if we do well weigh what they teach touching the very nature of the Godhead itself. Whosoever denies God to be almighty, or presumes to limit the infinite power of God, within the compass of man's weak understanding, he in effect makes him no God at all, but some mean creature of a limited strength and power: such be all Protestants, who affirm that God cannot set a body in the world, without a circumscribed place; 
Oecolamp. de verbis Domini. Beza in Neoph. simil. count And pag. 15.  nor any one body in many places at once, with such like: the which (because they cannot, out of the dullness of their wit, or will not of frowardness, conceive to be in nature possible) they flatly deny God to be able to do: yea, some of them were so blind 
* In a conference at Paris.  and bold, as to avouch God, not to be able to conceive or understand, how that is possible; which notwithstanding very natural Philosophy teacheth to have no repugnance in itself, as in his place I have proved.   

R. ABBOT. 
How some things are affirmed unpossible to God.   
To say that there are some things which God cannot do, or that are unpossible to God, is not to argue in God any impotency or defect, but to commend his perfection and power. 
a 2. Tim. 2.13.  God cannot deny himself: 
b Heb. 6.18.  it is unpossible that God should lie. 
c Ambros. epist. 37. Impossibile istud non infirmitatis est sed virtutis & maiestatis &c. Quid ei impossibile? Non quod virtuti arduum, sed quod naturae eius est contrarium.  This impossibility saith Ambrose, is not a matter of infirmity but of might and majesty. What is unpossible to God, saith he? Not any thing that is hard to be done by power, but that which is contrary to his nature. 
d Idem in. Psal. 118. ser. 20. Quid non potest quiomnia potest nisi quod posse nolit?  What cannot he do who can do all things, but what he will not have possible for him to do? To the same purpose S. Austen saith that 
e Aug. de ciu. dei lib. 5. c. 10. Recte deus dicitur ommpotens qui tamen mori fallique non potest. Dicitur enim omnipotens faciendo quod vult, non patiendo quod non vult, quod si ei accederet, nequaquam esset omnipotens: unde propterea quaedam non potest quia est emnipotens.  God is rightly called omnipotent, who yet can not die, can not be deceived. For he is called omnipotent, saith he, for doing what he will, not for suffering what he willeth not, which if he should, he were not almighty. God therefore cannot some things, for that very cause because he is almighty. Thus God cannot be any other but God, he cannot of the Creator make himself a creature, he cannot according to his Godhead be a body, he cannot make a creature the same that he himself is, not because he is not almighty, but because his almightiness is a thing positive in respect of the creature, not privative to himself. Thomas Aquinas M. Bishops own Doctor, goeth further in this matter, and telleth us that 
f T. Aqui. 1. q. 25. art. 3. in corp. Deus dicitur omnipotens quia potest omnia possi●i ia absolutè. Duitur autem aliquid possibile vel impossibile absolutè ex habitudine terminorum: possibile, quia praeditatum non repugnat subiecto: impossibile absolutè, quia predicatum repugnat subiecto: ut hominem ●sse asioun etc. Quicquid potest habere rationem entis continetur sub possibilibus absolutis, etc. Nihil autem opponitur rationi entis nisi non ens. Hoc igitur repugnat rationi possibilis absoluti quod implicat in se esse & non ●ssesimul, etc. Ea quae contradictionem implicant sub divina omnipotentia non continentur etc. Convenientius dicitur quod ea non possunt fieri quàm quòd deus ea non possit facere.  God is called almighty, because he can do all things that are absolutely possible, not the things that are absolutely unpossible. Absolutely possible is when the things affirmed each of other are not one repugnant to the other; but where the thing affirmed is repugnant to that whereof it is affirmed, as for a man to be a man and yet to be an ass, this is absolutely unpossible. Whatsoever may have the condition of a thing being, is absolutely possible. Not being is opposite to being. That therefore which implieth in it at once both to be and not to be, is repugnant to the condition of a thing absolutely possible, which is the subject of God's omnipotency. His resolution in a word is, that those things which imply contradiction are not comprehended under God's omnipotency because they cannot have the condition of things possible to be, and therefore it is more conveniently said that they cannot be, than that God cannot do them. He useth for examples hereof that 
g Ib. are 6.  God cannot make the number of four to be but four and yet to be more than four; that he cannot make a thing essentially better than it is and to be still the same thing; 
h Ib. are. 4.  that he cannot make those things not to have been which have been. Thus Hierome saith; that 
i Hier. ad Eustath. Cum omnia possit deus, suscitare v●rginem nen potest post ruinam.  whereas God can do all things, yet he cannot make a virgin not to have been corrupted when she hath been corrupted. S. Austen bringing in one, saying; 
k Aug. count faust. Manich. l. 26. cap. 5 Quis. quis dicit, si omnipotens est deus, faciat ut quae facta sunt, facta non fuerint; non videt hoc se dicere, si omnipotens est deus, faciat ●t ea quae vera sunt eo ipso quo verasunt, faisa sint etc. Hanc sententiam (qua di●imus aliquid suisse) deus falsum facere non potest quia non est contrarius veritati.  If God be almighty, let him make those things not to have been which have been, answereth thus; The man seethe not that in effect he saith: If God be almighty, let him make those things that are true even in that they are true, to be notwithstanding false. But this sentence (that the thing hath been which indeed hath been) God cannot make false because he is not contrary to the truth. In all these things then, and such like, to say God cannot do this or that, 
l Tho. Aqu. ibid. ut supra. Hoc omnipotentiae non stibditur non propter defectum divinae potentiae, sed quia non potest habere rationem factibilis vel possibilis.  is not for any defect of power in God, as Thomas saith, but because the same is not capable of the condition of a thing possible to be. I speak hereof with trembling and fear, abhorring the words that may carry any appearance or show to be unreverently uttered of the majesty of God; but yet the truth of God must be justified against the headstrong importunity of malicious and wilful men. If then any of ours have used any speeches to that purpose, that God cannot do that, that is the impeaching of his eternal wisdom and truth, and have hence inferred that therefore he cannot set a body in the world without a circumscribed place or any one body continuing but one in many places at once, they have not hereby denied the omnipotency of God, but only challenged the power of God from being made a cloak or shrouding place for men's presumptuous fancies against God. To take away the essential condition of a thing, and yet to leave it the same that it was, is a mere contradiction, and importeth a thing absolutely unpossible in itself. Now it is the essential condition and property of a body to be circumscribed and bounded within a place, so as not to remove to another place without leaving that, and to take away this property is to destroy the nature and condition of a body. Therefore to say that a body may be without a circumscribed place, is to say that it may be at once both a body and not a body, circumscribed and not circumscribed, which being a thing repugnant to the truth of God, to say that a thing is and yet it is not; it is that which it is not, and it is not that which it is, the denial thereof is not a denial of God's omnipotency, but a reproof of men's folly, who to uphold their own devices, stick not to broach paradoxes and strange opinions injurious unto almighty God. They who affirm the ubiquity of the body of Christ, they likewise pretend for their defence the omnipotency of God. And what will M. Bishop, I marvel, answer them thereof? Is not their allegation of God's almighty power as strong against him as his is against us? And will he be taken to deny the omnipotency of God because he subscribeth it not to be a matter of God's omnipotency to make a finite creature of like infinity with himself! If not, let him yield the same measure to us that he doth to himself; and acknowledge his own temerity and rashness in charging us that we limit the infinite power of God within the compass of man's weak understanding, and in effect make him no God at all, only because we will not betray God's omnipotency to be the relief of their fancy. He telleth us of some who were so blind and bold as to avouch God not to be able to conceive or understand how that is possible which he hath spoken of, and this he noteth to have been in a conference at Paris; but who they were, or when this conference was, he telleth us nothing: and for my part I take it that he doth therein but use his liberty (he knoweth what I mean) as he is wont to do. Albeit I doubt not but some man in some form of words might allude to that which Thomas Aquinas saith, who having affirmed the impossibility of Gods doing those things which absolutely in themselves are unpossible, addeth; 
m Tho. Aqu. ut supra Nesp hoc est contra verbum angeli dicentis, Non erit impossibile deo omne vertum Id enim quod contra●ictionem implicat, verbum esse non potest, quia nullus intellectus potest illud concipere.  Neither is this contrary to the word of the Angel, saying, No word shall be unpossible to God; for that which implieth contradiction, can be no word, saith he, because no understanding (speaking universally) is able to conceive it. Yet M. Bishop telleth us that very natural Philosophy teacheth that that which they say, hath no repugnancy in itself, as in his place, saith he, I have proved; but where that place is we do not yet find. As for the Philosophy which they teach their naturals, we do not well know what it is, but we well think that never any wise Philosopher was so unreasonable a natural as to hold it a matter of natural reason, that a body should be without circumscription and yet remain a body or be in many places at once being but one and the same body; and that the ancient Fathers were of another reason I have 
n Sect. 2.  before showed. And if by natural Philosophy it may be made good, why doth he a little before blame man's weak understanding as unable to conceive it? why do their writers of natural Philosophy always pass it over as a matter beyond their element and without the compass of their rules? yea why do they all rest it upon so extraordinary an act of God's omnipotency, if there be nothing but what the light of natural Philosophy can enable us to comprehend? To conclude this point, before M. Bishop any more question God's power in this matter, we wish him to resolve us of God's will; and if he can approve to us the will of God, we will doubt no farther of his power. If he cannot so do, he doth but reason as Praxeas the Heretic did; 
o Tertul. adu. praxcam. Ergò inquiunt difficile non fuit deo ipsum se & patrem & fiiium facere etc. sed si tam abruptè in praesumptionibus nostris hac sententia utamur, quiduis de deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit quia facere potuerit.  It was not hard or unpossible to God to make himself both the Father and the Son, his heresy standing in the confounding of the persons, and making them all one. But, saith Turtullian, if in our own presumptions we so abruptly use that sentence (that nothing is unpossible to God) we may feign of God what we list, and say that he hath done it because he could do it: M. Bishop then must not marvel that in his presumptions we likewise resist him. As Tertullian required the Heretics, so do we him to prove to us 
p Ibid. Probare debebis ex scriptures, etc.  by Scripture that which he affirmeth to be believed upon the power of God.   

9 W. BISHOP.  
If they were enemies to God's omnipotency alone, it might be somewhat excused, because that might seem to proceed rather from the weakness of their understanding, then out of any ill affection towards God: but if they do further oppose themselves against the goodness, mercy, and justice of God; that must needs discover very great impiety to lie festering in their bowels. Who seethe not, that it doth highly attaint the inestimable goodness of God, and his tender love towards mankind, to impute the reprobation of man, and his eternal damnation, not unto man's own wickedness and deserts, but unto the mere will and pleasure of God himself: and yet this is too too common an assertion amongst the Protestants. 
In colloq. Monpelgar. pag. 522.  Let Beza one of their bravest champions, speak for the rest: God (saith he) in his secret counsel, hath set down an unremooveable decree, that he will not have the greater part of men saved, nor to believe in Christ, and come to the knowledge of truth; but hath created, ordained, and predestinated them to everlasting damnation. 
Pag. 336.  To whom M. PERKINS in this book draweth near, affirming it to proceed from the very will of God, that he shows mercy to some, and forsaketh others. Mercy (indeed) God of his mere goodness doth power out upon us abundantly: but to imagine that he of his own will and prime choice, without any foresight of our sins, doth forsake us, and appoint us to hell fire, is heinous impiety, most contrary unto the very nature of God; whose goodness is so pure and sincere, that it doth good to all things, and wisheth evil to none; unless they do first greatly deserve it. What an ungodly opinion than is it, to hold that he of his own free choice ordained man (a creature made to his own Image and likeness) to most grievous and endless torments, without foresight of any offence of his? As though he should take a singular pleasure, to see a principal work of his own hands, fry in hell fire.   

R. ABBOT.  
Here M. Bishop going about to discover impiety in us, bewrayeth exceeding great ignorance in himself, not having yet learned to put a difference betwixt reprobation & damnation. We say and we therein say the truth, that there is no cause of damnation but only sin, and yet we say as truly, that there is no cause of reprobation, 
The will of God the true cause of reprobation.  but only the will and pleasure of almighty God. Damnation is God's sentence of judgement whereby he assigneth the reprobate to eternal punishment for sin. Reprobation is the counsel and decree of God whereby he leaveth men in the state of sin wherein he found them that they may justly be condemned. 
a Bernard. de advent. dom. ser. 1. Omnes in Adam peccavimus, & in eo sententiam damnationis accepimus omnes.  We have all sinned in Adam, saith Bernard, and in him we have all received the sentence of damnation. From this state of damnation God freeth some, the rest he leaveth and forsaketh. What is the cause hereof, M. Bishop, we would gladly hear it of you? If you look to sin, both sorts are sinners alike: there is no more cause to condemn the one, than to condemn the other, no more cause to save the one, than to save the other. Tell us M. Bishop what it is whereby God is moved to make so great difference betwixt them, betwixt whom according to themselves there is no difference at all? Surely we in our learning can find no other reason hereof but that which the Apostle setteth down, 
b Rom. 9.18.  so than he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. And what? did M. Bishop never read these words of the Apostle? If not, how came he I marvel to be a doctor of Divinity? If he ever read them why then doth he here blame M. Perkins for speaking so directly according to those words that it proceeedeth from the very will of God that he showeth mercy to some and forsaketh others? But let him yet further hear the Apostle more fully cleared this matter by example, as namely of jacob and Esau, two brethren, borne of the same parents, begotten at the same time, brought forth at one birth: 
c vers. 11.  Before the children were borne, when they had yet done neither good nor evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger: I have loved jacob and hated Esau. Look to them in nature, they are both men; look to them in condition, they are both sinners. Whence ariseth the difference? If M. Bishop will say that God dealt herein according to foresight of the works that they should do, the one good, the other bad, S. Austen derideth him saying, 
d Aug. ep. 105. Quisistum acutissimum sensum defuisse Apostolo non miretur?  Who would not wonder that this sharp conceit should be wanting to the Apostle? Nay 
e Idem Enchir. c. 98. Qua in re si futura opera, vel bona huius, vel mala illius, quae utique deus praesciebat vellet intelligi, nequaquam diceret, Non ex operibus, sed diceret, Ex futuris operibus, eoque modoistam solueret quaestionem, immò nullam quam solui opus esset faceret quaestionem.  if the Apostle would have had us to understand future works, either the good of the one, or the evil of the other, he would not have said, Not of works, but would have said, because of their works to come, and thus would he have cleared the question, or rather have made no question that should need cleared. It remaineth then that there is no other reason to be given, as 
f Bell. de Amiss. great. & stat. percati. l. 2. c. 12. Huius discretionis nulla causa assignari potest nisi dei voluntas.  Bellarmine also confesseth, but only the pleasure of him who showeth mercy to whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth, that is 
g Aug. de praed. & great. c. 6. quasi diceretur, cui vult donat, & à quo vuit a debitum posset.  remitteth the debt to whom he list, and where he list, requireth it. And surely if this matter of election and reprobation were to be decided out of the difference of works, there were no cause for the Apostle to stick upon the difficulty thereof, whereas now to human judgement he stutteth and stammereth, and knoweth not what to say to give reason of that he saith. He is content to rest upon this, that 
h Rom. 9.14.  there is no iniquity with God. To them that will not be satisfied herewith, but go forward contentiously to wrangle, he answereth, 
i vers. 20.  O man, who art thou which pleadest against God? shall the thing form, say to him that form it, why hast thou made me thus? In the end of all that discourse, as it were a man amazed, he crieth out; 
k Rom. 11.33.  O the deepness of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God; how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out? What needeth all this ado if all might so easily be dispatched, as M. Bishop pretendeth, by allegation of the free will and works of men? But the Apostle well understood that this would not serve the turn: he saw a depth which he could not dive into; a secret which he could not search, and therefore by checking and admiring, he represseth the curiosity and presumption of them whom by answering he cannot satisfy. Yet in a word this is enough to stop the mouths of all men that all being in Adam lost and cast away, it was free for God to save out of this condemned multitude whom it pleased him, and to leave the rest at his will to be disposed to other use. Albeit if M. Beza and some other do rest this point of reprobation upon a prime and absolute decree of God, to which the fall of Adam is not in order precedent but subsequent, will M. Bishop dare to say that the justice of God is hereby impeached or attainted? will he say that God dealeth unjustly therein if that be supposed to be true? Surely S. Austin was of another mind, and acknowledgeth in this behalf God's absolute sovereignty over his Creature to do therewith whatsoever it pleaseth him. 
l Aug. de praedsi & great. c. 16. humanum genus quod creatum primitus constat ex nihilo non cum debita mortis et peccati origine nasceretur, & tamen ex eye creator omnipotens in aeternum no●nullos damnare vellet interitum, quis omnipotenti creatori diceret, Quare fecisti sic? Qui enim cum non essent, esse donaverat, quo fine essent habuit potestatem: nec dicerent caeteri, cur paribus omnium meritis divinum discreparet arbitrium, quia potestatem habet figulus luti ex eadem massa facere aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud veròin contumeliam.  If mankind, saith he, created at first of nothing, were borne without the debt and due original of death and sin, and yet the almighty creator would of them condemn some to everlasting destruction, who would say to him, why hast thou so done? for he who when they were not, gave them to be, had it in his power for what end they should be, neither might the rest ask, why the merits of all being alike, the judgement of God should differ, because the potter hath power over the clay to make of the same lump one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. So doth Oecumenius bring in Photius challenging upon the same ground the same prerogative unto almighty God. 
m Phoc. apud Oecumen. in Rom. 8. Dato quòd deus ita te formauerit neque ita justum est deo contradicere illumque accusare. Nam etsi nihil aliud praerogativae illi tribuere velis, qui supra omnem est & mentem & sermonem, at saltem quod omnibus commune est figulis quomodocunque rem effingentibus admodum absurdum est et impium ab eo tollere. Quid igitur illud est? Quòd nullum figmentum suum plasten accusat, aut redarguit, sed liberam habet voluntatem quisque opifex operari prout libuerit & fingere & accusatione racat, potissimum autem apud ea quae finxit, itaque & tu etiamsi ut dicis, formatus sis, non debes indignari aut contradicere juxta communem figmentorum legem ac modum.  Grant, saith he, that God hath made thee thus, yet is it not just for thee to speak against God, or to accuse him. For albeit thou wilt yield no greater prerogative to him who is above all understanding and speech, yet were it absurd and impious that thou shouldest take from him that that is common to all workmen who in any sort frame or fashion any thing, namely that no work accuseth or reproveth the maker, but every workman is at his liberty to work and fashion as he will, and is not blamed, specially by the things which he hath made. Therefore although thou be so made as thou sayest, yet according to the common rule and condition of things made, thou art not to repine or gainsay thy maker. Thus did these fathers see in the Apostles words how to free the majesty of God from all attainder of injustice even in the supposal of that whence M. Bishop deriveth the same attainder. Beza then and his followers may have their reasons for that they say, and yet so as to leave the justice of God without impreachment or challenge. Yet we for our parts do not therein assent to them nor see in their reasons any such weight as that we should be moved thereby to vary from the common received judgement of the ancient Church. 
God's foresight of man's fall precedent in order to his decree of reprobation.  We therefore resolve as most consonant and agreeable to the course of Scripture, that God purposing to do a work for the setting forth of his own glory, did consequently determine the manner thereof in the creation of Angels and men, whom he would leave in the hand of their own counsel, and suffer them, the one in part, the other wholly, both by their own default, to fall from the state of their original. Yet for mankind, he thought it most fit in respect of the end whereat he aimed, to provide a Redeemer and Saviour, and for that end purposed the incarnation and death of jesus Christ his only begotten Son, in whom and for whose sake he elected out of the generations of men a remnant towards whom he would make the riches of his mercy most abundantly to appear and be glorified in them; the rest he deputed to be vessels of his wrath, and instruments to serve his purposes both for the executing of his judgements, one of them upon another, and for the use and benefit of his elect. These counsels and purposes we understand to be without difference of time with him who at one sight beholdeth all things from the beginning to the end, but the natural process and subordination thereof we hold to be in this sort most rightly described, even in the same manner as God hath executed and manifested the same unto us. Neither do we conceive how it can stand good to have this connexion framed otherwise, for it is absurd to think that God would decree what to do with man before he had decreed to create man; and how should he elect if they were not first in his purpose out of whom he should elect? Election maketh men 
n Rom. 9.23.  the vessels of mercy, and 
o L●rnard. de conuers. ad Cleric. ca 10. Misericordiae prepria sedes miseria est.  the proper seat of mercy is misery, as S. Bernard saith. How then should God elect men to be vessels of mercy, but that we must first presuppose misery in respect whereof he would show mercy? In a word, how should we be said to be 
p Eph. 1.4.6.  elected in Christ and accepted in Christ, if God's purpose of our election be by order of causes antecedent to Christ's mediation? Now if God's purpose of the creation and redemption of man be in order precedent to election, we must conceive the like of reprobation that it presupposeth the fall of man, whereby the justice of God is acquitted, God finding mankind in state wherein he might justly condemn all, and it being his only mere mercy that he saveth some. Albeit whether way soever we determine this point, God is alike made subject to those profane wranglings which M. Bishop hath here expressed, and froward men vnstring their tongues to quarrel and question with him, why he should suffer Adam to fall when it was in his power to hold him up? why they should be condemned in Adam who in themselves have done nothing against him? why he should give men over to lie frying in hell fire for that which they could not help, nor had any means for the avoiding of it? But against all such exceptions we answer with the former words of the Apostle, There is no unrighteousness with God, and O man who art thou that disputest against God? As for God's inestimable goodness and mercy, which M. Bishop withal allegeth it is not to be measured by his vain fancy but by the rule of God himself, who though he be good and merciful in some sort generally to all, yet of his special mercy hath made a limitation saying, 
q Exo. 33.10. Rom. 9.15.  I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. For the rest, let him take that which the Scripture pronounceth of them, that 
r Rom. 9.22.  they are vessels of wrath prepared to destruction, 
s 1. Pet. 2.8.  ordained to this self same thing, 
t 2. Pet. 2.12.  made to be taken and destroyed, 
u Jude vers. 4.  written of old to this condemnation. Let him hear what Solomon saith; 
x Pro. 16.4.  The Lord hath created all things for himself, even the wicked against the day of evil. If he like not these things, let him enter his action against God; let him not repine at us who do no more but report them from the mouth of God.   

10. W. BISHOP.  
Another opinion some of them hold, which is yet much more blasphemous than the other, to wit: that God, who hath been always by good men esteemed the author of all good, and so merely good in his own nature and will, that he cannot possibly do or think any evil: that this Ocean (I say) of goodness, is become the author, plotter, promoter, and worker of all the wickedness and mischief, that is, or hath been committed in the world. 
De provid. dei. pag. 365.  This is the doctrine of Zwinglius a great Rabin among the new gospelers, who avoucheth that when we commit either adultery, murder, or any such like crime, that it is the work of God, he being the author, moving and pushing us on to do it. Again, that the thief by God's motion and persuasion, murdereth, and is oftentimes compelled to sin. 
In cap. 1. ad Rom.  With him agreeth Bucer sometimes a professer of divinity in the University of Cambridge; censuring him to deny God flatly, who doth not firmly believe, that God doth work in man, as well all evil, as all good. Of the same accursed crew was Melancthon, who upon the 8. chapter to the Romans, saith: Even as we confess Paul's vocation to have been Gods proper work: so do we acknowledge these to be the proper works of God, which are either indifferent, as is to eat and drink; or that are evil, as the adultery of David, and such like. For it is evident out of the first to the Romans, that God doth all things mightily (as Augustine speaketh) and not permissively: so that the treason of judas is as properly the work of God, as the calling of Paul. 
Lib. 1. Inst. c. 18. ss. 1.  But the principal proctor and promoter of this blasphemy is Caluin, who of set purpose bestows a whole chapter of his Institutions, to hell, to prove and persuade it. There he avoucheth boldly, that the blinding and madness of Achab, was the will and decree of God: that Absalon indeed defiling his father's bed with incestuous adultery, committed detestable wickedness; yet this was Gods own work: briefly, that nothing is more plain than that God blindeth the eyes of men, striketh them with giddiness, maketh them drunk, casteth them into madness, and hardeneth their hearts. And whereas the poor Papists were wont to interpret such texts of Scripture, as seem to attribute these things to God, by saying, that God doth indeed justly permit and suffer such things to be done, but is not the author of them: this, Caluin will not in any wise admit of, but in the same place confutes it; saying. These things many refer to sufferance, as if in forsaking the reprobate, he suffered them to be blinded by Satan: but that solution (saith he) is too fond: and so goeth on, proving that God doth not only suffer, but actually effect and work all the evil that any man committeth: yea, he addeth that which is more horrible: that God doth work this evil in man, 
Ibid. sess. 17.1.  by Satan's service as a mean; yet so as God is the principal worker of it, and the Devil but his instrument. Is not this blasphemy in the highest degree, to make God a more principal author, and worker of all wickedness, done in the world, than the Devil himself? this is much wrose then flat Atheism: for it is the lesser impiety of two to hold that there is no God at all, then to believe that God worketh more effectually all mischief, than the infernal spirits do. But some of our Protestants will perhaps say, that they hold not this opinion: be it so, for I think better of many of them: yet, be not these men that so teach, as it were the founders of the new Gospel, and men of chiefest mark among them? Now what force such principal authors (as they take Melancthon, Zwinglius, Bucer, and Caluin to be) may have, to carry the rest away into the same errors, I know not. Sure I am, that Caluins' Institutions (wherein this matter is so vehemently urged) is translated into English, and in the Preface commended to all students of Christian divinity, as one of the most profitable (the holy Scriptures excepted) for the sound declarations of truth in articles of religion.   

R. ABBOT.  
This matter of horrible blasphemy and impiety, 
God not made by us the author of sin.  M. Bishop hath formerly charged us with in his epistle Dedicatory to the King, and in the 
a Answer to the epistle. sect. 14.  answer to the same epistle it is fully cleared. Now he being enraged and mad in his mind, that he cannot tell how to gainsay that that is there answered, and yet being loath to lose the advantage of such a slander, reneweth it here again; and to give it some better colour, bringeth the names of divers principal writers of our part, Zuinglius, Bucer, Melancthon, and Caluin, whom he affirmeth to have been authors and maintainers of this accursed and damnable heresy. And herein his master Bellarmine as well as he, egregiously playeth the Sycophant, taking upon him by a more than Alchimisticall extraction to draw out of some sentences of the forenamed authors, that God 
b Bell. de Amiss. great. & statu peccats. li. 2. cap. 4.5.6.7.  is the author of sin, that God truly and properly sinneth, yea, that it is God only which sinneth and not man, and that sin is but a matter of false opinion; from which wicked assertions, those worthy men were as far, as the jesuite was far from honesty, as he was far indeed, in the objecting of them. They say nothing but what S. Austin of old resolved against the Pelagian heretics; their words, their phrases, their sentences are in effect the same, and with the answers wherewith he shifteth off the sayings of Austin: he may also put off the words of Caluin and the rest, and say, that indeed they make nothing against him. Yea, & it is worthy to be noted, that what these men now object against us, the very same did the Pelagians object against S. Austin, 
c Aug. add artic. sibi falsò impositos. art. 5. Quod peccatorum nostrorum author sit deus. & quòd malam hominum faciat voluntatem.  that by his doctrine God was made the author of our sins, and did make the will of men evil. As he was free from any cause of such calumniation, so are we also, and so much the more resolute are we in our defence, for that we see that Bellarmine labouring to be contrary unto us, yet by the very evidence of truth, whilst he answereth our arguments, is forced in a manner to acknowledge as much as we say. We all teach with one consent, that man's sin is wholly of himself by corruption of na-nature, and that from his own heart as from a poisoned root proceedeth all the wickedness of his life: to God we attribute no more but that he voluntarily permitteth, and wisely ordereth, and justly useth to his purposes the sin of man. He caused not Adam to fall; he did nothing either within him or without him, whereby to supplant him or to overthrow him; but knowing that being thus created though it were in his power to stand, yet he would certainly fall, it was his will and decree to suffer him so to do, because 
d Aug de corrept. & great. ca 10. scivit. magis ad omnipotentissimam bonitatem suam pertinere etiam de malis benefacere quàm malae esse non sinere.  he knew that it did appertain to his almighty goodness, rather out of evil to do good, than not to suffer evil to be at all. Was it not fit that God by his decree should determine whatsoever is just and good? 
e Gre. Moral. l. 11. c. 2. Omnipotens deus quod fieri prohibet justum est ut fieri sinat.  It is just, saith Gregory, that the almighty God suffer that to be done which notwithstanding he forbiddeth to be done; and 
f Aug. Enchir. c. 96. ut non solum bona, sed etiam sint & mala bonum est.  it is good, saith Austen, that there be not good only, but also evil; not in respect of the evil itself (which God hateth and detesteth, and 
g Greg. Moral. lib. 16. cap. 23. Inultum abire non sinit iniustum quod just fieri permisit.  suffereth not that injustice to go unrevenged which he justly suffered to be done) but because out of evil there is much good wrought which could not be without evil. And by this means 
h Ibid. l. 6. c. 12. Miro modo sit v● & quod sine voluntate dei agitur, eius voluntati contra. rium non sit, quia dum in bonum usum mala facta vertuntur, eius consilio militant etiam quae cius cousilio repugnant.  it cometh strangely to pass saith Gregory again, that that which is done without the will of God, yet is not against his will, because whilst evil deeds are turned to good use, those things serve the counsel and will of God which notwithstanding are repugnant unto it. For that all sin and wickedness is contrary to the will of God we know undoubtedly, and yet we also know and are assured that in the world 
i Aug Enchir. c. 96. Non fit aliquid nisi omnipotens fieri velit, vel sinendo ut fiat vel ipse faciendo.  nothing is done unless the almighty will have it done, either himself doing it or suffering it to be done. But it is one thing to speak of Gods will in respect of his approbation and liking whereby he willeth only that that is good; another thing to speak of his will in respect of his providence, whereby all things are subject to his power and government, and nothing can be if he say nay to the being of it. It is one thing to say what God willeth properly for itself, another thing to say what he willeth accidentally for the good use that he can make of it. In regard of which use though he suffer evil to be in the world, yet he suffereth no confusion of evil, but 
k Greg. Moral. l. 18. ca 17 Ab iniquis factane inordinatè eveniant, ipse disponens.  disposeth the doings of wicked men that they may not befall unorderly, because 
l Aug. Enchir. c. 11. Illud quod malum dicitur ordinatum & suo loco positum eminentiùs commendat bona.  evil being ordered & put in his due place, doth the more eminently grace and set forth the things that are good. 
m Idem. de praedest. sanct. c. 16. Est ergò in malorum potestate peccare, ut autem peccando he vel hoc illa malitia faciant, non est in eorum potestate sed dei dividentis tenebras & ordinatis eas, ut hinc etiam quod faciunt contra voluntatem dei non impleatur nisi voluntas dei.  It is then in the power of evil men to sin, as S. Austen saith, but in sinning to do by their wickedness this or that, is not in their power but in the power of God, who severeth the darkness from the light, and ordereth the same, so that by that which they do against the will of God they do nothing but what God will. The wickedness than issueth wholly out of man's heart, but God by his secret hand guideth it to go this way rather than another: he objecteth to it the persons that it shall work upon; he ministereth occasions to it to show itself now more then at another time, and here rather than otherwhere. By means whereof the thing that is done is diversly to be considered, and the author thereof is diversly reputed. For if we consider the act of sin in itself, it is properly and only the work of man: but if we consider it in the circumstance and order, it is rightly called the work of God. And so the man by whom the sin is committed, if he be considered in the thing itself which he hath done, he is thereby a sinful man: but if he be considered according to the order and direction of God's overruling hand, disposing him this way rather than another he is therein as Nabuchadnezzar, though unwittingly 
n jer. 25.9. & 27.6.  the Lords servant, as a tool wherewith he worketh, and as a staff wherewith he striketh. To which purpose we may observe how the evil spirit which vexed King Saul is termed 
o 1. Sam. 16.14.15. & 18.10.  an evil spirit of the Lord, the evil spirit of God. A man may demand, if it were an evil spirit, how could it be a spirit of God; or if it were a spirit of God, how should it be an evil spirit? Gregory answereth rightly: 
p Greg. Moral l. 2 ca 6. unus idemque spiritus et domini appeltur & malus: domini per licentiam potestatis iustae, malus per defiderium volllntatis iniustae.  It was a spirit of the Lord by leave and licence of just power, but an evil spirit by desire of unjust will. It is true which the same Gregory elsewhere saith; 
q Ibid. lib. 18. ca 3. Omnis diaboli voluntas iniusta est, & tamen permittente deo, omnis potestas justa.  that the will of the Devil is altogether unjust, but his power, which of God's permission only he hath, is altogether just. He is desirous always to do mischief, but is not at his own liberty to do all that he desireth: to God it belongeth to moderate and determine the course and effect of his desire. 
r Th. Aquin. p. 1. q. 114. art. 1. in corp. Impugnatio ipsa ex daemonum malitia procedit, etc. sed ordo impugnationis ipsius est à deo.  The devils impugning of men, saith Aquinas, is of the malice of the devils themselves, but the order of their impugning is of God. His power then being directed and limited to whom, and in what, and how far it shall extend is of God, and according to these circumstances in all that he doth, he doth the will of God: but the evil itself which he doth by the power thus given him, is of himself, and no part thereof is to be ascribed unto God. Even so it is with all the wickedness of man; his sin is only of himself, and God hath no part in it; but to God notwithstanding belongeth the ordering and disposing of it. By which order as sometimes he restraineth it & letteth it lie as it were a sleep, so sometimes also he giveth it way, exciteth it and provoketh it, and without working any wickedness in him maketh it to appear what before lay hid in the wicked heart of man. For as the beams of the sun do draw from the filthy cation a noisome stink, whereof the sun cannot be said to be the cause, which with the same beams causeth from the violet and the rose a pleasing and delightsome smell, but the whole matter thereof ariseth from the dead carcase itself: even so God, by the secret operation of his unsearchable power, findeth means to draw forth the sin and wickedness of man, which yet he in no sort worketh in him, but the whole contagion and filth thereof ariseth from the corruption of man himself. And this we conceive that God doth three manner of ways, by motion, by occasion, and by destitution, in all which he yet still remaineth pure and clear. Thomas Aquinas saith very rightly, that, 
s Th. Aquin. 1. 2 q. 79. art. 2. in 〈◊〉 Deus est causa omnis actionis quatenus est actio & q 80. art. 1. ad 3. Deus est universal principium omnis interioris motus humans.  God is the cause of every astion as it is an action, and the universal beginning of every inward motion of man. In sin therefore whatsoever belongeth to motion or action, God is truly affirmed to be the cause thereof. But as in the halting of a lame leg we are to distinguish betwixt the act of the soul whereby it moveth, and the defect of the leg whereby it halteth, so are we also in sin to sever by understanding the work of God whereby man moveth, and the default of man himself in the same motion whereby he sinneth. Which notwithstanding albeit in mind and consideration they be severed, yet in the subject go together; and as the motive faculty of the soul exercising itself, the leg forthwith by halting bewrayeth it own lameness and imperfection, even so it cometh to pass by corruption of nature in the whole man, that whilst God moveth nature, man acteth sin, whilst God cherisheth nature, man cherisheth sin, and of Gods giving strength of nature, man gathereth strength of sin. And thus the more God ministereth unto men either health and strength and vigour of body, or dexterity and sharpness of memory and mind and understanding, so much the more doth he discover the poison that is within them, without any default of his, but to the just condemnation of man himself that so disgraceth and abuseth the work of God. Neither is it to be objected that God being, the cause of the cause, must needs be also the cause of the effect, because as lameness and halting is not an effect of going, but a defect; nor is to be imputed to the motive faculty of the soul as the cause of it, but to the default and debility of the leg; so neither is sin the effect of the act and motion which God worketh, nor is he the cause of it, but it is the pravity and obliquity of man who is the subject of that motion. Now as by maintaining and moving of nature, so also by ministering occasions, God layeth stumbling blocks before the wicked whereat they fall and purchase further damnation to themselves: Occasions I say, not as if they did give occasion, or were of themselves inducements to evil, but because the iniquity of men even of good taketh occasion of evil, and turneth the righteousness of God to it own sin. Thus Aquinas well observeth that 
t Tho. Aquin. in Rom. c. 9 sect. 3. Ad malum dicitur inclinare occasionalitèr, inquantum scilicet deus homini aliquid proponit, vel interius vel exterius, quod quantum est de se est inductiwm ad bonum, sed homo propter suam malitiam perversè utitur ad malum.  God is said to incline men to evil by way of occasion in that he setteth before man somewhat either inwardly or outwardly which of itself tendeth to good, but man by his wickedness crossly useth it to evil. He strengtheneth in Pharaoh the care of the benefit of his people, and Pharaoh turneth it to the oppressing of God's people and to the resisting of the message which from God was sent unto him. 
u August. in Psal. 104. Non cor illorum malum faciendo, sed populo suo benefaciendo cor illorum sponte malum convertit ad odium.  By doing good to the israelites 
x Psal. 105.25.  he turned the heart of the Egyptians against them, so that they hated his people and dealt untruly with his servants. Thus God sendeth the preaching of the Gospel to unbelievers, and it becometh to them 
y 2. Cor. 2.16.  the Savour of death unto death. So 
x Psal. 69.22.  their table (where God giveth them plenty and abundance) becometh a snare unto them and their prosperity is their ruin, or as we commonly read it, the things that should have been for their wealth, become unto them an occasion of falling. But of this see what hath been said in the place before named, the fourteenth section of the answer of the epistle to the King. By destitution God draweth forth man's sin whilst he forsaketh him and leaveth him to himself and to the power and tyranny of Satan to be holden of him at his will. For as in the departure of the soul the corrupt body groweth to more putrefaction and corruption, so when God withdraweth himself from sinful man, his sin increaseth more and more: and as a house, the pillars whereof are taken away falleth with violence, so doth he run headlong and without any stay to all excess and obstinacy of sin. Yea and as a man being left naked and forlorn amidest his cruel enemies becometh a prey and a spoil unto them, so here being forsaken of God, Satan and his angels presently seize upon him, they blind him, they bind him as it were hand and foot, and carry him up and down whethersoever it pleaseth them. We must understand that God, though in the beginning he suffered man to fall away from him and thereby to deface in himself the glorious image of God according to which he was created, yet vouchsafed of his goodness so far to uphold in him both light of understanding and touch of conscience as might serve to direct him in some sort for moral and civil life for the preservation and maintenance of society amongst men. This direction of our life, God increaseth and strengtheneth much by education and instruction, more by the knowledge and understanding of true religion, most of all by the grace of spiritual regeneration. Were it not that God in mercy had set these bounds & banks to restrain and hold in the rage and fury of unlawful and wicked lust, the fall of man had carried him into all importunity and extremity of wickedness and abomination, and the state of men had been much worse than the state of bruit beasts. When God therefore taketh away these props and stays both of grace and nature, and leaveth lust to it own unbridled and unruly passage, and to the spurs of Satan's malicious provocations, what must needs follow, but that as the water upon the rapture of the banks breaketh forth with all force, and violently beareth down all that cometh in the way, so man setting a side all respect of conscience, of modesty and honesty, most wretchedly demeaneth himself; and the further God goeth from him, so much the more betaketh himself to all most ungodly and reprobate courses. When God left 
a 2. Sam. 11.4.14.  David a while to himself, how fearfully, how beyond all expectation did he fall? The like we see in Solomon, in Ezechias, in Peter, and other holy men and servants of God. Now 
b Luk. 23.31.  if these things befall in the green, what shallbe done in the dry? If it have been thus with them who have been near to God, what shall be expected of them who are strangers to God and have no part in the spirit of grace? What other ways and means God hath for that purpose 
c Aug. count julian Pelag. l 5. cap. 3. sive deserendo sive alio quocunque vel explicabili vel inexplicabili modo quo facit haec summè bonus & ineffabiliter justus.  either explicable, as Saint Austin speaketh, or unspeakable, we know not; only this we know, that he carrieth a most potent and mighty hand both inwardly and outwardly in moving and directing the wickedness both of infernal spirits & men, continuing himself both most perfectly good and unspeakably just. Now the ends and uses whereto God ordereth and disposeth sin, are partly reduced to mercy, and partly to judgement. In the former respect Saint Austin saith, that 
d Idem de nat. & great. cap. 27. Etiam necessarium fuisse homini ad auferendam superbiae vel gloriae occasionem ut absque peccato esse non posset.  it was necessary for man, for taking away occasion of pride and vainglory, that he should not be in case to be without sin, and 
e Idem de ciu. des. l. 14. ca 13. Audeo dicere superbis esse utile cadere in aliquod apertum manifestumque peccatum unde sibi displiceant qui iam sibi placendo ceciderant.  that it is profitable for the proud to fall into some open and manifest sin, that they may be displeased at themselves who by too well liking of themselves did fall. So saith Basil, that 
f Basil. serm. Quòd deus non sit author malorum. Ille sapiens & providentissimus rerum humanarum dispensator diaboli utitur ad nost●am exercitationem malignitate, qu●mad modum medicus viperae veneno ad salutarem medicamentorum praeparationem.  as Physicians use the poison of the Serpent to make thereof a healthful medicine, so God the most wise and provident disposer of human things useth the malignity of the devil for the exercising of us: 
g Ambros. de penitent. lib. 1 ca 13. Malitiam eius nobis ad gratiam convertit.  he turneth his malice, saith Ambrose, to be a furtherance of grace unto us. And thus Saint Austin again saith, that 
h August. de praedest. & great. ca 20. Probatur deum uti cord●bus etiam ●nalorum ad laudem & adiumentum bonorum, sic usus est Iuda tradente Christen; sic usus est Iudais crucifigentibus Christum, & quanta inde bona praestitit populis credituris?  God useth the hearts of evil men to the praise and to the help of good men, as he used judas to betray Christ, as he used the jews to crucify Christ; and what great benefits did he thereby perform to them that should believe in him? 
i Idem in Psal. 93. Illi qui mar. tires persecuti sunt, persequendo in terra, in caelum mittehant, & scientes quidem praesentis vitae damnum inferebant sed nescientes futurae vitae lucrum conferebant.  They which persecuted the Martyrs, saith he, by persecuting them upon earth, sent them to heaven: they knew that they caused them the loss of this present life, but they knew not that they yielded them the gain of the life to come. For execution of judgement, he maketh use of sin both in that he punisheth the sin of one by the sin of another, and in that he punisheth a man himself by his own sin, former by latter and greater sins. 
k Greg. Moral. lib. 2. cap. 6. Deo ad usum justi judicij & iniusta diaboli voluntas seruit.  The unjust will of the devil, saith Gregory, serveth God for the use of just judgement. The wicked, in holy scripture, are called 
l Esa. 10.5.15.  the rod of God's wrath, his axe, his saw, his n1, 
m jer. 51.21.  his hammer and weapons of war, because he useth their malice and fury to chasten his people for their sins, and to bring destruction upon other that are his enemies, until having finished his work which he hath intended to do by them, he giveth way to the malice of others to be revenged upon them also. And here it is duly to be observed that in these uses of sin, the act that is committed thereby is not always sin in itself, but becometh sin to him that doth it only by the mind wherewith he doth it. When the murderer killeth a man, as touching the act he doth nothing but what in due course may lawfully be done. Doth not the magistrate put a man to death and is guiltless therein? Did not the Israëlits without offence slay the Canaanites, and Samuel slay Agag the King of the Amalechites? The murderer of a cruel mind practiseth the death of another man. God hath just cause why to deliver the same man to death, and therefore giveth way to the others cruelty against him. God is herein free, but man is guilty: and albeit he do the thing which God intended, yet his wicked and cruel mind remaineth justly to be punished. 
n Aug. in Psal. 93. si traditio Christi & non tradentis animus considerandus est hoc fecit Iudas quod fecit deus pater, etc. quod fecit ipse dominus etc. & Ep. 48. Cur in hac traditione deus est pius & homo reus nisi quia in re una quam fecerunt causa non una est ob quam fecerunt.  If the delivering of Christ, saith Austin, and not the mind of the deliverer be to be considered, judas did the same that the father did, and that Christ himself did. Why then in all this is God just, and man guilty, but because in one thing which they both did, it was not one cause for which they did it? Thus in many other cases God useth man's sin, and yet justly condemneth him when he hath so done. But that is the most admirable judgement of God and most dreadful of all other, when 
o Greg. Moral. l. 25. ca 9 Agitur hoc ut culpae culpis seriantur quatenus supplicia peccantium fiunt ipsa incrementa vitiurum. Et paulo prius: Quod agitur dispositione superiùs ordinata sed inserius iniquitate confusa ut ex praecedens culpa causa sit subsequentis & rursum culpa causa sit subsequens paenà sit praecedentis.  he taketh course that sin is stricken with sin, so as that the increase of sin is the punishment of the sinner, it being ordered by disposition above, but yet by reason of the confusion of iniquity beneath both that the former sin is the cause of the latter, and the latter the punishment of the former. This judgement Saint Paul noteth to have befallen to them 
p Rom. 1.21.24. etc.  who when they knew God, did not glorify him as God, nor were thankful but turned the glory of the incorruptible God, to the similitude of the image of a corruptible man. Therefore God gave them up, saith he, to their own hearts lusts, unto uncleanness, to defile their own bodies between themselves; for this cause God gave them up to vile affections. As they regarded not to know God, even so God delivered them up to a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient: they received in themselves such recompense of their error as was meet. A heavy 
q Aug count adverse. leg. & prophet. l. 1.24. Ira dei qua non patitur quod acritèr dolet sed facit quod turpitèr libet.  wrath of God, as saith Saint Austin, whereby a man suffereth not any thing painfully to grieve him, (so to move him to repent) but doth that that filthily liketh him, whereby he is hardened the more to go forward in it. Of this judgement God speaketh concerning the Israëlites. 
r Psal. 81.12.  My people would not hear my voice, Israel would not obey me; so I gave them up, or left them to their own hearts lust: they walked in their own counsels. Thus God requiteth the wilfulness of men who shut their eyes and will not see, and stop their ears that they may not hear, and harden their hearts as not willing to understand; he surpriseth them in their own error and obstinacy that they may not open their eyes again which they have shut, nor make use of their ears which they have stopped, nor relent with their hearts which they have hardened, that so 
s Psal. 69.28.  they may fall from one wickedness to another and not come into his righteousness. In all which notwithstanding God worketh no sin in man, but that which God in just judgement doth by means either explicable or unspeakable as I said before out of Austin proveth in man to the increase of sin; it being so, that as sore eyes are offended and become more fore by the most comfortable shining of the sun: and as contraries per antiperistasin do one strengthen themselves against the other, the heat against the cold, and the cold against the heat, even so the very light of God and that that is pure and holy in him provoketh the sores of man's wicked heart more and more to fester and corrupt, and his sin to strengthen itself more and more in rebellion against God. Now here again this increase of sin must undergo a double consideration. If we consider it as sin, then is it man's only work arising wholly of that that is his own. But if we consider it as a punishment, it is of God who by just judgement provoked it, from whom all punishment is just, because it is justly deserved by him upon whom it is inflicted. And so generally consider sin in itself, it is of man: but consider it in his use, and there God hath a hand in it. Thus have I truly declared the doctrine of our Churches concerning this point: and without the compass of that that I have said there hath nothing been delivered by any writers of our side, and in all this God is fully acquitted and cleared, and the blame of sin resteth wholly either upon man, or upon him by whose procurement man first committed sin. Now then to come to those particulars which by M. Bishop are objected, we will first begin with Caluin, whom he nameth for the principal proctor and promoter of that blasphemy. He pretendeth proof hereof out of his Institutions, calling the same by the name of his Institutions to hell, the wretch not knowing himself to be under the power of darkness and in the bonds of hell, by serving him who is the agent for the Prince of hell, and for that cause hath set it down for a law that 
t Dist. 40. si Papa suae & fraternae salutis negligens, etc. innumerabiles populos cateruatim secum ducit primo mancipio Gehennae cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus, huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus, etc.  though he carry with him innumerable souls to hell, yet no man may presume to reprove him for so doing. But what saith Caluin in his Institutions? Forsooth he avoucheth boldly, that the blinding and madness of Ahab, was the will and decree of God. And did he so? And what? Did M. Bishop read the story, and did he doubt whether the blinding and madness of Ahab were the will and decree of God? There was a Canon of Florence, who being asked whether he read the Bible or not, answered, that 
u Sphynx Philosoph. cap. 1. semel perlegi librum istum & nunquam collocavi peius ullum tempus.  he had read it over once, and that he had never bestowed any time worse. M. Bishop haply hath been of the same mind, and thought it but time lost that is bestowed upon the reading of such paltry and fruitless books. He never read the story, and therefore out of his own mother wit he thought it to be a blasphemy that Caluin should speak so. Mark I pray thee gentle Reader, the narration of this matter, as it is set down by the holy Ghost. The Prophet Michaiah is brought in saying thus; 
x 1. Kin. 22.19.  I saw the Lord sit on his throne, and all the host of heaven stood about him on his right hand and on his left hand, and the Lord said, Who shall entice (or deceive) Ahab, that he may go and fall at Ramoth Gilead? Hear is the original and beginning of all, where God being highly offended at Ahabs wilful rebellion and obstinacy in sin is brought in resolving to take course to have him further blinded and deceived, that so he might go a way, wherein just destruction should light upon him. Which resolution is hereby most clear, for that God is set forth as of himself, making inquiry for one who might do that that he had determined to be done. What, doth God ask Who will deceive him, and yet was it not his will and decree, that he should be so deceived? Well, the text goeth on and telleth, that while one said one thing, and another another thing, there came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord and said, I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him, wherewith? And the spirit said, I will go out and be a false or lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets. Then the Lord said; Thou shalt entice him, and shalt also prevail; go forth and do so. Hear needeth no declaration at all. God inquireth for one to deceive Ahab. The spirit offereth himself, and telleth which way he will effect it. God assenteth, and assureth him to prevail; he biddeth him go and do as he hath said. And what, will M. Bishop say, that God is hereby made the author of sin? God indeed ordereth and useth the sin of the devil to punish the sin of Ahab, but here is nothing whereby it may appear that God wrought any sin in Ahab or in the devil. The devil is always forward to deceive men, but being under the check of the power and providence of God, he can do nothing but when and where it pleaseth God to give him leave. When God then being provoked by the contempts and despites of men, letteth Satan lose, and in just fury and wrath directeth him to do to such a one that which he so much desireth to do: shall we hereupon draw an inditement against God, and take upon us to arraign him as guilty of trespass and sin? If the text itself be not sufficient to inform M. Bishop's conceit in this behalf, let him take S. Augustine's observation upon it, who urging it against the Pelagians as we do against the Papists, saith thereupon to julian: 
y Aug●ont. julian li. 5. cap. 3. Quid ad ista dict ●rus es? Nempe re● ipse peccavit falsis credend● Prophetis. At haec ipsa erat & poena peccati, deo iudicante, deo m●ttente angelum malum, ut intelligeremus apertius quomodo in Psalmo dictum est, misisse iram indignationu sua per angelos ma●●s, sed nunquid errando? nun. quid imustè quicquam vel temcrè fa●iendo vel i●di●aodo? Absit, sed non frustra illi dictum est; judicia tua sicut abyss●s multa.  What wilt thou say to this? surely king Ahab sinned in believing the false Prophets, and yet this was also the punishment of sin, God judging him, God sending the evil angel, that we might understand how it was said in the Psalm, that he sent the wrath of his indignation by evil angels. But did he thus by error, or by judging or doing any thing unjustly or rashly? God forbidden. But it was not for nought said unto him, Thy judgements are like the great deep. And again, 
z Ibid paulo post. Quis enim d●cat non p●ccasse s●●ritui credendo mendaci? Quis dicat he peccatum poen●m non suisse pec●ati, vententemde iudi●io dei, ad quam legit spiritum mendacem sive missum, sive permissum?  Who will say that Ahab sinned not in believing the lying spirit? and who will say that this sin was not a punishment of sin, coming of the judgement of God, for which he made choice of the lying spirit, whether sent (as he himself said) or permitted and suffered (as julian said)? Behold M. Bishop; God sent the evil angel; God made choice of the lying spirit, it came of the judgement of God that Ahab was seduced, and therein sinned to his own destruction. In another place also, noless plainly he saith, 
a Idem. in Psal. 77. Quem fallaciae spiritus ex dei voluntate seduxit ut caderet in bello.  that by the will of God it was that the lying spirit deceived Ahab that he might fall in the battle. But haply he will not be tried by S. Austin in this matter, because he wrote against the Pelagians the very natural brethren of the Papists, and herein wholly consorted with them. Well, be it so; yet we hope he will hear their own Angelical doctor Thomas Aquinas. 
b Th. Aquin p. 1. q. 114. art 1. ad 1. Mali angeli impugnant homines dupliciter. uno modo instigando ad peccatum, & sic non mittuntur à deo ad impugnandum, sed aliquando permittuntur secundum dei justa judicia. Aliquando autem impugnant homines puniendo & sic ●●ttuntur à deo. sicut missus est spiritus mendax ad puniendum Ahab regem Israel. Poena enim refertur in deum sicut in primum actorem. Et tamen daemones ad puniendum missi alta intention pun unt quâm mittuntur. Nam ipsi puniunt ex odio vel muidia; mittuntur autem à deo propter justitiam eius.  The evil angels impugn men two manner of ways; one way, by provoking to sin, and so they are not sent of God to impugn, but sometimes they are permitted according to the just judgement of God. But sometimes they impugn men in punishing, and so they are sent of God, as the lying spirit was sent to punish Ahab the King of Israel, for punishment is referred to God as the first author. And yet the devils punish with another intent than they are sent; for they punish of hatred or envy, but they are sent of God because of his righteousness. If all punishment be of God, and the lying spirits were sent of God by way of punishment to entice and to deceive Ahab that he might madly go a course to his own confusion, why doth it offend M. Bishop that Caluin should say that the blinding and madness of Ahab was by the will and decree of God? The like folly he committeth in the next point by him mentioned, that Absalon defiling his father's bed with incestuous adultery committed detestable wickedness, yet this was Gods own work. The words of Caluin are; yet this doth God pronounce to be his work. Let us then see whether he do so or not. The words of God, as Caluin allegeth, are these; 
c 2. Sam. 12.12.  Thou hast done it secretly but I will do it openly and before this sun. When God saith, I will do it, doth he not pronounce that it is his doing? doth he not make it his own work? Why doth M. Bishop quarrel with Caluin? Why doth he not look into the words of the text, I will do it? If God himself say that it is his work, will M. Bishop say that it is not so? If he be afraid that God is hereby made the author of sin, it is but his want of understanding that causeth him that fear. Let him remember what before hath been said and the matter is very clear. Absalon was of himself viciously and licentiously disposed; and this lewd disposition of his, God useth to punish David. If we respect here the sin, it is of Absalon himself; but if we respect the ordering of the sin whereby David was made the object of it, this as Caluin well noteth, God pronounceth to be his work. And this is all that Caluin intendeth, who saith that 
d Ca●uin. Instit. l. 1. c. 17. sect. 5. Coucedo sures et homicidas & ali●s ma●est●oss divinae esse pro●●dentiae instruin●uta qu●●us d●minus ipse ad ex●quenda quae apua se constita●t●●●● c●a vtitu●. Atq●i eorum malu ullam inde excusationem deberi nego. Quid enim? an ve●eadem s●cum iniquitate deum inuoluent vel suam pravitatem illues justitia operient? neutrum p●ssunt: Quominis se purgent, propr●a conscientia redarguuntur: quominus deum insimulent totum in se malum deprehendunt; penes ipsum nounisi leg●timum malitiae suae usum.  thieves and murderers and other malefactors, are the instruments of God's providence which he useth for the executing of those judgements which he hath decreed with himslfe. But I deny, saith he, that thereby any excuse belongeth to their sins. For what? will they wrap God in the same iniquity with them, or will they by his righteousness cover their own naughtiness? They can do neither. That they may not clear themselves they are reproved by their own conscience: that they may not accuse God, they find the evil wholly in themselves, but with God no other but the lawful use of their wickedness. I will end this matter with that which Saint Ambrose noteth of it, who expounding 
e Ambros. in Psal. 37. Manum dei virtutem intelligimus puntendi, etc. Hanc manum david in seipso exp●rtus & liberis, alterius incestum, alterius parricidium deploravit. etc. sed forte aliqui● dit●● Quomodo in paricidio vel in incestu manus dei fuerit ùm opusillud inimicisit. Cognoscamus igitur quoni●m et vb● diabolus vulnerat, sagittae domini vulnerare dicantur, etc. Cum diabelu● vulnerat domini sunt sagitiaequs vulnerandi permisit d●●olo potestatem. Denique si mandes ut t●●s● seru●us verberetur, nonnè etiamsi ab alio astante cadatur, à te dicitur verberatu●?  the hand of God to be his power in punishing, and saying, that of this hand David had experience when he bewailed the incest of one of his sons and the others murder and parricide, he bringeth in one ask, How was the hand of God in murder and incest, seeing that is the work of the enemy? But let us know, saith he, that where the devil woundeth, the arrows of the Lord are said to wound. He giveth example hereof in job, from whom also he borroweth that phrase, and by and by concludeth, when the devil woundeth, the arrows are the Lords who gave the devil power to wound. And if, saith he, a man give charge to have his servant beaten, is not he said to beat him albeit he be stricken by another slander by? In which words he plainly teacheth that albeit incest and murder and such like be the works of the Devil and of wicked and ungodly men that are led by him, yet that in their acting and committing of these wickednesses God hath his hand so as that neither devils nor men effect the same at their own pleasure, but by his secret providence even as it were by a charge expressly given them are guided therein as it shall seem good to him either to punish sinners by them or to exercise and try Godly and faithful men. Further M. Bishop objecteth that Caluin saith, that nothing is more plain than that God blindeth the eyes of men, striketh them with giddiness, maketh them drunk, casteth them into madness, and hardeneth their hearts. But did not M. Bishop know that these are scripture phrases? that the holy Ghost himself speaketh in that sort? 
f Deutr. 28.28.  The Lord, saith Moses, shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and with astonying of heart. 
g Exod. 4.21.  I, saith God, will harden Pharaohs heart. 
h Esay 19.14.  The Lord, saith the Prophet, hath mingled amongst them the spirit of errors. 
i Rom. 11.8.  God, saith the Apostle, hath given them the spirit of slumber, even as the Prophet had said before, 
k Esay 29.10.  The Lord hath covered you with a spirit of slumber, and hath shut up your eyes. God saith, 
l Esay 63.6.  I will make them drunk in mine indignation; 
l jere. 51.57.  I will make drunk her Princes and her Wisemen, her Dukes, and her Nobles. The Apostle again saith, 
m 2. Thes. 2.11  God shall send them strength of illusion that they may believe lies. Infinite other such places of scripture there are; and although M. Bishop himself be little acquainted with the text, yet the very place of Caluin which he impugneth might have given him occasion to take advertisement thereof. Well, he will seem so to have done, but what doth he say to such speeches? The poor Papists, saith he, were wont to interpret such texts of Scripture by saying that God doth indeed justly permit and suffer such things to be done, but is not the author of them. Indeed it seemeth that the Papists are very poor in interpreting the Scriptures, who in so clear a light cannot see that albeit God be not the author of any sin, which the Protestants believe and confess as fully and faithfully as they do, yet that God doth more than barely permit and suffer it to be done. When joshuah saith of the Canaanites going forth to battle against the Israelites that 
n Ios. 11.20.  it came of the Lord to harden their hearts to go against Israel in battle to the intent that they should utterly destroy them: and when God saith of the Assyrians going with all malicious fury against the same people, 
o Esay 10.6.  I will send him, I will give him a charge against the people of my wrath to take the spoil and to tread them down as clay in the streets: and when David saith; 
p 2. Sam. 16.10.11.  The Lord hath bidden Shimei to curse David, will M. Bishop in these and many other such like places understand nothing but bare permission? The Pelagian heretics of old used the same shift against the evidence of scripture, and Saint Austin then rejected it, and will the Papists now have us to admit it for a truth? When julian the Pelagian said, 
q Aug. count julian li. 5. cap. 3. Ditis cum destderijs suis traditi dicuntur, relicti per divinam patientiam intelligendi sunt, non per potentiam in peccata compulsi, quasi non simul posuerit haec duo idem Apostolus, & patientiam & potentiam ubi ait, si autem volens deus estendere iram. etc.  when men are said to be delivered over to their own lusts they must be understood to be left by God's sufferance and permission, not by his power to be forced into sin, Saint Austin answereth, As though the Apostle had not set down both these together, both God's sufferance and his power, where he saith, If God would, to show his wrath and to make his power known, suffer with long patience the vessels of wrath prepared to destruction. But he goeth yet further: 
r Idid. Quid tamen horum dicis esse quod scriptum est, Et prophetasi erraverit, etc. patientia est an potentia? An & hic dicturus es quòd, Ego dominus seduxi Prophetam illum, intelligendum est, deserui ut pro eius merit●s seductus erraret.  Whether of these wilt thou say it is which is written, 
s Ezec. 14 9  If that Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and I will destroy him out of the midst of my people Israel, is this God's permission or his power? Wilt thou here say, that, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet, must be understood, I have forsaken him, that according to his deserts being deceived he might err? Saint Austin thinketh it strange that where God saith, I The Lord have deceived that Prophet, julian should construe it, I have forsaken that Prophet and suffered him to be deceived; and why then doth M. Bishop tax Caluin for rejecting the same construction? Caluins' words fully accord with the words of Austin. 
t Caluin. Instutut. lib. 1. cap. 18. sect. 2. Haec etiam ad permissionem multi reijciunt atsi d●screndo reprobes à satana excaecari sincret; sed cum disertè exprimat spiritus justo dei judicio i●fligi caecitatem & amentiam nimis frivola est illa solutio.  These things many refer to sufferance, as if by forsaking the reprobate he suffered them to be blinded of Satan: but seeing the holy Ghost plainly expresseth, that blindness and madness is inflicted by the just judgement of God, that solution is too fond. In the censuring of which words M. Bishop through Caluins' side woundeth Saint Austin, and the whole Church which took part with him against the Pelagian heretics. But here it is to be noted how guilefully Master Bishop suppresseth the reason which M. Caluin allegeth for the rejecting of that solution, and whereby he maketh good that it is to be rejected. For God's judgements are not matters of permission left to the devil or to men to do if they will, but pass from God by sentence and decree that thus or thus it shall be. And therefore Saint Austin expresseth this judgement by such terms as go far beyond the words of permission or desertion. As where the Apostle saith of idolaters, 
u Rom. 1.27.  They received in themselves such recompense of their error as was meet, 
x Aug. count julian. lib. 5. ca 3. Dicit utique damnatos ut tanta operarentur mala & tamen ista damnatio reatus est quo gravius implicantur.  he meaneth, saith he, that they were condemned to the working of so great sins, and this damnation notwithstanding is a guilt wherewith they are more grievously entangled. Surely to be condemned to the committing of sin, is a far greater matter even in all men's eyes then to be only permitted and suffered to sin. But he noteth it as a thing 
y Ibid. Et quod est mirabilius, etiam oportuisse dicit eos istam mutuam mercedem recipere.  more strange that the Apostle saith, it was behoveful or meet that they should receive this recompense one of them by another. This is much against Master Bishop's mind that God did not only condemn them to sin, but therein did that that was meet and behoveful to be done. Yea he saith afterwards of Ahab: 
z Ibid Iniusntum erat qui non crediderat deo vero, deciperetur à falso.  It stood not with justice but that he who believed not the true God, should be deceived by a false devil. Again, sundry places he allegeth to such purpose as have been before cited and saith thereof: 
a Ibid. In quibus liquidò apparet occulto dei judicio fieri perversitatem cordis ●t non audiatur verum quod dicitur & inde pe●cetur, & sit ipsum peccatum praecedentis etiam poena peccati. Nam credere mendacio & now credere veritati utique peccatum est, venit tamen ab ea caecitate cordis quae occulto judicio dei sed tamen justo etiam peccati paena monstratur.  By these, manifestly it appeareth that by the secret judgement of God there is wrought a perverseness of heart not to hear the truth and thereby to sin, and this sin is the punishment of former sin. For it is sin, saith he, to believe lies, and not to believe the truth, and yet this cometh of that blindness of heart which by the secret, but just judgement of God is declared to be the punishment of sin. So again elsewhere he saith, that 
b Idem de great. & lib. arbitr. c. 21. Quis non ista judicia divina contremiscat quibus agit deus in cordibus etiam malorum hominum quicquid vult, reddens eis tamen secundum merita ipsorum. Et Paulò post: Agit omnipotens in cordibus hominum etiam motum voluntatu ecrum ut per eos agat quod per eos agere ipse volverit qui omnino iniustè aliquid velle non novit.  God worketh in the hearts of evil men whatsoever he will, rendering to them notwithstanding according to their deserts: that he stirreth in their hearts the motion of their will to do by them what he will do by them, who unjustly can will nothing. He goeth on, and for proof hereof allegeth sundry texts of scripture, and in the end concludeth: 
c Ibid. His & talibus testimonijs satis, quantum opinor, manifestatur operari deum in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluntates quocunque volverit, sive ad bona pre sea misericordia sive ad mala pro meritis eorum, judicio utique suo, aliquando aperto aliquando occulto, semper autemiusto.  It is hereby manifest enough, as I suppose, that God worketh in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever he will, either to good for his own mercy sake, or to evil for men's own merits, and that by his judgement sometimes manifest and apparent, sometimes secret, but always just. And thus had he said before, of that it is said, that the Lord spoke to Shimei to curse David, that 
d Ibid. cap. 20. Non iubendo dixit ubi obedientia laudaretur, sed quòd voluntatem eius proprio suo vitio malam in hoc peccatum judicio suo justo & occult● inclinavit, ideò dictum est; Dixit ci Dominus.  he did not speak to him by (vocal) bidding him so to do as that his obedience therein should be commended, but because by his just and secret judgement he inclined his will to this sin, which will was evil by it own default, therefore is it said, The Lord hath spoken to him. In all which places it is to be noted, what phrases Saint Austin useth to set forth God's power and work in the sins of men, and how much different from Master Bishops devise of permission and sufferance, when he saith that God worketh in their hearts, stirreth the motion of their will, causeth in them frowardness of heart not to believe the truth, inclineth their wills to evil: which yet God doth not directly and properly, but though indirectly and accidentally, yet he doth it, 
e Idem. count julian. ut supra. facit haec mitis & ineffabilibus modis qui novit judicia sua non solùm in corporibus hominum sed & inipsu cordibus operari  by wonderful and unspeakable means and ways as Austen saith, and his judgement therein is to be feared and trembled at. Now to some of these testimonies of Austen, Bellarmine giveth no answer, because they are such as he could not well devise what to say to them; to the rest as to some texts of Scripture he so answereth as that in effect he justifieth all that we say. He affirmeth that 
f Bellar. de Amiss great. etc. l. 2. c. 13. praesidet ipsis voluntatibus malis, easque regit & gubernat torquet & flectit invisibiliter in eyes operando, ut licet proprio vitio malae sint tamen a divina providentia ad unum potiùs malum quàm ad aliud non positiuè sed permissiuè ordinentur.  God hath a moderation and presidency over the evil wills of men, that he ruleth and governeth them, wresteth and boweth them by working invisibly in them, so that albeit they be evil by their own corruption, yet by God's providence they are ordered rather to one evil than to another, not by the position of the evil itself, but by the permission of it. The explication hereof he borroweth from Hugo de S. Victore who amongst other words hath these: 
g Ibidem ex Hugone. Voluntati malae vitium est ex ipsa quo mala est, ordo autem ex deo est quo per velle sive ad het sive ad illud est. In voluntate ergò vitium est & ipsum malum est, & ex ipso voluntas mala est. In velle autem & vitium est, inquantum velle ex mala voluntate est, & ordo est inquantum ad hoc vel hoc ex disponente est. Et cùm ipsum velle ad hoc aliquid est, malum est quod ad hoe est quia mala voluntate est: quod autem ad hoc potiùs quàm ad illud est, bonum est quia ordo est & ex benè disponente est.  The evil will of man hath of itself the corruption whereby it is evil, but the order whereby in willing it tendeth either to this or that, is of God. In the will then is the corruption and that is evil, and thereby the will is evil: but in the act of willing there is both the corruption, for that it proceedeth from the will being evil, and there is order, for that of him that disposeth it, it cometh that it tendeth to this or that. And when the act of willing is to this certain thing, it is evil as it is to this, because it cometh of an evil will, but that it is to this rather than to that it is good, because this is order, and cometh of him that well disposeth it. Which words of Hugo do notably illustrate and confirm that which hath been before said of a difference always to be made of the sin itself which is of man only, and the circumstance and order of it which may not be denied to be of God. Furthermore Bellarmine in the same place approveth that which before hath been alleged out of Thomas Aquinas, that God inclineth to evil 
h Bellar. ut supra. Non solum permittendo, etc. sed etiam positiuè, etc. non quidem per se & physicè movendo, sed occasionaliter ut S. Thomas loquitur etc.  positively by way of occasion, whilst he offereth to the inward or outward man those things, which being good, yet man by his corruption turneth to sin. So much also he confesseth in the next Chapter, and there denieth not but that God 
i Ibid. ca 14. Occasione talium rerum dicitur deus ex ecare vel indurare per accident.  is said accidentally to blind men & harden them by such occasions. In another place he saith rightly, and we say the same, that 
k Ibid. cap. 16. Neque enim deus fens est unde turbulenti scelerum torrentes manant, sed artifex est mirabilis qui ad usum suum torrentes illes per se fluentes contorquet, & ordinat ad bonum aliquod perficien●um.  God is not a fountain whence the troubled streams of wicked acts do flow, but he is a workman of admirable skill, who can force and turn to his own use those streams flowing of themselves, and ordereth them to the doing of some good. And in the same Chapter he saith further, 
l Ibid. Deus non solum deserit peccatores cùm eas tradit d●siderijs cordis corum, sed corum malas voluntates etc. ita mirabiliter torquet, regit, ordinat, ut ex eis bonum eliciat & faciat ut etiam invitae & nolentes. sibiseruiunt & hoc ipso quod libenter faciunt, justo dei judicio gravissime puniantur. Et mox Mirabili potentia regit corda etiam impiorum & impedit ne aliud perficiant, conentur, vel nt, cogitent, quam quod ipse permittit, ipsamque culpam eu vertit in paenam & ad multa bona, malis corum voluntatibus ipse sum● è potens summeque bonus utitur.  that God doth not only forsake sinners when he giveth them up to their own lusts, but doth so wonderfully turn and wind, govern and order their evil wills, as that out of them he draweth some good, and causeth them perforce and against their wills to serve him, and by the just judgement of God they are grievously punished for that which in the mean time they willingly do; that by his wonderful power he ruleth the hearts even of wicked men, and hindereth them that they may not do, endeavour, will or think any thing but what he permitteth and suffereth, and turneth their sin to be their punishment, and being most mighty and most highly good, useth their evil wills to many good purposes. I need not allege any thing from him to show that God concurreth to all the actions and motions of men, for that is a thing confessed on all sides; only he excepteth that whereas God concurreth only 
m Ibi. cap. 5. Deus non solum●t causa universalu, sed etiam ut particularu ex doctrina calvini & Bezae concurrit ad actiones malas.  as a cause universal, we make him in respect of sin a cause particular, whereas the blind jesuit if he had not been blind might easily have seen that we make God in wicked & sinful actions only a cause universal in respect of the sin, though in respect of the order and use thereof we make him a cause particular, as who doth particulate and determine the same to this or that, as by the words of Hugo Victorinus hath been before said. And doth not the jesuit himself confess as much in the words which I have alleged? For if God do wrest and turn the wills of sinful and wicked men to his use; if he hinder them from doing or thinking any thing but what he will permit them to do or think; if he so govern and rule them as that he maketh them even against their wills to serve him, than he leaveth not the particulating of sinful actions as touching their order, to men themselves, but he directeth them in particular to serve the counsel of his will. He than that will weigh these speeches of Bellarmine, and compare them with that that hath been before discoursed of our assertion in this point, will plainly see that the very evidence of the truth made him subscribe that doctrine, against which he professeth to dispute; and that he did but maliciously wrest the speeches of our writers, to make to himself matter of controversy, where by plain dealing he could find none. This is the triumph and glory of truth, that she advanceth herself, and displaieth her banners even amidest the tents of them that are in arms to fight against her. M. Bishop is a true scholar of his, and out of the very same malice saith further, that Caluin goeth on proving that God doth not only suffer, but actually effect and work all the evil that any man committeth, where he putteth those words, actually effect and work all the evil in a distinct letter as if they were Caluins' words, whereas Caluin in that that followeth hath no such words. The like treachery and falsehood he useth in the recital of the other words, that God doth work this evil in man, by satins service as a mean, yet so as God is the principal worker of it, and sat an but his instrument, whereas the words of Caluin truly reported are these. 
n Cal. Inst. l. 1. c. 18. s. 2. fateor interposita satanae opera deum saepe agere in reprobis, etc. Dicitur verò ipse dare homines in reprobum sensum quia iustae suae vindictae praecipuus est author, satan verò tantum minister.  That God by satins service doth often work in the reprobate, but yet (as by and by it followeth) that God is said to give men over to a reprobate sense, and to cast them into filthy lusts, because he is the chief author of his just revenge or punishment, and satan only the minister or instrument thereof. In which words, what is it whereat M. Bishop is offended? Surely Saint Austin attributeth to God 
o Aug. de great. & l. arbit. c 21. potens est five per angels, vel bonos vel malos sive quocunque alio modo operari etiam in cordibus malorum pro meritis eorum.  a power to work in the hearts of wicked men, according to their deserts, either by good or evil angels, and saith, that 
p Idem in Psal. 77. Deus utitur angelis ma●is ad puniendos malos sicut in istis ●mnibus, etc. Et post: Eu tribue re sine dubitatione p●ssumus obduration●m cordu illorum.  God useth evil angels to punish evil men, as he did to punish the Egyptians by hardening their hearts, and therefore calleth them, 
q Ibid per illes velut militiae caelestis carnifices.  the hangmen or executioners of the warfare of heaven. So where in another Psalm, God is said 
r Psal. 105.25.  to have turned the hearts of the Egyptians so that they hated his people, 
s Ibid. Benè creditur deus fecisse per illos angelos malos, etc.  we may well believe, saith he, that God did this by the evil angels. Now then why doth M. Bishop doubt but that satan and his angels are rightly termed the ministers and instruments of God's vengeance, the hangmen and executioners of his wrath against wicked and ungodly men? Is he offended to hear that God is the chief author of this vengeance? But that we have heard before out of Thomas Aquinas, whom I trow he will not gainsay, 
t Tho. Aquin. supra. poena refertur in deum sicut in primumactorem.  that punishment is referred to God, as the chief author of it. The truth is, that if he had reported Caluins words aright, he had had nothing to say against them, but lewdly and unhonestly he falsifyeth them, that he may seem to have some colour for this slanderous imputation, where indeed he hath none. Now to go on with the rest in the same order as I have begun from the last to the first, there followeth Melancthon. Of the same cursed crew was Melancthon, saith he; whereas he himself rather here carrieth the mark of an accursed wretch, in that he so wilfully belieth and slandereth Melancthon. He citeth him upon the 8. to the Romans, where no such are: and upon the 9 of the same Epistle there are words words directly contrary to that forwhich he citeth them. 
u Melanct. ad Rom. c. 9 Etsi deus impertit vitam malis, tamen deus non est causa peccati sed voluntas ipsa in malis, in diabolo & homine transferens agitationem ad obiectum prohibitum à deo est causa peccati. Haec sententia & tuta & ●era est ac sacris literis consentanea. Quod autem in scriptures legitur, Ego indurabo, etc. & Tradidit eos etc. & similia, haec figura sermonis facilè potest explicari siquis obseruet naturam Hebraici sermonis. Certum est enim, has figuras habere quandam significationem permittendi. Tradidit, etc. non significat positiuè deum efficaciter seu proprio quodam motu rapere animos ad explendas cupiditates sed significat desertionem. Deus deserit impios & sinit eos surere; non cohibet eorum furorem. Ego indurabo, etc. id est, sinam indurari; non flectam genuinam impij cordis duritiam. Cum autem buius desertionis mentionem facit, poenam significat qua punit impi●s. Haec est vera Grammatica interpretatio & nihil habet absurdi.  Though God, saith he, give life to the wicked, yet God is not the cause of sin, but the will itself in the evil, whether the devil or man, transferring the cogitation to an object forbidden of God, is the cause of sin. This opinion is safe and true, and agreeable to the holy Scriptures. And whereas, saith he, it is read in the Scriptures; I will harden Pharaoh his heart, and, He gave them over to their own lusts, and such like; this figure of speech may easily be expounded, if a man observe the nature of the Hebrew tongue. For certain it is, that these figurative speeches have a signification of permission. God gave them over, etc. doth not signify positively that God efficiently or by proper motion draweth men's minds to fulfil their lusts, but it signifieth the forsaking of them. God forsaketh the wicked, and suffereth them to rage; he doth not restrain their fury. I will harden, etc. that is, I will suffer to be hardened; I will not bow the natural hardness of the wicked heart. Now when the Scripture maketh mention of this desertion, it signifieth a punishment wherewith he punisheth the wicked. This, saith he, is the true Grammatical interpretation, and hath nothing absurd in it. This I have set down at large, that the Reader may see, that Melancthon was so far from speaking, as M. Bishop chargeth him, as that contrariwise he expoundeth those places of Scripture which import how far God interposeth himself in the sinful actions of men, much more mildly than Bellarmine himself doth, being forced by evidence of truth, as we have before seen, to admit more than Melancthon saith. Bucer indeed saith, that 
x Bucer. in Rom. cap. 1. Nisi fateamur eum omnia in nobis efficere deum esse negamus.  unless we confess that God worketh all things in all men, we deny him to be God: but he speaketh of motions and actions, and not of the sin that cleaveth unto them, and very perfidiously doth M. Bishop add, aswell all evil as all good. Which appeareth by that that he saith in the same place; 
y Ibid. Verba domini haec duo simul testantur, siquid peccamus culpam nostram esse non dei; cui perhibet testimonium & nostra ipsorum conscientia, tum à deo omne bonum venire ut quod ille non dederit impossibile sit à quoquam vel cogitari nedum fieri.  The words of God do testify these two things, that if we sin, the fault is ours, not Gods, whereto our own conscience beareth witness; and than that all goodness cometh of God, so as that what he giveth not, it is impossible for any man to do or think. The words of Zwinglius be; 
x Zwingl. de provid. dei. ca 6. Vnumatque idem fa●mus puta adulterium aut homicidium quantum dei est author's, motoris ac impulsoris opus est, crimen non est; quantum autem hominis est, crimen ac se●us est.  One and the same deed, as adultery or murder, so far as it is of God, the author, mover, and pusher forward thereof, it is a work, and not a sin, but so far as it is of man it is sin and wickedness. Where we see that for the act itself, merely as an act or work, he ascribeth it to God, who is the true author of all motions and actions; but the sin thereof he ascribeth only to man, to whom only it doth belong. The latter words which he citeth I do not find, and I doubt not but he hath played a part of his little honesty in them, as we see in the former he hath done.   

11. W. BISHOP.  
But to proceed on with this discourse: the Protestants do not only impugn the power and goodness of God▪ but they do also pervert his justice. For to omit their last position, that God is the worker of all sin in us, compelling (as Caluin speaketh) the reprobate to obedience; and therefore cannot in justice punish the poor wretches, for being obedient unto his own will and working: and not to urge their former assertion, that God of his own will and decree, hath predestinated the greater part of men to hell, without any foresight of their evil deserts: which if it were true, should it not be intclerable wrong, to torment so rigorously innocents, that never offended him? To let pass these points (I say) how can they defend the justice of God, who hold that he hath tied us to such laws, as are impossible to be kept by any man? For Christ (as he testified himself) will condemn men to hell fire for transgressing of these laws, by working of iniquity: 
Matt. 7.23.  depart from me you that work iniquity: and what equity should there be in that sentence, if it had never been possible for these men to have done otherwise? For no reasonable judge condemneth any man for not doing of that, which he knew well, lay not any way in his power to be done. So that nothing is more plain and evident, then that the Protestants doctrine trotteth apace towards open Atheism, by impugning the power of God: by defacing his goodness, mercy, and justice, which in our understanding are the chief properties of his divine substance: and by calling into question the blessed Trinity itself, which their offspring and progeny the Trinitarians in Poland do already deny flatly. Thus much of their Atheisms against God.   

R. ABBOT.  
Whether we make God the worker of all sin in us, appeareth by that that hath been already said. As touching the phrase of Compelling the reprobate to obedience, the words of Caluin are, 
a Cal. Instit. l. 1. cap. 18. sect. 2.  that the providence of God doth not only show his power in the elect, but also, Reprobos in obsequium cogit. Which M. Bishop should have rather translated, he forceth or compelleth the reprobate to serve him, to do what he will. The word obsequium doth not always import obedience, but noteth sometimes a man's doing of that which another would have done though the doer have no meaning to obey him therein. Obedience is a voluntary submission, and a man cannot be said to be compelled to that that voluntarily he doth; and Caluins' meaning only is, that reprobates amidst all their fury and rage and rebellion against God, yet are so holden in, and guided, by the bridle of his providence, that they can do nothing but what he according to his good pleasure thinketh fit and convenient to be done. Because then this service is only intended as touching the thing done, not for any mind or will that they have to obey or serve God in the doing of it, therefore they are by M. Bishop absurdly termed, obedient to Gods will and working. As for Caluin, he speaketh no otherwise in this behalf than Gregory Bishop of Rome doth, when he saith of joseph's brethren: 
b Greg. Moral. l. 6. ca 22 Ind coacti sunt dei voluntatem peragere unde hanc moliti sunt astutè commutaere.  Thereby were they compelled to do the will of God whereby they subtly thought to defeat the same, and of the jews 
c Ibid. Cum se aestimant eius miracula persequendo abscindere, haec nimirum compulsi sunt nesciendo dilatare.  that by persecuting they thought to cut off the miracles of Christ, but were compelled unwittingly to spread the same further. yea and by the word obsequium he saith, that 
d Ibid. Hoc ad pietatis suae obsequium redigit quod contra illum humana crudelitas exarsit.  God forceth that ad pietatis suae obsequium, to the service of his piety wherein human cruelty burneth or rageth against him. In a word, 
e Ibid. Cui cognitae debet nostra actio devotè famulari ne ei etiam nolens seruiat si hanc superbieus declinat.  our action, saith he, even against our will serveth the heavenly will of God, when in our pride it shuneth the same. And thus Bellarmine saith, as we have seen before, that 
f Bellar. de Amiss great. etc. c. 16. supra sect. 10  God so governeth the wills of wicked men as that he maketh them perforce and against their will to serve him. And whereas M. Bishop inferreth so learnedly that therefore God cannot in justice punish the poor wretches for being obedient, as he dreameth, to his will and working, Bellarmine answereth that 
g Ibid.  by the just judgement of God they are grievously punished for that which in the mean while they willingly do. For albeit God by his wisdom and power do turn their evil to his good purpose and use, yet they do it not as with any purpose therein to serve God, but to follow the sinful lust of their own wicked hearts, and therefore are justly punished for the doing of it. Now, are those speeches tolerable and true in Gregory and Bellarmine, and doth Caluin offend in the using of them? We should greatly condemn M. Bishop herein, but that we know he must do as his master teacheth him, who is wont onewhere, to make absurdities of those things, which he is forced otherwhere to approve. As touching the other point of Gods predestinating men to hell, it is here very idly repeated, and I have before sufficiently answered him thereof. But letting these things pass, 
The Commandments how affirmed possible or unpossible.  he cometh in here with another question: How we can defend the justice of God, who hold, that he hath tied us to such laws as are impossible to be kept? where I answer him briefly, that we do not hold that God hath tied us to such laws as are impossible to be kept, and yet we do hold, that it is impossible for us in that state as we are, to keep those laws which are possible to be kept. For as we hold that it is not unpossible to see the Sun, and yet it is unpossible for a blind man to see the sun, even so we hold that it is not unpossible to keep the commandments of God, and yet it is a thing unpossible for sinful man to keep them. 
h job 14.4.  Who can make him clean, saith job, that is conceived of unclean seed? 
i jer. 13.23.  Can a blackmoor change his skin, saith jeremy, or a leopard his spots? No more can ye do good that are accustomed to do evil. 
k Rom. 8.7.  The wisdom of the flesh is enmity against God, saith Saint Paul, for it is not subject unto the law of God, neither indeed can be. Do you hear it, M. Bishop? the wisdom of the flesh cannot be subject to the Law of God, and therefore it is unpossible that it should keep the commandments of God. But yet he will say that by the grace of God it is not unpossible to keep them. And so say we that when the grace of God shall have his perfect work we shall perfectly and fully keep the commandments of God; and in the mean time all that are partakers of the beginnings of grace, do begin to keep them, which showeth that they are not unpossible to be kept. Yet nevertheless so long as we have received 
l Rom. 8.23.  but the first fruits of the spirit of grace, and 
m Gal. 5.17.  the flesh yet remaineth lusting against the spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we would, So long it shall be unpossible for us perfectly to keep the commandments of God, which yet are possible to be kept. And what? will M. Bishop say the contrary? If he do, we will insult and triumph over him, because his own conscience shall condemn him. As for that which he further saith, that Christ shall condemn men for transgressing his laws, and what justice shall that be if it were not possible for them to do otherwise? I answer him that the justice of Christ needeth none of his lies for the defence of it. Christ shall justly condemn the transgressors of his laws, because the impossibility of keeping those laws ariseth not from the laws, but wholly from themselves. Again, their own thoughts shall accuse them, that they have left many things undone, which they might have done, and have done many things which they might have forborn to do. To drive out one nail with another, let us ask M. Bishop how he maketh it good in the justice of God, that an infant dying unbaptised, in whose power it lieth not to help itself, should be condemned everlastingly to hell fire? Let him resolve us how this is just with God, and we shall easily answer him for the rest. As for us, we say in all these things that 
n job 33.13.  God giveth not account of all his matters, that 
o Aug. ep. 99 Alitèr se habet sensus humanus, aliter justitia creatoris.  the conceit of man it one thing, and the justice of God another, and 
p Lactant. Insti. l. 1. c. 1. Nihil inter deum hominemque distaret, si consilia & dispositiones illius maiestatis aeternae cogitatio assequeretur humana.  there should be no difference betwixt God and man, if the understanding of man could reach to the counsels and dispositions of his eternal majesty. But of these things enough hath been said 
q Answer to the Epistle. sect. 19 Of free will. sect. 17.18. Of justificatition. sect. 38.39. etc.  before, and M. Bishop if he would not yield, should rather have applied himself to answer that that hath been there said, then thus simply to sing over the same song again. Now of misconstruction followeth an idle conclusion, consisting of vain repetition, serving to lengthen his book, but in no sort touching us.   

12. W. BISHOP.  
Now to those that be against our Saviour Christ jesus: I have before touched their errors concerning his Godhead; here I will speak of those that be against his Manhood and Mediatorship. First, it must needs argue in them a great want of good affection towards our Saviour, that they are so backward in his blessed Mother the holy Virgin's praises, not hearing, with patience, any body that would so much as salute her with the Hail MARY, 
Luk. 1.  which notwithstanding is recorded in the Gospel: and are beside so ready upon every little occasion, to speak in her dispraise, that we may with good reason reprove them, as men either wanting judgement (which they will not endure of any thing) or else void of due respect unto the Son, who are such adversaries to the Mother: whom if they would not reverence for her own virtues, which were most rare and singular; yet for her sons sake (who loved her so tenderly) they should show themselves better affected towards her, 
The virgin-mother ho● worshipped in Popery.  and more forward in her praises, if they did indeed love and honour her Son, as they pretend to do.   

R. ABBOT.  
Our affection towards our Saviour Christ, consisteth not in the approving of old wives dreams, but in the keeping of his word. We find not that any of the Apostles or Evangelists, either used themselves or instructed others to salute the Virgin-mother with the Hail Mary. It is recorded in the Gospel indeed, that an Angel sent from heaven did so salute her upon the earth; but it is not recorded in the Gospel that we on earth, should so salute her being now in heaven. As for that which M. Bishop saith of our dispraising her, it is untrue; we dispraise her not; we 
a Luk. 1.48.  call her blessed, as we are taught to do; we acknowledge her a fingular instrument of God's mercy towards us in the incarnation of jesus Christ; we mention her as becometh us, with due remembrance of the virtues and graces that God hath bestowed upon her, but yet we will make no 
b Leo 10. apud Pet. Bembum. ep. l. 8. epist. 17. Ne Deam ipsam inani lignorum inutilium donatione lusisse videamini.  Goddess of her, as the Pope hath done, nor commit Idolatry to do her undue honour, as the Collyridian heretics did of old, and as the Papists now do. Christ loved her tenderly, but yet he meant not to put her in place of himself, nor appointed us to seek at her hands that blessing and grace which God hath given us in him alone. And therefore we will not be partakers with the Church of Rome in those sacrileges and blasphemies wherein they call her 
c joan. Michae. Enchir. quotidian. exercit. pag. 120. O nostra singularis matter & Aduocata; suscipe nos in maternam tuamcustodiam e● directionem, adopta in filios tibi devotissimos, purga et praeserua ab omnibus vitijs; ex orna tua humilitate, castitate, charitate, obedientia, caeterisque virtutibus.  their mother and advocate, praying to her that she will receive them into her motherly custody and direction, to adopt them to be her devout children, to purge them and preserve them from all vices: to adorn them with her humility, chastity, charity, obedience and other virtues; 
d Cap 7. p. 346. suscipe etiam per idem cor filii tu● universum n●strae servitutis obsequium, & tuis meritis illud adiungen● supple, emenda, perfice et offer.  that for her sons sake, or as they speak, by the heart of her son, she will receive all the duty of their service, and adjoining it to her merits, will supply it, amend it, perfect and offer it; 
e Cap. 4. pa. 158. per te accessum habeamus ad filium ut per te nos suscipiat, purget, sane & liberet, etc. Excuset apud ipsum tua puritas & integritas culpam nostrae impuritatis & corruptionis, humilitas tua nostrae veniam impetret vanitate, sobrietas gulositati, etc. copiosa tua charitas nostrorum cooperiat multitudinem peccatorum. Domina nostra, Mediatrix nostra, Aduocata nostra, tuo filio nos commenda, tuo filio nos repraesenta, tuo filio nos reconcilia & incorpora.  that by her they may have access to her son, that by her he may receive them, purge, heal and deliver them: that her purity and integrity may with him excuse the fault of their impurity and eorruption, her humility may obtain pardon for their vanity, her sobriety for their gluttony, that her abundant love may cover the multitude of their sins. O our Lady, say they, our Mediatresse, our Advocate, commend us to thy son, represent us to thy son, reconcile us and incorporate us to him. Thus what Christ came to do for us towards God, because none could do it but he, that have they set up the Virgin Mary to do for us towards Christ, who notwithstanding needed Christ as well as we. But because we tender the honour of jesus Christ, and for the love wherewith he hath loved us. do hold ourselves bound in love to yield him entirely the glory of that that he hath done for us, therefore we renounce all such devotions, which indeed are no devotions but impieties and profanations of the faith and religion of Christ, whereby the mediation of Christ is either excluded as needless, or impeached as unsufficient to do that for which he was appointed and sent of God. But as touching this point of M. Bishops blind and doting superstition, I refer thee, gentle reader, to the examination of his answer to M. Perkins epistle dedicatory, the last part thereof.   

13. W. BISHOP.  
But let us come to Christ's own person. Whereas the first Adam was (at the first instance of his creation) replenished with perfect knowledge: 
joh. 1. In cap. 2. Luc. v. 52. Col. 2. v. 4.  and it is also in holy writ said of the second, that the word was made flesh, full of grace and truth: Yet they commonly teach, that our saviours soul was subject to ignorance, even as other men's souls are: and that he was in his youth ignorant of many things. But what and they spare him not (in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge were hidden) when he came to ripe years, and began now to preach? let us for a taste, hear some of Caluins sweet observations upon the text of the Gospel; 
Ex Caluin. Turcismo. lib. 7. cap. 13. Luc. 16. Matth. 7. john 1. In cap. 7. Luc. v. 29.  because the purer brethren complain much, that M. Caluins' works are in no greater request. Christ (saith he) * speaketh improperly, Matth. 6. vers. 18. he useth harsh and farfetched similitudes: he wresteth the Prophet's words into a strange sense: he useth trivial and vulgar proverbs, as probable conjectures, not as sound arguments, which he willeth us to bear in mind, as a thing often practised by our Saviour, in Matth. cap. 12. vers. 25. Luc: 11. vers. 17. he speaketh after the manner of men, not out of his heavenly cabinet, Mat. 11. vers. 21. which is no less in plain English, then that he spoke untruly as men do. 
Matth. 26.39.  And very suitable to this he noteth else where, that Christ could not get any other to be his Distiples, than some certain poor fellows of the refuse and dregs of the people. Seem not these execrable notes to issue from the pen of some malicious jew, or rank Atheist? yet are they but flea-bite in comparison of those which follow. In his commentary upon these words of our Saviour: Father, if it be possible, let this chalice or cup pass from me. He obserneth first, that this prayer of Christ was unadvisedly made: secondly, that he overcome with grief, had forgotten the heavenly decree, not remembering for the time, that he was sent to be the redeemer of mankind: thirdly, that he withstood as much as in him lay, & refused to execute the office of a mediator. See Caluin also upon these words of Christ: 
joh. 12.27.  Father save me from this hour: where he saith, that Christ was so strucken with fear, and so pinched on every side with perplexed pensiveness, that he was forced through these boisterous waves of temptation, to waver and fleet too and fro in his prayers and petitions. Is not this pitiful impiety? Whereas our most loving redeemer, of set purpose took that fear upon him, and most willingly both suffered, and caused that bloody agony and conflict, by representing unto himself, both the shame and pain of his dolorous passion, and the causes thereof (which were the innumerable most grievous sins of the world) that he might in every part both of mind and body, endure what he possibly could, for the time; and spoke nothing rashly, but repeated that his prayer over three sever all times, as is set down in the text itself; to show us how naturally he (as all other men) did abhor such a cruel and ignominious death: and yet withal to instruct us, that we should be content with it, and pray to God for strength to bear it, if it were his blessed will to put us to the like. This wholesome doctrine, and Godly instructions, are by the ancient holy Fathers gathered out of that prayer of Christ: what a venomous spider than was Caluin, to suck such poison out of it? If Christ so wavered, where was his constancy? If he were so frighted (as Caluin falsely imagineth) where was his fortitude? If he struggled so against his Father's decree, where was his obedience? If he refused to redeem us, what was become of his charity towards mankind? If the first motions to evil be deadly sins in us (as the Protestants hold) what will they make of such tumultuous, and unbridled passions in him, that had a greater command over them, than we have?   

R. ABBOT.  
We doubt not but that Adam so far as the condition and state of human nature required, 
Christ as man ignorant of some things.  was replenished with perfect knowledge, and yet little did he know what the serpent went about in tempting the woman, or what the end would be of the woman's tempting him. It is true also that the second Adam was full of grace and truth, so as that nothing came from him but grace and truth; so as that he fully effected to us the grace of God, and exhibited the truth of all that God had promised, and yet it followeth not that therefore nothing from his infancy was unknown to him. The Romans also are said 
a Rom. 15.14.  to be filled with all knowledge, and yet it was not known to them, I warrant you, how wise and honest a man M. Bishop should show himself in the writing of this book. The holy Ghost teacheth us that, 
b Heb. 4.15. Heb. 2.17.  sin excepted, Christ was in all things like unto us. The Papists out of their fancy say, except sin and ignorance: but why do they add an exception of their own heads which the holy Ghost hath not added? The holy Ghost saith in all things except sin; by what authority do they add ignorance where ignorance may be without sin? Surely the ancient father Cyrill gathereth thereof, that Christ as man was ignorant of some things, as namely that 
c Cyril. Thesau. l. 9 cap. 4. Quod diem & horam illam ignoraret: verè ab illo dicitur ut ab homine; fratribus enim in omnibus similis fuit sec●i dum Paulum.  he knew not the day and hour of his second coming, wherefore he saith in the Gospel, 
d Mark. 13.32.  Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the Angels which are in heaven, neither the son himself, but the father only. 
e Ibid. Infirmitates nostras omnes accepits hac de causa ignerasse sedixit.  He took upon him all our infirmities, saith he, for this cause he said he knew it not. Yea he teacheth us herein 
f Ibid. Misericordiam eius admirari oportet quòd non recusaverit propter nos ad tantam humilitatem descendere ut omnia nostra & ipsam etiam ignorantiam humanam susciperet.  to admire the mercy of Christ, for that he would so much abase himself for our sakes, as to take upon him, as all the rest, so namely the ignorance of human nature. He allegeth against the heretics, that it is no more prejudice to Christ to say according to his manhood, that he knew not that day, 
g Ibid. Interrogandi sunt haehetici quid facient quando salvator dicitur esurijsse, siti●sse, etc. situt ergò voluit tanquam h●mo fame ac siticaeterisque huiusmodi laborare, sic e●●am ut honodiem illum ignorat.  then to say that he hungered, thirsted, slept, was weary, and such like. He saith again, that when jesus being come to Bethany and finding Lazarus dead, asked of Mary, 
h joh. 11.34.  Where have ye laid him? 
i Ibid. Locum ignorabat ubi corpus Lazarierat. ut homo ign●rauit.  he knew not as man, in what place the body of Lazarus was. His conclusion is, that 
k Ibid, i● fine. perspicuum est universa sciri à filio dei non minus quâm à patre, quamuis dispensatiue ut homo multa se ignorare dicat.  Christ though as the son of God he knew all things no less than the father, yet as man, by way of dipensation, said himself to be ignorant of many things. And what? shall Cyrill now be an heretic with M. Bishop who so long ago in behalf of the Catholic faith disputed these things against heretics? The like Origen gathereth out of the words of the Gospel, 
l Luk. 2.52.  And jesus increased in wisdom, and stature and in favour with God and men. 
m Origen. in jerem. hom. 1. jesus necdum vir, sed adhuc infans quia se exinanivit formam servi excipiens proficiebat. Nemo autem proficit qui est perfectus, sed illo proficit qui indiget profectu etc. Quid indignum est rera de eo esse quae dicta sunt; priusquam cognoscat puer bonum aut malum.  jesus not being a man, but as yet an infant, because he humbled himself to take the form of a servant. did grow. But none doth grow, saith he, or increase who is already perfect, but he groweth that wanteth growth. Why then is it unlikely to be truly said of him: Before the child knew good or evil. He apply to Christ those words of the Prophet Esay, as divers other writers do, though perhaps amisses, but hence, as from the other words, he gathereth that Christ for the time was subject to that ignorance and infirmity, which by the condition of human nature belongeth to that tender age. And out of the same words of the Evangelist he observeth as touching Christ's not knowing the day and hour of the end of the world 
n Idem. in Math. tract. 30 Proficiens proficiebat quidem super omnes scientia est sapientia, non tamen ut iam veniret quod perfectum est, priusquam propriam dispensationem impleret. Nihil ergò mirum si hec nescivit. etc.  that Christ grew in wisdom and knowledge above all other, but yet so as that that which is perfect should not come till he had fulfilled the dispensation that belonged to him, and therefore that it was no marvel if he knew it not. Now these things touch not only the infancy of Christ, but also his riper years, and therefore take away that exception which M. Bishop will seem to ground upon that distinction. And albeit the Apostle do now set forth Christ unto us as 
o Col. 2.4. Sundry cavillations against Caluin declared.  in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (which words notwithstanding belong to other purpose then M. Bishop here produceth them) yet this nothing hindereth but that something might be hidden to the manhood of Christ, till the time should come that the divine nature should fully explicate and lay open the glorious perfection of those endowments, which by union and fellowship therewith should redound unto it. But to come to his sweet observations which he noteth out of Caluin, he citeth for the collector of them his fellow Gifford, in his Caluinc-Turcismus, a sweet youth, and a master very fi● for such a scholar; yet he thinketh himself to have this advantage hereby, that if there be any knavery or foolery in these collections, the blame thereof shall light upon Gifford and not upon him. And first it is alleged, that Caluin in one place saith, that Christ 
p Caluin in Math. ca 6.18.  speaketh unproperly. A high point in a low house: as if it were any strange matter to note in many places of the scripture some impropriety of speech. Saint Austin saith, that 
q August. de doct. Christ. l. 3. cap. 29. sciant literati modis omnibus locutionis quos Grammatici tropos vocant authores nostros usos esse.  the writers of the scriptures have used all manner of tropes and figures, and what are tropes and figures, but the excusing and salving of such improprieties? Of that which Saint Paul saith, The flesh lusteth against the spirit, Cyprian speaketh as Caluin doth, 
r Cyprian. de cardinal. Christi operib. in prolog Quòd caro adversus spiritum, etc. contendere dicitur, improprie arbitror dictum.  I think it to be unproperly spoken: and will Master Bishop make Cypriano-Turcismus of this, as Gifford doth a Caluino-Turcismus of the other? The next matter is, that Christ useth harsh and farfetched similitudes. The words are spoken by occasion of the parable of the unrighteous steward, concerning which, Caluin advertiseth that 
s Caluin. in Luc. 16.1.  Christ thereby admonisheth to deal friendly and kindly with our neighbours, that when we shall come to the tribunal seat of God, the fruit of our liberality may return to us. Hereupon he addeth: 
t Quanquam autem dura & longè petita videtur similitudo, clausula tamen ostendit non aliud fuisse Christi consilium.  And albeit the similitude seem to be hard and farfetched, yet the conclusion showeth that the purpose of Christ was no other. Where we may see what a special skill these fellows have in multiplication. Caluin saith, this similitude seemeth to be harsh and farfetched, and they turn it to, he useth harsh and farfetched similitudes. But Hierome saith of Saint Paul, 
u Hieron. Apolog. pro lib. adu. joviniam. ad Pammach. Videntur eius quaedam verba simplicia & quasi innocentis h●minis & rurusticani; sed quocunque 〈◊〉 eris, sulm●●● sunt.  some of his words seem to be but simple, and as the words of a silly country man, who neither hath skill to snare another, nor to avoid the snare himself: and yet he did not hold them to be so indeed, for he addeth, yet whithersoever thou lookest they are very thunder. Where Caluin then saith, that the similitude seemeth to be hard and far fetched, will M. Bishop strait ways conclude that he saith it is so? And what; doth it not so much as seem to be hard and far fetched, that by the similitude of an unjust steward, who to provide for himself, used his wit to deceive and rob his master? Christ should teach us liberality and almsdeeds? S. Austin saw it to be such, as that he gave it for a special caveat, that 
x Aug. q evang. l. 2. q. 34. In villico quem dominus eijciebat, etc. non omnia debe●● 〈…〉 dum sumere, etc. et paulò post: E contrario dicuntur stae similitudine; ut intelligamus 〈…〉 ille à domino qui fraudem faciebat, quantò ampliùs placent dom. deo qui secun●um 〈…〉 illa faciunt.  We are not to take all things here to imitate, and that it is to be taken by way of contrariety, that if he were commended of his master that deceived, much more doth he please God, who according to his commandment doth such things. And that commending of the unjust steward, Origen interpreteth, 
y Grigen. apud Th. Aquin. Caten Evang Luc. 16. Non secundum veram commendationem se● abusi●è dictum est.  not to be spoken as touching any true commendation, but by abuse of speech. It should seem therefore that all things are not here so currant, but that the similitude may at least seem to be hard and farfetched. And doth M. Bishop think that there are no similitudes in the Scriptures that are hard and far fetched? If there be none, than we hope that he is able very easily to give reason of them all. Which if he say he can do, we shall think him scant a wise man; and if he say he cannot, we shall think him as wise that will reprove that for a lie in Caluin, which he himself must confess to be a truth. Again he objecteth to Caluin, that he saith, that Christ wresteth the Prophet's words, into a strange sense. The place is noted in the margin, to be upon the seventh of Matthew, but it is upon the eight chapter. The words which he meaneth, are the words of the Prophet Esay there cited: 
z Esay 53.4.  He took our infirmities, and bore our sicknesses. Of which, Caluin there saith thus; 
a Cal. in Math. 8.17. videtur parum appesitè citari, immò in alienum sensum torquerthoc vaticinium.  This prophecy seemeth to be amiss or unfitly cited, yea to be wrested to a wrong meaning, or to a strange sense. Which words he useth not as of his own opinion, but propoundeth them by way of objection, and addeth a reason of some doubt made as touching the application of the Prophecy. He presently answereth; 
b Ibid. solutio non difficil● est modò expendant lectores non tantùm exponi quid Christus contulerit aegrotis, sed in quem finem sanaveris ocrum morbos.  The solution is easy, so that the Readers do weigh that it is not here declared only, what Christ did to the sick, but to what end he cured their sicknesses. What M. Bishop? no more truth, no more honesty, but to cite Caluins' objection, as if it were his resolution, when he himself answereth it in the same place? Well, yet again Caluin saith, that 
c Idem in Mat. 12.25. Memoria tenendum est vulgò receptis proverlijs ita usum Christum ut tantùm essent probabiles coniecturae, non autem ut solidè probareut.  Christ useth trivial and vulgar proverbs, as probable conjectures, not as sound arguments. And what if he say so? What, doth M. Bishop think the contrary? Will he imagine, that sound arguments may be drawn from trivial proverbs? We take it for a memorable observation which Caluin giveth anon after upon the same chapter, that 
d Ibid. ver. 34. Proverbiales sententias non exigi debere ad perpetuam normam quia tantum docent quid accidere ut plurimum soleat.  Proverbial sentences must not be drawn to a perpetual rule; but do only teach what for the most part falleth out. A proverbial speech it is as he there allegeth, uttered by our Saviour Christ, 
e Matt. 12.34.  Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, and yet we know, that some there are 
f Psal. 62.4.  Who give good words with their mouth, and curse with their heart. It hath been a Proverb amongst us, a Friar, a liar, but will M. Bishop hereby prove as by an infallible argument, that every Friar is a liar? It hath been commonly said concerning the church of Rome, The nearer the church, the farther from God; and doth he hold it a good argument, that therefore the Pope is in the high way to the devil, because he is so near the church? Shall every slanderous rumour be holden for a conviction, because it is commonly used for a Proverb, that there is no smoke, but there is some fire? If not, then let him acknowledge according to Caluins' rule, that Proverbial sentences are good inducements to that which a man will persuade by them, but necessary probations they are not. And in that nature were they used by our Saviour Christ, who would draw on the jews by such dictates, commonly received and approved amongst them, to consider the better of those things which otherwise by firm arguments of truth he made good unto them. Another matter is, that where Christ saith to Corazin and Bethsaida, and to Capernaum, that 
g Matt. 11, 21.23.  if the miracles that were done in them, had been done in tire and Sidon, yea in Sodom, they had repent in sackcloth and ashes, and Sodom had still remained. Caluin saith, that he speaketh after the manner of men, not out of his heavenly cabinet, which, saith M. Bishop, is no less in plain English, then that he spoke untruly as men do. Just, for so the Apostle S. Paul when he said to the Romans, 
h Rom. 6.19.  I speak after the manner of men, because of the infirmity of your flesh, did thereby mean to tell them that he did lie, that he spoke untruly as men do. Caluins' words upon the former verse concerning Corazin and Bethsaida are these; 
i Cal. in Math. 11.21. Ne quis spinosas de arcanis dei iudi●ijs quaestiones moneat, tenendum est ad communem humanae mentis captum accommodari hunc domini sermonem. Comparans cives Bethsaid a & eorum vicinos cum Tyrijs & Sidonijs non disputat quid Deus praeviderit futurum de ijs vel il●is, sed quid facturi fuerint alteri quatenus ex re ipsa per●●pi poterat.  That no man may here move any curious questions, touching the secret judgements of God, we are here to resolve, that the speech of Christ is applied to the common conceit of men's minds: for comparing the Citizens of Bethsaida and their neighbours with the Tyrians and Sidonians, he doth not dispute what God did foresee should be either in the one or the other, but what the other would have done so far as by the very thing itself might be esteemed. Afterwards coming to the other verse concerning Capernaum, he saith again; 
k Ibid. ver. 23. supra admonuimus Christum humano more loqui, non autem ex caelesti adyto proferre quid deus praeviderit futurum si Sodomitis prophetam aliquem mississet.  We have before admonished, that Christ here speaketh after the manner of men, and doth not out of the heavenly sanctuary declare what God did foresee would have come to pass if he had sent a prophet to the Sodomites. Caluins' mind is plain, that when he saith, that Christ spoke after the manner of men, he meaneth that he spoke as men might morally esteem the signs and wonders that he had done in these cities, being so admirable and strange, as that no man might probably imagine the Tyrians and Sidonians, yea the very Sodomites to be so barbarous and graceless, but that at the sight thereof they would have repent; no less than the Ninivites did at the preaching of jonas. And that M. Bishops own Latin interpreter took this to be the true meaning of the words, appeareth plainly by that he translateth as touching the Sodomites; 
l Fortè mansissent usque in hanc diem.  Perhaps they had continued till this day. He would not have said, perhaps, if he had spoken out of the counsel of God, but because he spoke out of the conceit of men, therefore he saith perhaps. Why then doth he pick a quarrel against Caluin in that, wherein by their own authentical text, he is forced to subscribe that which Caluin saith? But if he will needs understand these words, as spoken out of the secret of the counsel of God, foreseeing what would have followed if such means had been used, then let him herein acknowledge the secret of God's decree of reprobation, of far other nature than he hath before delivered it, that 
m August. Quibusaan quos nonit acturos poenitentiam non exhibet patientiam.  to some who he knoweth (if means be used) that they will repent, yet he doth not yield patience that they may repent, as S. Austin gathereth according to that construction: and because he will not grant them to believe, therefore denieth them that whereby they should believe. Let him leave the Rhetorical expostulations of human wisdom, why God being just and good should abject men to hell without foresight of their evil works, because he seethe that God abiecteth men notwithstanding the foresight of the good works which they would have done, if he would have vouchsafed them the means thereof. I speak not this as approving that construction, but only to whip M. Bishop with his own rod, and to show that he careth not what he saith, so that it serve his present turn, howsover it cross him otherwhere. Yet further Caluin noteth elsewhere, that Christ could not get any other to be his disciples, than some certain poor fellows of the refuse and dregs of the people. Mark the text, gentle Reader, upon which Caluin giveth that observation; 
o Luk. 7.29.  Then all the people that heard, and the Publicans justified God being baptized with the baptism of john; but the Pharisees and the interpreters of the law despised the counsel of God against themselves, and were not baptized of him. Hereupon he saith; 
p Calu. ibid. Hoc quidem primo aspectu evangelii gloriam valde obscurat, immò deformat quòd discipulos Christus non nisi ex faece populi & quisquilijs colligere potuit: qui autem sanctitate vel doctrina praestabant, ipsum repudiabant, sed dominus hoc initio specimen edere voluit ne vel illius aetatis homines vel posters evangelium aestimarent humana probatione.  This at first sight obscureth the glory of the Gospel, yea disgraceth it, that Christ could get no other disciples but of the dregs and refuse of the people, and that they, who excelled in learning and holiness, did refuse him. But God by this beginning would give token that neither they then, nor others afterward should esteem the Gospel by human approbation. Now why doth M. Bishop dislike of this observation? What? doth he find that Christ had Popes to be his Disciciples, or that like a Pope he had Cardinals, fellows to Kings and Emperors, to attend him? The Pharisees could say by way of prejudice against him, 
q joh. 7.48.  Doth any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees believe in him; but this people which know not the law (contemptuously pointing at them which 
n Idem de bono persever. ca 14. Quoniam ut crederent non erat eis datum etiam unde crederent est negatum.  followed him) are cursed. Yea our Saviour Christ himself saith to his father, 
r Matt. 11.25.  I thank thee, O father, Lord of heaven & earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise, and prudent of this world, and hast opened them to babes. See here, the wise, the Prudent, the Rulers, the Pharisees, they all refuse Christ, but the people, the poor babes, sinners, 
s Matt. 9.10. & 21.32.  publicans and harlots, they are noted to receive him. And is M. Bishop offended that these are termed dregs and refuse? or whatsoever they were, doth not his wit serve him to understand that Caluin speaketh comparatively according to the conceit of the world, which held these to be but refuse and dregs in comparison of the other? Had he never read the words of the Apostle, 
t 1. Cor. 1.26.  Brethren, ye see your calling, that not many wisemen after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty, and vile things of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are, that no flesh should rejoice in his presence? hearken here, M. Bishop; foolish things, weak, vile, despised, things that are not, what are these in account but dregs and refuse? God having so disposed, that it might appear that the calling of his grace is not afforded according to any degrees of worldly titles. What shall we then hold it, but a pang of a distempered brain which M. Bishop showeth in his censure following: seem not these execrable notes, to issue from the pen of some malicious jew, or rank Atheist? Yea but these he telleth us are but flea-bite in comparison of those that fellow. And what are those? forsooth upon the words of our Saviour, 
u Matt. 26.39.  Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me, Caluin observeth, first that this prayer of Christ was unadvisedly made. But that is first, according to M. Bishop's wont, a mere untruth. Prayer unadvisedly made is a matter oferrour and sin; but this Caluin calleth, 
x Caluin. ibid. Votum abruptum fuisse fatemur. Votum illud subitò elapsum castigat ac revocat.  a desire abruptly conceived, which by and by more plainly he termeth, a desire suddenly passing from Christ, which may be without sin, and so was in Christ, being drawn out of his pure and undefiled soul, only by horror of his passion, and extreme importunity of his grief. 
y Mat. 26 37.  He began, faith Saint Matthew, to be sorrowful, and grievously perplexed; 
z Mar. 14.33.  He was afraid, saith Mark, and in great heaviness, and said, My soul is very heavy, even unto death. Now being thus infinitely surcharged with grief even unto deaths door, his agony being such, and so crushing the whole power of nature, as that 
a Luk. 22 44.  his sweat was like drops of blood trickling down to the ground, he prayeth, as Saint Mark speaketh, that if it were possible that hour might pass from him: Abba Father, all things are possible unto thee, take away this cup from me. O my Father, if it be possible let this cup pass away from me: thus by instinct of uncorrupted nature shrinking back from the feeling and experience of that, to which notwithstanding by voluntary obedience he both before, and then present, did submit himself, saying, Nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt, be done. 
b Caluin. ibid. Eadem vehementia praesentem coelestis decreti memoriam illi abstulit, ut non reputaret in ipso momento se hac lege missum esse generis humani redemptorem.  The same vehemency of grief, saith Caluin, took away from him the present remembrance of the heavenly decree, so that in the very moment he did not weighwith himself that upon this condition (namely with condition of drinking this cup) he was sent to be the Redeemer of mankind. By which words Caluin doth not import that Christ had habitually forgotten Gods decree, but that by means of the excess of his grief, he did not for the present actually fix his mind upon it, 
c Ibid. sicut saepegravis anxietas caliginem oculis obducit ne simul in mentem veniant omnia.  as, saith he, great heaviness doth often cast a mist before the eyes, so that all things come not to mind at once. Now M. Bishop reporteth these words, as if Caluin had said that Christ absolutely had forgotten the decree; than which he intended nothing less; and not contented therewith, he addeth another falsification, that he remembered not for the time, that he was sent to be the Redeemer of mankind, whereas Caluin addeth, with this condition, namely, with condition of undergoing that heavy burden. So far was Christ here from forgetting that he was sent to be the Redeemer of mankind, as that his words may well be taken to imply the contrary, sounding as Origen expoundeth them, 
d Origen in Mat. tract. 35. si possibile est ut sine passione mea illa omnia bona proveniant que per passionem meam proventura sunt, transeat à me passio ista.  If it be possible that those benefits which shall come by my passion, may be effected without it, let this cup pass from me. But if Christ had at that instant actually and fully weighed the unremoveablenesse of God's decree in this behalf, and that it was unpossible that it should be otherwise, how is it likely that he should pray in this sort; If it be possible, let this cup pass from me? Which is the same as to make him say, I know well that it is not possible that this cup should pass from me, but if it be possible let it pass, so to make an if of that which at once he knoweth to be absolute without if or and It remaineth therefore true which Caluin saith, that oppression of grief according to sense of nature wrested this if from our Savour Christ, not attending, for the instant, to the irrevocable decree of God, that thus it should be and no otherwise. Now in the third point M. Bishop dealeth yet more grossly, because he allegeth that for an assertion, which Caluin setteth down by way of objection. He moveth the question, if the affections of Christ were well and orderly carried, how then he correcteth himself; and subdueth his desire to the obedience of God, as if he had gone beyond compass? Surely saith he, there appeareth not in the first request, that moderation which we have spoken of, because so much as in him lieth he refuseth and shuneth to do the office of a Mediator. Now having answered the first part of this objection, he repeateth the latter again, and answereth it; 
e Calu. ut supra siquis excipiat primum motum quem sranari oportuit antequam longiús excurreret non fuisse temperatum ●t decebat, respendemus non posse in hac naturae nostrae corruptione perspici affectuum feruorem cum temperie qualis in Christo fuit, sed hunc dandum honorem filio dei ne eum aestimemus ex nobis. Nam sic in nobis aeftuant omnes carnis affectus ut prosiliant in contumaciam, aut saltem aliquid faecis admixtum habeant; sic autem & metus & doloris seruore aestuavit Christ●s ●se tamen continuerit in sua mensura. Immò sicuti varij cautus & inter se discrepantes ade● 〈◊〉 dissonum habent ut potiùs concinnam suavemque harmoniam conficiant, ita in Christo ensign extitie symmetriae exemplar inter dei & hominis voluntates ut absque conflictu est repugnantis inter se differant.  If any man except that the first motion which was to be restrained before it went any further, was not of that temper and moderation as it ought to be; I answer, that in this corruption of nature, we cannot see the heat of affection with the due temper thereof as it was in Christ, but that we are to give this honour to the son of God, that we do not esteem him by ourselves. For all affections of the flesh do so boil in us, as that they break forth to rebellion, or at least have some dregs mingled therewith: but Christ was so affected with the fervour both of fear and grief, as that notwithstanding, he contained himself within his bounds. Yea, as notes of song being sundry, and different each from other, yet have no dissonancy or discord, but do make a goodly and pleasant harmony; so was there in Christ a notable pattern of concord betwixt the wills of God and man, so as that they differed without any conflict or repugnancy betwixt the one and the other. In which words when we see how holily Caluin accordeth those differences which through agony and anguish seemed to be in Christ, so as that though they seemed by his prayer to draw back from that whereto the Father had sent him, yet indeed there was nothing in him repugnant to the will of God: what evil spirit may we think it was, that led M. Bishop to report out of the same Caluins objection, that he affirmeth that Christ withstood, so much as in him lay, and refused to execute the office of a mediator? By this that hath been said, we may discern what cause there was for Caluin to say that which M. Bishop allegeth out of the other place; that Christ was so stricken with fear, and so pinched on every side with perplexed pensiveness, that he was forced through these boisterous waves of temptations to wave and fleet too and fro in his prayers and petitions. He corrupteth Caluins words, for Caluin saith nothing of forcing, but acknowledgeth the contrary, that Christ 
f Calu. in joan. 12.27. fuerunt voluntarij isti in eo affectus, quia non coaclus timuit, sed timori sponte subiccerat.  did not fear as being forced to it, but because voluntarily he did submit himself unto it, and so that other affections were voluntary in him. Neither doth he make Christ to waver, as an unsettled man, doubtful what to do, but describeth him though by sense of nature tending one way, yet by firm and constant obedience subduing all passions of nature, and yielding himself another way. And do not M. Bishops eyes see him in this sort, fleeting too and fro? By sense and affection of nature he saith, Father, save me from this hour, and yet by obedience he addeth; But therefore came I into this hour. By sense of nature he saith, Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me; but by obedience he yieldeth, Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wilt be done. Now though this be as clear as the light, yet this wizard like the dog barking at the Moon, crieth out, Is not this pitiful impiety? and so bewraying his own pitiful folly, he goeth on to tell us how all this agony came to pass. And first he telleth us that Christ of set purpose took that fear upon him, and most willingly suffered that bloody agony. But this is none of M. Bishop's note, he borrowed it of Caluin; for Caluin saith as much, as we have seen before: only let it be remembered, that here he acknowledgeth that Christ did fear. Then he telleth us, that Christ caused to himself that bloody agony and conflict, by representing unto himself the shame and pain of his dolorous passion. But when we see the martyrs with so admirable patience and resolution, to have endured so exquisite tortures, and far beyond the bodily sufferings of Christ, can we imagine that the very conceit of his passions could drive Christ himself into so great anguish and perplexity as in the Gospel is described? And what? did Christ never before represent unto himself the dolours of his passion? not when he so often forewarned his Disciples thereof? not when 
g Luk 9.31.  Moses and Elias talked with him of his departure which he should accomplish at jerusalem? If he did, how came it then to pass that he was not feized with the same sorrows? We doubt not but the bodily passions of Christ were exceeding great, and yet we doubt not but that M. Bishop therein allegeth too slender a cause of so great an agony. Well, somewhat to enlarge this, he addeth, that he represented to himself the causes of his passion, which were the innumeral le most grievous sins of the world. But I ask again, is it likely that Christ 
h joh. 2.25.  who knew what was in man, did never before represent to himself the sins of men? Or shall we think that the bare representing of men's sins to himself could cause him so great affliction and distress? Yea and we would gladly know how to this representation of men's sins he will fit the prayer that Christ useth, Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me. He saith, that hereby Christ would in every part both of mind and body endure what he possibly could for the time. But what a vain dream is he in, that will talk of so great a passion in Christ, and yet make the ground thereof to be only imagination? Yea, but he telleth us further, that Christ would show how naturally he (as all other men) did abhor such a cruel and ignominious death. What, and was the cause of his agony than no other but what other men might have as well as he? And did Christ so greatly shrink back from death, who knew that within three days he should rise again? Surely S. Austin though he express not the true cause thereof, yet wholly disclaimeth this, willing them, to whom he spoke, 
i August in Psal. 21. Nist sortè tutatis fratres quiae quando dixit dominus, pater, etc. mori timebat. Non est fortior miles quàm Imperator, sufficit servo ut sit sicut dominus eius. Paulus dicit miles regis Chrisli; concupiscentiam habens dissolui, etc. Ille optat mortem ut sit cum Chrisio, & Chrisius ipse timet mortem?  not to think that Christ was afraid to die when he said, Let this cup pass from me. The soldier, saith he, is not of greater courage than the captain. It sufficeth the servant to be as his master is. Paul saith, I desire to be loosed, and to be with Christ. He wisheth to die, that he may be with Christ; and is Christ himself afraid of death? No, no, a greater matter it was, that when no bodily violence was yet offered to him, did so oppress his soul to the very gates of death, and drew from him blood in steed of sweat, and made him so earnestly again and again to pray that he might escape drinking of that cruelly distasteful and bitter cup. It was not death, but the wrath of God in death; not the conceit of our sins, but 
k Esa. 53 12.  the bearing thereof, and 
l 2. Cor. 5.21.  being made sin for us, that caused the Son of God that great agony and fear. But of this shall be spoken further in the next section, where it shall appear, God willing, that the ancient holy fathers gathered out of the Gospel this self-same for wholesome doctrine, and godly instruction, and therefore that Caluin did not play the venomous Spider to suck poison from thence, unless M. Bishop mean poison to poison, as Christ was a Serpent to the serpent; and as a poison to him that poisoved us: for as the spider, they say, is poison to the toad, and killeth him, so the saith and religion of Christ which Caluin hath taught out of the Gospel, hath been and shall be a poison to the poison of the church of Rome, to bring it to nought, as hitherto it hath done. He goeth on with divers idle questions, only to find his Printer work, but to do his adversary no harm. If Christ so wavered, where was his constancy? I answer him, Christ wavered not, but by invincible constancy of obedience overcame that drawing back which the pure affection of undefiled nature motioned unto him. If he were so frighted, where was his fortitude? But the greater his fear was, the greater his fortitude appeareth in overcoming that fear, because great fortitude is not moved with small fears, but passeth them with contempt: and M. Bishop should know that virtue consisteth not in being void of passions as Stoics held, but in the subduing & conquering of them. And doth not he himself tell us before, that Christ took upon him fear? If he think that Christ did so indeed, why doth he not put the same in question to himself? where then was his fortitude? If he think this fear to be some light matter, what place leaveth he for those words of the Apostle, 
m Heb. 5.7.  who in the days of his flesh did offer up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that which he feared? He will say that we translate amiss, in that which he feared. Yet Gregory Nazianzen so understood it, reckoning out of this place 
n Greg. N●zi. de filio orat 2. Ad hanc considerationen pertinet quò obedientiam ex ijs didicit quae passus est; item clam●r, lachrymae, supplicationes, exauditiones, metus, etc.  Christ's crying, his tears, his supplications, the hearing of him and his fear. But leaving that to his selfe-wit and will, the text itself doth otherwise sufficiently confirm what we say, because they must needs be even whole armies of terrors and fears that must wrest from him those prayers with strong crying and tears. Yea and when it is said that in those prayers he looked unto God, as able to save him from death, manifest it is, that out of horror and fear it was that he so prayed. Fear, I say still, as a passion of nature, not any distrust of unbelief, not whereby he was dismayed, but yet whereby he was in the highest degree affected with that dreadful sight, which his eyes than were bend upon. Again he saith; If he struggled against his Father's decree, where was his obedience? His obedience was in this, that 
o Ambros. in Heb 5. Qui non venit facere voluntatem suam sed eius qui misit illum, voluntatem paternae dispensatienis praetulit voluntati carnis suae.  Whereas he came not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him, he preferred the will of his fat hers ordinance before the will of his own flesh. By the will of his own flesh than he willed somewhat otherwise then his father had decreed, else why doth he say, Not what I will? yet he doth not by this will of his flesh, struggle against his father's decree, but submitteth this will with all patience to his fathers wil And hereby appeareth what a frivolous question he moveth in the next words, if he refused to redeem us, what was become of his charity towards mankind? for he never refused to redeem us, and therefore never failed in his love towards mankind. But in the last question he most of all playeth the wretch, and under colour of an imputation to us, uttereth a wicked blasphemy of his own. If the first motions to evil be deadly sins in us, as the Protestants hold, what will they make of such tumultuous and unbridled passions in him who had a greater command over them than we have? The Protestants do hold indeed, that the first motions to evil are deadly sins, if God weigh them in judgement as they are; but the Protestants do not hold in Christ any first motions to evil, and much less any such passions as are worse than those motions, that this absurd man should thus argue as from the less to the greater, from evil motions in us to tumultuous and unbridled passions in him. We acknowledge a difference of will in Christ, testified by most passionate and effectual words, and we acknowledge it as the Fathers did out of the same words, against the heretics the Monothelites, but in this difference we deny any thing to have been tumultuous or unbridled, but all duly composed and ordered; so that the discord was a concord, and the difference made no other but harmony and conformity as before was said.   

14. W. BISHOP.  
But we are not yet come unto the height of his blasphemies, which he poureth forth more abundantly upon those our saviours words, 
Matt. 27.46.  My GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me! saying: when this kind of temptation was proposed to Christ (as though God being averted from him, he had been appointed to utter destruction) he was seized with horror. 
* Li. 2. Instit. c. 16. sess. 11.  And in his Institutes treating of the same subject, saith, Christ feared to have been swallowed up of death as a sinner: And there can be no more dreadful bottomless gulf, then for a man to feel himself forsaken and estranged from God, and not to be heard, when he calleth upon him, even as if God had conspired his destruction: even thither we see that Christ was thrown down, so that by enforcement of distress he was compelled to cry out, my GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me. In the paragraph before, he speaketh more plainly, that Christ did hand in hand wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death: finally, that in his soul he suffered the torments of the damned, and all those punishments that are due to wicked men in hell: He then (belike) was the traitor judas companion: for the while he was in the devils hands to be tormented he despaired and fared, as men do in these hellish torments. What greater blasphemy can be invented, then to condemn the King of heaven, that came to redeem us all from hell, even to the very pit of hell itself? Beza not willing to come behind his master Caluin in this kind of impiety, whereas Caluin craftily admitted only, that Christ then despaired, 
In cap. 5. ad Heb. vers. 7.  he affirmeth plainly: that from Christ (stroocken with the horror of God's curse) escaped the word of desperation. And elsewhere, that Christ was (with the huge heavy burden of God's wrath, overwhelmed and adjudged to the flames of hell: yea, 
In c. 27. Mata & 22. Luc.  buried and drowned in the bottom of the infernal gulf: This man (you see) desires to lodge Christ low enough, that would have him drowned in the very bottom of hell. This their pestilent venom, they might have sucked out of their good grandsire Luther's writings, who upon the very same words, doth make this goodly commentary. What shall we therefore say? 
In Psal. 22. v. 1.  Christ to have been together both the most just, and greatest sinner: both the most notorious liar, and truest teacher: at the same instant, both the most highly glorying, and deeply despairing: both happy in the highest degree, and most miserably damned. Unless we say this, I see not (saith this Oracle of the new Gospel) how Christ was forsaken of God. See him also upon the third chapter to the Galatians, where he uttereth yet more detestable speeches of Christ, to wit: that all the Prophets did in the spirit foresee him to be the greatest thief, robber, murderer, adulterer, sacrilegious person and blasphemer, that ever lived. I could cite you divers others of the same opinion, but I had rather note their extreme blindness, who neglecting the ancient Father's learned expositions of the holy Scriptures, were led away with such horrible extravagant conceits of our Saviour, upon so small occasion. For he at that very time hanging on the Cross, declared himself to be most far off from all such hellish torments: yea, he showed all possible signs of a most quiet and peaceable mind, praying for the salvation even of his persecutors (he was not then belike in doubt of his own) promising also to the good thief that the same day he should be with him in Paradise; wherefore he doubted nothing of being there himself: recommending his Mother unto his beloved Disciple, and him likewise to her; and to fulfil the Scriptures, both saying I thirst, and citing even those very words, that they are scandalised at, out of one of the Psalms of David: And finally, advisedly considering all things belonging to his passion to be accomplished, commended his spirit unto his Father's hands; so that there could not possibly be more calm settled judgement, more valiant constancy and resolution, than there was. But what meant he then to say, My GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me? Forsooth nothing else, but to signify, that in all these torments which he suffered, he had not any comfort or consolation at that time from God, who is wont to give extraordinary aid and comfort to all those, that suffer for his name's sake: but that Christ might (as he himself desired) be put to suffer all kind of extremity, all manner of inward consolation was wholly withholden from him; which it pleased him then to express by manner of complaint in those most pitiful words: 
Christ suffered for us both in body and soul.  My GOD, my GOD, etc. the more to move us to compassion. Thus much of their impieties against Christ's person: now to those that they teach against the office of his mediatorship.   

R. ABBOT.  
Theodoret citeth it as a memorable sentence out of Irenaeus, that 
a Theodoret. dialog. 3. ex Iren. adu. haer. lib. 5. C●●●ergò proprio sanguine nos Christus redemerit & animam suam pro animis nostris dederit & carnem suam pro nostru carnibus, etc.  Christ gave his soul for our souls, and his body for our bodies. So do we hold that by Christian faith we are bound to believe, that 
b Hieron. in Esai. 53. li. 14. Ex quo perspicuum est sicut corpus flagellatum & laceratum signa in●uriae in vibicibus & livore portabat, ●ta & animam verè doluisse pro no●is ne exparte veritas, ex part mendacium credatur in Christo.  as the scourged and rend body of Christ did carry the marks of wrong done to him by stripes and blueness of wounds, as Hierome saith, so that his soul did verily endure grief for us, lest partly a truth, and partly a lie, should be believed in Christ. If we say that Christ suffered for us in body only, it shall be a lie to say of Christ as touching his soul, that he suffered for us: but therefore do we believe, that both in body and soul he suffered that it may be wholly a truth which we believe, and Christ may be acknowledged to be a perfect Redeemer both of body and foul. Now it is true indeed that the soul suffereth by the body, because the body of itself hath no sense or feeling whereby to suffer: but when we speak of Christ's suffering in soul, we mean not that which the soul suffereth by the body, but whereby it suffereth properly and immediately in itself. For inasmuch as it was a part of punishment due to our sins to suffer in this sort, therefore we believe that Christ taking upon him to suffer for us, did suffer in the same fort, Because 
c Hieron. ut supra. Quod nos pro nostris debebamus sceleribus sustinere, ille pro nobis passus est.  he suffered for us what we ought tesuffer for our own sins. And accordingly doth the Prophet say of him, 
d Esa. 53.10.  He shall give his soul an offering for sin, which he verifieth in the Gospel, when yet there was no passion but of the soul; 
e Matt. 26.38.  My soul is heavy, even unto the death. We believe therefore that not in body only, but in soul also, Christ 
f 2. Cor. 5.21.  was made sin for us; that not in body only, but also in soul, 
g Gal. 3.13.  he was made a curse for us, to deliver us from the curse; 
h Ambros. in Orat. con. Auxent. ep. li. 5. Non maledictus ille sed in te maledictus.  not accursed himself, but accursed in us, as saith Saint Ambrose, blessed in 
i August. count Faust. Manith. l. 14. c. 6. Benedictus in sua justitia, maledictus autem propter peccata nostra, & cap. 7. Maledictum eum dixit ex conditi: ne poenae nostrae ex qua in ligno suspensus est.  his own righteousness, but accursed for our sins, and by condition of our punishment whereby he was hanged upon the tree. Now in that he, according to his human spirit and soul, 
k Amb. ut supr. Maledista nostra suscepit.  took upon him our maledictions, and curses, it followeth that the effects of those maledictions took place in his soul, horror, anguish, vexation, astonishment, wrestling with despair, with hell, death, damnation, and the whole power of darkness, and whatsoever else may be reckoned in the unknown sorrows of Christ, as the Greeks' termed them in their Litany. For putting himself into our place and condition, he stood liable to all that was due to us, and therefore 
l Hilar. in Psal. 68 Vsque ad mortis profundae descendit & omnis in eum terror desaevientis in nos tempestatis inculuit.  he descended into the depths of death, and all the terror of that tempest that raged against us lighted upon him. Therefore doth Saint Peter attribute unto his passion, 
m Act. 2.24.  the sorrows of death, that is to say, the sorrows that appertain to death; of which David by Prophecy bringeth him in complaining, 
n Psal. 18.4.  The pains of hell came about me, the snares of death overtook me. 
o Psal. 69.1.  Save me, O God, for the waters are come in even unto my soul; I stick fast in the deep mire, where no ground is, I am come into deep waters, and the streams run over me. Whereof he prayeth anon after, 
p ve. 15.  Let not the water flood drowneme, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut his mouth upon me. What are these floods, this deep, this pit, whereat he standeth thus, as it were amated, as fearing thereby to be swallowed up? Surely the Prophet foresaw herein more then bodily passion, even a sea of spiritual afflictions, hell and destruction opening her mouth wide at him, and threatening to devour him; the wrath of God & his indignation furiously marching against him, to require of him, as who had undertaken it, the full recompense and satisfaction for our sins. In respect whereof the Prophet saith; 
q Esay 53.10.  The Lord would break him; 
r v. 6.  the Lord hath laid our iniquities upon him: as to note that we are not to consider only what was done by men, but to behold God himself also wreaking his anger upon him, braying him as it were in a mortar, and beating him in pieces as the Hebrew word importeth. Therefore Athanasius saith, that the Prophet David in another Psalm saith 
s Athanasale interpret. Psal. Dicit ex persona eius, In me constitutus est furor tuus etc. Iram contra nos conteptam ob praevaricationem in se sustinuit.  in the person of Christ, Thy wrath is bend against me; because, saith he, he did bear in himself the wrath that was conceived against us for sin. We read the words, 
t Psal. 88.6. vulgat. 87.  Thine indignation lieth hard upon me, and thou hast vexed me with all thy storms. Which Hierome in like sort apply to Christ in this sort; 
u Hieron in Psal. 87. Iram & procellam macellationis suroris tui quas in gentibus effusurus eras super me induxisti qui peccata corum suscepi.  Thou hast brought upon me the wrath and storm of thy fury, which thou shouldest have powered forth upon the nations, because I have taken upon me their sins. Again, in the Psalm it followeth; Lord why rejectest thou my soul, and hidest thou thy face from me? Thine indignations go over me, and the fear of thee hath undone me; They come about me daily like water, and compass me together on every side; that is, as Lyra saith, 
x Lyra in eund. Psal. sicut aqua tangit intrantem ipsam Circumquaque, ita punitiones tuae tegiterunt me in anima & corpore.  As the water on every side toucheth him that entereth into it; so thy punishments have touched me both in soul and body. Now these things duly considered which are hitherto set down, it will easily appear that the speeches of Caluin, and the rest here mentioned, truly reported, are so far from blasphemy, as that they lay before us a most firm and sure foundation of Christian hope. In the first place Caluin having affirmed, that Christ did not only give his body to be a price of our atonement with God, but that in his soul also he suffered the punishments due to us: and that they are too sottish, who setting a side this part of our redemption, do stand only upon the outward punishment of the flesh, because it behoved that Christ to the end he might make satisfaction for us, should stand as guilty before God's tribunal seat, and that there is nothing more horrible then to feel God as a judge, whose anger goeth beyond all manner of deaths, he addeth hereupon; 
y Calu. in Mat. 27 46. Ergò cum species teutationis Christo obiecta esset quasi deo ailuerso iam esset exitio devotus herrore correptus est, quo centies cuncti mortales absorpti fuissent, ipse autem mirifica spiritus virtute victor emersit.  When therefore an appearance or show of temptation was objected to him as, if God being against him he were now devoted to destruction, he was stricken with horror, such as wherewithal mortal men would have been swallowed up a hundred times, but he by the wonderful power of his spirit, became the victor and conqueror of it. The very repeating of Caluins' words is sufficient to acquit them from the silly caviling of this idle-headed wrangler. For what doth he dislike in them? Doth he dislike that Caluin should say that a semblance or appearance of such a temptation was objected to Christ? But who doubteth thereof when Christ himself saith, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Is it amiss with him that he should say that Christ was stricken with horror? Why more, then that 
z Arnob. Hier. Cassiodor. in Psal. 87.  Arnobius, Hierome, Cassiodorus and others expounding the Psalm before mentioned of Christ, should make him to say as the vulgar Latin hath it, Terrores tui conturbaverunt me; Thy terrors have troubled me? Will he here put a difference betwixt terror and horror? will he tell us that Christ might well be troubled with terrors, but he could not be taken with horror? Indeed it may well become a Romish wit to babble so, because many shifts they have as ridiculous as that; but what will he say then to that which we read in another Psalm; 
a Psal. 55.4.5. which to be a prophecy of Christ, see vers. 13. compared with Psal. 41.9. and is so taken by Austin, Hierome, Basil, Theodoret, etc.  My heart trembleth within me, and the terrors of death are fallen upon me; fear and trembling are come upon me, and 
b So translated by Arias Montanus.  horror hath covered me? Hear is Christ himself, confessing himself 〈◊〉 be covered with horror: and why then doth M. Bishop dislike Caluin for using the same phrase? In the next words of Caluin he dealeth as honestly as he hath done in these. 
c Calu. Institut. l. 2. c. 16. sect. 11 Christus cum lachrymis & clamore valido orans a metu suo exauditur, non ut à morte sit immunis, sed ne absorbeatur ut peccator, quia illie personam nostram gerebas.  Christ praying with strong crying and tears, saith Caluin, is heard out of his fear; not so as to be free from death, but not to be swallowed up as a sinner, because there he bore our person. M. Bishop concealeth that that he saith, of bearing our person, because if he had expressed that, his cavilling would have been discerned. He himself in likely hood did not doubt but that without absurdity, yea truly it might be said, that to Christ, bearing our person, the horror of that temptation might be objected of being swallowed up as a sinner. Which if he acknowledge for a truth, why doth he blame Caluin? If he will not acknowledge it, yet the former words of the Prophet, uttered in the person of Christ, wherein that horror is expressed, shall serve to stop his mouth; 
d Psal. 68.16.  Let not the water floods drown me, neither let the deep swallow me up, and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me. Caluin goeth on further saying, 
e Ibid. Et certè nulla fingi potest magis formid abilis abyssus quàm sentire se à deo derelictum & alienatum & cùm invocaveris non exaudiri, perinde a●si in tuam porniciem ipse conspirasset. Eò Christum videmus fuisse deiectum ut coactus fuerit, vegente angustia exclama●e, Deus meus, etc.  And verily there cannot be imagined a more dreadful bottomless gulf, then for a man to feel himself forsaken and estranged from God, and not to be heard when he calleth upon him, as if he had conspired to his destruction. And to that pass we see that Christ was thrown down, that anguish urging him, he was constrained to cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. In which words, if M. Bishops discretion had been as great as his malice, he would have conceived nothing to find fault with. But now his squint eyes see nothing aright, & therefore he imagineth a knot in every rush, and thinketh nothing well spoken because he is offended with the speaker. To the proposition we know his quarrel is not, but only to the application. But if Christ, to sense and feeling were not forsaken and estranged from God, why doth he so cry out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? To sense and feeling, I say, but not to faith, for by faith he still saith, My God, my God. If to sense and feeling it did not seem to him as if God did not here him when he prayed, why is he brought in saying in the next words of the Psalm, 
f Psal. 22.1.  Why art thou so far from my health (or from saving me) and from the words of my complaint? O my God, I cry in the day, and thou hearest not, and in the night, and I cease not. And in another Psalm; 
g Psal. 69.3.  I am weary of crying, my throat is dry, mine eyes fail whilst I wait for my God. And what is all this to sense and feeling but as if God had conspired his destruction? He saith only, as if it were so; he saith not that Christ himself esteemed it so to be. Doth it trouble him that Caluin saith, that Christ by enforcement of grief was compelled so to cry out? But why doth he doubt but that as Christ by hunger was compelled to eat, by thirst to drink, by weariness to sleep: so by pain and grief he was also compelled and forced to complain and seek for ease? Did not Christ undergo all the necessities and enforements of our nature? It was voluntarily indeed that he did so, but yet so he did: and though he were able by his divine power to save himself, yet putting himself into that condition, that 
h Cyril. de rect. fide ad Reg. lib. post. Opus habere alterius manu ut servetur.  he needed the hand of another to be saved, as Cyril speaketh, he was forced by anguish and extremity to cry and call to him that should save him. The next point is, that 
i Caluin. ut supra. Oportuit eum cum inferorum copijs, aeterneque mortu horrore quasi consertis manibus luctari.  Christ did hand in hand wrestle with the armies of hell and the horror of eternal death. We profess so much, and deny it not, because there is no conquest without battle, and therefore Christ having 
k Col. 2.15.  spoiled principalities and powers, and triumphed over them, must needs be supposed to have had encounter and combat with them. There followeth in Caluins' next words the sentence of the Prophet, that 
l Esay 53.5.  the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him, that he was wounded for our transgressions, and broken for our iniquities. Hereby, he saith, is given to understand, that he was put in the place and steed of wicked men, as a surety or a hostage, yea and as if he had been himself a party guilty, to make good and to pay all the punishments that were to be required of them; this only excepted, that he could not be holden of the sorrows of death. By and by after he saith, that we are to know that not only the body of Christ was given for a price of redemption, but that it was a greater and more excellent price that he suffered in soul the cruel tortures that belong to man, damned and cast away. In which words, if we consider what hath been before said, we shall overthrow that there is nothing said amiss. For what is there in damnation itself, greater than the undergoing of God's curse? what are all the torments thereof but the effects of the same curse? and if Christ have borne the curse that was due to us; if the wrath of God that should have been powered upon us, were laid upon him; if he have suffered for us that that we should have suffered for ourselves, as hath been before said out of Athanasius, Ambrose and Hierome, why doth it seem strange that Christ should be said to suffer for us the tortures of damnation? If 
m Athanas. de passione & cruce dom. Amaritiemirae ex praevaricationem legis obortam in quae omnes detinebat accipiens absumpsit & evacuavit.  he took the bitterness of the wrath that rose by the transgression of the Law, and made it void, as Athanasius again saith; if all the terror thereof did fall upon him, that should have befallen to us, as Hilary before hath said, than Caluin hath said nothing but truth, that he made good, and paid all the penalties and punishments that were to be required of us. I say not, that he suffered all precisely in quality and kind, but in quantity and measure I say with Caluin all that should have been required of us. And therefore albeit we affirm that Christ suffered the very anguish of hell, yet we do not thereby condemn him to the very pit of hell itself, as M. Bishop wrangleth; because it was the suffering itself, not the place of suffering whereby satisfaction was to be made to God. Now then taking it as we say, it is no blasphemy to say that he that came to redeem us from hell, did suffer for us the pains of hell, because he was therefore to suffer the same for us, that he might redeem us therefrom. Yea what a silly collection of blasphemy he hath here made will plainly appear, by a little change of words, because it is all one, as if he should have said; What greater blasphemy can be invented, then to condemn the Lord of life, that came to redeem us from death, even to the very suffering of death itself? As for that which he saith of Christ's being hereby made the companion of judas the traitor, I pass it by as the speech of a wicked wretch, who out of the poison of a malicious and wicked heart, dareth of his own wretched collection to say what he list, dishonourable to the Son of God. From Caluin he cometh to Beza, albeit in the first point he mistaketh Beza for Caluin; for Beza in the place by him cited, hath not the words which he allegeth. Caluin hath them indeed: but so, as that M. Bishop I trow will blush, if at least he can blush, when he shall hear in what sort he hath them. He maketh a question or objection in these words; 
n Calu. in Mat. 27.46. sed absurdum videtur Christo elapsam esse desperationis vocem, solutio facilis est quanquam sensus carnis exitium apprehenderet, fixam tamen sletisse fidem in cius cord, qua deum praesentem intuitus est de cuius absentia conqueritur.  But it seemeth absurd that from Christ should slip or escape a speech of despair. Hereto he saith, The answer is easy, that albeit the sense and feeling of the flesh apprehended destruction, yet his faith abode steadfast in his heart, whereby he beheld God present with him of whose absence he complaineth. By and by he saith again; 
o Ibid. In hoc diro cruciatu illaesa fuit eius fides; ita ut relictum se deplorans, propinquo tamen dei auxilio confideret. Cum desperatione luclatus est, non fuit tamen victus: neque enim qui desperati sunt, possunt deum app●llare suum. Cum dicit Deus meus, triumphum agit de tentatione.  In all this cruel torture his faith was untouched, so as that crying out that he was forsaken, yet he trusted to Gods help as hard at hand. He wrestled with despair, but was not overcome: for they who are desperate, can not call God their God. When he saith, My God, he triumpheth over that temptation. Mark I pray thee gentle Reader, how whilst he tendereth thee an objection in steed of a resolution, he seeketh to abuse thee with a shameful untruth, affirming of Caluin though under Beza his name, that he saith, that Christ despaired, whereas calvin's words are expressy to the contrary, that his faith was still inviolate, and continued firm and steadfast in his heart. And even as impudently doth he behave himself in the next words; for Beza hath no such as he allegeth, no, not in any of the places by him cited, that Christ was overwhelmed or adjudged to the flames of hell: He doth not say, that Christ was buried & drowned in the bottom of the infernal gulf. His words are, that 
p Beza. Annot. novi Testam. Heb. 5.7. Quum i●● se derelictum vociferatur, cogitemus animum noniam in cogitation & metu impendentis mali prorsus eccupatum, sed in profundo summae calamitatis gurgite sepultum, qui ad emergendum maxima cum difficultate luctetur,  when Christ crieth out that he is forsaken, we are to conceive his mind, not now occupied with the conceit or fear of evil at hand, 
Christ how termed a sinner.  but even buried in the deep gulf of extreme calamity, so as that with great difficulty he wrestieth or striveth to swim out. Where are the flames of hell, M. Bishop? where is the infernal gulf? for shame, man, leave this lying, this gross lying, lest the liars meed befall you, that no man believe you when you say truth. Luther's words have their christian & godly meaning if a malevolent mind have not the construing of them. I have before showed how the Fathers stick not sometimes to term Christ 
q See hereof the question of justification, sect. 5.11.  a sinner, yea as Oecumenius speaketh, 
r Oetumen. in Heb. 9 vehementèr peccator erat. etc. ut supra.  a very great sinner, for that, as he expoundeth it, he took upon him the sins of the whole world, and made them proper to himself. Thus doth Luther say, that 
s Luther. in Gal c. 3. Et quidem omnes prophetae vide. runt hoc in spiritu quod Christus futurus esset omntum maximus latro, homicida, adulter, fur, sacrilegus, etc. quo nullus maior unquam in mundo fuerit, quia existens hostia pro peccatis totius mundi iam non est persona innocens & sine peccatis, non est natus de virgine dei filius, sed peccator, qui habet & portat peccatum Pauli etc. & Petri etc. & omnia emnium peccata in corpore suo, non quod ipse commiserit ea, sed quòd ea à nobis commissa susceperit in corpus sound.  Chrst was the greatest sinner, because he bore all our sins: the greatest liar, because he bore the person of all men, of whom it is said, All men are liars: that the Prophets did in the spirit foresee him to be the greatest thief, robber, murderer, etc. that ever lived, because he did take upon him the thefts, robberies, murders, adulteries and all other sins of all men living. He speaketh thus to set forth the more effectually the imputation of our sins to Christ, and that which the scripture saith, that 
t 2. Cor. 5.21.  he was made sin for us, 
u Esa 53.6.  that the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all: and though we forbear thus to speak for avoiding offence, as I have formerly said, yet in this sense what can Momus himself pick out to speak against it? As for that which he saith of Christ deeply despairing, and most miserably damned, M. Bishop's wit might have served him to conceive that it was not absolutely meant, because he maketh Christ withal most highly gloriing and happy in the highest degree: His meaning then was, as hath been before expressed, that to sense of flesh and present feeling he was in state of despair and damnation; albeit by faith and hope he still gloried in God as his God, and remained the heir and Lord of blissful peace. It appeareth then, that in all those allegations of his, there are no horrible extravagant conceits, nor any other but what the ancient fathers of whom he speaketh, have gathered out of the holy scriptures, as well as we. As for that which he gathereth out of sundry particulars by him set down, that Christ in the midst of his passions retained a calm settled judgement and most valiant constancy and resolution, 
Christ's affections in his passion kept within compass and measure.  I answer him, that he saith nothing therein but what he hath learned of us who acknowledge, as hath been before declared, that notwithstanding all these extremities, yet all his affections were kept within compass and measure, and are not to be esteemed by those exorbitancies and outrages which we in our passions are wont disorderly to run into. Yea by settled judgement did he rightly weigh the heavy burden that lav upon him, & accordingly complained thereof, and with valiant constancy and resolution he waded through the midst of that horrible tempest until he was retired into safe harbour. Of us also hath M. Bishop learned that a great aggravation of the griefs and sorrows of Christ, was by the father's withholding from him all inward comfort and consolation, but yet together with us he should learn out of the word of God, that it was not only a privation of spiritual comfort, without which we see what tortures men even of obstinacy & vainglory do oftentimes with invincible courage undergo, but it was a position of spiritual anguish and distress that drew from Christ those effects which hitherto we have spoken of, as by the discourse thereof sufficiently doth appear.   

15. W. BISHOP.  
They hold first, that whatsoever our Saviour did, 
Molineus in harmonia, part. 51.  or suffered before his passion, was of small value for our redemption. For as a noble Protestant said, the Monks, Priests, and Papistical Doctors did err, when they urged Christ's incarnation and nativity: for all these things profited us nothing; could do nothing: but only the death of Christ, which alone was accepted of God for our sins. Secondly, Caluin goeth further, and doubteth not to say, 
Lib. 2. Instit. ca 16. c. 16 says. 10.  that Christ's passion and corporal death would not serve the turn, and had profited us nothing at all, had he not in his soul suffered the very pains of the damned in hell. This doctrine of theirs is not only contrary to an hundred places of express Scripture, that do assign our redemption unto the bloodshedding and passion of Christ: but it also derogateth very much from the dignity of our Mediator. For not that which he suffered, made the merit of our redemption: but it was his exceeding charity, with which he suffered it, and principally the very dignity of his divine person, which gave that value, price, and estimation to his sufferings, that the very lest thing that ever he suffered in his life, was of infinite value; and therefore sufficient to pay the ransom of all mankind: yea, to have redeemed a thousand worlds. But let us proceed on with the Protestants opinion: did Christ's sufferings of the torments of hell deserve of God in justice, theredemption of man? not so, if we may believe one of Foxes Martyrs, 
Acts and Monuments, pa 487.  who held (as he recordeth) that Christ with all his works could not merit heaven for us. But for that little credit is to be given to such a Martyr, and such a Martyr-monger, let us hear what some of the learnedst amongst them say. I truly confess (saith Caluin) that if a man will set Christ singly and by himself, against the judgements of God, there will be no room for merit. And after: Christ could not deserve any thing, 
Lib. 2. Insti. cap. 17. ss. 1. In abster. calumni. Heshu.  but by the good pleasure of God, which is defended by his disciple Beza, against Heshusius: so that briefly, all Christ's sufferings in hell and out of hell, in true Protestant reckoning, amount to no higher a value, then that by the good pleasure and acceptance of God, they deserved our redemption; therefore in rigour of justice they were not of sufficient worth to redeem us, but were only of grace, by God accepted for such. Is not here a fair reckoning? so might any other man endued with grace, have redeemed all mankind as well as Christ, if it had pleased God to have so accepted it; seeing no equal recompense was to be expected. But to help him here by the way, that could not understand how we were saved by the mercy of God, if Christ's merits did in justice deserve our salvation, it is to be noted that both be true, if they be duly considered. For we are saved by Christ's merits in rigour of justice, he satisfying of God as farforth fully, as we offended him: and yet we be saved freely by the mercy of God too; both because he hath of his mere mercy without any desert of ours, given us Christ his Son to be our Saviour: and also for that he hath (out of the same his mercy) freely applied unto every one in particular that is saved, the merits of Christ, through which he is saved.   

R. ABBOT.  
The value of our redemption is not to be rated by the wilful conceits of men, 
Christ's other sufferings not sufficient without his final suffering and death.  but by the estimation and ordinance of God himself, who doth nothing superfluously, nothing idly and without cause, and therefore would not have decreed the death of Christ, but that 
a Luk. 24.46.  it behoved Christ to suffer (death) and to rise again from the dead the third day that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in his name. As the Apostle saith, 
b Gal. 2.21.  If righteousness be by the law, than Christ died in vain: so may we also conclude, If the least thing that Christ suffered in his life, were sufficient to redeem us, as M. Bishop dreameth, surely than Christ died in vain. It is not for man to take upon him to be wiser than God, nor for us to say that this or that had been sufficient to redeem us when we see what God hath decreed and done in that behalf. It is true in deed that the dignity of Christ's person gave worth to his sufferings, but we are to learn of the wisdom of God what it was convenient those sufferings should be to which the dignity of his person should give that worth, so that not the dignity of his person howsoever, but the dignity of his person in such and such sufferings, certainly before determined of God, was to be the merit and purchase of our redemption and salvation. So then necessary it was that Christ should die for our redemption, though his death had been no sufficient price therefore, but by the infiniteness of his person. Molineus' therefore might very justly and truly say, not that the incarnation and birth of Christ profited us nothing, or could do nothing, but that without the death of Christ they had profited us nothing, or could have done nothing for us, because it was by his death, that God had appointed to redeem us, even as M. Bishop against himslfe confesseth, though his eyes were not open to see it, that an hundred places of express scripture do assign our redemption to the bloodshedding and passion of Christ. The Papistical Doctoures then, their Monks and Priests are to be condemned, who urge Christ's incarnation and birth only as a sufficient price for us, or do stint the same as did Campian, that 
c Campian. Rot. 8. Cutus cruoris una quaevis guttula propter dignitatem bostiae mill mundos redimere potuisset. Christ suffered for us in soul also.  one drop of his blood had sufficed to redeem a thousand worlds; not but that his incarnation and birth were profitable to us, but because whatsoever Christ did or suffered otherwise, all concurred in his death as being preparations thereunto, and in his death the fruit and effect thereof doth redound unto us: not that we deny the value of any drop of the blood of Christ, but because we hold no less needful to redeem us, than God deemed needful that he should shed, for us. The words of Caluin, which he translateth at random are these; 
d Caluin. Instit. l. 2. c. 16. se. 10. Nihil actum erat si corporea tantúm morte defunctus fuisset Christus, sed operae simul pretium erat ut divinae ultionis severitatem sentiret quo & irae ipsius intercederet & satisfaceret justo judicio.  It had been to no effect if Christ had died only a corporal or bodily death, but it was withal needful that he should feel the scuerity of God's revenge, that so he might appease his wrath, and satisfy his just judgement. For disproof of which assertion he useth the words a little before mentioned, that an hundred places of express Scripture do assign our redemption to the passion of Christ. Full wisely I warrant you, as if the scripture when it assigneth our redemption to the passion of Christ, did not assign it to those spiritual sufferings which Caluin there intendeth, when as it describeth those sufferings to be a part of the same passion, and the same are by Caluin so understood to be. If he will say that his meaning is, that the scripture assigneth our redemption to the death of Christ, let him understand death in his true nature as he ought to do with the compliments and furniture thereof, that is, the wrath and curse of God, and sorrows of death, as hath been before said, and then we answer as the truth is, that the Scripture in assigning our redemption to the death of Christ doth consequently assign the same to those spiritual anguishes and sufferings, because those spiritual agonies are also a part of the same death. Now seeing the Father sent his Son 
e Esay 53.10.  to give his soul an offering for sin, as the Prophet teacheth us, and is before declared, surely Caluin rightly concludeth, that if he had died only a bodily death he had done nothing for us, because he had not done that that the father had required; nay he had not done that which the work of redemption did require: for 
f Athanas. de incarnate. Christi. Neque potuit aliud pro alio in redemptionem praestari sed corpus pro corpore, anima pro anima, & integrium aliquid pro integro homine. etc.  one thing, saith Aathanasius, might not for redemption be paid for another, but the body was to be given for the body, and the soul for the soul, and the whole for the whole man. From hence he proceedeth and telleth us of one of Foxes martyrs, as he termeth them, Who held that Christ, with all his works could not merit heaven for us. Thus like a mad dog, he runneth up and down snapping at one and biting at another, and seeking in this man and that man, to fasten his venomous tooth of slander and reproach. Who this was, he nameth no: tanned whereas he citeth Acts and monuments pag. 487. I find not in the edition that I have, which is the last, any matter tending to that purpose. Wheresoever it is that he meaneth, I doubt not but he hath played his part in it with like fidelity as he is wont to do. As for the Martyrs and the Martyr-monger of whom he speaketh, let him not doubt but the Prophet's words are verified in them; 
g Esay 57.2.  peace shall come; they shall rest in their beds, every one that walketh before him; and therefore that of him and his fellows that deride them the words following have their just construction, But you witches children, come hither, the seed of the adulterer and of the whore; On whom have ye jested; upon whom have ye gaped and thrust out your tongues? are ye not all rebellious children, and a false seed? But from these he goeth to some of the learnedst amongst us, citing Caluin and Beza. 
Christ truly and properly merited for us by Caluins' doctrine.  I truly confess, saith Caluin, that if a man will set Christ singly & by himself against the judgement of God, there will be room for merit. Where that thou mayest see, gentle Reader, that it was not without cause that I suspected him for the former citation, I pray thee first to observe that the very argument of the chapter whence he allegeth these words, is thus set dowee; 
h Caluin Instit. l. 2. c. 2. Rectè et proprtè dici Christum nobis promeritum esse gratiam dei & salutem.  That it is rightly and properly said that Christ hath deserved for us the grace of God and salvation, which he purposely disputeth against some 
i Sect. 1. sunt quidam perperam arguti qui etsi fatentur salutem nos per Christum consequi, nomen tamen meriti audire non sustinent quo putant obscurari de● gratiam.  who although they confess that we attain salvation by Christ, yet cannot endure to hear the name of merit, because they think the grace of God to be obscured thereby. Secondly, albeit he set down calvin's terms of qualification, 
k Ibid. Equiden fateor siquis Christum simpliciter & per se opponere vellet judicio dei, non fore merito locum, quia non reperietur in homine dignitas quae possit deum promereri.  simply and by himself, yet very treacherously he leaveth out the end of the sentence whereby those terms are to be understood, which is this; because there can be found no worthiness in man that can deserve at God's hands. For hereby it is manifest that Caluin in those words respecteth Christ as man, and only in that respect denieth merit; if Christ merely as man be opposed against the judgement of God. And this further appeareth by that which he addeth to his purpose out of Austin, which M. Bishop dissembleth, because he thought he could not so honestly cavil against Austin, as he might against Caluin. 
l August. de praedest. sanct. cap. 15. Est etram praeclarissimum lumen praedestinationis & gratiae ipse salvator, ipse mediator dei & homin●●, homo Christus jesus, qui ut hoc esset quibus tandem suis vel operum, vel fidei praecedentibus meritis natura humana quae in illo est comparavit? Respendeatur quaeso, ille hon●o●t à verb patri coaeterno in unitatem personae assumptus filius dei unigenitus esset unde he meruerit?  There is, saith Austin, a most notable and clear light of Predestination and grace, even the man Christ jesus, the Saviour, the Mediator betwixt God and men; who to be so, by what former merits of his, either of works or of faith, did the nature of man in him attain unto? Tell me, I pray, saith he, that that man taken into unity of person with the word coeternal to the Father, should be the only begotten Son of God? whereby did he merit or deserve it? By which words S. Austin giveth us plainly to understand, that the man Christ jesus did not by merits attain to become our Saviour, to become the Mediator betwixt God and man, but it was by God's predestination and grace, by his decree and ordinance, that it so came to pass. Hereupon than Caluin inferreth, that 
m Calu. ut supr. Cùm ergò de Christi merito agitur non statuitur in eo principium, sed conscendimus ad dei ordinationem quae prima causa est quia mero beneplacito modiatorem statuit qui nobis salutem acquireret.  when we speak of the merit of Christ, we are not to place it as the first beginning, but we ascend to the ordinance of God, which is the first cause, because he merely of his own good pleasure appointed him the Mediator to purchase salvation for us. In which words he acknowledgeth that Christ did verily and indeed purchase salvation for us, but yet that it came of the good pleasure of God, and his mere grace and mercy, to give him unto us for a Mediator to merit and purchase our salvation. His drift is not in any sort to impeach the merit of Christ, but only to show that the merit of Christ is no impeachment of the free mercy of God, because of that free mercy it is that we have him to merit for us. And to that purpose it is that he saith, 
n Ibid. Nam Christus nonnisi ex dei beneplacito quicquam mereri potuit: sed quia ad hoc destinatus erat ut iram dei sacrificio suo placaret, suaque obedientia deleret transgressiones nostras.  that Christ could not merit any thing but by the good pleasure of God, because but by the good pleasure of God, he could not be Christ, he could not be man, he could not be the Mediator betwixt God and man. In a word, hence it came that he merited for us, as it is added in the next words, because he was destinated and appointed that by his sacrify he should appease the wrath of God, and blot out our transgressions by his obedience. To the same effect it is also added, which M. Bishop thirdly mentioneth, 
o Ibid. Ex sola dei gratia (quae hunc nobis constituit salutis modum) dependet meritum Christi.  that the merit of Christ dependeth upon the only grace of God, which, saith he, hath appointed for us this means of salvation. Not so then, but that Christ did indeed merit salvation for us, but it was the grace of God that gave him to merit for us, and so to be the means of our salvation, which is the thing that Beza also defendeth against Heshushius. And what is there in all this for M. Bishop to dislike? He will not say that Christ as a mere man could have merited at God's hands; because he hath before confessed, that the value and dignity of Christ's works arose from the dignity of his person, in that he was the Son of God. He will not deny that it was the good pleasure and grace of God, that gave Christ to merit in our behalf, for that the texts of Scripture cited by Caluin for proof thereof, do manifestly show; 
p Ioh 3.16.  God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, to the end that every one that believeth in him, should not perish but have everlasting life; 
q 1. joh. 4.10.  Not that we loved God, but that he loved us first, and sent his Son to be the atonement for our sins: by which it appeareth, that the sending and giving of Christ is derived from the love of God, as from a precedent and former cause. What is the matter then of M. Bishop's quarrel? Marry, whereas Caluin and Beza by the good pleasure and grace of God, do mean in that sort a precedent cause of the giving of Christ to merit for us, and do express it by other terms of the ordinance of God, of his appointing Christ to be our mediator; of appointing unto us this means of salvation, and such like, M. Bishop maliciously wresteth the same to a posterior cause of the acceptation of the merit of Christ; as if they had said that God of his good pleasure and grace had accepted for merit that which Christ did, when indeed there was no merit, and so falleth to his terms of a fair reckoning, and that so any other man endued with grace might have redeemed all mankind as well as Christ; wonderfully bestirring himself with his wooden dagger, and though he fight but with his own shadow, yet being strongly persuaded that he hath killed a man. And yet to see the arrogancy of this vainglorious wisdom, he taketh upon him here by the way to help Caluin, that could not understand how we were saved by the mercies of God, if the merits of Christ in justice deserve our salvation; whereas Caluin purposely there disputeth against them who could not understand that accord betwixt the mercies of God and the merits of Christ, and telleth them that which this silly Sophister will seem to teach him, that 
r Ibid. Inscitè opponitur meritum Christi misericordiae dei. Regulaenim vulgaris est, quae subalterna sunt non pugnare; ideoque nihil obstat quominus gratuita sit hominum justificatio ex mera dei misericordia & simul interueniat Christi meritum quod misericordiae dei subijcitur.  it is ignorantly done to oppose the merit of Christ to the mercy of God; for it is a common rule, saith he, that things subordinate are not repugnant one to the other, and therefore nothing hindereth but that the justification of men may be free by the mere mercy of God, and yet the merit of Christ may come between, as being contained under the mercy of God. Learn more wit M. Bishop; though you will not learn more honesty, yet learn more wit; for there is none of your own fellows that shall examine these things, but must needs take you for a lewd man, but that 
s Bernard. de Consider. lib. 1. vitiosas conscientias vitiosorum non refugit, & ubi omnes sordent, unius faetor mimmè se●titur.  nought cares not to be known of nought, and where all stink alike, no one man's stink is discerned from other.   

16. W. BISHOP.  
To return to our purpose, and to discover yet more of the Protestants disgraces offered to our saviours mediation. 
Con. Hesh p. 39 Sup. joh. pa. 39 In locis. fol 361. 1. joh. 2. v. 2.  Did Christ suffer his passion for the redemption of all mankind, or did he die only for some few of the elect? let Caluin answer you. Christ's flesh was not crucified for the ungodly, neither was the blood of Christ shed to cleanse their sins. With him agreeth brother Bucer: Christ by his death did only redeem the sins of the elect. Musculus will bear a part in that consort: Christ's death is a satisfaction only for the sins of the elect; all as contrary to the plain text of Scripture, as can be. Christ is a propitiation for our sins, (where he spoke in the person of the elect) and not for ours only, but also for the whole worlds. Let us go on yet one step further. What effect doth the blood of Christ work in the small number of these elected brethren? Doth it cleanse their souls from all filth of sin; and power into them the manifold gifts of the holy Ghost, whereby they may afterwards resist sin, and serve God in holiness of life? nothing less. 
Pag. 31.  For in the Regenerate as M. PERKINS with all the rest of them doth teach) there remaineth original sin, which infecteth every work of man, and maketh it a mortal sin. So that inwardly in their souls these clected Protestants be void of justice, and full of all manner of iniquity: marry, they have created in them the rare instrument of a new devised faith, by which they lay hold on Christ's justice, & so by real imputation (to use M. PERKINS words) of Christ's justice to them, they on the sudden become exceeding just: therefore Friar Luther had some reason to say, that whosoever was borne again of this evangelical faith, was equal in grace unto both Peter and Paul; and unto the Virgin MARY Mother of God; 
Supra 1. Pet. 1. In acts disput. Tigur. Fox Act. fol. 1335 & 1138.  Nay it seems that Luther came to short, and Zwinglius stroke home when he said: that God the Father did no less favour all the faithful, than he did Christ his own Son. And out of the confidence of the same lively-feeling faith, proceeded these speeches of our new Gospelers in England. And we have as much right to heaven, as Christ hath; we cannot be damned, unless Christ be damned: neither can Christ be saved, unless we be saved. Christ (belike) could not live in bliss without their holy company. What audacious companions, and saucy Gospelers were these? Yet their reason seemeth sound in the way of their own religion: for if they were most assured of the benefit of Christ's own justice to be imputed unto them, they could not be less assured of their own salvation, than they were of Christ's own. To conclude this point, consider (good reader) how the Protestants (who would be thought to magnify Christ's sufferings exceedingly) do in very deed extremely debase them. For (as you have heard) they esteem very little of all the rest of his life, besides his passion: secondly, they make his passion without suffering of hell torments, not sufficient to redeem us: thirdly, that all those sufferings put together, do not in justice merit the remission of our sins, but only that of grace and courtesy God doth accept them for such: four, that when all is done, they deserve favour only for a few of the elect, and that not to purge those few, neither from all their sins, but only to purchase them an imputation of justice, to be apprehended by a strong imagination or rather presumption, falsely by them termed faith. Is not here a huge great mill-post, fairly thwited into a poor pudding prick (as they say) by them, who after so high exaltations of the all-sufficiency of Christ's suffering, do in fine conclude, that in a very few persons it worketh only an imputation or shadow of justice: 
How Christ died for all.  but it agreeth very well and hangeth handsomely together, that by the merits of Christ's sufferings in hell, (which are mere fantastical) these men should have created in them a fantastical faith, never heard of before their days, to lay hold upon a vain shadow of an imputative and fantastical justice.   

R. ABBOT.  
None of our writers deny, but that Christ in his death intended a price sufficient for all, the power whereof in the ministry of the Gospel should extend to all; but as touching the effect of his death, we say truly that which M. Bishop here objecteth, that Christ intended to die for the elect only. For 
a Aug. add Artic. sibi falso impositos. art. 1. Christi mers non impensa est humano generi● ut ad mortem eius etiam qui regenerandi non erant pertinerent.  Christ did not bestow his death upon mankind, saith S. Austen, that they who were not to be partakers of regeneration, should appertain to his redemption: 
b Idem. in Psal. 87. solis praedestinatis ad aeternam salutem, non autem omnibus hominibus cius bona opera profuerunt.  the things which he wrought were not beneficial to all men, but to them only that were predestinate to eternal salvation. The words of S. john which he allegeth as contrary to our assertion, make nothing against us. john did not say, 
c 1. joh. 2.2.  He is the propitiation for our sins, as speaking in the person of all the elect that then were, but of himself and the elect to whom he writeth; and by the other words he joined to them all the rest of the elect that then were or after should be throughout the whole world; Not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. In the same sort hath he left the same words by occasion to be used of us, the former part of them to whom or amongst whom they shall be spoken; the other of the rest of the members of the body that are or shall be wheresoever throughout the world. Thus doth Saint Austin understand them, 
d Aug. epist. 48. Christus propitiator est peccatorum nostrorum, non solum nostrorum sed totius mundi propter triticum quod est per totum mundum.  that Christ is the propitiation of the sins of the whole world, because of the wheat that is through the whole world, so writing upon that epist. of S. john he expoundeth it to be, 
e Idem. in 1. joan tract. 1. Ecce habes Ecclesiam per totum mundum, etc. totius mundi quem suo sanguine comparavit.  the church throughout the whole world, the whole world which he hath gotten by his blood. And thus where Christ saith, 
f joh. 3.17.  God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world thorough him might be saved: and the Apostle, 
g 2. Cor. 5.9  God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, he restraineth the name of 
h Aug. Collat. 3. cum Donatist. Mundi no ●en in ●ono; ut salnetur mundus, etc. Non saluabitur nisi Ecclesia in mundo, etc. vide mundum in bono omnes fideles et spem vitae aeternae gerentes per universas gentes: Deus erat in Christo, inquit, mundum reconcilians sibi fi reconciliari potest deo detestatus ille mun ●us iudicent qui loquuntur.  the world to the Church of God in the world, to all the faithful and such as bear the hope of eternal life throughout all nations, because the Church only shall be saved in the world, and the detested or detestable world cannot be reconciled unto God. Thus he distinguisheth 
i Idem in joan. tract. 110. Mundus non permanens in●micus qualis est mundus damnationi prae ●estinatus, sed ex inimico amicus effectus propter quem deus erat in Christo, etc.  the world that abideth an enemy to God which is predestinated to damnation, from the world that doth not abide an enemy, but of an enemy is made a friend, for which saith he, god was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. In like sort therefore Saint john saith, that Christ is the propitiation for the fins of the world, that is 
k Ibid. tr. 111. Mundus reconciliatus ex inimico liberabitur mundo.  of the reconciled world, of all the faithful over the whole world, that have been from the beginning, and shall be to the worlds end. But of this point I refer the Reader to see more before in the question of justification, the fifteenth section. M. Bishop here will go one step further, and we must follow him in his step. What effect, saith he, doth the blood of Christ work in the small number of these elected brethren? But what, doth he jest at the smallness of the number of these elected brethren? What, did he never read in the Gospel, 
l Matth. 22.14.  Many are called, but few elected? Hath he not heard Christ comforting this 
m Luk. 12.32.  small number, fear not, little flock, for it is your father's will to give you a kingdom? Doth he glory in the multitude of his consorts without remembering that fearful sentence of Christ, 
n Matth. 7.13. The effect of Christ's blood to cleanse us from sin.  Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat: but straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it? Well, let us leave him to his greater number; but as touching the effect of the blood of Christ, I answer him that it doth cleanse our souls from the filth of sin, and shall fully cleanse them from all filth of sin. It giveth unto us now 
o Rom. 8.23.  the first fruits of the spirit, whereby we fight against sin, and serve God in holiness of life: and it shall give us the full measure off the spirit, whereby we shall utterly overcome and put of the body of sin, and shall serve God in most full and perfect holiness for ever. In the mean time there remaineth in the regenerate a blot of original sin, by reason whereof every faithful man complaineth as the Apostle doth; 
p Rom. 7.14.23.  I am carnal, sold under sin, holden captive to the law of sin, which is in my members. This blot of sin defileth and infecteth all our doings, so that 
q Greg Moral. li. 35. c. 16. Mala nostra pura mala sunt, & bona quae nos habere credimus pura bona esse nequaquam possunt.  our good works cannot be merely or purely good, and therefore being stained and blemished they should be utterly rejected, if God in rigour of judgement should esteem of them. But our belief and comfort is this, that God 
r Rom. 3.25.  having set forth Christ to be our atonement through faith in his blood, doth therein vouchsafe to wash away all our blots and stains, and for his sake through the imputation of his merits doth accept for just both us to life, and our works to reward; and notwithstanding those imperfections, giveth the crown of righteousness to all them that fear him. Is not this, M. Bishop, a most gracious and glorious effect of the blood of Christ? Can you say any thing to magnify the power of Christ's death further than we do? If you will say truth, M. Bishop, you can say nothing: for as for that which you do say, that the blood of Christ doth now in baptism fully cleanse our souls from all the filth of original sin, your own heart telleth you that it is a very lie. And because that is a lie, therefore for justice and righteousness before God, you must betake yourself to that which now in mockery you call, because you know it not, the rare instrument of a new devised faith; and to the real imputation of the righteousness of Christ, who really communicateth unto us whatsoever he hath done for us. And impious it is to think 
s Rom. 4.3.5.6.  the imputation of righteousness, which the Scripture expressly teacheth, to be as you seem to imagine it only mental and fantastical. But of all these points here girded at by M. Bishop, 
t Answer to D. Bishop's Epistle sect. 7.17. Of original sin. per tot.  of the remainder of original sin, 
u Answer to the Epistle sect. 19 Of justification. sect. 44.  of the stain and imperfection of our works, 
x Of the certainty of Salvation. sect. 2.3. etc. Of justification. s. 15.16. etc.  of the nature of faith, 
y Of justification. sect. 3.4. etc. Luther affirmeth not equality of grace.  of the imputation of righteousness, so much hath been said before, as that it shall be but tedious both to the Reader and me to go over the same again. And surely we can take all this speech of his to be no other but wild and careless babbling, so long as we see him unable to defend that which to the same purpose he wrote before. But upon that mention of faith and imputed justice he quarelleth at Luther, for saying as he reporteth, that whosoever is borne again of this evangelical faith is equal in grace both to Peter and Paul, and to the Virgin Mary. But he therein belieth Luther who in the very place confesseth difference of faith, and therefore cannot be said to affirm equality of grace. His words are; 
z Luther. in 1. Pet. c. 1. unam Christiani omnes fraternitatem babemus. etc. See the whole place Answer to the Advertisement. sect. 15.  All we that are christians have one brotherhood, which we have attained in baptism, of which no saint hath more than thou & I. For with what price he was redeemed, with the same was I redeemed also. It cost God no less for my sake, then for any the greatest saint, save that he hath perhaps better embraced this treasure, that is, hath stronger faith than I. This Luther spoke rightly of the common condition and calling of Christianity, wherein no man hath more interest than other, which yet hindereth not but that in particular gifts of grace according to divers measures of faith one man may far excel another. But what conscience he useth in these citations it may easily appear, for that whereas here he citeth this place of Luther to charge him with affirming equality of grace in this world, he allegeth the very same in 
a Sect 15. Hod God is said to favour us no less than his Son Christ.  the treatise following, to charge him with affirming equality of glory in the world to come. From Luther he goeth to Zwinglius, albeit the words, which he biteth at, be not the words of Zwinglius, but of Conradus Fabritius another Minister of that Church: which yet contain nothing amiss, but that a venomous spider hath the sucking of them. 
b Act. Disput. 2. Tigur. apud Zwinglium. Deus pater omnibus Christianis qui vera spe, fide & charitate Christo nituntur non minus savet necminus propitius est quam Christo filio suo proprio: fidelem huiusmodi non minus quàm filium suum tuebitur; nec minus quàm filium suum ab aeterna morte eundem liberabit: non minùs ab aeterno incendio illum eripiet: non minùs caelum illi patere faciet etc. Quid n●u 'tis? aeternam vitam non minus illi quàm filio suo largietur. Testimonium nobis huius certitudinis est locupletissim●m, quod est ipse Christus aeterna veritas. etc.  God the Father, saith Fabritius, no less favoureth all Christians who rest upon Christ by true faith, hope and charity, nor is less gracious to them then to Christ his own Son. No less will he defend such a faithful man then his own Son: no less will he save him from everlasting death: no less will he deliver him from everlasting fire: no less will he cause heaven to be open ununto him then to his only begotten son. What should I use many words? He will no less give him everlasting life than he will to his son. He addeth further: We have a most abundant testimony of this assurance, which is Christ himself the eternal truth, etc. By which words it plainly appeareth, that that which he saith, no less, no less, is not referred to intention and quantity, but to assurance and certainty. He no less favoureth the one than he doth the other; that is, he as certainly favoureth the one as he doth the other; no less will he give eternal life to the one then to the other, that is, he will give it as certainly to the one as to the other. And what is this other in effect then that which Christ himself saith of the elect, to his father; 
c john 17.23.  Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me? which manner of speech as Saint Austin noteth, 
d August in ●an. tract. 110. Neque enim semper aequalitatem significat qui dicit, si●ut illud, ita & illud; sed aliquando tantum quia est illud, est et illud, aut quia est illud ut fit et illud.  doth not always signify equality, but sometimes signifieth only, because the one is, the other also is; or that the one is that the other also may be. In the same sort and no otherwise are the words of Fabritius to be understood, as M. Bishop himself knoweth, but shift he must to say somewhat. The words which he citeth as of some of our Martyrs out of M. Fox I cannot find by his quotation. I remember that long since I have read some such kind of words, but he is so false that I dare not presume that he hath reported them altogether truly as they are. The meaning of him that spoke the words, was this, that we have the same right to heaven that Christ hath, because Christ hath given us his right. It is written of Saint Bernard, that being in a time of sickness much urged with Satan's accusations, he answered for himself; 
e Vita Be●nardi l. 1. cap. 12. fateor non sum dignus ego, nec proprijs possum meritis regnum obtinere caelorum; caeterúm dupliet iure illud obtinens dominus meus, haereditate scilicet patris & merito passionis, aeltero ipse contentus alterum mihi donat, ex cuius dono iure illud mihi vendicans non confundor.  I confess I am not worthy, neither can I by mine own merits obtain the kingdom of heaven: but my Lord jesus having obtained it by double right, both by inheritance from the father, & by the merit of his passion, being himself contented with the one, he giveth me the other, by whose gift I am not ashamed to challenge it for my right. In the same manner did the godly martyr speak of right, not to distinguish a right in himself from the right of Christ, but to signify that Christ hath made over his right to us, and thereby we hold as fast as Christ himself can hold. From hence the other words are derived by imitation of that which the Apostle saith, 
f 1. Cor. 15.16.  If the dead rise not again, then is Christ not risen again; by which he signifieth, that there is that straight and inseparable bond betwixt Christ and his members, as that to deny to them any thing which Christ hath wrought and purchased for them, is to deny the same to Christ himself; to affirm the failing of any thing to them, is to affirm the failing of it to him also. And as by allusion to that place of the Apostle Tertullian saith; 
g Tertull. de Resurrect carnis. securae estote caro & sanguis, usurpastis & caelum & dei regnum in Christo, aut si negent vos in Christo, negent & in caelo Christum qui vobis caelum negaverunt.  Care not, flesh and blood, ye have in Christ taken possession of heaven, and of the kingdom of God; or if they deny you to be in heaven in Christ, let them also deny Christ himself to be in heaven, who have denied heaven to you. What, will M. Bishop here term Tertullian, and Bernard, together with the Apostle himself audacious and saucy Gospelers? Because the Apostle denieth Christ himself to be risen unless the faithful also rise again, will he return him a scornful jest, as here he doth; Christ belike could not live in bliss without their holy company? But their reason saith he, seemeth good in the way of their own religion. Well, if it be so, it is sufficient; for the way of their religion hath been so far approved, as that neither M. Bishop, nor any other adversaries have been able to disprove it. And because he cannot disprove it, therefore let him confess, as the truth is, that the firm and steadfast apprehension of the merits of Christ, and of being by faith made one with him, doth minister unto the faithful this sacred resolution, that so long as Christ perisheth not, they cannot perish, and therefore shall be preserved for ever. That that followeth is but an idle repetition of the same matters, only set out with a bold face and big looks, and some inkhorn terms, and therefore I pass it over, not marveling that any thing on our part seem fantastical to so vain a man, whose intellectual parts serve him not to prove any thing substantially for his own.   

17. W. BISHOP.  
But to return to Christ's mediatorship and merits. Is it not moreover a great disparagement unto them, to maintain (as the Protestants do) that his best beloved spouse the Church, should continue but a small time, at least in any sight, and should be penned up in corners: yea, and during that time too, it should not be free from many foul gross errors, in the very foundation of faith? Furthermore, that he left his holy word (the only rule and square (as they hold) of Christian religion) to be understood of every man as his own knowledge and spirit should direct him? and if any doubtful question did arise thereabout (as he foresaw thousands should do) yet he took no other order for the deciding and ending of them, but that every one should repair unto the same his word, and doing his diligence to understand it, might afterward be his own judge. As this later opinion would argue our blessed Saviour, who was the wisdom of God, to be the weakest and most improvident lawmaker that ever was: so the former doth mightily blemish the inestimable price of his most precious blood, making it not of sufficient value, to purchase unto him an everlasting inheritance, free from all errors in matter of faith, and abounding in all good works.   

R. ABBOT.  
The Protestants do not maintain, that the Church, the beloved spouse of Christ should continue but a small time, but do all absolutely affirm the continuance thereof from the beginning to the end. 
The Church how it is visible or invisible.  As for the visibility and sight of the Church, we speak diversly thereof, as we speak diversly of the Church itself. Where the Church is a matter of faith, there it is not subject to sight, for 
a Greg. Dialog. l. 4. c. 4. Hoc reracitèr dicitur credi quod non potest viders; nam quod iam videri potest, credi non potest.  that is truly said to be believed, saith Gregory, which cannot be seen, and that which may now be seen cannot be said to be belecued. The Church then which we profess to believe in the articles of our faith, is invisible, because as 
b Aug in Psal. 56. Caput separatum est à visione.  the head is invisible 
c 1. Pet 1.8.  we believe in him, but we see him not, so is the body also, 
d Greg. in Psal. penitential. 5. Tota Ecclesia sive quae adhuc versatur in terris, sive quae cum eo iam regnat in coelis, etc.  one part thereof reigning in heaven with the head, another part yet unborn, 
e Aug. ut supra. pertinentibus ad eam etiam his qui fuerunt ante nos, & his qui futnri sunt ●ost nos, usque ad finem seculi.  because to it belong they also that shall be after us to the world's end; the third part though visible as they are men, yet invisible according to that they are members of this Church, because 
f Luk. 17.21.  the kingdom of God is within, and 
g Aug de Bapt. cont. Donat. l. 5. c. 28. Mamfe. stum est id quod in ecclesia dicitur intus & foris, in cord non in corpore cogi tandum.  to be in the Church, is not to be conceived in the body but in the heart, 
h 1. King. 8.39. 2 Tim. 2.19.  which God only knoweth, and therefore only knoweth who are within, according to that seal as the Apostle calleth it of the foundation of God, ⁱ The Lord knoweth who are his. To speak of the Church accordingly as men take notice and knowledge of it, it is said to be visible two manner of ways; either as touching the persons professing the service and worship of God; or as touching the congregating and assembling of the persons for the performance of that service. The Church may be visible the former way, when it is not visible the latter, because it may be seen and knownen that there are many persons of such devotion though they be not seen in any assembly for the practice of their devotion. In this sort there have been always some either few or more, either one where or other, who to the world though with peril and loss of their lives have given testimony of the truth of God. If we will understand visible the latter way, we must consider that the church itself may be spoken of diversely: either as touching the title of outward vocation and calling; or as touching the sincerity and truth of profession and faith. There may be a church as touching outward calling visible to the world, which yet doth not preserve that integrity, truth of faith whereby it first became a church. There may be a people tied by covenant unto God and by Sacraments professing in their assemblies to serve him, who yet unfaithfully pervert the service of God, and departed from that way of religion which he hath taught them. In this outward state and condition of the Church it is to be remembered which our Saviour Christ saith, 
k Math. 22.14.  Many are called but few are chosen, the multitude generally taking upon them to be called the people of God, when few of them are so indeed, in so much that the Prophet Esay cried out concerning the Church of Israel, 
l Esay 10.21. Rom. 9.27.  Though the number of the children of Israel were as the sand of the sea, yet but a remnant shall be saved. For even in the profession of true religion, and where the word of God hath public maintenance and state, yet how few are there commonly who care to bring forth the fruits thereof in holy conversation? Albeit it falleth out further also many times that this outward face of the church is beraied with the filth of manifold superstitions and idolatries, that true doctrine is rejected, and in place thereof human traditions and inventions are set up and magnified, whilst men neglect and forget the covenant of God and will needs use their own wits for serving him. Yea so far they proceed in the admiration and liking of their own doings as that they hate the truth, and become persecutors of them who continue constant therein, and refuse to join with them to be partakers of their sin. Thus it came to pass in Israel by the sin of jeroboam, and much more by the sin of Ahab, and in judah by the Apostasy of Manasses, who brought abomination into the temple of God, and set up idols there to be worshipped instead of God. At which time the case so stood as that Israel and judah having both cast off the yoke of the law of God, & broken the bounds that he appointed them, there was no public state of true religion throughout the whole world. The public state and government of the same church of the jews, the only visible church refused the preaching of Christ, preferred their own traditions before God's commandment, and pronounced sentence of death against the Son of God. They only were the people of God, the Church of God, but perfidiously they rebelled against God and refused to be guided by his word. But yet amidst all this Apostasy and defection of the church the calling of God did not become vain, neither was his covenant of circumcision without effect, but still he had a remnant in whom he was glorified, 
m 1. King. 19.18.  seven thousand in Israel, though unknown to Elias, who had not bowed their knee unto Baal, in judah many who continued steadfast in the testimony of God, in the pursuit of whom Manasses is said 
n 2. King. 21.16.  to have shed innocent blood exceeding much, and to have replenished jerusalem therewith from corner to corner. In a word, at the coming of Christ amongst a huge heap of chaff there were some grains of wheat; some few faithful that 
o Luk 2.38. & 23.51.  waited for redemption and for the kingdom of God. Now then where the church importeth them only that are professors of Gods true religion, there the church is sometimes visible and sometimes invisible, visible one where, another where invisible. For true religion sometimes hath public state & maintenance, and the assemblies and congregations for exercise thereof are apparent to all men's eyes that whosoever will may resort unto them. But sometimes hypocrisy getteth the upper hand, and under the name of the Church challengeth to itself the places of public assembly, driving out from thence sincerity and truth, and suffering nothing to be done there but for it own behoof. Hear then the professors of truth are feign 
p 1. King. 18.4. Heb. 11.37.38.  to hide their heads and to keep themselves in corners, and by stealth only to assemble and meet together. It falleth out here many times that they are forced with Elias 
q 1. Kin. 19.3.  to fly for their lives, and because they are watched and waited for to be drawn to death, therefore do betake themselves to places where so near as may be, they may, save each to other, neither be known nor seen. In this case therefore the church, that is, the professors of the true faith and religion of the Church are said to be invisible, not for that they are merely to men's eyes invisible, as is the Church in the first sense before named, but because it is not to be seen in public state and assembly, in free & open profession, as in times of peace and liberty it is wont to be. For that otherwise they are visible appeareth plainly in that they live continually subject to the malignity of their adversaries, to indignity and reproach, to bonds and imprisonment, to cruel massacrees, tortures and death, all which they should avoid if they were wholly out of sight. But this invisibility of the church, is not to be considered only in the church persecuting the church, the worse part thereof the better, 
r August. de doct. Christ. l. 3. cap. 32. Corpus domini verum atque simulatum.  the counterfeit body of Christ, as Saint Austin calleth it, the true, but also when by foreigners and strangers attempt is made against the whole church. For so it is sometimes that the whole name of the church of God is impugned, and the adversary useth all his might utterly to extinguish the memorial thereof, God by this means making trial of his, and exercising their faith and patience, and bringing just revenge upon hypocrites, who abuse his calling and grace to the doing of their own will. Hear then God giving way to the enemy the outward state of the church is wholly overthrown, the public exercise of religion is altogether interrupted and broken off, and the members of the church though they be seen and knownen as such a people, yet are not seen in the condition of the church, that is, assembling themselves together to perform religion and service to their God. This was the state of the church in the captivity of Babylon, when jerusalem was burnt to the ground, the temple destroyed, the people of God carried away into strange lands and here and there dispersed amongst the heathen nations. The like befell them by the tyranny of Antiochus even in their own land, their temple being defiled, their religion interdicted, and every one commanded to be slain that would not renounce the law of God. Now to apply all these things to the state of the church of Christ, it was first oppugned by professed enemies, who sought wholly to root out the name of Christians, and to abandon the faith of Christ utterly out of the world. Thus did the jews first, and after them the Heathens, persecute the whole profession of Christianity, and by the importunity of their cruelty did many times so obscure and darken the face of the church, as that for the most part it was hardly to be seen. Whosoever were found to give open testimony to the name of Christ were martyred and slain; the rest for fear of the like danger either fled into wildernesses and solitary places, or else had their meetings very covertly and secretly that they might not be espied. Yea their savage and barbarous fury so far prevailed as that they seemed to themselves to have gotten a perpetual victory over the name of Christ, and did set up pillars of marble as trophies thereof, whereof it is said that some monuments are yet remaining until this day. Thus albeit many thousands there were who here and there dispersed and scattered continued steadfast in the faith of Christ, and in many places covertly gathered themselves together for the exercise of their faith, yet the Church to the sight of the enemies thereof was invisible, neither could they in a manner take knowledge of any against whom their malice might any further proceed. But when by the providence and mercy of God the sword of those tyrants was wrested out of their hands, this invisible church soon came to light again, and began to enjoy outward state and honour, and the Saints who seemed to have been dead and buried in everlasting reproach and shame, became renowned and glorious in the world, and as they were indeed, so began they in the opinion of men to be exalted unto heaven. From thenceforth we affirm, that the church hath never ceased to be eminently and apparently visibly to all the world, so far are we from saying that which Bellarmine as the master, and M. Bishop here as the scholar do impute unto us 
s B●llarm. de notis eccl. cap 9 Ecclesiam visibilem a multis seculis perijsse etc. docent omnes.  that the visible church for many ages was quite perished out of the world. How can we be taken to say that the church was perished for many ages, who do hold that for those many ages whereof we speak, Antichrist according to that that was prophesied of him did 
t 2. Thess. 2.4  sit as God in the Temple, that is to say, the church of God? If we say that Antichrist sat, that is, dominated and tyrannised in the church, the visible church, then surely we deny it not to be the visible church wherein Antichrist did sit. We confess that the church in all that time hath been apparent to the eyes of all men, the whole world saw it: Turks and Saracens fought against it, and did their uttermost to root it out, that the name of Christians might no more have been heard of amongst men. But we say withal; that the visible church by the usurpation of Antichrist was become for the most part as the temple of God in the days of 
u 2. King. 2● 4.7.  Manasses replenished with idolatries and abominations, or as the church of the jews at the coming of Christ, even 
x Mat. 9.36.  like sheep without a shepherd, burdened with human traditions and wanting the free air of the word of God whereby he ministereth the breath of everlasting life. As 
y jerem. 3.20.  the wife that is rebellious and unfaithful to her husband, 
z Prou. 2.17.  which forsaketh the guide of her youth and forgetteth the covenant of her God; so was the state of the Church, shamefully polluting herself with manifold fornications whiles she proftituted herself to the embracings of the Roman adulterer, and yielded to him the obedience and service which she should have reserved unto jesus Christ. She was the mother indeed by whom God through baptism brought forth children to himself; but being though by nature a mother, yet by affection a stepmother, when she had brought them forth she poisoned them, or else hated and put them from her, if any refused to drink of her cup, and to approve those adulteries and sorceries wherewith their father her husband and Lord was dishonoured by her. And many such were there through the whole decourse of the desolations of Antichrist, whose eyes God opened, some more, some less, to see the filthiness of their mother, who though happily by education they were not wholly without some aspersion of the errors and superstitions of their times, yet abhorred those Idolatries and abominations whereby the Church had broken her faith to God, and made way, so much as in her lay, for her full divorce and separation from him. For God forbidden that we should think that the spirit of truth was wholly departed from the Church, or that the covenant of Baptism was void on God's behalf, sealing none unto him, but that amidst those ruins he had still his remnant, which not in name only, but in truth were the Church of Christ. For as in a common pestilence, though it rage never so sore, yet it infecteth not all, and many whom it doth infect, yet are not deadly infected, but many by preservatives escape, and others by strength of nature expel the venom in botches and sores, so as that life is still preserved: even so in that general pestilence and infection which the breath of Antichrist had blown abroad through the church, howsoever it were universally dispersed, yet it tainted not all, and many that were touched with it, yet drunk not so deep of the whore of Babylon's cup as to surfeit and die thereof, and albeit they might seem in a manner to be drowned in common errors, yet retained that fundamental doctrine of true faith in Christ whereby they kept the head above water to receive the breath of life, and through the fire of repentance by hearty prayer unto God for remission of all their sins and ignorances whether known to them in their end, or remaining unknown, passed unto eternal life. 
a See Simon Goulart. Catalogue. test. veritatis.  Many such there were in the bosom of their church, even in their monasteries and religious houses to whom God revealed the light of his truth, Who 
b Ezech. 9.4.  mourned and cried for all the abominations that were done in the midst thereof, who imparted to other what they themselves saw; and lived and died in the comfort of that faith which we now maintain against the Church of Rome. But many there were who did professedly separate themselves from the assemblies of the church because of the abominations that were exercised therein, being careful according to the knowledge which God had given them to keep themselves undefiled, that with pure conscience they might serve him. Yea sometimes and in some places there wanted not public profession and exercise of God's truth, and whole countries and towns and cities, followed the religion of Christ, with express renouncing of the abominations of the church of Rome. Which severing of themselves notwithstanding not being absolute and universal, but only respective, because of the intolerable enormities and corruptions prevailing in the church, made not them that thus divided themselves a new, or another church, but only freed them from the default of the church whereof they were members. For to use the former comparison, as when the pestilence rageth in a city they that for avoiding the infection do forbear the common assemblies and meetings do not thereby deprive themselves of their interest in that corporation & state, but do still continue citizens and members thereof; even so they who for manifest idolatries and abominations did forbear the communion and fellowship of their own or other churches, did not thereby disable or impeach their right and title of being members of the church, but rather maintained the same so much the more by eschewing the corruptions whereby the church was in danger to be cut off & to become no church. But upon all these the eye of malice was continually cast, and Antichrist pretending 
c Aug. de Civit. Dei, li. 20. c. 19 In templum dei sedet, tanquam ipse sit templum dei quod est ecclesia, etc. Ad eum pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso intelligi volunt, etc.  himself and his only to be the church of God, waited and took all occasions and opportunities for the destruction of them. By the stories it is plain how they were hated and persecuted in England, France, Italy, Germany, Bohemia, Poland and other countries under the names of Waldenses, Albigenses, Wiclevistes, Hussites, Taborites, Carmelites, Leonistes, Lollardes, and such like. It is memorable which 
d Bellar. de notis eccl. cap. 18.  Bellarmine reporteth out of Paulus Aemelius the French Chronicler, that of them there were a hundred thousand slain at one time in France, which was done by the procurement of 
e Hospinian. de Origine Monach. l 6. c. 4.  Friar Dominicke, who having long time laboured in the country of the Earl of Tholouse to bring them to the obedience of the sea of Rome, when bringing nothing out of God's word to persuade them, he could not prevail, played the butcherly wretch, and caused so great a number of poor innocent souls, by an army sent in amongst them miserably to be slain. In like sort by Matthew Paris it appeareth, reporting the matter according to the conceit and report of that time, that in Spain and Germany, there were 
f Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. anno 1234. peremptus est infidelium haereticorum (Albigensium) numerus infinitus.  an infinite number of them murdered, some of them, he saith, for rebellion, but indeed all for conscience sake. Such tragedies they acted in divers and sundry places from time to time, for the space of three hundred years and more; they proscribed, they killed and burned the professors of our religion; the earth was died with their blood and strawed with their ashes; their stories mention them, their registers name them, their writers of heresies do testify what their opinions were, (albeit in some points thereof it appeareth by some of them that the rest lie, fathering upon them, as 
g Idem ibid. Asserebant constanter fidem Christianam et praecipuè incarnationis mysterium frivolum esse & penitus abrogandum.  Matthew Paris doth, things impious and absurd which they never dreamt of) and yet with impudent faces they ask of us, where our church, where our religion was before Luther's time, as if the same had never been heard of in the world before. As touching the persons then, our church was manifest enough to them by whom it was thus persecuted, which yet were not another church, but children of one mother, and members of one church with them that persecuted them; I mean not of the church of Rome, but of the Catholic visible church, which for the most part the church of Rome had brought in subjection to itself. Their mother had played the harlot, and with the whore of Babylon had prostituted herself to Antichrist, and because they would not approve her fornications, therefore she condemned them; therefore 
h Esay 66.5.  their brethren who said, Let the Lord be glorified, yet did cast them out for the names sake of the Lord, and they had occasion to complain as doth the Spouse in the Canticles, 
i Cant. 1.5.  The children of mine own Mother are risen up against me. But if these persecutors glory that the churches and places of assembly were in their hands, they do no more but what the Arians of old did when they had gotten into their possession the churches throughout the whole world, & we answer as Hilary did to them; 
k Hilar. count Auxent. Malè vos parietum amor cepit: malè ecclesiam dei in tectis aedificijsque veneramini. Annè ambiguum est in his Antichristum esse sessurum? Montes mihi & syluae & lacus & carceres & voragines sunt tutiores: in his enim prophetae aut manentes aut demersi dei spiritu prophetabant.  You do amiss to be in love with walls: ill do you honour and admire the Church of God in houses and buildings. Is there any doubt but that Antichrist shall sit in them? Mountains and woods, and lakes, and prisons, and caves are safer to me; for in them the Prophets abiding or sticking did Prophecy by the spirit of God. The case is alike: Arianisme had then overspread the whole face of the Church, and the heretics had the Churches in their hands, the true professors of the faith were driven into corners: yet Hilary thought this to be no prejudice unto them; nay, he held it to be the right picture of the true Church. Even so Popery since hath prevailed and gotten the upper hand; what prejudice is it to the professors of true religion, that in the mean time they have undergone the same condition that the Prophets and other faithful in former times have done? Yea S. Austin expressly testifieth, that 
l Aust. epist. 80 Ecclesia non apparebit impijs tunc persecutoribus ultra modum saevientibus.  the Church in the time of Antichrist shall be invisible, because wicked persecutors shall then practise their cruelty beyond measure. Let it be the question then, whether Antichrist be come; but that the Church according to the true members thereof, shall be invisible in the time of Antichrist, it is without question. Now that the Bishop of Rome hath been and is that very Antichrist of whom the Scripture hath foretold, and the Church of Rome the whore of Babylon, hath been otherwhere plentifully showed, and in some part hath been also handled formerly in the second part of this work. The time than hath been already for the Church to be invisible by the means of the fury of Antichrist, maliciously and cruelly persecuting all that came to light, that refused to drink of his poisoned cup. Now having thus at large instructed M. Bishop what our doctrine is of the visibility of the Church, I will answer him briefly as touching the other point of this cavil, 
The Church subject to error.  that by the ancient monuments of the Church it plainly appeareth, that many foul errors entered into the Church soon after the Apostles times; that whilst 
m Matt. 13.25.  the watchmen and husbandmen were sometimes sleepy, the enemy came and sowed tars amongst the wheat; that the builders built much 
n 1. Cor. 3.12.  hay & wood and stubble; but yet so, as that for the most part they retained the only true foundation, which is jesus Christ; so as that by the foundation they themselves are saved, but the fire of the Lord shall consume that trash which they have builded thereon. I have 
o Answer to the Epistle sect. 13. ex Euseb. hist. eccles. l. 3. c. 29.  before showed out of Eusebius, how Egesippus limited the Virginity of the Church to the age of the Apostles, and that generation which with their own ears heard the preaching of truth from them. I have there showed how the shifts and subtleties of Satan for corrupting of the truth which he began to practise even in their days, though they were then checked by their authority, yet prevailed mightily when they were gone. The errors which then were, how far they extended, and whether they were in other places the same that we find them to have been in some, it is not apparent to us; but manifest it is, that so cunningly and effectually Satan conveyed that poison into the Church, as that it hath never since perfectly recovered those wounds that it received then: Yea Antichrist the man of sin, the master of abominations, finding many of those corruptions in the Church, hath bound them together as it were in a bundle, and by his edicts and laws, hath obtruded and forced them to be received as articles of true faith. But this, saith M. Bishop, doth mightily blemish the inestimable price of the most precious blood of Christ. And why so? Forsooth it maketh it not to be of sufficient value to purchase unto him an everlasting inheritance free from all errors in matters of faith, and abounding in all good works. But the effect of Christ's purchase is to be determined by the will of Christ himself, and not by M. Bishops wilful and witless dreams, by which it may as well be proved, that man is wholly without sin, as that the Church is without error. But I answer him briefly out of his own words, that as the Church which Christ hath purchased doth not so abound in all good works, but that it is subject to many sins, so neither doth the same Church so abound in knowledge and truth, but that it is subject to many errors. Christ intended not by his mediation to bring his Church in this life to full perfection: So long as she continueth a pilgrim from her bridegroom and Lord, she shall still carry the marks of mortality and corruption. The Church in this world is like unto the Moon, which is never so clear but that some fret or spot of darkness is to be seen in it, and howsoever it seem bright in one part, yet is obscured in another. But it is worth the while to see to what issue M. Bishop will bring this conceit of his, if he be urged to reveal the secret of it. For let us question with him: If the Church cannot err, how is it that the Church of Ephesus hath erred and quite fallen away, 
p Act. 20.28.  which God purchased with his own blood, and of which it was immediately that the Apostle said, that 
q 1. Tim. 3.15  it was the pillar and ground of truth? Did not the Church of 
r Gal. 1.6.  Galatia err? The Churches of Corinth, of Philippi, of Thessalonica, of Colossa, of Pergamus, Thyatira and the rest, have they not all gone astray? Yes, will he say, these particular Churches may err, but the whole Church universal cannot err. But if every part of the Church may err, then surely the whole Church may err, because all the parts make the whole, which can be no other than the parts are. We have hereof example in the 
r Exod. 32.1.  Israelites, when the whole Church erred in setting up the golden calf, and in the Christian Church, which was in a manner 
s Vincent. Lirinens. Arianorun venenum non iam portiunculam quandam sed penè orbem totum contaminaverat.  wholly corrupted with the heresy of Arius; 
t Hieron. adu. Lucifer. Ingemuit totus orbis & se esse Arianum miratus est.  the whole world groaning, as Hierome saith, and wondering that it was become Arian. Well, he will say that the Church severed and sundered in the parts thereof may err, but being assembled together by her Pastors and Bishops in a general Council it cannot err. But this the former instances disprove; for the whole Church of the Israelites was gathered together to Aaron, & the Christian Church was assembled together by her Pastors and Bishops in the Council of Ariminum to the number of four hundred, who were more than before had been in the Council of Nice, and yet decreed for the Arian heresy. So was there a second general Council holden at Ephesus, which affirmed & approved the heresy of Eutyches, as there were also sundry other, of which M. Bishop will not say but that they did err. True, saith he, general Counsels may err if they be not congregated by the authority of the Pope, but being the Pope's Counsels they cannot err. But the Counsels of Constance and Basil were both assembled by the Pope's call, and both these Counsels decreed that the Councelis of greater authority than the Pope, and the Pope subject thereto, which M. Bishop for the Pope's sake will say is an error, and by the Pope's procurement the contrary hath been since determined in other Counsels. He will answer us, that the Council though it be assembled by the Pope, yet may go awry if it become divided from the Pope, but being assisted and directed by him, it cannot conclude amiss, because the Pope cannot err. But we bring examples of divers Popes that have erred, as Liberius by the heresy of the Arians, Honorius by the heresy of the Monothelites, and such like. Well, the Pope then, saith he, as he is a private man may err, but as Pope, and in his consistory and judicial sentence he cannot err. But what, is the church now become an ass to carry a privilege for the Pope only? To return upon himself the skiruie term that he hath used in the former section, Is not here a huge great mill-post fairly thwited into a poor pudding prick, that whereas we are told that it was the effect of the inestimable price of Christ's blood to purchase a church free from all errors in matter of faith, 
The word of God the rule and square of Christian religion.  we have this great prerogative of the Church resolved finally into a drunken dream concerning the Pope, that it is he only that cannot err? This is the upshot of all, and to this issue the matter cometh, that the church may err, the general council may err, be the persons never so learned, never so faithful, never so holy; only the Pope though he be an ignorant beast, a very he hound and incarnate devil, yet sitting down in his chair of Pestilence to decree a sentence, receiveth presently like the Prophets of Apollo some enthusiastical impression, whereby he pronounceth infallibly a truth, howsoever he himself in his own private opinion be persuaded otherwise. Which being a ridiculous presumption, a mere novelty, most impudently devised by sycophants and parasites, a matter which hath no shadow of defence from the belief or practice of the ancient church, deserveth rather to be rejected with scorn, than to have any question made of it. As for that other matter which he adjoineth concerning the word of God, and interpretation thereof, he saith rightly that we hold, for so we do, the holy word of God to be the only rule and square of Christian religion. 
u Iren adu. haeres. lib 3. cap. 1. evangelium per dei voluntatem in Scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum.  For it was the will of God that the Apostles should commit the Gospel to writing, To be the pillar and foundation of our faith, and 
x Aug. in epist. joan. tract. 3. contra insidiosos errores ponere voluit deus firmamentum in Scriptures sanctis.  in the scriptures to appoint us a fortress against deceitful errors; so as that 
y Chrysost. op. imperfect. hom. 49. Christiani qui sunt in Christianitate volentes accipere firmitatem fidei ad nullam rem aliam fugiant nisi tantummodo ad scripturas.  Christians being desirous to receive assurance of their faith are no whither else to fly but only to the Scriptures. But whereas he affirmeth, that we say that Christ hath left his holy word to be understood of every man as his own knowledge and spirit shall direct him, and that in doubtful questions arising he hath taken no order for the deciding of them, but that every one may be his own judge, they are but silly devices of objection against us, to colour the novelties & absurdities which we in the same behalf justly condemn in them. We every man understand the Scriptures as his own knowledge and spirit doth direct him; and why? Because we reject that course of understanding the Scripture, which they factiously and partially have of late devised for the serving of their own turn. 
z Hosius de expresso dei verb: Siquis habeat interpretatisnem ecclesiae Romanae de loco aliquo scripturae, etiamsi nec sciat nec intelligat an & quomodo cum scripturae verbis conveniat, tamen habet ipsissimum verbum dei.  If a man forsooth, have the interpretation of the church of Rome concerning any place of Scripture, albeit he seethe not how it accordeth with the words, yet he hath the very word of God. We leave every man in doubtful questions to be his own judge; but why? Because we refuse the trial of a judge presumptuously advanced and authorized by them. Forsooth the Pope being accused of heinous abominations and sacrilege against God, must sit as judge whether he be guilty or not, and whether they do justly that have accused him. But what Scripture, what Council, what Father or story, or practise of the Church hath tied the interpretation of the Scriptures to the church of Rome, or the deciding of controversies to the Bishop of Rome? And whereas their course in this behalf hath no manner of justification from the ancient Church, I challenge him on the other side to allege any course entertained by the same Church for the interpretation of Scriptures, and judgement of controversies, which is not approved and practised by us. Which because he cannot do, he doth but waste his wit by trifling in this sort, and renewing idle cavils, which 
a Of Traditions. sect. 21.22.  before have been trodden under foot, being not able to relieve them with any further defence or strength.   

18. W. BISHOP.  
To fold up this part, let me entreat thee (courteous reader) to be an upright judge between the Protestants doctrine and ours, in this most weighty matter of Christ's dignity, virtues, and mediation; and if thou see most evidently, that ours doth more advance them, why shouldest thou not give sentence on our side? They make Christ ignorant many years of his life: we hold him from the first instant of his conception, to have been replenished with most perfect knowledge. They, that he spoke and taught now and then, as other men did; and was subject to disordinate passions: We, that he was most free from all such, and that he taught always most divinely. They make his very death not sufficient to redeem us: we hold that the least thing that ever he suffered in his life, deserved the redemption of many worlds. They, that he died only for the elect: we, that he died for all, though many through their own fault, do not receive any benefit by his death. They, that thereby we are not purged from our sins, but by imputation: we, that all are by the virtue thereof inwardly cleansed. They, that Christ purchased a Church consisting of few, not to continue long, and subject to many errors: we, that he established a Church, that should be spread over all the world, and that should continue to the end of the world: visibly, and always free from any error in any matter of faith. Finally, they hold that Christ left his holy word to the disputation of men, not taking any certain order for the ending of controversies, that should arise about it: we teach, that he hath established a most assured means, to decide all doubts in religion, and to hold all obedient Christians inperfect uniformity, of both faith and manners. And because I am entered into these comparisons, give me leave to persist yet a little longer in them. Consider also (I pray you) who go nearer to Atheism, either we, that think and speak of the most sacred Trinity, as the blessed Fathers in the first Council of Nice taught: or they, who directly cross them, and by the novelty of their phrases, do breed new, or rather revive old heresies against it. Again, who carry a more holy conceit of God, either they, who upon light occasion do rashly deny God to be able to do that, which they do not conceive possible: or we, that teach him to be able to do ten thousand things, that pass our understanding. Whether they, that affirm God of his own free choice, to cast away the greater part of men: or we, that defend him to desire the salvation of all men, and not to be wiling that any one perish, unless it be through his own default. Either they, that hold him to be the author of all evil done in the world, and the Devil to be but his Minister therein: or we that maintain him to be so purely good, that he cannot possibly either concur to any evil, or so much as once to think to do any evil. Finally, whose opinion of him is better, either ours, that hold him to have been so reasonable in framing of his laws, that he doth by his grace make themeasie to a willing mind: or theirs, that avouch him to have given laws impossible for the best men to keep? If some Protestants do say, we do not maintain divers of these positions. I answer, that it is, because they do yet in part hold with us, and are not so far gone, as they do wholly follow their new masters: For if they did, then should they embrace all the aforesaid damnable positions, being so plainly taught by their principal preachers and teachers. These therefore are to warn my dear Countrymen to look to it in time; and then (no doubt) but that all such as have a sufficient care of their salvation, considering maturely whether the current & stream of the new Gospel carrieth them, will speedily disbarke themselves thence, lest at length they be driven by it, into the bottomless gulf of flat Atheism.   

R. ABBOT.  
Hear M. Bishop entreateth the courteous Reader to be judge in a most weighty matter, 
Every man required to judge for his own assurance in matters of faith.  who in the former section hath given him a check for taking upon him to be his own judge. His teeth sometimes bite his tongue, and put him in mind to tell truth, which commonly he is very loath to do. Indeed it concerneth every man so far as toucheth his own salvation, to be a judge in these matters, and by knowledge and understanding to satisfy himself concerning his faith and hope towards God, and not be led, as in Popery they are accustomed, like dumb beasts wholly at the will & discretion of them by whom they are led, not able to judge of that which they do whether it be right or wrong. The holy Ghost commendeth it as a thing pertinent to all the faithful 
a Phil. 19.10  to abound in knowledge and in alliudgement, that they may discern things different (from the truth,) 
b 1. Thes. 5.21.  to try all things, and to hold that that is good: 
c 1 joh. 4.1.  to try the spirits whether they be of God or not: 
d Heb. 5.14.  to have their wits exercised to discern both good and evil. Which ability how it is attained unto, Saint Ambrose declareth; 
e Ambros. in Heb. 5. Quomodo poterunt sensus nostri exercitati esse? utique ex usu & frequenti lectione scripturarum; unde beatum virum Psalmista dicit, qui in lege domini meditabitur die ac nocte: sic Primas. ibid.  How may our wits be thus exercised? Marry by use and often reading of the holy scriptures; whence the Psalmist calleth the man blessed, who day and night meditateth in the law of the Lord. Even so it is, howsoever there seem difficulty at the first, yet use of reading and often meditation of the Scriptures, with a religious and careful heart, maketh a man able to judge of truth so far as is needful for himself unto eternal life. Now the matters whereof M. Bishop will have his Reader to be judge are no other but what have been handled hitherto, whereof for the enlarging of his preface, and to make the Printer some more work, he maketh here a long and needless repetition. I list not to follow him in his idle vein, but refer thee, gentle Reader, to the several examinations of all his objections, in which thou shalt see him one where lewdly belying and slandering us, another where wilfully misconstruing, another where ignorantly condemning those things which he is not able to disprove. Only to show the great discretion of the man, thou mayest note in his first cavil how he delivereth their opinion, that Christ from the first instant of his conception was replenished with most perfect knowledge, whereas, if he had had his own head at hand he would have remembered that that which was of Christ from the first instant of his conception, was not as yet endued with the reasonable soul, and therefore was not as yet capable of knowledge at all. Thus in the very first point he giveth his Reader occasion to prejudicate him in all the rest, & to account him too silly a man to give advertisement, as in the end of this section he doth to others, who in the beginning showeth so little skill to look to himself. As for his countrymen, to whom specially he directeth his warning, they are much to be pitied in that so simply they commit themselves to such blind guides by whom and with whom they must needs fall into the ditch. Albeit if he were blind in this case, his sin were the less; but because wittingly and willingly he lieth and chargeth upon our principal Preachers and Teachers, some of his damnable positions, whereto they in the very places by him cited have justified the contrarry, as in the process of our answer hath appeared, therefore as he is branded in conscience with God, so he deserveth with men also to be branded in the face with the stigme of a perfidious calumniatour that all men may know that there is no trust to be given to him.   

19 W. BISHOP.  
And is it any great marvel, that the common sort of the Protestants fall into so many foul absurdities touching religion, when as the very fountains, out of which they pretend to take their religion, be so pitifully corrupted? I mean the sacred word of God. Master Gregory Martin a Catholic man, very skilful in the learned languages, hath discovered about two hundredth of their corruptions of the very text of God's word: and after him one Master Broughton a man of their own (esteemed to be singularly seen in the Hebrew and Greek tongue) hath advertised them of more than eight hundredth faults therein. And the matter is so evident, that the King's Majesty, in that public conference holden at Hampton-Court, in the first of his reign, confesseth himself not to have seen one true translation of the Bible in English; and that of Geneva, which they were wont to esteem most, to be the worst of all others: and therefore commanded them to go in hand with a new translation; about which, fifty of the most learned amongst them in both Universities (as it is credibly reported) have this three years travailed, and cannot yet hit upon, or else not agree upon, a new sincere and true translation. Hear is a large field offered me to exclaim against such corrupters and depravers of God's sacred word: but I will leave that to some other time, because I have been too long already. But what a lamentable case is this! they hold for the most assured pillar of their faith, that all matters of salvation must be fished out of the Scriptures, and cry upon all men to search the Scriptures: and yet are the same Scriptures by themselves so perversely mangled, that their own pewfellows cry out shame upon them therefore: whereunto (if it please you) join, that the Protestants have no assured means to be resolved of such doubts and difficulties, as they shall find in the same word of God. For they must neither trust ancient Father, nor rely upon the determination, either of national or general Council; but every faithful man (by himself) examining the circumstances of the text, and conferring other like places unto it together, shall find out the right meaning of all obscure sentences, as they most childishly bear their fellows in hand. Briefly to conclude this point, a great number of them having God's word corrupted, for the lantcrne to their feet; and their own dim sight, for their best guide: no marvel, though they stumble at many difficulties in these high mysteries, and fall into very absurd opinions, concerning the principal parts of them.   

R. ABBOT.  
It is a true note that Tertullian gave of heretics, that they 
a Tertul. de resurrect. carnis. Haeretici scripturarum lucifagae.  shun and fly the light of the Scriptures, and like Bats and Owls, because the Sun discovereth them to be uncouth and ugly creatures, delight altogether in the dark. Amongst the rest, the Papists are specially of this humour, 
Our translations of the Scriptures unjustly blamed.  detesting nothing more than that the people should be at liberty to read the Scriptures. Now because they want means, thanks be to God, to pull the books out of their hands as heretofore they have done, therefore they betake themselves to other shifts, and by divers pretences and colourable devices, they seek to discourage and terrify so many as they can from the use thereof, but one thing specially they have laboured above others, to breed in them a jealousy and suspicion of our translations of the Scriptures, as if the Scriptures themselves meant nothing less than by our translations they seem to do. Now as the young fox learneth of the old, so doth M. Bishop learn of his good masters to take this up as a special weapon to fight against us, and here telleth his Reader, that it is no marvel that Protestants fall into many school absurdities, because the very fountains out of which they take their religion, are pitifully corrupted. Pitifully corrupted, saith he; but how doth he know so much? for we are out of doubt that he himself never made trial of it. Forsooth Gregory Martin a Catholic man hath told him so. O pitiful proof! jannes' hath told jambres, that Moses doth but delude and deceive the people. Gregory Martin, saith he, a man very skilful in the learned languages hath discovered about two hundred of their corruptions of the very text of God's word. We doubt not but Gregory Martin with them was a learned man if he did write for them; but yet he must give me leave to tell him that Gregory Martin's discovery was so discovered, as that neither he himself nor any other for him, had ever any joy to meddle with it again. His presumptions and ignorances, and trifling childish follies were so laid open, though I know much more might have been done than was done, as that his learning failed him to make that good which he would needs have to be taken for a discovery of our evil. Which I do not speak as if there were no faults justly to be found in our translations, but the faults that are to be found are Grammatical, not Doctrinal; such as wherein the translators have erred sometimes by not giving exactly & duly the signification of words, not whereby they have brought in any new points of faith; such as translators themselves find in the new perusing of their translations, as our junius hath done, and yet see no cause of altering their religion in the amending of those faults. Such were the faults of which M. Broughton spoke, who as M. Bishop well knoweth, never found any cause by those faults to departed from us, or to join with them; a man as he saith, singularly seen in the Hebrew and Greek tongues: but it had been to be wished, that he had used that learning rather humbly and profitably to do good to the Church, than curiously and proudly to gain opinion to himself. They are much distressed we see in the finding of faults, when they are feign to seek testimony thereof from him whose reprehensions are matters of disadvantage to us, but no benefit at all to them. And no other was his majesties intention, when out of his high and Princely understanding, he censured our translations in the conference at Hampton-Court. It is true that his Majesty there 
b sum of the Conference, pa. 46.  professed that he had never seen a Bible well translated in English, and the worst of all he thought the Geneva translation to be, and therefore wished that by the best learned in both the Universities, some special pains should be taken that one uniform translation might be had. But why did not his Majesty think our Bibles well translated? Was it because he thought that if they were well translated, we should acknowledge some points of Popery which now we reject, or should alter some points of our own religion which now we hold? Surely nothing less, and therefore M. Bishop doth but vainly spend his breath to talk of that which is no advantage to him. And yet much ado do these wranglers make hereof, and babble of it no less than as if a new translation should be the very copy of the Council of Trent, and with it the Pope with all his trinkets were to be brought into the church. Especially a Sophister of the jesuits, a notable dauber, taking upon him so far as his own and his fellows learning would serve him to answer M. Bells challenge, for the preparing of his Reader in his preface insisteth upon this matter, where having mentioned the order taken for a new translation, he speaketh to his Countrymen in this sort; What goodness can there be in that faith which is builded of an evil foundation as by your own judgements your Bibles hitherto have been? Yea what faith at all can there be in this mean time whilst the old Bibles are condemned as nought, and a new not yet made? If these Ministers had once deceived you in a money matter, you would beware how you trusted them again, and will you believe them still, they having by their own confession hitherto deceived you, both in your Church service & Bible, commending the one to you as divine service, and the other as God's pure word, and now condemning them both? Which words of his, do carry some colour to blind the ignorant, but he himself well knew that he did but play the sycophant, and made only a show of great matter against us, wherein in truth there is no weight at all. For would the sorry fellow have argued thus against the faith of the whole church that had been for the space almost of four hundred years when Hierome took in hand to translate the Bible anew, and to reform the defects and imperfections both of the Septuagint, & of other translations which the Church had used till that time? It appeareth by Hierome that 
c Hier. ad Paulam & Eustoch. Praefat. in Esaiae translat. Qui scit me ob hoc in peregrinae linguae eruditione sudasse ne judaei de falsitate scripturarum ecclesiis e●us diutiùs insultarent.  the jews insulted over the Christian Church for their false translations of the Scriptures, for the avoiding whereof he protesteth it was that he took that pains to learn the Hebrew tongue, that he might himself more perfectly translate them, and so 
d Idem. Praefat. in joshua. Dolere judaeosquòd calumniandi eyes & irridendi Christianos sit ablata occasio.  take from them all occasion to calumniate and mock the Christians. Will our judaizing jesuite hereupon say, of all the time before, that there could be no goodness in their faith, that it was built upon an evil foundation, that their Bibles were nought, because there were so great defaults in their translations? What, had so many Churches believed in vain; so many Martyrs and Confessors suffered persecution and death for a faith of which they had no certain or assured ground? But to come somewhat nearer to him, when Hierom had more perfectly translated the Scriptures, his translation grew in the Latin Church to be much respected, and hath been since in special name above any other. The Council of Trent hath decreed that that translation (if at least it be that which now carrieth his name, whereof there is just cause to doubt) 
e Concil. Trident. sess. 4. c. 2.  shall stand for authentical and good in all public lectures, disputations, preachings, expoundings, and that no man upon any pretence shall presume to reject it. Yet of that translation it is confessed by 
f See D. Rainolds Thes. 5. § 30. where he citeth Budaeus, Valla, sir T. Moor, acknowledging so much in the new Testament; Pagnine, Galatinus, and Masius in the old; Isidorus Clarius, Andradius and Arias Montanus in both.  sundry the most learned of his side, that there are many defaults and slips wherein the interpreter hath swerved both from the words and from the right and true meaning of the holy Ghost. Yea into that translation there were also crept by neglect many gross corruptions acknowledged by themselves, and therefore 
g Biblia excusa Romae anno domini 1590.92.93.  reform first by Sixtus Quintus, and afterward by Clement the eighth, such as whereby the meaning of the text in many places was wholly altered. And will this cavilling Sophister give us leave to conclude hereof, that there hath been all the while that those errors and corruptions have continued, no goodness in the faith of their church of Rome, that their Bibles by themselves have been condemned for nought, that their religion hath been built upon an evil foundation, because there have been errors and imperfections in their translations of the Scriptures? If he think that this is no argument against them, we must needs think him to be that that he is, that would go about to blind simple men by such a cavillation against us. For thy better satisfaction gentle Reader, thou mayest consider, that translations of the Scriptures are the same to the Church, as are glass-windows to a house. The glass never yieldeth the light altogether so clear as it cometh immediately from the Sun, and the interleadding of it hindereth that there is not fully and throughout a perfect transparence of the light, and yet it giveth light so as serveth abundantly for the discerning of every thing, and for the directing and doing all the business of the house. Even so translations can never so clearly and fully express the things that are translated, as they are to be seen immediately in the original from whence they are derived. By the unperfect apprehension of the translators it cometh to pass that they have their oversights, as it were traces and bars of lead, thorough which the light of the original text perfectly shineth not, which notwithstanding do compact and hold together the body of the text, as it were the glass thorough which the Sun of righteousness most comfortably shineth unto us, and by which we have undoubted and certain direction for the whole work and service of the house of God. There is in every language some special propriety, the grace and significancy whereof, no other language by any industry of the translator can attain unto. There are in the originals, but specially in the Hebrew tongue, many words of doubtful and divers significations, of which it is very hard many times to say which best fitteth to express the meaning of the place. Sometimes though the signification of the words be known, yet the phrase and composition breedeth ambiguity of translation. By this means the words being subject to divers constructions, one interpreteth them one way, another another way, and neither can control other, because it is hard to say which is the truest way. Yea S. Aust. doubteh not to say, that 
h Aug. de decked. Christ. li. 3. cap. 27. Certè dei spiritus etiam ipsam (alteram sententiam) occursuran lectori vel auditorisine dubitatione praevidit, imò ut occurreret quia & ipsa est veritate subnixa providit. Nam quid in divinis eloquijs potuit largius & wherius provideri quam ut eadem verba pluribus intelligantur modis, etc.  the holy Ghost for more large and plentiful instruction, did not only foresee but provide, that of the same words divers meanings might be made, which notwithstanding both or all should be agreeable to the truth. But there are furthermore many allusions, many allegories, many proverbial and figurative speeches, the reasons whereof are not always easily discerned, and therefore they are conjectured divers ways. Sometimes it falleth out, that the words of themselves seem to the translator to lean one way, and the expositor seethe that by the drift and intendment of the text they are to go another. By these and other occasions, translators according to the gifts that God hath given them, use their judgements diversly, one seeing that which another seethe not; one coming nearer to the truth in one place, and another in another; one having greater understanding in the original tongue; another greater felicity and dexterity to express his conceit in the tongue into which he doth translate; another having greater knowledge in the liberal Sciences, in Histories and Antiquities, in natural and moral Philosophy, whereby he is able to judge of some things more probably or certainly than others can. And herein the incomprehensible wisdom of God most lively appeareth, that he hath so disposed and ordered the Scriptures, as that this variety of translations enforceth no difformity of religion, but all tend to the maintaining of one and the same faith, contained manifestly in those places of Scripture wherein all translations agree, and which without manifest and wilful impiety cannot be translated otherwise. Whereby we see in our own experience and continual exercise of the Scriptures, that though the exact meaning of a place be mistaken, yet commonly it containeth nothing in matter but what is warranted by another place rightly translated, and therefore in that place can be taken for no other but the true word of God. Or if any wickedly minded do upon advantage of ambiguity translate them somewhere partially in favour of error and against the truth, yet is he circumvented in his purpose by the evidence of other texts, which every man discerneth to make plainly for the justification of the truth. By means whereof it hath come to pass, that those translations which have been made of the old Testament by Samaritans and jews, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, who all carried a sting against the Christian faith, yet 
i Hier. Praefat. in job. judaeus, Aquila & judaizantes haeretici, Symmachus & Theodotio sunt recepti, qui multa mysteria salvatoris subdola interpretatione celarunt, & tamen in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habentur apud ecclesias & explanantur ab ecclesiasticis viris Idem praefat. in Esdram & Nehem. ad Domn. & Rogat.  were received and used as helpful and profitable to the Church, because by their industry they cleared many things, and made that truth good in other places which they concealed in some. And worthy it is in this case to be remembered how the heretics of old notwithstanding their mangling and 
k Tert. de prescript. adu. haer. Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam scripturas, & siquas recipit, adiectionibus & detractionibus ad dispositionem instituti sui interuertit. Et cont. Martion. lib. 4. Emendavit quod corruptum existimavit. etc. Cotidiè reformant illud (evangelium) prout à nobis cotidiè revincuntur.  dismembering of the Scriptures, and either altering or racing what they saw to be against them, as Tertullian declareth; yet could not prevail, but that they were still put to their shifts from day to day, and forced still to be changing somewhat, because there was still somewhat left for their conviction and reproof. The grand signors of the students at Rheims thinking good in their traitorous policy not long since to put forth for the time a translation of the new testament, albeit under a most hypocritical pretence of religious care not to serve from their copy, they sought by strange words and phrases, and by dismembered sentences, to obscure and darken the text the uttermost that they could, yet in those places which for shame they could not otherwise translate, have left the same so apparent to justify our doctrine, as that they dare not suffer it to go freely abroad without the poison of their annotations; and commonly they that do read the annotations must by no means presume to touch the text. And hereby it appeareth what the cause is of their quarrel against our translations, not for that they think them so faulty, as they pretend, but only because they cannot abide the vulgar reading of the Scriptures. Or if that be not the cause, why do they not put forth a true translation of their own, if ours be false, that all men having free use thereof may plainly discern what the truth is? But the Reader understanding but the Latin tongue shall easily satisfy himself in this behalf if he compare our English translations with those which some of their own men, Pagnine, Arias Montanus, and others have published in Latin, because he shall plainly discern that there is only sycophancy, and not any solidity or weight, in those cavillations whereby they show themselves aggrieved at our Bibles. As for the objection of uncertainty of faith which the jesuit urgeth by reason of many translations, experience convinceth the folly thereof, because we have had sundry translations by tindal, by Coverdale, by the Genevians, by the Bishops, and yet by them all we have maintained but one faith. Even so in the primitive church there were many translations in Greek, & the Latin translations, as Austin testifieth, 
l Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 11 Qui scripturas ex Hebraea in Graecam verterunt linguam numerari possunt; Latini autem interpretes nullo modo.  were without number, even 
m Hier. praefat. in joshua: Apud Latinos tot exemplaria, quot codices.  as many, saith Hierome, as there were books; and yet we suppose that the jesuit will say that by them all there was taught but one Christian faith. Yea there is a benefit to be made of many translations; if we rightly deem thereof, because they are a great confirmation to a man in that wherein they all agree, and 
n Aug. ut supra cap. 12. Quae quidem res plús aviwat intelligentiam quàm impedit. si modò legentes non sint negligentes; Nam nonnullas obscuriores sententias saepe plurum codicum manifestavit inspectio.  the looking upon many books, saith Austin, often cleareth many obscure sentences wherein they differ. When therefore our new translation shall come forth, the doctrine of faith shall continue the same by the new, as it hath been hitherto by the old: and thou shalt see, gentle Reader, that the old Bibles are not thereby condemned as nought, as this Friar lewdly suggesteth, but as they have been commended unto thee for the sacred word of God, so thou shalt have cause to acknowledge them still, and shalt find that a new translation, is not the making of a new Bible, as he maliciously termeth it, but a justifying and cleared of the old. As for the condemning of our divine service it belongeth not to this place to speak thereof. It is true indeed, that some of our Ministers, by misconstruction of things have undiscreetly found great faults where they needed not. But yet to stop the mouth of this upstart jesuit, let him remember, that Pope Pius the fift reform their Missal, their Breviary and other offices, and generally all their divine service, acknowledging the same 
o Summar. Constitut. praefix. Offic. Beat. Mariae reformat. Omnia ferè huiusmodi officiae reserta esse vanis erroribus superstitio●um.  to have been stuffed with vain errors of superstitions. Lindan and Espenceus confess, that 
p Lindan de opt. gen. interpret. scrip l. 3. ca p 3. Espenc. Digres. in 1. epist. ad Timoth. lib. 1. cap. 11. apud Rainold. Thess. 5.  there are many Apocryphal things thrust thereinto out of the Gopell of Nicodemus and other toys; that there is a false beginning shamefully and ignorantly set before the lecture of the Gospel; that the canon of the Mass and the secrets are beraied with most foul faults; that there are the festivals of some saints whose names happily are scantly well warranted. And what; do they now condemn the divine service which they have commended to the people, & have set forth for holy & good for so many former ages? Of their Bibles we have heard before, and shall I now say to them to whom he spoke before, If these Popes and Popish Bishops and doctors had once deceived you in a money matter, you would beware how you trusted them again; and will you believe them still, they having by their own confession so long deceived you, both in your church-service and in your Bible, commending the one to you as divine service, and the other as God's pure word, and since condemning them both? If he will think us fools to argue in this sort, let him put his hand to his own nose and return the imputation of this folly to himself, remembering that it is an ill bird that beraieth his own nest: and that he should first have looked at home before he had made this wise reason against us. This only by the way, as being impertinent to this place, but by that that hath been said of translations we may beforehand perceive how faint and spiritless M. Bishop's voice will be when the time shall come, which so manfully he threateneth, that he shall exclaim against us as corruptours and depravers of God's sacred word. At the most, it will be but as the cry of a gander amongst the geese, which thrusteth out the neck and hisseth, and happily shaketh a man by the gown, and back again he runneth with a great noise, and is applauded by all the flock as if he had done some valiant & worthy act. It will then appear further that it is rather for form than for matter that he thus babbleth of, perversely mangling the Scriptures, 
Of expounding Scriptures and resolving doubts.  and of our own pewfellows crying out shame upon us. Of resolving doubts and difficulties I have answered him the section last save one. I will not say, as there, only of the ancient church, but setting aside the foolish and idle dream of a privilege resting in the Pope, which is no other but an ambitious usurpation, and a mere Antichristian tyranny subjecting the whole faith of the church to the will and fancy of one wicked man, what means hath the Church of Rome for resolving of doubts, but that we have in any respect as good as they? Yea there are not so many difficulties or doubts in very material points unresolved amongst us as at this day remain questioned & undecided in the Church of Rome. As for ancient Fathers and Counsels they are more truly regarded with us than they are with them. With us they are made to yield only to God and to his word; but with them they must give place to all their sacrilegious and abominable devices. Let the Fathers and Counsels say what they will, yet 
q Bellar. de Sacram. li 2. c. 25. Omnium conciliorum veterum & omnium dogmatum firmitas ab authoritate praesentis ecclesiae dependet.  the authority of them all, and the certainty of all Doctrines must depend upon the authority of their church. As touching that which he saith, that we bear our followers in hand that every faithful man by himself examining the circumstances of the text and comparing other like places, shall find out the right meaning of all obscure sentences, how impudent a lie it is hereby appeareth, for that we do not attribute so much to the industry or learning of any mortal man. We say with Aust. that 
r Aug l●b. 83. quaest. 69 solet circumstantia scripturae illuminare sententiam.  the circumstance of the scripture is wont to give light of the meaning of it: & with Hilary, that 
s Hilar. de Trinit. li. 9 Dictorum intelligentia aut ex praepositis aut ex consequentibus expectatur.  the understanding of the sayings (of Scripture) is to be expected either from that that is gone before, or that that followeth after. We say with Origen, that 
t Origen. count Cells. l 4. Ex ipsius Scripturae locis inter se collatis verum sensum elicimus.  by comparing places of Scripture together, we gather the right sense. But yet neither do we make these the only necessary means for understanding of Scripture, neither do attribute to every faithful man the ability of doing these things; neither do we affirm of any man whatsoever, that by these or any other means he can attain to the understanding of all obscure sentences. And yet we say, that a vulgar faithful man having by plain and evident texts learned the substance of true faith, exercising himself in the reading of the Scriptures, and being assisted by the ministry of the word, may by comparing of places, and examining of circumstances, much further himself for the increase of his knowledge, to his comfort and soul's health. Many are there of that great number of which M. Bishop speaketh, who by such exercise of Scripture, are able to stop his mouth, and to give him good instruction in the mystery of true faith. 
u Ps. 119.105.  The word of God is indeed the lantern to their feet, and the light to their steps, and so far are they from stumbling and falling thereby, as that they 
x vers. 104.  gain by it understanding to hate and abhor all wicked ways.   

20. W. BISHOP.  
Now to make up an even reckoning with M. PER. Atheism, I must come unto their divine service and worship of God, the third point that I promised to handle; because he spared not to speak his pleasure of ours. First then, whereas a true, real, and external sacrifice, is among all external works, the most excellent service that can be done to the divine Majesty, as shall be proved in the question of the sacrifice; which also hath ever since the beginning of the world, been by the best men practised, to acknowledge and testify, aswell the sovereign dominion that God hath over us, as our dutiful subjection unto his almighty goodness: the Protestants to make known unto the wiser sort, that they are not Gods true loy all people, will not vouchsafe to perform to him any such special service, as to sacrifice in his honour: nay they are fallen so far out with this principal part of God's true worship, that they do in despite of it, power out most vile reproaches against the daily sacrifice of the Catholic Church, which containeth the blessed body and most precious blood of our redeemer JESUS Christ. Secondly, of seven Sacraments (instituted by our Saviour, both to exhibit honour to God, and to sanctify our souls) they do flatly reject five of them: And do further (as much as in them lieth) extinguish the virtue and efficacy of the other two. For they hold Baptism not to be the true instrument all cause of remission of our sins, and of the infusion of grace in our souls; but only to be the sign and seal thereof. And in stead of Christ's sacred body, really given to all Catholics in the Sacrament of the Altar, to their exceeding comfort and dignity, the Protestants must be content to take up with a bit of bread, and with a sup of wine: a most pitiful exchange, for so heavenly a banquet. They do daily feel (and I would to God they had grace to understand) what a want they have of the Sacrament of Confession, which is the most sovereign salve of the world, to cure all the deadly and dangerous wounds of the soul. Ah how carelessly do they daily heap sin upon sin, and suffer them to lie festering in their breasts even till death, for lack of lancing them inseason by true and due confession! Besides, at the point of death, when the Devil is most busy to assault us, labouring then to make us his own for ever, there is amongst them no anointing of the sick with holy oil in the name of our Lord, (as S. 
Cap. 5. vers. 14.  james prescribeth) joined with the Priest's prayer, which should save the sick, and by means whereof his sins should be forgiven, and he lifted up by our Lord, and inwardly both greatly comforted and strengthened: these heavenly helps (I say) & many others, which our Catholic religion affords unto all persons, and by which rightly administered, God is highly magnified, are quite banished out of the Protestant territories, and consequently their religion for want of them, is mightily maimed. They have yet remaining some poor short prayers to be said twice a week: for fearing (belike) to make their Ministers surfeit of over much praying, they will not tie them to any daily prayers: Matins, Evensong, and other set hours they leave to the Priests, saving that on the Sabboath they solemnly meet together at the Church, to say their service, which is a certain mingle-mangle, translated out of the old portaise, and Mass book, patched up together with some few of their own invention. And though it be but short, yet it is (the Lord he knows) performed by most of them so slightly, that an indifferent beholder, would rather judge them to come thither to gaze one upon another, or to common of worldly business, than reverently there to serve God. Now as concerning the place where their divine service is said: if goodly stately Churches had not been by men of our religion built to their hands, in what simple coats (trow you) would their keycold devotion have been content to serve their Lord? if one Church or great steeple, by any mishap fall into utter ruin, a collection throughout all England for many years together, will not serve to build it up again: which maketh men of judgement to perceive, that their religion is exceeding cold in the setting forward of good works, and that it rather tendeth to destruction, than to edification. Again, whereas our Churches are furnished with many goodly Altars, trimmed up decently, and garnished with sundry fair and religious pictures, to strike into the beholders a reverent respect of that place, and to draw them to heavenly meditations: theirs have ordinarily bare walls, hanged with cobwebs, except some of the better sort, which are daubed like Alehouses, which some broken sentences of Scripture. Besides, the ancient custom of Christians being to pray with their faces toward the sun-rising, to show the hope they have of a good resurrection, and that by tradition received even from the Apostles, as witnesseth Saint Basil: their Ministers in their highest mysteries, 
De Spiritu sancto. 27.  look over their Communiontable into the South: to signify (perhaps) that their spiritual estate is now at the highest, and that in their religion there is no hope of rising towards heaven, but assurance of declining.   

R. ABBOT.  
Our Divine service and worship of God is not such as the Church of Rome and the followers thereof would have it, but it is sufficient for us, that it is such as God himself hath commanded. Of true, real and external sacrifice, I have answered him before, both in the confutation of his 
a Sect. 27.  Epistle more at large, and briefly here in the 
b Sect. 3.  answer of this Preface. Here I answer him again in a word, with the words of justin Martyr, that 
c justin. Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  prayers and thanksgivings are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God, and that Christians have learned to do these only, even in the memorial of their dry and moist food, (the bread of the Eucharist, and the cup of the Eucharist, as he hath before called it) in which is the remembrance of the passion, which God by God himself suffered for us. So then we do not deny all sacrifice, but we say as we have been taught by the Apostle S. Peter, according to the ancient doctrine of the Church of Rome, 
d 1. Pet. 2 5.  We are made a spiritual house, a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices (the sacrifice 
e Psal. 4.5.  of righteousness, the sacrifice 
f Ps. 50.14.23. Heb. 13.15.  of praise and thanksgiving, the sacrifice 
g Psal. 51.17.  of a broken and contrite heart, the sacrifice 
h Phil. 4.18.  of alms, the sacrifice 
i Rom. 12.1.  of our own bodies) acceptable to God by jesus Christ. By these sacrifices we do all loyalty and service to God, and we do not doubt but that we please God therein. If we please not that wiser sort of which M. Bishop speaketh, the reason is, because they take upon them to be wiser than God. For that propitiatory sacrifice which he driveth at, is beyond God's device; God never taught it, Christ never ordained it, the Primitive Church never intended it, there is no reason at all for it, because the blood of Christ once shed for us, is a sufficient propitiation and atonement for all our sins. And because by 
k Heb. 1.3. & 10.14.  once offering of himself, he hath purged our sins, and made us perfect for ever, therefore it is no despite to God's true worship, but a just assertion thereof, to hold that the pretence of any further sacrifice for sin, is an impious and blasphemous derogation to the cross of Christ. As for his seven Sacraments, 
Seven Sacraments a late device.  if he can prove them to be, as he saith, instituted by our Saviour, we are very ready to acknowledge the same. But it is worthy to be noted, that 
l Bellarm. de effect. sacram. cap. 25.  Bellarmine standing upon the proof thereof, cannot bring so much as one man within the compass of eleven hundred years after Christ, that ever reduced the Sacraments to that number. And shall not we well deserve to be written upon the backside of the book of Wisdom, if we shall take that for a principle of Christian religion, which came first out of their school, & for the space of more than a 1000 years was never so known in the church of Christ? The Apostle 
m 1. Cor. 10.1.2. etc.  when he will show the Church of the Israelites to have been equal to us in grace of Sacraments, instanceth the same only in our two sacraments, because he knew no more. And no more did the ancient Fathers know, who universally holding the same mystery of the creation of the woman out of the side of Adam being asleep; namely, that 
n Aug. in Psal. 56. Dormienti Christo in cruse facta est coniux de latere: percussum est enim latus pendent is de lancea et pr●fluxerunt Ecclesiae Sacramenta: & in joan. tract 15.  thereby was figured the framing of the Church by Sacraments out of the side of Christ being dead, when being pierced, there issued out of it 
o joh. 19.34. 1. joh. 5.6.  water and blood, do name those Sacraments as we do, 
p Aug. de symbol ad Catechun. lib. 2. c. 6. Sanguis & aqua quae sunt Ecclesiae gemina sacramenta. Chrysost. in joan. hom. 84. Theophy. in joan. 19 Cyprian. de passione Christi. Of the effects of the Sacraments.  two only and no more. Whereas he saith that we extinguish the virtue and efficacy of those two sacraments, it is only his blind conceit. We deny not but that the Sacraments are instruments of grace and of remission of sins, and yet we deny them to be so in that sort as is affirmed by the church of Rome, namely, as to give grace ex opere operato, for the very work wrought, as the Schoolmen speak. It is worthily observed by Saint Austin, that 
q Aug. in joan. tract. 80. A●cedat verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum, etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum.  a Sacrament is as it were a visible word, because by it in way of signification, God as it were speaketh the same to the eye & other senses, which by the word he soundeth to the ear. Yea he affirmeth that the outward element of itself is nothing, but it is by the word that it hath whatsoever power it hath. 
r Ibid. Quare non ait, Nunc mundi estis propter baptismum quo loti estis, sed ait, propter verbum quod locutus sum vobis, nisi quia & in aqua verbum mundat. Detrahe verbum & quid est aqua nisi aqua? & mox● unde ista tanta virtus aquae ut corpus tangat & cor abluat nifi saciente verbo? Non quia dicitur, sed quia creditur.  Why doth not Christ say. Now are ye clean by the baptism wherewith yea are washed, but by the word which I have speaken to you, but because in the water it is the word that cleanseth? Take away the word, and what is water but water? Whence is it that the water hath so great power to touch the body and to wash the heart, but that the word doth it? and that, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed? Now if the Sacrament have all his virtue and efficacy from the word, and the word have his power, not for that it is spoken, but for that it is believed, we must conceive the same of the Sacrament also, that the effect thereof standeth not in being applied by the hand of the minister, but in being believed by the faith of the receiver, God both by the one and by the other ministering and increasing faith, and the holy Ghost accompanying both the one and the other to do that that is believed. Thus is baptism a sign of representation to the understanding, and seal of confirmation to faith, effectually delivering to the believer through the holy Ghost the grace of God and the remission of all his sins. And why doth it trouble M. Bishop that we make baptism in this sort only a sign and a seal, when as though signs and seals be not the things themselves, yet by signs and seals men are wont to be entitled and invested to the things signified and sealed? And hath not the Apostle himself taught us thus to speak? Gregory Bishop of Rome saith, that 
s Greg. Moral. lib. 4. c. 3. Quod apud nos vales aqua Baptismatis, hoc egit apud veteres vel pro paruulis sola fides, vel pro maioribus virtus Sacrificij, vel pro his qui ex stirpe Abrahae prodierant mysterium circumcisionis.  what the water of baptism doth with us, the same did the mystery of circumcision with the seed of Abraham. But of circumcision the Apostle saith thus, 
* Rom. 4.11. The real eating of Christ a gross fancy.  Abraham received the sign of circumcision as the seal of the righteousness of faith. Baptism therefore must be to us, the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. Their doctrine of real eating the body of Christ importeth no matter of comfort and dignity, but a carnal, rude and profane fancy. 
t Cyril. ad Euopt. count reprehends. Theodor. anath. 11. Num hominis comestionem nostrum ho● sacramentum pronuntias, & irreligiose ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem, & attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae sola pura & inexquisita fide accipiuntur?  Dost thou, saith Cyril, pronounce our Sacrament to be the eating of a man, and irreligiously urge the minds of them that believe to gross imaginations, and assay to handle by human conceits those things which are to be received by only pure and undoubted faith? Christ indeed is not the food of the belly, but of the mind, and therefore, 
u Cyprian de caena dom. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide syncerae panem sanctum frangim us & partimur.  we do not whet our teeth to bite, but with sincere faith we break and divide the sacred bread, saith Cyprian; because 
x August in joan. tract. 26. Credere in Christum, hoc est menducare paenem viwm.  to believe in Christ, saith Austin, that is to eat the bread of life; and 
y john 6.54.56.  he that thus eateth the flesh of Christ and eternal life, and Christ shall raise him up at the last day. And because we thus teach that spritually and by faith we eat the very body of Christ and drink his blood, as always, so specially in that special help of faith which God hath ministered unto us in the supper of the Lord, and that thereby we grow more and more into communion and fellowship with him to become partakers of the riches of his grace to immortality and everlasting life; therefore we do not take up with a bit of bread and asuppe of wine, as this taverne-companion profanely speaketh, but very truly and faithfully we deliver the fruit and effect of this heavenly banquet. Which is not a heavenly banquet, as he teacheth it, but a gross Capernaitish error & earthly fancy, nor any matter of comfort to us, because it is no comfort to have Christ in our bellies but in our hearts, nor any dignity to us, but a horrible indignity to Christ himself, who by this means is made subject to be eaten of dogs and swine and mice and other vile creatures, as they most damnably affirm, as hath been 
z Answer to the epistle. sect. 14. Auricular confession a mere superstition.  before declared. Confusion of our sins we make daily to God, and we teach men in trouble of conscience to ease their wounds by opening them, as to other men when occasion requireth, so specially to the minister of God's word, to receive instruction and comfort towards God. As for their Popish confession devised by the Schoolmen, requiring a necessary and particular enumeration of all sins, it is merely superstitious, and serveth either to snare and halter the consciences of men, or to nourish and harden them in sin. M. Bishop magnifieth the effect thereof, but indeed playeth the hypocrite therein, because he well knoweth that there is no where less piety and devotion, no where more profaneness and filthiness than in Spain and Italy, where confession is most strictly & severely required. What fruits it bringeth forth amongst them he must give us leave to think, though we are loath to speak, only I say with the words of the Apostle; 
a Eph. 5.12. Extreme unction devised by heretics.  It is a shame even to name the things that are done of them in secret. Their extreme unction, which he mentioneth next, was the device of the Valentinian heretics and 
b Aug. haer. 16. feruntur suos morientes novo modo quasi redimere, per oleum, balsamum & aquam; & invocationes quas Hebraicis verbis dicunt super capita eorum. Epiphan. haer. 36. ut qui has invocationes in vitae exitu accipiunt, cum aqua & oleo aut vnguento permixtis incomprehensibiles fiant & invisibiles supernis potestatibus & principatibus.  Heracleonites, who took upon them in the like sort by anointing at the point of death, to give men expiation of their sins, and to arm them against the adversary powers. He allegeth Saint james for the proof of it, whereas the unction of which Saint james speaketh, was the restoring of the party to health by 
c 1. Cor. 12.9.  the gift of healing, accordingly as is said of the Apostles, 
d Mark. 6.13.  They anointed many that were sick with oil, and healed them. But their unction hath no intendment of healing, being only administered when no other is expected but certain death. Let them show us what warrant they have to apply that to one end that was appointed to another. It was a miraculous gift proper to that time, and idly should we retain the sign when we have no power to do the thing. Next he cometh to our prayers, in derogation whereof, considering their own prayers, he would have been ashamed to say any thing, 
Our prayers and service more holy than the Papists.  but that it is a shame with them to be ashamed. Our prayers are so disposed as is most convenient for public order in the Church. We pray in our own tongue, as the 
e 1. Cor. 14.15.  Apostle teacheth us, that we may understand what we pray. We know that God respecteth not the length of our prayers but our devotion and faith; and therefore our prayers are many and short, like those of 
f Aug. ep. 121. cap. 10. Dicunterfratres in A●g●pto crel●●at qu●d●m habere oralio● n●● sed eas tamen ●●uissimas & 〈◊〉 quodammodo ●aculata●●●per productiores moras evanescat atque hebetetur intentio.  the Christian Moonkes in Egypt which Saint Austin mentioneth, wherein were few words, but abundance of spirit; and these are intermingled with reading of the word of God, in such sort as may best serve for the continuance of our intention and affection. As for Popish prayers they are in a tongue which the people understandeth not; they sit present at them mute and brute; they hear a sound, but they know not whether he that speaketh do bless or curse; whether he speak to God or the devil; and because they ask nothing of God, they depart empty as they come. Their Matins, their Evensong, and other set hours, they merit ex opere operato; whether they have devotion, or no devotion, God is beholding to them for their very pains. They pray to Saints in stead of God, and make them their Mediators, and have more hope to prevail by them than by the true Mediator jesus Christ. Such praying we are content indeed to leave to their Priests, and what they win thereby they shall have our good will to wear. Whereas he saith that our service is a mingle-mangle translated out of the old Portaise and Mass-book, he forgot to use his words aright. For the Portesse and the Mass-book are in truth the minglemangle; wherein they have packed together religion and superstition, piety and idolatry, and with the ancient service of the primitive Church have blended many absurdities and abominations of their own device. Therefore the composers of our Church service, because they minded not to set up a new Church, but only to reform the Church, did take a course accordingly, not to set forth another Service, but to reform that that was, and to expunge those corruptions which the abomination of desolation had brought into it. They gathered the pearls out of the muck whereinto they were thrown: what was consonant to the word of God and agreeable to the example of the purest antiquity, that they made choice of, and have translated it into our book, the other filth they left for swine, that will needs so be, to wallow in. The performance of our Service, I doubt not, wanteth much of that devotion and thankfulness which we should yield to God, who so graciously hath vouchsafed us the light of his truth; but yet ill doth it beseem a cripple to upbraid another with a lame leg. Let Platina tell us with what reverence and devotion divine service is done in the Church of Rome. 
g Plat. de vit. Pont in Stephano. 3. Nune adeò refrixit pietas & religio, non dico nudu pedibus, sed caligati & cothurnati vix supplicare dignantur. Non Flent inter eundum vel dum satrificatur, sed rident, & quidem impudenter: de his etiam loquor quos purpura insigniores facit. Non hymnos canunt, id enim servile videtur, sed iocos & fabulas ad risum concitandum inter se narrant. Quid plura? quò quis dicacior est & petulantior, eò maiorem in tam corruptis moribus laudem meretur, severos et graves viros reformidat hic noster clerus.  Now is piety and religion waxen very cold, I will not say barefooted, but having on their hose and buskins they scant vouchsafe to kneel down to pray. They weep not as they go, or whilst the sacrify is in hand, but they laugh, and that impudently; even of them I speak whom their purple robes make more eminent than others. They sing not the hymns; for that seemeth too base a matter, but they tell jests and tales to make one another laugh. What should I say any more? the more prattling and wanton a man is, so much the more commendation hath he in this corruption of manners. This Clergy of ours is afraid of stayed and grave men. Now if the Clergy of Rome be such, M. Bishop, I trow, of his courtesy will bear with us, if some such ungracious and reckless people be found amongst us. The best is, he is not present to see any such matter, and therefore upon his own surmise may be likely to tell a lie. If he were present in our congregations, specially in towns & cities, I doubt not but he should see examples enough of them, who say of the Church as jacob did of Bethel; 
h Gen. 28.16.17.  How fearful is this place! this is no other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven: surely the Lord is in this place; and therefore address themselves as Cornelius did when he was to hear the preaching of Peter; 
i Act. 10.33.  We are all heerepresent before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. Concerning the place where our divine service is said, he asketh; If goodly stately Churches had not been built to their hands by men of our religion, in what simple coats, trow you, would their keycold denotion have been content to serve their Lord? And why their Lord? What, M. Bishop, is he not your Lord as well as ours? But it is true indeed that you have another Lord, whom you have styled, 
k Extravag. joan. 22. Cum inter. in glossa. Dominus deus noster papa.  Our Lord God the Pope, and must we think that your service is done to him? But if we had had no other but simple coats wherein to serve God, we suppose our devotion should have been as well accepted as in goodly and stately Churches. The time was when the Apostles and first Christians did serve God in simple coats, and in the times of 
l Arnob. count gent. lib. 6. Origen. contra Cel. l. 3. & 7.  Arnobius and Origen, the Pagans upbraided them with the want of stately Churches, and yet M. Bishop I think will not say but that they served God as religiously as now they do in the church of Rome. Stately Temples, as they are sometimes the fruits of true devotion, so they are sometimes matters of ambitious ostentation, and sometimes the dotages of abominable superstition. Herod the King, even he that would have murdered our Saviour when he was but new borne, to show his royalty and magnificence, and to gain favour of the jews builded 
m joseph. Antiquit. Iuda●. li. 15. c. 14.  the Temple of jerusalem most gloriously, and far more nearly to the pattern of salomon's Temple, than when after the captivity they restored it the second time, so as that we see the Disciples in the Gospel admiring 
n Mar. 13.1. Luk. 21 5.  the goodly stones and buildings of it. Origen mentioneth, 
o Origen. count Cells. li. 3. Splendida sana cum lucis & templa cum vestibulis & porticibus eximia magnitudine atque pulchritudine mirandis: introgressus autem videbit adorari felem aut simiam, etc.  the goodly Chapels and Temples of the Egyptians with their entries and porches, admirable for their marvelous greatness and fairness, into which when ye were come, ye should see them worship a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog. The Temple 
p Act. 19.27.  of Diana was a most goodly thing and renowned thorough the whole world. And surely what M. Bishop now saith to us, the same might the Pagans have said to our forefathers when they were first Christians. They might have asked them in what simple coats they would have served Christ, if men of their religion had not builded to their hands goodly Temples, which by 
q Greg li. 9 ep. 71. Fana idolorum in eadem gente aestrui minin è debent etc. si fana eadem benè constructa sunt, necesse est ut à cultu dae monum in obsequium veri dei debeant commutari.  Gregory's advice were turned to Christian Churches, as in other places also 
r Lib. 2. indict. 11. ep. 19 Loca quondam execrandu erroribus deputata in Catholicae religionis reverentiam dedicare.  he signifieth they did the like. Now if Pagans in this respect were not inferior to Papists, than it is not to be a question by whom Churches were built, but by whom they are rightly used. By whomsoever they were built, we now use them for the exercise of true religion to the glory of God; neither is our religion so cold in the setting forward of good works, but that whether by collections or otherwise we maintain and uphold both Church and steeple, thanks be to God, to that use, and we hope shall so do to their grief and sorrow until the world's end. Neither is it any disgrace to our times that collections are now generally made to such ends and purposes, but rather a commendation that so many are now found so ready to contribute to such acts of piety, which M. Bishop will have us think were done in former times only by some few. The widows 
s Mar 12.42.  two mites were more with God than the great offerings of the rich men; and we hope that the small helps which we severally give according to our ability for the maintenance of God's service, are as well accepted with God, as the magnificence of them, who out of their abundance and superfluity have performed so great acts themselves alone. These mites being put together do that, thanks be to God, that is necessary to be done: and I think it is more than M. Bishop can justify, that they did not in those times whereof he speaketh, use such general collections for the doing of the like things. Whether they did or not, it skilleth not; we know that 
t Exo. 35.5.21.  the Tabernacle of God was built in effect by such collections, and God promised to dwell in it; and we doubt not but he is also present with us in our Tabernacles which by such means are maintained to serve him. To be short, that they by whom churches were built since the faith of Christ here received were all of their religion, is but a vain presumption of M. Bishop, and a mere untruth, as in part hath been declared 
u Answer to the Epistle. sect. 31.36.  before, and hereafter, if God will, upon another occasion shall appear further. As for his other quarrel, that we have in our churches neither Altars nor Images, it pleaseth us the better, for that we find the same also objected to the first Christians by 
x Celsus apud Origen. count Cells. l. 7. Non ferunt templa & arras & statuas inspicere. & lib. 8. Celsus ait, nos ararum, statuarum, templorumque dedicationes fugere.  Celsus the Pagan. We like well to be unlike to the Church of Rome, so that we may be like to them. For M. Bishop we know him to be a man much delighted with babies, a trim gilded Rood, and a goodly fair Lady, they are the joy of his heart. Let God say what he will, that 
y Esay 44 10.  the Image is profitable for nothing, and that 
z jerem. 10.8.  the stock is a doctrine of vanity, yet he will not be persuaded but that the sight of these goodly Idols is the only way to procure heavenly meditation. As for sentences of Scripture to be set up upon the Church walls, that is but daubing; it is but Alehouse fashion, and no heavenly meditation groweth thereof. But may we not think that he came from the Alehouse when he wrote this, and that he is indeed fit for an Alehouse than for the Church? What, must we think that the looking upon a dumb and dead stock is fit to move heavenly meditation than the lively word of God? But we see his meaning well enough; it is this Scripture that troubleth him; his stomach can by no means brook this Scripture; to have God's commandment written upon the church walls, as by order it is appointed: 
a Exod. 20.4.  Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, etc. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them, etc. This is it that galleth him to the soul; this is it that vexeth him in behalf of his fair and religious pictures, that no bowing down, no holy and religious worship may be done to them. But it is nothing to us that we offend him. God himself, who said of his Commandments, 
b Deut. 6.9.  Thou shalt write them upon the posts of thine house, and upon thy gates, did not think it Alehouse fashion to have them written upon Church-walles: but that we should set up Altars and Images in our Churches, we do not find any warrant to have come from him. His last exception is very idle. It was the ancient custom of Christians to pray with their faces towards the East. So is it ours also, as appeareth usually in all our Churches. Yea but our Ministers in their highest mysteries look into the South. Well, and so is it alleged by Bishop jewel, that 
c Bish jewel. Reply. art. 3. Diuis. 26.  at this day in the great Churches at Milan, Naples, Lions, Mentz and Rome, and in the Church of Saint Laurence in Forence, the Priest in his service standeth towards the West, having his face full upon the people, and that hereupon Durand saith, that in such places the Priest needeth not to turn himself round when he saith, Dominus vobiscum, and saluteth the people, as otherwise he is wont to do. And why not our Ministers towards the South, as well as theirs towards the West? Will he have us to conclude hereof, that their religion is now declining and going down? If not, let him acknowledge then the folly of his own collection, that our spiritual state is now at the highest, and that in our religion there is no hope of rising towards heaven, but assurance of declining. Albeit I must advertise him briefly, that true religion, whereby the Sun of righteousness shineth unto us, and whereby we rise to heaven, hath been subject to such condition, to be sometimes rising, sometimes at the height, and sometimes declining again, yea sometimes wonderfully eclipsed and hidden in a manner quite out of sight; yet notwithstanding it never had such a fall, but that, as the sun, it hath had a time to rise again. But the whore of Babylon, the persecutor of true religion, albeit she have flattered herself in the security of her state, and said of herself, 
d Revel. 18.7.  I sit like a Queen and am no widow, and shall see no mourning; yet she hath begun to fall, and notwithstanding the props and stays that her lovers use to hold her up, shall fall daily more and more, never to rise again, God having so foretold us, that 
e Vers. 21.  as a millstone, she shallbe cast with violence into the sea, thenceforth to be found no more.   

21. W. BISHOP.  
I may not here omit, that of late years they have caused the King's arms to be set up in the place, where Christ's arms the Crucifix was wont to stand: the which I confess would have graced their Church better, if it had been elsewhere placed. But I hope they will give me leave to ask them, how they durst set up any such Images in their Churches, as be in that arms. For they have taught hitherto, that it is expressly against the second commandment, and a kind of Idolatry, not only to worship Images; but also to set them up in Churches: and yet now (as it were) clean for getting themselves, they fall into that fault themselves, that they have so much blamed in others. Neither will it help them to say, that they reproved only the setting up of holy pictures, but not of others. For the second commandment (as they expound it) is aswell against the one as the other, forbidding generally the making of any kind of Image. And is it not a pitiful blindness to think, that the pictures of Lions; and Liberts, do better become the house of God, than the Image of his own Son, and of his faithful servants? And may not simple people think, when they see Christ's arms cast down, and the Princes set up in their place, that there dwell men, who make more account of their Prince's honour, than they do of Christ's? And that their meeting in that place (call it what you will) is rather to serve their Prince, than to serve Christ. But I have been longer in their place of prayer than I thought.   

R. ABBOT.  
The King is a great mote in M. Bishop's eye, and therefore he could not here pass by without a quarrel to the King's arms. 
The King's arms lawfully set up in our Churches, and not popish images.  We have placed, he saith, the King's arms where Christ's arms the Crucifix was wont to stand. But who made M. Bishop a herald to assign arms to Christ, and that without any privity or liking of Christ himself? Did Christ ever tell him or any man else that he meant to give a Crucifix for his arms? This is a fantastical imagination, neither did Christ take course by a picture but by the word of the Gospel, to be 
a Gal. 3.1.  described before our eyes as crucified amongst us. But if the Crucifix be but Christ's arms, why do they worship the Crucifix, 
b See of Images, sect. 14.  as Christ himself? Were it not a thing absurd, for a man to give the King's honour to the King's arms? We have therefore pulled down the Crucifix, as being made an Idol and worshipped in stead of Christ, and in place thereof for the ornament of our Churches we have set up the King's arms, as being the defender of the faith of Christ. But we have taught that it is against God's commandment to set up in Churches any such Images as are in the King's arms. But therein he saith untruly, for we have always taught, that the commandments of the first table concern matter of religion and devotion, and require the same to be performed to God only. The second commandment therefore condemneth all Images that are made or set up for exercise of religion; but historical and civil use of Images it condemneth not, neither doth he find any one of us so to expound it, as generally to forbid the making of any Image, as he hath before understood by our consent set down by M. Perkins in the beginning of that question. Further, he questioneth out of his sweet womanly devotion, is it not a pitiful blindness to think that the pictures of Lions and Libberts do better become the house of God, than the Image of his own Son and of his faithful servants? But doth his wisdom think that Solomon was blind when he made in the Temple of God the pictures and Images of Lions and Bulls, of Flowers and palm-trees, and made no Images of Abraham, Isaac, jacob, and other holy men that were before him? It was never seen, but in times notoriously condemned 
c See of Images sect. 17.  for Idolatry, that ever the Image of any man was set up in the Temple of God: and is not this poor man in a pitiful case, that holdeth all those just and righteous Fathers that lived in those times to have been but blind men, because they would not be partakers of his folly? They are therefore such wise men as he himself is that make the collection that he doth: but as for us we yield such honour and service to our Prince as God requireth us to do, not setting up our Prince in the place of God as they do the Pope, but obeying him under God and for God's sake, whom God hath placed over us, and who seeketh no otherwise to govern us but by the word of God.   

22. W. BISHOP.  
I come now to the men that are elected to serve the Lord there. Be not many of them (for the whole corpse I will not touch) such as jeroboam was glad to choose, when he made a Schism in Israel: to wit, de extremis populi, qui non erant de filijs Levi: not lawful successors of the true Priests, but others of the base sort of the people, and them commonly that are notable, either for ignorance or some other odd quality? and must they not also fill their good patrons hands with some feeling commodity, before they can get a benefice? And so beginning with simony, linked with perjury (for the poor fellows must nevertheless swear, that they come freely to their benefice) are they not like to proceed on holily? As for the vow of chastity, the daily service and often fasting, which Catholic Priests are bound unto; they by the sweet liberty of the new Gospel, do exchange into solacing themselves with their yoke-fellows: this of the common sort of their Ministers. With their preachers I will not meddle for fear of offence▪ yet if any desire to know how they behave themselves in other countries, they may read the censure of a zealous learned preacher, one of their own companions; who amongst many other things writeth thus of them. 
Menno l. de Christ fide. titul. de fide mulieris Cananeae.  When you come to preachers, who brag that they have the word of God, you shall find certain of them manifest liars, others drunkards, some usurers and foul-mouthed slanderers, some persecutors and betrayers of harmless persons. How some of them behave themselves, and by what means they get their wives, and what kind of wives they have, that I leave to the Lord and them. They live an idle, slothful and voluptuous life: by fraud and flattery they feed themselves of the spoils of Antichrist (he meaneth the benefices taken from the Papists) and do Preach just as the earthly and carnal Magistrate desireth to hear, and will permit, etc. So much, and not a little more, speaketh one great Master of the late refermation, concerning his evangelical brethren. Are not these goodly lamps of the new Gospel, and likely persons to be chosen by Christ, to give light to others, and to reform the world● But peradventure they have in some secret corners, certain devout religious souls, who in an austere retired life, do with continual tears bewail the sins of the rest, and make incessant suit unto the Almighty, for a general pardon of the whole. Would to God they had, but I fear me that they be of their invisible congregati●o, or rather none such to be found amongst them. For those neligious houses, which our Ancestors had built for such godlyrand virtuous people, who (forsaking both father, mother, all their kin and acquaintance, and flying from all the pleasures and preferments, which this transitory world could yield them) gave themselves wholly to the holy exercises of humility, chastity, poverty, and all sorts of mortification: these Monasteries (I say) and all that professed in them a retired religious life, the Protestants have beaten down and banished, and have not in their places erected any other, for the singular godly men or women of their religion; Which doth most evidently argue, that there is in them small zeal, and rare practice, of any such extraordinary piety and devotion. Surely it must needs be a strange Christian congregation, that holdeth them for no tolerable members of their commonweal, whom Christ specially chooseth to serve him day and night; and by whose holy example and most fervent prayers, all other Christians do find themselves much edified, and mightily protected. So that briefly, whether you consider the persons that serve God, or the place where he is served, or the manner of his divine sernice, the Catholic religion doth in every point surpass the Protestant by many degrees. Thus much in answer unto Master PERKINS objection of Atheism against us, the which I esteemed fittest for this Preface, being a matter of so great moment, and therefore most worthy to be examined and considered of apart, with mature judgement. Now to the rest of his questions, according to his own order.   

R. ABBOT.  
There hath been an old fable of 
a Plutarth. de curiositate.  Lamia a Witch, who always when she was at home put up her eyes in a box, & remained blind, but when she was to go abroad, she would always put her eyes in her head, that she might see all things. M. Bishop is very like to that ill-favoured witch, 
Comparison of the English and Romish Clergy.  having his eyes open abroad with us, to see every default, but being blind at home, and not discerning the abominable filthiness and beastly sluttery of the house wherein he himself dwelleth. I doubt not, but he is a man of a naughty mind, to speak contrary to that that he thinketh; but I do not hold him so very a fool, as that he thinketh any part of the Clergy of the church of Rome worthy to be compared to the Clergy of the Church of England. Somewhat happily he meaneth to that purpose when he saith, The whole corpse I will not touch, thereby importing that he taketh his advantage of some unsufficient and evil disposed men, and by them seeketh to cast some aspersion of infamy upon all the rest. But we know, that 
b 2. Tim. 2.20.  in a great house are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of stone, some to honour and some to dishonour: and that not only in other callings, but in the ministery itself, as 
c Matth 10.4.  judas amongst the twelve apostles, as 
d Act. 6.5. Reu. 2.15.  Nicolas amongst the seven Deacons, as the 
e Act. 20.30.  sect-makers which the Apostle foretold should arise from amongst the Elders of the Church of Ephesus; as in all times there have been not only true Pastors which feed the sheep, but also 
f joh. 10.12.  hirelings, which 
g Rom. 16.18.  serve their own bellies, and 
h Ezec. 34.2.  feed themselves; and 
i joh. 10.1.10.  thieves, who enter into the sheepfold, not by the door, but by the window; and 
k Esay 56.10.  blind watchmen, 
l Matt. 15.14.  blind guides, who lead the blind into the ditch. It is no marvel therefore if amongst us there be some, even de extremis populi, of the very basest of the people, who by stealth and sinister practice, through either the negligence or corruption of some, to whom the care thereof is committed, contrary to laws & orders in that behalf provided, do creep into the Ministry of the church, & make that their refuge for a living, because being idle beasts and slow bellies, they have no other means thereof, and therefore having the curse of the sons of Eli lying upon them, are ready 
m 1. Sa. 2.36.  to bow down for a piece of silver, and for a morsel of bread, and for forty shillings a year to take upon them the service of a Church. These are likely men for simoniacal patrons & cheaters of churches to deal withal, being most likely to fill their hands, as M. Bishop saith, with feeling commodity for the obtaining of benefices, which by merit and desert they cannot attain unto. Yea & of Preachers also, with whom, he saith, he will not meddle for fear of offence, yet we know & confess that there are not wanting some, who have more learning than conscience, & do dishonour the calling by which they receive honour, 
n 1. Sam. 2.30.  whom God will despise, because they have despised him. Menno therefore, whom he citeth, might see some cause to complain of certain or some preachers, accordingly as of old the Prophets taxed the enormities and abuses 
o ●sa. 56.10.11. jer. 2.8.  of the Priests and Prophets; albeit who or whence he was I know not, or what occasion there was of speaking that which he doth; he was of another country, and that that he saith, appertaineth not to us. But what are all these things to the botches and sores of the Church of Rome? how spotless is our Clergy in comparison of theirs? He that would pull their Popes out of their kennels, and lead them along in show, should set forth such a generation of monsters, as the world, save them, hath never seen the like. Their Cardinals were such as that Clemangis saith of them, that 
p Clemang. de corrupto eccl. statu. Si artifex quisque vellet superbiae simulachrum effingère, nulla congruentius ratione id facere posset, quàm Cardinalis effigiem oculis intuentium obiectando, etc. Quis immensam & inextricabilem voraginem ipsorum concupiscentiae verbis aequare valeat, etc. Beneficia possident non quidem duo vel tria, decem vel viginti, sed centena, & ducentena, & interdum usque ad quadringenta vel quingenta aut amplius, nec perva vel tenuia, sed omnium pinguissima & optima, etc. Quantumcunque ad numerum ●ue summam venerint, ad ampliorem festinant.  if a man would set forth a picture of pride, he could not more fitly do it, than by the picture of a Cardinal; that no man could by words express the unmeasurable and bottomless gulf of their covetous desire, not being contented with two or three benefices, or ten or twenty, but having a hundred, two hundred, yea four or five hundred and above, and those not small ones, but the fattest and best, and how many soever they had, yet gaping still for more. Which insatiable covetousness of theirs, was so gross and infamous, as that the Pope himself, Benedict the twelfth, being moved to make more Cardinals, answered, 
q Illyric. Catalogue. test. verit. p. 447. Libentèr se●d facturum si modò nowm mundum creare posset; nam hunc qui iam existat vix praesentibus Cardinalibus sufficere.  that he would so do if he could make another world; but that this world was scant enough for the Cardinals that were made already. Clemangis further noteth, how 
r Clemang. ut supra. Quis nesciat sectionis schismaticae horrendam pestem per nequitiam Cardinalium in ecclesiae gremium iniectam, etc. Transeo S●moniacas apud papam inter●essiones; patrocinia venalia; corruptiones aut promotiones turpissimas & damnatissimas, quae omnes ferè istis authoribus & suasoribus fiebant, etc. Nec enumerare volo corum adulteria, stupra, fornicationes, quibus Romanam curiam etiam nunc incestant, etc. Necrefero usuras, etc. qua ex causa nummularios supremae tabulae non incongruentèr eos quidam vocant.  by their wickedness horrible chisme was brought into the Church; he mentioneth their Simoniacal intercessions to the Pope; their selling of their favours for money; their most shameful and damnable corruptions, the adulteries, whoredoms and fornications, wherewith they defiled the court of Rome; their usury in the highest degree. As touching their Bishops he reporteth, that 
s Ibid. in seq. Nalli eruditi virs, nulli probi, justi, virtuosos ad suprema dign: tatum fafiigia veniebant, se● ambitiosi quique, adulatores, histrionici, ommbus vitijs imbuts. Quotusquisque bodiè est ad Pontificale culmen ●uectus qui sacras velperfunctoriè literas legerit, audierit, didicerit, imò qui sacrum codicem nisi tegumento tenui unquam attigerit, cùm tamen jure iurando illas in sua institutione se nosse confirment.  no learned men, none good, just, virtuous, attained to that high dignity, but ambitious persons, flatterers, stageplaiers, and men defiled with all vices; that there was scant a man preferred to be a Bishop that had but even lightly read, heard, or learned the holy Scriptures, yea, that had so much as touched that holy book, save only the cover, albeit they took their oath at their institution that they had knowledge of them. Bernard also mentioneth, that even in his time 
t Bernard epist. 42. Scholar's pueri & impuberes adolescentuli ob sanguinis dignitatem promoventur ad ecclesiasticas dignitates, & de sub ferula transferuntur ad principandum presbyteris; laetieres' interim quòd virgas tuaserint, quàm quòd meruerint principatum; nec tam illis blanditur adeptum, quàm ademp●ū magisterum.  Schoolboys, and beardless youths, were promoted to ecclesiastical dignities, and from the ferula were exalted to bear rule over Priests; such as were more glad that they had escaped the rod, than that they had obtained their preferment; and ioied more that they were come from being under masters, than that they themselves were become masters. The behaviour of these Bishops Clemangis further describeth, that 
u Clemang. ut supra. Non quidem ammarum sed crumenarum potius quaestum ubique explorant etc. Nihil omnino agunt, nisi quod ad colligendam quacunque ex oceasione pecuniam suffragan posse crediderint, etc. Multò aequanimiùs laturi ●acturam decem millium animarum quàm dece● aut duodecim solidorum, etc. Nullus ad cler●●atum vel ad sacrum ordinem, vel ad quemcunque gradum ecclesiasticum nisi mercede accedit. Omnes quotquot advenerint nullo aut parvo admodum discrimine ad eos quos petierint titulos admittunt, nisi fortè siqui adeò egestate premuntur ut soluendo non sint Nulla de anteacta vita percunctatio est, etc. De literis verò & doctrina quid loqui attinet, cùm omnes fere Pre●byteros sine aliquo captu aut rerum aut vocabulorum morosè syllabatimque vix legere videamus, etc. Si aliqua beneficia suae sint dispositions devoluta pro quaestu ea conferunt, vel fuis ea spurns & histrionibus donant.  they every where sought the gaining not of souls but of money; doing nothing but what might serve their turn to gather money, taking in much better part the loss of ten thousand souls, than of ten or twelve shillings, admitting none to sacred orders or to any degree of the church, but only for money; refusing none in a manner, but only such as were so poor, that they could not pay money: (no question of their life, no question of their learning; so that their Priests for the most part could very hardly read, having no understanding at all, either of the things which they read, or of the words:) bestowing for money their benefices which they had to bestow, or upon their bastards and stageplayers. 
x Specul. eccles. Pontif. ex Alvaro Pelag. de Planctu ecclesiae. Vix credo, maximè in Hispania, quòd de centum episcopis sit unus qui non sit Simoniacus in ordinibus & beneficijs conferendu.  I scant think, faith Aluarus Pelagius, that of a hundred Bishops, there is one that doth not practise simony in bestowing of orders and benefices. And whereas M. Bishop twiteth our Ministers with solacing themselves with their yoke-fellows, Clemangis again telleth, that 
y Clemang. ibid. Rectores parochiarum in plerisque dioecesibus ex cer●o & condicto cum suis praelatis pretio passim & publicè concubinas tenent.  their Bishops for a certain fee did give licence to their parish Priests every where and openly to keep Concubines: which 
z Sleidan. Comment. two. 4 Scire se Germaniae Episcoporum hunc esse morem, ut accepta pecu●ia scortationem suis permittant.  Cardinal Campegius also confessed, that the Bishops of Germany were accustomed to do: that 
a Clemang. Passim & inverecundè prolem ex meretricio susceptam, & scorta vice coniugum domi tenent.  their Canons and Chaplains openly and shamelessly kept their bastards and harlots in house with them. Yea Theodoric de Niem saith further, that 
b Theodor. de Niem. In eisdem etiam partibus Hiberniae & Norwegiae juxta consuetudines patriae licet Episcopis & Presbyteris tenere publicè concubinas, & eisdem visitantibus bis in anno subditos sibi Presbyteros etc. suam dilectam ducere secum ad domes & hospitia corundem subditorum presbyterorum; nec ipsa dilecta permittit episcopum ●masium visitare sine ipsa, etc. Et penè idem modus quoad luxuriant circa Presbyteros Gasconiae, Hispaniae ac Portugaliae, etc. in omnibus obseruatur.  in Ireland and Norway, as also in Gascoine, Spain, Portugal, and other countries, it was lawful by the custom of their country for Bishops and Priests openly to keep concubines; and when the Bishops twice in a year did visit the Priests and Clergy of their jurisdiction, they led their minions about with them, who would not suffer their paramour Bishops to go in visitation without them, because they would be partakers of their good cheer, and provide that they should not fall in love with other to their wrong. The gloss of the Canon law saith, that 
c Dist. 81. Maximianus. in glossa. Pauci sine illo vitio inveniuntur.  there were few Priests found without the sin of fornication: so as that not without cause Gerson the Chancellor of Paris wished it to be inquired of, as a matter worthy of reformation, 
d Specul. eccle. Pontif. ex Io. Gerson. Scrutemini si alicubi sacerdotes in consuetudinem duxerunt sub praetextu antillarum habere concubinas.  Whether that Priests any where had drawn it into custom under pretence of maidservants to keep concubines: pointing at a thing which all men saw to be common every where. Such was in a word the continency of those Romish Bishops and Priests, as that Aluarus Pelagius, before mentioned, saith, that 
e Ibid ex Alu. Pelag. In pauco maiori numero sunt filii laicorum quàm Clericorum.  in Spain and otherwhere their bastards were almost as many as the children of lay men; 
f Ibi. ex Theod. de Niem. unde quodammodo plures innaturales ex foedo complexu nati quàm filii, legitimi ac naturales in ecclesiasticis titulis concedendis praeferuntur, & plures legitimis apertissimè promoventur.  so as that in all those parts, saith Niem, speaking as before of Ireland, Norway, Spain, Gascoine, Portugal and other countries, there were more such bastards preferred to ecclesiastical dignities than there were of them that were lawfully begotten. Albeit they rested not here, but 
g Bernard. ser. in Synodo Remensi. Episcopi & Sacerdotes traditi in reprobum sensum faciunt quae non conveniunt: quae enim in occulto fiunt ab Episcopis, turpe est dicere, etc. Masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, etc. Vide eund. de Conuers. ad Clericos. ca 29.  being given over to a reprobate sense, saith Bernard, they do the things which are not convement; for it is a shame, saith he, to name the things which are done in secret even by the Bishops; men with men working filthiness, and receiving the recompense of their own error. Of this holy Clergy, Clemangis, to be short, saith, that he was 
h Ibid. Nonest apud me dubium plures nunc latrones in ecclesia repertum iri quam veros pastors. Et postea: Sacrorum eloquiorum studia cum suis professoribus in risum atque l●●r brium omnibus versa sunt & praesertim pontificibus, qui suas traditiones divinis longè man datis anteponunt. jam illud egregium & praeclarissimum praedicandi officium solis quo●dam pastoribus attributum eisque maximè debitum, ita apud eos viluit, ut nihil magis indign●● aut magis suae dignitatierubescendum existiment. Et post. Siquis body desidiosus est, siquis à labore abhorrens, siquis in otio luxuriari volens, ad sacerdotium convolat, etc.  out of doubt, that there were more thieves than true pastors; that the studies of sacred Scriptures, together with the professors thereof, were with them become a matter of laughter and mockery, specially with their Popes or Bishops, who prefer their own traditions far before God's commandments; that the most excellent duty of Preaching, which was wont only to belong unto the Pastors, was become so vile and base with them, as that they thought nothing more unworthy, nothing whereof they were to be more ashamed; that if there were a lazy fellow that would not work, and did desire to live idly and riotously, he became a Priest, and being so, joined himself to the other voluptuous Priests, who living rather after the rule of Epicurus than of Christ, and diligently frequenting Alehouses and Taverns did spend their time in drinking, in feasting and banqueting, in playing at tables and tennis; and being full gorged and drunk, did fight and brawl and tumult, and with foul mouths blaspheme the names of God and his Saints, and thus ordered did come from their harlot's company to the altar of God. Thus Clemangis, two hundred years ago, described the state of the Popish Clergy: and it were infinite to set down what others also have written to the same effect: and may we not justly return M. Bishop's words upon himself; Are not these goodly lamps of the old religion, as they call it, and likely men to be chosen by Christ to give light to others? As for devout religious souls, we need not doubt to affirm that they are far more with us than either Clergy or Cloister ever bred with them; far more removed from the world, not by place, but by affection and conversation, wherein is that true retired life which Christ hath commended unto us. And for their Monkish life, we are not desirous to be followers or partakers of it. The filthiness thereof was such, as that it might well be said of their religious, which of old was said of the Canaanites: 
i Leu. 18.25.  The Land was defiled by them; therefore God visited their wickedness upon them, and the land spewed them out. Clemangis noteth of their Monks, that 
k Clemang. ut supra. Quanto magis inter caeteros ecclesiae filios ex votis suae religi●nis perfecti esse debebant, etc. tantò ab his omnibus rebus licet eos videre magis alienos, magis videlicet tenaces, ●agis avaros, magis seculari rei versis retrorsum animis immixt●s; magis insuper lubricos, indisciplinatos, dissolutes, inquietoes, etc. nihil illis aequè odiosum quàm cella & claustrum, lectio & oratio, regula & religio. Quocirca monachi sunt exteriori habitu, sed vita, sed operibus, sed internae conscientiae spurcitia à perfectione longissimè disiuncti.  whereas by the vows of their religion they should have been more perfect than other, more withdrawn from the world, more continent, more obedient, they were so much the further off from all these things, more holding, more covetous, more given to the world, as having their minds turned quite backward, more wanton, unmannerly, dissolute, unquiet: nothing so hateful to them as their cell and cloister, as reading and praying, as their rule and religion; being Monks in outward habit, but in life, in works, by inward filthiness of conscience far distant from perfection. He saith anon after, that 
l Ibid. De monialibus plura dicere verecundia prohibet, ne non de coetu virginum deo dicatarum, sed magis de lupanaribus, de dolis & procacia meretricum, de stupris & incestuosis operibus prolixè sermonem trahamus. Nam quid obsecro aliud sunt hoc tempore puellarum monasteria, nisi quaedam, non dico dei sanctuaria, sed veneris execranda pros●ibula, sed l●sciuorum & impudicorum iwenum ad explendas libidines receptacula? ut idem sit hody virginem velare, quod & publicè ad scortandum exponere.  of their Nuns he was a shamed to speak, lest he should make long speech, not of companies of virgins dedicated to God, but rather of stews and brothel houses, of the wiles and bold impudence of harlots, of whoredom and incest. For what else are the Monasteries of virgins, saith he, but the accursed stews of Venus, receptacles of wanton and unchaste young men for the fulfilling of their lusts, so as that it is all one at this day to veil a virgin, as to set her forth to be a common whore? 
m Specul. eccle. Pont. ex Theodorico de N●em. Fornicantur quamplures huiusm●di Monialium cum eisdem suis Pralatis ac Monachis, & in ijsdem Monasterijs plures parturiunt filios & filias, quos ab eisdem Praelatis & Monachis incestuoso coitu conceperunt.  They play the harlots, saith Niem, with their Prelates and Monks, and bring forth in their Monasteries or Nunneries, many sons and daughters, which are incestuously by them begotten. But let me give over and not strive too long where there is such a filthy stink. If this be the extraordinary piety and devotion which M. Bishop commendeth, let him take it to him and his, we will content ourselves with that ordinary course and condition wherein Christ and his Apostles and the first Christians did live. And in conforming ourselves to them, we doubt not but that we are to God a true Christian congregation, howsoever to M. Bishop we seem strange, who should rather think strange of his own dream, that Christ hath specially chosen them of whom he never spoke, and whose life hath been and is no other but the dishonour of the name of Christ; whose example is pernicious unto men, and whose prayers proceeding from so unclean thoughts, cannot but be loathsome unto God. Whether therefore we consider the persons that serve God, or the place where he is served, or the manner of his Divine service, M. Bishop showeth himself to be a man of a lewd and dishonest tongue, that will make any comparison of the Church of Rome to our Church. And thus we are come to an end of his long preface: wherein, what mature judgement he hath showed concerning a matter of so great moment, it remaineth for the Reader to judge: for my part I judge he did very ill bestow his time in blotting so many papers with so much folly and untruth. But his transition is worthy to be noted; Now to the rest of his questions, saith he, according to his own ●●●der; whereas of twelve questions, consequently handled by M. Perkins, he speaketh not a word, but only passeth to an advertisement in the end, where he thought least harm might befall to him. Hear is some want of plain dealing, which may justly cause his Reader to be suspicious and doubtful of him.    

A confutation to D. BISHOP'S answer to Master PERKINS his Advertisement.  

W. PERKINS.  
An advertisement to all favourers of the Roman religion, showing (as he weeneth) that the said Religion is against the Catholic principles of the Catechism, that hath been agreed upon ever since the days of the Apostles, by all Churches: Which principles be four. The Apostles Creed: the ten Commandments: the Lords prayer: the institution of two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper. 1. COR. 11. v. 23.   

1. W. BISHOP.  
I Had once determined to have wholly omitted this goodly postscript, because it containeth (in manner) nothing else, but an irksome repetition of that, which hath been (I will not say twice before, but more than twenty times) handled over and over, in this former small treatise: notwithstanding, considering both how ready many are, when they see any thing omitted, to say that it could not be answered; and also for that these points here reiterated, are the most odious that he could cull out of all the rest to urge against us: I finally resolved to give them a short answer; And further, also by proving their new religion, to be very opposite unto those old grounds of the true religion, to requite him with the like, that I die not in his debt. Thus he beginneth.  

The Roman religion established by the Council of Trent, is in the principal points thereof, against the very grounds of the Catechism: the Creed: the ten Commandments: the Lords prayer: the two Sacraments.  
THe Catholic religion embraced and defended by the Church of Rome, was planted and established there by the Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, fifteen hundred years before the Council of Trent, and hath been ever sithence, by the Bishops of Rome their lawful successors, constantly retained, and most sincerely observed and maintained: some articles thereof, called into question by the Heretics of this latter age, were in that most learned general Council of Trent, declared and defined. And great marvel it were, if the principal points thereof, should be against the grounds of the Catechism, which is in every point most substantially expounded by the decree and order of the very same Council. Or is it credible, that the Church of Rome (with which all other ancient Churches and holy Fathers, did desire to agree; and which hath been ever most diligent to observe all Apostolical traditions) should in the principal points of faith, cross and destroy the very principles of that religion, that hath been agreed upon by all Churches ever since the Apostle days, as he saith? Is it not much more likely and probable, that the Protestants, who slander all Churches, ever since the time of the Apostles, with some kind of corruption or other, and who hold no kind of Apostolical tradition to be necessary: is not not (I say) more credible, that they should shake those grounds of faith, which come by tradition from the Apostles, and have been ever since by all Churches agreed upon? I suppose that few men of any indifferent judgement, can think the contrary.    

R. ABBOT.  
M. Bishop is desirous to seem to have omitted nothing, because many, saith he, are ready when they see any thing omitted to say, that it could not be answered; and yet he hath cunningly omitted the handling of twelve questions, as I have already noted, which are more than the third part of the book which he undertook to answer. In that which here he hath sent us, he taketh upon him, as to answer M. 
Our religion, and not Popery, is the old religion.  Perkins, so by way of requital, to prove that our new religion, (as he calleth it) is very opposite unto the old grounds of the true religion. But if his eyes were open, he would easily see that that new religion, and the true religion are all one; our new religion, as to him it seemeth, being indeed no other but that only true religion whereby all the faithful have been saved from the beginning, and so shall be to the world's end. And if he will have our religion to be taken for a new religion, he must first impeach those grounds of antiquity whereby we have hitherto justified the same against his vain and wilful cavillations. As for that which he saith, that the religion now defended by the Church of Rome was planted and established there by the Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul: it is the begging of the question, a fond presumption, an idle headed dream: who but fools and mad men believe it, when they see the writings of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and therein find no mention of the religion that is now at Rome, neither of the Pope, nor of Purgatory, nor Pardons, nor jubilees, nor Mass, nor Images, nor any other of that filth? If the successors of that See had constantly retained the faith that by the Apostles was delivered, we should now have that religion at Rome which is taught in the Epistle to the Romans, which now is our religion, and was then the religion of the church of Rome. Of that religion those heretics (whom no otherwise he so nameth, but according to the 
a Act. 24.14.  jewish phrase) called nothing into question; they only questioned & impugned those additions and alterations wherewith the church of Rome hath defiled and disgraced that religion. 
The Council of Trent a mockery of the world.  The Council of Trent, which declared and defined against them, was neither learned nor general. It was a base and a vile collusion, and mere mockery of the world, partially assembled by the Pope, guilefully managed by his Agents, directed wholly by his intelligence, nothing there to be concluded, but what he first approved, & yet all in sine left at his will, by that damnable clause never heard of in any former Council; 
b Conc. Trid. sess. 7. in princip. & sess. 25. cap. 21. de reformat. salva semper in omnibus authoritate sedis Apostolicae.  Saving always and in all things the authority of the See Apostolic. Some Divines there were of quality and worth, who gave their assistance in that business: but as for the Bishops, of which the greatest number were Italians, they deserved for the most part rather to be accounted a heard of swine, than a Council of learned men. His reason that the principal points of Popery cannot be against the grounds of the Catechism, because the same is expounded by the decree and order of that Council, maketh as much for us as it doth for them. For the Catechism is by order expounded and taught by us: we open to the people the Creed, the ten Commandments, the Lords Prayer, the doctrine of Sacraments. M. Bishop therefore doth amiss to say that our religion is opposite to those old grounds of true religion. If this argument avail not for us, than neither shall it avail for him, but we are still at liberty to conceive, that notwithstanding their expounding of those grounds, they teach points of doctrine contrary thereunto. And indeed that expounding of theirs was no otherwise begun but in emulation of our doings in that kind: for until it pleased God to stir up the spirits of some of our men to endeavour the reformation of the Church, and to that end to bring the people, so much as in them lay, out of the thraldom of blindness and ignorance, wherein they were then holden, the use of Catechism was quite abolished out of the Church; the people knew neither the Creed nor the Lord's prayer, but only that they spoke them like a charm in a strange and unknown tongue. But when they saw us recalling them to the ancient order of catechizing, and thereby training them to the knowledge of God, and of faith towards him, they held it necessary for the satisfaction of the world, that they themselves should make some show of doing the like, and thereupon in the Council of Trent, took order for a Catechism to be published, though they never meant to make any great use of it, but only where necessity should enforce them for the countermining of our labours, and the staying of many, whom otherwise the desire of learning and of the knowledge of God, would have carried away from them. Into that Catechism and the rest of theirs, how they have foisted in matters of faith and doctrine, which the old expositors of the Catechism never knew nor have delivered, we shall somewhat perceive by examining the process and particulars of this book. In the mean time we answer M. Bishop, that it is very credible, and ready enough to be believed of them that are careful to understand it. that the church of Rome, albeit while it continued sound in the faith, all ancient Churches and holy Fathers, did desire to agree with it; yet since, being gone out of her 
* The church of Rome hath swaived from the tradition of the Apostles.  ancient way, doth indeed cross and destroy those principles of religion, which formerly have been agreed upon by all Churches. For whereas he saith, that that church hath been ever most diligent to observe all Apostolical traditions, it is a stolen jest, & Bellarmine himself perforce acknowledgeth it to be a lie. For it being manifest by the testimony of Anacletus an ancient Bishop of Rome, that 
c De consecrat. dist. 2. cap. Peracta. Peracta consecratione communicent omnes qui nolin● eccleasisticis carere liminibus: sic enim Apostoli statuerunt & sancta Romana tenet ecclesia.  the Apostles decreed and the church of Rome then observed, that they should be excommunicate whosoever were present after consecration, and did not receive the Communion; Bellarmine in the behalf of the now-church of Rome, rejecteth the same as a thing 
d Bellarm. de Missa. lib. 2. ca 10. Cortum est decreta ista quae sine dubio non divini sed humani juris erant, si ad populum pertinebant, progressis temporis abrogata fuisse.  in process of time abrogated by the church, & being but a matter of human only constitution & decree. So likewise we see in the Council of Constance acknowledging that 
e Concil. Const. sess. 13. Licèt Christus post coenam instituerit & discipulis suis administranerit sub utraque specie panis & vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum, tamen hoc non obstante, etc. Et similitèr, quòd licèt in primitiva ecclesia huiusmodi Sacramentum à fidelibus reciperetur sub utraque specie, tamen haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua scandala & pericula est rationabilitèr introducta quòd à laicis tantummodo sub specie panis suscipiatur, etc. unde pro lege habenda est, etc.  Christ administered the holy Sacrament to his disciples under both kinds, and that in the Primitive Church it was so received of the faithful; and yet this notwithstanding they decree it for a law, that lay men shall receiuc only in one kind. Now when thus with our eyes we see, and they themselves tell us the contrary, will M. Bishop notwithstanding tell us that the Church of Rome hath been ever most diligent to observe all Apostolical traditions? Surely if they had failed but in these two, they had not observed all; but now how many other things are there, wherein they have apparently swerved from the example of the Apostles! How then can we believe M. Bishop any further, who doubteth not here to affirm so gross and manifest untruth? And to this untruth he addeth another, when he saith, that we slander all churches since the time of the Apostles with some corruption or other. It is true, that we note the corruptions of some churches, and of some men, accordingly as the history of the Church and the monuments of antiquity do lay the same forth unto us: but we cannot say that all Churches, or all the Fathers of those times were guilty of those corruptions. For many Churches were there, and many Bishops and Pastors of Churches, of whom no memorial is come unto us; many whom we find otherwise reported of than was true, by the corrupting of those writings which they left unto the Church, and suborning other counterfeits in their stead; many, who have delivered some exorbitant opinions, of which notwithstanding it appeareth not that they had public approbation in the Church; many, who have left so little in record as touching points of faith, as that it is hard by them to esteem what the doctrine of the Church was. As for the corruptions whereof we speak, there are many of them such, as that I do not think M. Bishop to be so impudent but that he will acknowledge the same as well as we; there are none of them, but that either by the word of God, or by like warrant of antiquity we prove them to be such as we report them. His other tale, that we hold no kind of Apostolical traditions to be necessary, he himself knoweth to be untrue, because he knoweth that we receive the Creed as necessary, which he saith came by tradition from the Apostles. It hath been also 
f Of Traditions sect 4.  before given him to understand, that we reject not Apostolical traditions, which appear certainly so to be; and yet worthily we reject those unwritten doctrines and counterfeit traditions of the Papists, which are falsely fathered upon the Apostles. It is by these unwritten doctrines and counterfeit traditions, that the grounds of our faith are impeached and shaken. We therefore cannot be said to shake the grounds of faith, who retain the mere simplicity of those grounds, and refuse all other strange and bastard stuff: but they shake the grounds of faith, who become patrons of such tradition, coloured with the names of the Apostles, when notwithstanding they plainly cross the written doctrine of the Apostles.   

2. W. BISHOP.  
But let us descend to the particulars, wherein the truth will appear more plainly. Thus beginneth Master PERKINS with the Creed.  
First of all it must be considered, that some of the principal doctrines believed in the Church of Rome, are, that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ, and head of the Catholic Church: that there is a fire of Purgatory: that Images of God and Saints, are to be placed in the Church, and worshipped: that Prayer is to be made to Saints departed: that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the Mass, for the sins of the quick and the dead. These points are of that moment, that without them the Roman religion cannot stand, etc. And yet mark the Apostles Creed, which hath been thought to contain all necessary points of religion to be believed, and hath therefore been called the key and rule of faith: This Creed (I say) hath not any of these points, nor the expositions made thereof by the ancient Fathers, nor any other Creed or confession of faith made by any Council or Church, for the space of many hundred years. This is a plain proof to any indifferent man, that these be new articles of faith, never known in the Apostolic Church: and that the Fathers and Counsels could not find any such articles of faith in the books of the old and new Testament. Answer is made, that all these points of doctrine are believed under the article, (I believe the Catholic Church:) the meaning whereof they will have to be this, I believe all things which the Catholic Church holdeth and teacheth to be believed. If this be as they say, we must believe in the Church: that is, put our confidence in the Church, for the manifestation and the certainty of all doctrine necessary to salvation. And thus the eternal truth of God the Creator, shall depend upon the determination of the creature: And the written word of God in this respect is made insufficient, as though it had not plainly revealed all points of doctrine pertaining to salvation. And the ancient Churches have been far over-secene, that did not propound the former points to be believed as articles of faith, but left them to these latter times. Thus far Master PERKINS: Wherein are huddled up many things confusedly: I will answer briefly and distinctly to every point.  
The first is, that in the Apostles Creed are contained all points of religion necessary to be believed: which is most apparently false, as the Protestants themselves must needs confess; or else grant, that it is not necessary to believe the King to be Supreame-head of the Church: or that the Church is to be governed by Bishops: or that we are justified by Christ's justice imputed to us: or that there be but two Sacraments: or that the Church service must be said in the vulgar tongue: or that all things necessary to be believed to salvation, are contained in the Scriptures. To be short, not one article of their religion (which is contrary to ours) is contained in this Creed, of the Apostles: therefore to affirm as he doth, all necessary points of religion to be contained in this Creed, is to cast their own religion flat to the ground: and to teach, that not one point of it is to be believed: this Creed may nevertheless be called the key and rule of faith, because it containeth the principal points of the Christian religion, and doth open (as it were) the door unto all the rest, and guide a man certainly unto the knowledge of them, by teaching us to believe the Catholic Church, which being the pillar and ground of truth, 
1. Tim. 3.15. joh. 16.13.  directed and guided by the spirit of truth, will always instruct her obedient children, in all truth necessary to salvation.  
Then, saith M. PERKINS: The eternal truth of God, the Creator, shall depend on the determination of the creature.  
Nothing less: for God's truth is most sincere and certain in itself, before any declaration of the church: but we poor creatures that are subject to mistaking and error, should not so certainly understand and know that truth of God, unless he had ordained and appointed such a skilful and faithful Mistress and interpreter, to assure us, both what is his word, and what is the true meaning of it. Like as pure gold is not made perfect in itself by the Goldsmith's touchstone; but other men are thereby assured, that it is true and pure gold: even so the word of God doth not borrow his truth from the Church; but the true children of God are by the holy Church assured, which is the same his word. If we did hold (as we do not) that the written word containeth all points of doctrine necessary to salvation: yet were it most necessary to rely upon the Catholic churches declaration, both to be assured which books of scriptures be Canonical, which not; (whereupon Saint Augustine (a man of far better judgement than any of these days) said, 
Con. Epist. jud. cap. 5.  that he would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the church moved him thereunto:) as also to understand them truly; because the words of holy Scripture, without the true meaning and sense of them, do but deceive men and lead them into error; and to that end have always been, and yet are, by Heretics abused, to draw others after them into destruction.  
The like may be said of other ancient Creeds, and confessions of faith, which holding the Apostles Creed, did add some few points unto it; namely, such as were in those days called into question by Heretics of greater fame, and who were followed of many, not touching in particular divers other articles generally believed of all true Christians, or else by so●e few and obscure men only questioned. Wherefore, to argue that no other points of faith are to be believed, but such as are expressed in ancient Creeds, is to cut off a great part of our faith.  
Lastly, it is most untrue to say that those ancient Fathers and Counsels knew not of these articles of faith by him mentioned: for they have most plainly taught them in their writings: yea, and expressly condemned of heresy, most of the contrary positions, now again revived and holden by the Protestants; as in those several questions I have before proved.   

R. ABBOT.  
How M. Pirkins understood that all necessary points in religion to be believed are contained in the Creed, I do not well conceive: for my part I rather admit, that the Creed is therefore called the key and rule of faith, 
The Creed how the key and rule of faith.  for that it is a summary Brief, containing the principal and fundamental points of Christian faith, which do as it were open the door to all the rest, and by which all preaching and doctrine of faith is to be esteemed, so as nothing may be admitted but what holdeth correspondence with this rule, according to those uses which the Scripture teacheth us to make of every part thereof. Which the scripture, I say, teacheth us to make; for if we draw any article of our faith to the maintenance of any doctrine which hath no warrant or testimony of the Scripture, we are corrupters of the faith, and do but abuse the name thereof to the cloaking of our own device. Thus M. Bishop and his fellows corrupt the faith as touching the holy catholic church, first in wresting the name of the catholic church to the particular church of Rome: and secondly, in challenging a certain and undoubted credit to be yielded to that church for the infallible resolution of all points of faith. For as touching the first, where hath the Scripture given us any inkling, that the name of the Catholic Church should in any peculiar manner be understood of the Church of Rome? We regard not their claim; we know they have tongue at will to speak for themselves; but let them give us one word of God, whereby it may appear that by the name of the Church, we are directed in special manner to that church. We are not ignorant that amongst most ancient writers the name of Catholic church is sometimes given to the church of Rome: but we know withal, that it was no otherwise given to the church of Rome, than to any other church, every Church being called a Catholic church, as hath been 
a Answer to the Epistle. sect. 3.  before showed, that communicated in true faith with the church dispersed thorough the whole world. And therefore, as Leo wrote himself 
b Leo epist. 12. Leo papa ecclesiae Catholicae urbis Romae.  Bishop of the catholic church of the city of Rome; so doth Constantine the Emperor write, 
c Socrat hist. li. 1. ca 6. Constantinus Catholicae Alexandrinorum ecclesiae.  to the catholic church of Alexandria; and Athanasius accordingly is entitled by his Clergy, 
d Athanas Apolog. 2. Theognio. etc. Presbyteri & diaconi sub reverendissimo episcopo Athanasio Catholicae ecclesiae Alexandrinae.  Bishop of the catholic church of Alexandria; and Austin nameth 
e August. count Crescon. li. 3. ca 13. Omnis Aphricana Catholica ecclesia.  the catholic church of Africa; and Aurelius writeth himself 
f Collat. cum Donat. cognit. 1. ca 16 Aurelius episcopus ecclesiae Catholicae Carthaginensis.  Bishop of the catholic church of Carthage; and another Aurelius, 
g Ibid. ca 201. Aurelius episcopus ecclesiae Catholicae Macomadiensits: & cap. 204. Novatus episcopus ecclesiae Catholicae Sitifensis.  Bishop of the catholic church of Macomodia and; Novatus, Bishop of the catholic church of Sitif. So in the fift council at Constantinople we read, the holy 
h Concil. Constantinop. 5. act. 1. Supplicati● à Clericis & Monachis Apostolici thront Antiochenae magnae ●uitatis Catholicae sanctae ecclesiae  catholic church of Antioch; and in the subscriptions of the Council, 
i Dei. Act. 8. in subscript. Sextiltanus in sericordia Dei episcopus ecclesiae Catholicae Tumensiu Megethius gratia Dei episcopus sanctae dei Catholicae ecclesiae civitatis Heracleae, etc.  Sextilianus Bishop of the catholic church of Tunis; & Megethius Bishop of the holy catholic church of the city of Heracela; and Pompeianus Bishop of the holy catholic church of the city of Victoria, and sundry other the like. By all which and many other examples it may appear with how little discretion Dureus the jesuit hath affirmed that 
k Duraeus count Whitak. li. 3. In nullum planè aliam Catholicae nomen ecclesiae, & quaerunque de Christiecclesia 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 church of Rome. And with this mad and witless fancy they are all carried away, so that there can be no naming of the church or catholic church, but it soundeth in their ears undoubtedly to have reference to the Church of Rome. According to this fancy it is that M. Bishop here would have his Reader to imagine, that by the belief of the Catholic church he is taught to believe the church of Rome. And by the same illusion he wresteth to his purpose the words of the Apostle, that the church is the pillar and ground of truth; and the promise that Christ maketh unto his, of his spirit to direct and guide them into all truth, as if therein were some special privilege meant to the Roman church. 
The Church how the pillar & ground of truth.  But for the first place, if any one church might challenge a prerogative thereby, it should be the church of Ephesus. For Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, wished by the Apostle 
l 1. Tim. 1.3.  to abide still there, as specially to take upon him the charge of that place. He writeth to him purposely to instruct him how to carry himself in that charge; 
m cap. 3.15.  That thou mayst know, saith he, how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar & ground of truth. The house of God then, wherein Timothy was to converse, & which he was to govern, was the church of Ephesus; & as the church in general, so this church for it own part in particular is called the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. Yea these two go hand in hand, to be the house of God, the church of the living God, and, to be the pillar and ground of truth. Now of every church of the faithful it is said, 
n 1. Pet. 2.5.  Ye as lively stones are made a spiritual house; 
o 2. Cor. 6.16.  ye are the Temple of the living God, 
p Eph. 2.22.  ye are built together in Christ to be God's habitation. Which way then, I marvel, is it now brought about, that to be the pillar & ground of truth should be a peculiar dignity of the church of Rome more than of the church of Ephesus, or of any other particular church? To be the pillar and ground of truth importeth the office and duty of the whole church and every part thereof, and not a special prerogative of any one church, as to be always found so in act and execution. The church is the pillar and ground of truth, as the Priest is 
q Mal. 2.7.  the messenger of the Lord of hosts. The Priest, though he be by calling the messenger of the Lord, yet sometimes neglecteth his calling, and forbeareth to do the message wherewith he is sent: and so the church, though by duty it be the pillar and ground of truth, appointed to uphold and maintain the same; yet sometimes forgetteth this duery and followeth lies in stead of truth. For as the church is now, so hath it ever been from the beginning, the pillar and ground of truth; and yet we find that very often the church of the jews, in the time of the judges, and under the wicked Kings of judah and Israel, did forsake 
t Mal. 2.6.  the law of truth, which God had given unto them, went a whoring after strange and false gods, and many ways provoked him by their abominations. For no longer doth the church continue to be as it ought to be, the pillar and ground of truth, than it continueth built upon the foundations of truth, 
s Eph. 2.20.  upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, as Saint Paul speaketh, 
t Ambros. in Eph. 2. Hoc est, supra nowm & vetus teslamentum collocati.  that is, upon the new and old Testament, as Ambrose expoundeth it. If it once go awry from those foundations, truth falleth to the ground, and it becometh a pillar and fortress of error and untruth. Thus hath it come to pass in M. Bishop's church of Rome, which in her pride hath cast off the yoke which she at first took upon her, and hath magnified herself to be a Queen to give laws of her own in stead of the laws of jesus Christ. She is indeed by duty, as all other churches are, a pillar and ground of truth; but being become the minion of Antichrist, and prostituted to his adulterous desires, she hath learned for his sake and for her own sake by him 
u 1. Tim. 4.2.  to speak lies in hypocrisy, and 
x 2. Pet. 2.3.  through covetousness with feigned words to make merchandise of 
y Reu. 18.13.  the souls of men. All which hypocrisy and feigned words she fairly gloseth and commendeth to men with this persuasion, that she can not err, because she hath a promise of Christ to be always directed and guided by his spirit into all truth. But where hath Christ made any such promise to the Church of Rome? 
Whom and how the spirit of Christ leadeth into all truth.  We read that Christ said to his Apostles, 
z joh. 16.13.  When he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth: and we believe, that what he spoke to his Apostles, he intended to the whole Church, and to all the faithful: but neither do we read, nor have any cause to believe, that Christ therein intended any thing in special to the church of Rome, neither did ever any ancient Father or Council gather any such thing out of those words. And surely no otherwise do they allege this Scripture for themselves, than the Manichees did for themselves, and the Montanists for themselves. For as the Manichees alleging these words to colour their heresies against the Scripture, appropriated the spirit of truth here spoken of, to their Patriarch 
a August. count Faust. Manich. lib. 32. cap. 17. Dicere soletis, Ipse vos inducet in omnem veritatem, etc. de vestro Manichao esse praedictum.  Manicheus; and the Montanistes in like sort to 
b Tertull. de Veland. virginib. sub initio.  Montanus, as if in them, and by them the spirit should direct the Church into all truth: Even so the Papists, howsoever they talk of the Church directed by the spirit, yet do indeed put over the Church to the Pope, placing the residence of the spirit in him, that he may be to the Church the infallible oracle of all truth. In which fancy, if they will expect to have more credit than those heretics had, they must bring better warrant for themselves than those heretics did. But because they can bring us none, therefore we reject them all alike, as cozeners and deceivers of the Church, pretending the spirit of truth, for the maintenance of lies; and claiming that credit to be given to an usurping wretch, which our Saviour reserveth as proper to the holy Ghost. The promise of the spirit, as I said before, belongeth to all the faithful; and of them all, S. john saith, 
c 1 joh. 2.27.  The anointing which ye have received of him; that is, saith Austin, 
d August. in 1. joan. tract. 4. Eadem unctio, id est, ipse spiritus domini.  the spirit of the Lord, teacheth you of all things. Albeit when it is said, all things, and all truth, we are not to understand absolutely all: for the spirit doth not teach us to know 
e Idem. in acts cum Felice Manich. lib. 1. cap. 10. Si hanc doctrinam putas ad illam veritatem pertinere, etc. interrogo te qunt sint stellae. Ibid. Ego tibi possum dicere ea quae pertinent ad doctrinam Christianam.  how many stars there be, as Austin opposeth to Felix the Manichee, but he teacheth all things belonging to the doctrine of Christ, as the same Austin there expoundeth. Yea, and yet further he excepteth by the words of the Apostle, 
f Idem. cap. 11. Dicebat Apostolus, Ex part scimus, etc. quia in be't a vita homo cum est, non potest assequi omnia; sed ex part assequitur in hac vita; ipse autem spiritus qui ex part docet in hac vita, post hanc vitam introducet in omnem veritatem. Vide eund. in joan. tract. 96.  We know in part, and we prophecy in part, that whilst a man is in this life, he cannot attain to all things, but attaineth only in part; but the holy Ghost, saith he, which in this life teacheth in part, shall after this life bring us into all truth. He therefore giveth us to understand, that notwithstanding this promise of the spirit of truth, it is incident to them to whom the same appertaineth, to be ignorant in this life of many truths, to be subject to mistaking and error, albeit the same spirit faileth not to enlighten them to that necessary truth which serveth for introduction finally to all truth. And herein the Apostle comforteth us, that 
g Phil. 3.15.  that if any man be otherwise minded (than is right) God will reveal the same to him, so long as in that whereunto we are come, we proceed by one rule, that we may mind one thing. But we are specially to note the reason which our Saviour addeth to the words alleged; When he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall bear, shall he speak: meaning thereby the same that he hath before said; 
h joh. 14.26.  He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance that I have told you: and which he saith presently after; 
i cap. 16.14.  He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. For hereby it is manifest, that the holy Ghost which shall lead us into all truth, because he shall speak nothing of himself, shall therefore 
k Thophylact. in joan. 16. Nihil docturus est extra ea quae Christus docuit.  speak nothing but what Christ hath before spoken. As therefore when Christ saith of himself, 
l joh. 14.10.  I speak not of myself, he would import that he spoke nothing but what the father had before spoken in the Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, as 
m Chrysost. de sanct. & orando spiritu. Quia seductor est habitus, dicit; Ego à meipso non loquor, sed de lege, de Prophet is  chrysostom expoundeth it, even so when he saith of the holy Ghost, that he shall speak nothing of himself, we are likewise to conceive, that the holy Ghost shall teach nothing but what Christ himself hath first taught in the Scriptures of the Evangelists and Apostles. Whereupon we conclude as chrysostom doth, 
n Ibid. Siquem videritis dicentem, spiritum sanctum habee, & non loquentem evangelica sed propria, is à seipso loquitur, & non est spiritus sanctus in ipso. Et paulò post: Siquis eorum qui dicuntur habere spiritum sanctum, dicat aliquid à seipso, & non ex Euangelijs, ne credit, etc. Ex quo non legit haec scripta, sed ex seipso loquitur, manifestum est quod non habet spiritum sanctum.  If ye see a man saying, I have the holy. Ghost, and not speaking the things of the Gospel, but matters of his own, he speaketh of himself, and the holy Ghost is not in him. If any of them who are said to have the holy Ghost do speak any thing of himself, and not out of the Gospel, believe him not. For that he readeth not those things which he saith in the Scriptures, it is manifest that he hath not the holy Ghost. Now therefore seeing M. Bishops church, contrary to the ordinance of God, severeth 
o Esay 59.21.  the spirit of truth from 
p Eph. 1 13. Col. 1.5.  the word of truth, and speaketh many things of her-felfe, whereof Christ hath said nothing, whereof we read nothing in the Scriptures, it is manifest that they play the Sycophants as other heretics have done, pretending to speak by the spirit of Christ, when they speak wholly either by their own or by a worse spirit. But M. Bishop not content with one corruption, in substituting his church of Rome in the place of the Catholic Church of Christ, addeth another, in saying, that that article of our Creed doth teach us to believe the Catholic church. Which words, although being truly meant, they express the same in English, which we say in Greek and Latin, yet being by the drift of his speech carried to a very partial and false construction, do show him to be a lewd perverter of our Christian faith. For whereas we say, Credo sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam, in the accusative case, the meaning is, I believe that there is a holy Catholic church; namely, that God the Father in all ages and at all times, and amidst all the defections and corruptions of the world hath still had and shall have his number of elect and chosen people, to whom the benefit of Christ's death and resurrection on standeth effectual and good by the sanctification of the holy Ghost, and the same now not of one nation or people only, but of all nations and peoples throughout the whole world. But M. Bishop by the currant of his speech turneth the accusative case into the dative, as if it were said in our Creed, Credo ecclesiae sanctae Catholicae; I give credit to the holy Catholic church; I believe it to be true whatsoever is taught me by the holy Catholic church, that so his Reader thinking himself bound to believe the Catholic church, and taking this Catholic church to be meant of the church of Rome, may hold himself bound by the articles of his Creed in all things to believe the church of Rome. Thus he and his fellows most treacherously and lewdly against their own knowledge and conscience delude simple and ignorant souls, and make them slaves to their impious and wicked devices, by bearing them in hand that they are bound thus to obey the Catholic church. Now hereof Master PERKINS justly inferreth, that the eternal truth of God the Creator is hereby made to depend upon the determination of the creature. For let God say what he will, we shall not stand bound to take it for truth if the church shall say the contrary, or unless that which he saith be approoned by the Church. Verily as Tertullian upbraided of old the Senate of Rome, that 
q Tertul. Apologet. cap. 5. Apud vos de humano arbitratu divinitas pensitatur: nisi homini deus placuerit deus non erit.  with them Godhead stood at the discretion of men, and unless God did please man, he should be no God; so may it well be said now of the church of Rome, that with them the religion of God standeth at their discretion, and that only shall be religion that pleaseth them. For the Bishop of Rome whilst he taketh upon him to make declaration of Christian faith, maketh what he list of Christian faith, and hath verified of himself that which Hierome said of Antichrist, that 
r Hieron. in Daniel. 7. Elevatur supra omne quod dicitur deu●, cunctam religionem suae subijciens potestati.  he should subject all religion to his own power. For the colouring of which iniquity, M. Bishop according to their manner useth guileful words of notable hypocrisy, and with a fair tale gloseth a gross indignity and damnable presumption against God. He telleth us that God's truth is sincere and certain in itself before any declaration of the Church. Well, and what hath the church then to do with this sincere and certain truth? Forsooth, we poor creatures are subject to mistaking and error, and do not so certainly understand that truth of God. But who are those poor creatures, of whom he speaketh? Marry M. Bishop, and such other petites, who are but dij minorum gentium, they are poor creatures; but the Pope and his Cardinals, and the Bishops that comply to him, they are rich creatures, they are the Church, they are exempted from mistaking and error; we must think all perfection of wit to be lodged in their brains; and that they certainly understand and know the truth of God. But what assurance can they give us in this behalf? Surely, the Scribes and Pharisees, the high Priests and Elders of the Jews had as much to say for themselves, and a great deal more than they. They could plead for themselves: 
s joh. 8.33.  We are the seed of Abraham; 
t cap. 9.28.  We be Moses disciples; 
u vers. 41.  We see; 
x jer. 8 8.  We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us; 
y ca 18.18.  The law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet; and yet they persecuted Christ the son of God, who only is the Truth. How then may we now be assured that the Church of Rome is not the same to the church of Christ, as they then were to Christ himself? How may we poor creatures certainly understand, that those rich creatures are not subject to error and mistaking as well as we? Well, if we will not believe it, we may choose; but assurance M. Bishop can yield none. He can tell us a discourse what Christ said to Peter: but that Christ ever spoke either of Pope or Cardinal, he can show us nothing. And yet as if this matter were clear, he telleth us of this church of theirs, that whereas we are subject to mistaking and error, God hath ordained and appointed the same to be a skilful and faithful mistress and interpreter, to assure us both what is his word, and what is the true meaning of it. But again we ask him, where hath God so ordained and appointed? in what Scripture hath he written it, or by what words hath he expressed it, that the church which he meaneth should be our mistress to tell us what is God's word, & what is the true meaning of it? If he have evidence & authority for it, let him show it; if he have not, what shall we think of him that dareth thus to belly the majesty of God? But if he considered the matter aright, he would conceive, that those rich creatures of his, have no other or better means to assure what is God's word, and what is the meaning of it, than other poor creatures have. By what touchstone they can make trial thereof, by the same can we also as well as they. Which comparison of the goldsmith and the touchstone, which he himself useth, if it be rightly explicated, serveth notably to set forth the fraud and falsehood of that church, for which he pleadeth. True it is, that the church in this behalf may rightly be compared to the Goldsmith. Now the Goldsmith for the discerning of true and perfect gold, doth not take his own fingers ends, but goeth to the touchstone, and no otherwise can he either make trial himself, or give assurance thereof to other men. In like sort therefore the church, which is the Goldsmith, must use a touchstone, for the assuring of that which it propoundeth to be received and believed. Now than whereas M. Bishop saith, that we must rely upon the church's declaration, to be assured which books of Scripture be Canonical; I answer him, that we cannot be assured thereof by the church's declaration, unless the church declare it and manifest it by the touchstone. The touchstone whereby we are to take assurance hereof, is the constant and perpetual tradition and testimony of the former church. And this testimony we first derive from the church of the jews, 
z Rom. 3.2.  to whom the words of God were committed, and to whose Scriptures, 
a Luk. 24.44.  the law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms (and to no other) 
b Aug. count Gaudent. lib. 2. cap. 23. quibus dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis.  Christ himself hath given testimony as witnesses of himself, reckoning them for 
c Luk. 24.27.  all the Scriptures, and whereof the jews in their dispersion give acknowledgement until this day; God so providing, that 
d Aust. in Psa. 58. Per omnes gentes dispersi sunt ludaei testes iniquitatis suae & veritatis nostrae: ipsi habent codices de quibus prophetatus est Chrislus, & in Ps. 56. Codicem portat judaeus, unde credat Christianus.  Christian faith should be proved out of those books which are acknowledged for true by them that are enemies thereto. This testimony the Christian church received of the Apostles, and hath continued the same, together with the acknowledgement of those other books of the new testament, which by the Apostles and Evangelists were added to the former. What books then have had this general and undoubted averment and witness of the church continued from time to time, those and no other are to be holden for Canonical books, and this is the true touchstone for trial of certain and undoubted scriptures. By which touchstone the church of Rome is found to be not a faithful Mistress but a false harlot bringing her bastards into the Church, and forcing men to take them for lawfully begotten. And whereas it is the tradition and declaration of the former church which hath been from the beginning, by which both they and we are to be instructed as touching the true books of Canonical Scripture, they force upon us the tradition of their own church now delivered upon their own word, howsoever contrary to that which the church formerly hath declared. If we follow the declaration of the ancient church, then are no other books to be taken for Canonical, but what are now accknowledged and approved in our Church, the same only being testified concerning the old testament by the Church of the jews, concerning both new and old by the whole Christian church, both the Greek and Latin, the Eastern and Western churches, as 
e Of Traditions, sect. 17.  before hath been declared. But the church of Rome, perceiving the authorizing of some other writings to be likely to gain credit to some broken wares whence her thrift and gain ariseth, hath taken upon her very presumptuously, as a Mistress or rather a goddess, to give divine authority to those books, rejecting the testimony of that church, which in this behalf should be mistress both to her and us. In a word, whatsoever is to be attributed to the church in this respect, it is idly by M. Bishop referred to the church of Rome, as if all other churches must rely upon her declaration, we ourselves being able by the touchstone to make trial of true Scriptures, as well as the church of Rome, and therefore there being no cause why we should rely upon them more than they upon us. And as vainly doth he apply to his purpose the saying of Saint Austin, that he should not believe the Gospel except the authority of the church moved him thereunto; there being nothing therein meant but what may be applied to the church England as well as to the church of Rome; Saint Austin speaking generally of the universal church throughout the world, without any manner special intendment of the church of Rome. But how lewdly they abuse those words of Austin wholly against his meaning and purpose, I have 
f Of Traditions, sect. 22.  before sufficiently declared and need not here to repeat again. As for the church's declaration for understanding the Scripture, that is also to be tried and made good by the touchstone, because no exposition or sense of Scripture is to be admitted, the doctrine whereof is not to be justified by other Scripture; and they that bring other senses and meanings do but deceive men and lead them into error, as other heretics formerly have done, and as the Papists now do, abusing the Scriptures to draw others after them into destruction. Hereof also enough hath been said 
g Of Traditions, sect. 21.  before, whereof I wish the Reader duly to consider for his satisfaction in this point. That which he saith of other ancient Creeds and Confessions of faith, that they contain not all points of Christian doctrine, I eaily admit: but yet let him understand, that it is a main prejudice against them, that neither any ancient Creed, nor any exposition of the Creed, or confession of faith containeth sundry points, which they now make to be matters of the meaning of the Creed. Let him show that ever any ancient Creed or expositor of the Creed did understand or deliver, that the name of the Catholic church in the Creed hath any special reference to the Church of Rome; that the Catholic church is to be defined as they now define it, by being subject to the bishop of Rome; that the certain declaration of the Canonical books, and of the true sense of Scripture, is always infallibly to be expected from the sentence of that Church; that all Christians are fully to believe and wholly to rely upon that Church for resolution of all points of faith necessary to salvation. Which, and such other points, made by them matters of the Creed, because never any ancient writer hath found to be contained or intended in the Creed, therefore we justly affirm them to be new Creed-makers, coiners of new articles of faith, and thereby perverters and corrupters of the true Christian faith. As concerning the Articles mentioned by M. Perkins now holden by the Romish Church, that the Pope is Christ's Vicar and head of the Catholic Church; that there is a purgatory fire after this life, that images of God and of Saints are to be worshipped; that prayer is to be made to Saints departed, and their intercession to be required; that there is a propitiatory sacrifice daily offered in the Mass for the sins of quick and dead; M. Bishop answereth, that the Fathers have most plainly taught them in their writings, and expressly condemned of heresy most of the contrary positions. But what Fathers are they, and in what writings have they so done? Surely, if the Bishop of Rome in the ancient Church had been taken to be the Vicar of Christ, and head of the Catholic church, it cannot be but that we should have very currant and frequent and memorable testimony thereof, as a matter universally received, and every where practised. But now let M. Bishop show us one; let him show so much as one that for divers hundreds of years after Christ, did ever dream of any such thing. Which though indeed he cannot do, yet he telleth us of that and the rest, that in those several questions he hath before proved what he saith; whereas he hath not spoken of any more of these points, save only one, and in that one point, cannot be said to have proved any thing, because whatsoever he hath said, standeth hitherto reproved. And surely if he have no better proofs than hitherto he hath brought in all the questions that he hath handled, the Protestants will but scorn him as a very unprooving disputer, and advise him to bestow his time a while longer in the Schools, to know what it is to prove.   

3. W. BISHOP.  
Touching believing in the Church, which he thrusteth in by the way, we use not that phrase, as the very Creed showeth; following therein S. Augustine with others, who hold, that to believe in a thing, is to make it our Creator, by giving our whole heart unto it; in which sense we believe not in Saints, nor in the Church: albeit some other ancient Doctors, take the words to believe in, not so precisely, but say that we may believe in the Church and in Saints: that is, believe certainly that the Catholic church is the only true company of Christians; and that to the lawful governors thereof, it appertaineth to declare both which books be Canonical, and what is the true meaning of all doubtful places in them: so we believe the Saints in heaven to hear our prayers, to be careful to pray for us, and to be able to obtain by entreaty much at God's hands, in whose high favour they live. Thus much in answer unto that which M. PERKINS objecteth in general. Now to that he saith in particular.   

R. ABBOT.  

a Greg. Nazia. de sp. sancto. orat 6. S●●reatū est, quo pacto in ipsum eredimu? etc. Non enim idem est in aliquem credere, & de eo credere: nam illud divimt atis est; hoc cuiusuis rei.  It is one thing, saith Gregory Nazianzene, to believe in any one, another to believe of or concerning him; the one belongeth to the Godhead, the other is used of every thing. And hereby he proveth that the holy Ghost is God because we believe in the holy Ghost. By which argument our Saviour Christ also teacheth us to acknowledge him to be God, when he saith; 
b joh. 14.1.  Ye believe in God, believe also in me; where 
c Hilar. de Trin. lib. 9 Vniens se fidei dei & naturae eius univit, etc. deumse per id docens cum in eum credendum sit ab his qui in deum credant.  uniting himself to the belief of God, saith Hilary, he uniteth himself also to his nature; thereby teaching, that he himself is God for that they who believe in God must believe in him. I might further enlarge this point by the testimonies and expositions of 
d Aug. in joan. tract 29. & de ciu. dei. l. 18. ca 54. Euseb. Emissen. Ruffin. Venant. in symbol. Apost.  Austin, Eusebius, Emissenus, Ruffinus, Venantius, and others, who all acknowledge, that that phrase belongeth to God, and is not to be applied to any creature. But it shall not need, because the Elucidatour of the Roman Catechism, according to the doctrine of the Catechism itself, as he pretendeth, though quite contrary both to their doctrine and practise otherwise, doth tell us, that 
e Elucidat. Catech. Roman. c. 9 q. 5. Cùm dicimus nos credere in deum patrem, in filium, in sp. sanctum, phrasis haec loquendi significat nos ita credere deum patrem, filium & spiritu sanctum, ut etiam in eyes omnem fiduciam nostram collocemus, quam in deo solo, non autem in creaturis ponere possumus, ex quibus tamen ecclesia composita est.  when we say we believe in God the Father, in the Son, in the holy Ghost, this phrase of speaking doth signify that we so believe God the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost, as that also we place all our confidence in them, which we are to put in God only, and not increatures, of which notwithstanding the Church consisteth. Which exposition we acknowledge containeth the very truth, agreeable to God's word, and do wish that they would always continue constant therein. But they do herein as their usual manner is, what by evidence of truth they are forced to say in one place, for the maintenance of their own traditions and superstitions, they unsay it or qualify it in another. And in this sort M. Bishop here dealeth, who first inclining somewhat to that construction already mentioned, and telling us that to believe in a thing, is to make it our Creator, by giving our whole heart unto it, allegeth notwithstanding, that some ancient Doctors take the words (to believe in) not so precisely, but say that we may believe in the church and in Saints; hereby to make way to his absurd conceits, which none of the ancient Doctors dreamt of. it is true indeed that Epiphanius and Cyril have used that manner of speech, by adding the preposition, in, to the rest of the articles; I believe in one holy Catholic church, in one Baptism, in the remission of sins, in the resurrection of the body, in the life eternal; but yet making thereof no other construction than we do, as if the article were away. To believe in the church, was with them, as M. Bishop saith, to believe certainly in the Catholic church, to be the only true company of Christians, and thereof we contend not; we believe the same as well as they, though not in M. Bishop's meaning, which never was any part of their meaning, that the Catholic church should be meant in any special manner of the church of Rome. But whereas he addeth, it is another part of their construction, that to the lawful governors thereof, that is, as he intendeth, to the Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops, it appertaineth to declare both which books be Canonical, and what is the true meaning of all doubtful places in them; he very shamefully abuseth the ancient Doctors, of whom there is not one that hath noted any such matter to be contained in the Creed. If he know any, let him acquaint us therewith; if he know none, let him confess to his Reader, as he must, that he hath sought to deceive him with a lie. The same I say of believing in Saints; for which of the ancient Doctors hath taught us out of our Creed, that we are to believe in them? He telleth us what they meant by it, that we believe the Saints in heaven to hear our prayers, to be careful to pray for us, and to be able to obtain by entreaty much at God's hands. But what a strange man is he that will tell us what men meant by words which they never spoke? Surely, to believe in Saints is no antiquity, but novelty, and the device of him, who by believing in Saints seeketh to draw men away from belief in God. The Apostle telleth us, that 
f Rom. 10 17.  Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Thereupon Basil gathereth thus: 
g Basil. Ethit. reg. 80. Si quicquid ex fide non est peccatum est, fides verò ex auditu, auditus autem p●r verbum Dei est; ergo quicquid extra divinam Scripturam est, cùm ex fide non sit peccatum est.  If whatsoever is not of faith be sin, and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, surely whatsoever is beside the Scripture of God, because it is not of faith, is sin. Let M. Bishop then show us some word of God, some warrant of Scripture, that it is one point of faith to believe in Saints; or if he cannot so do, we must rest persuaded as we are, that to believe in Saints is to sin against God. And if we may not believe in Saints, than neither may we pray unto them, for 
h Rom. 10.14.  how shall they call upon him, saith the Apostle, in whom they have not believed? And seeing prayer is 
i Grego. Moral. lib. 22. cap. 13. Vera postulatio non in oris est vocibus sed in cogitationibus cordis.  not a matter of the lips, but of the heart, how can we believe that the Saints in heaven hear our prayers, when as the word of God telleth us, that 
k 1. King. 8.39.  it is God only which knoweth the hearts of all the children of men? Again, seeing God hath himself named unto us the Mediator by whose intrety, & 
l Mat. 3.17. Ephe. 3.12.  for whose sake he will accept us, and in whom he will be 
m john 14.13.  glorified for the granting of our requests, who 
n Rom. 8.34.  sitteth at the right hand of God, and 
o Heb. 7.25.  ever liveth to make intercession for us; how can we call it faith, and not rather impudent presumption, that we of our own heads should set up every Saint in heaven to be a Master of requests, and disturb that order which God himself hath appointed for our access to him? Admit that in generality they pray for the consummation of their brethren; they pray in fellowship of love, not by authority of mediation; as joined in affection with us, not as by specialty of favour appointed to be patrons for us; for in that respect it is true which Saint Austin telleth us, that 
p August. in Psam. 64. Solus ibi ex his qui carnem gustaverunt interpellat pro nobis.  of all that have been partakers of flesh, it is Christ only in heaven that maketh intercession for us. To conclude, we have heard before out of the Catechism, that our believing in God requireth all our confidence and trust to be placed in God only. Accordingly Cyprian saith, that 
q Cyprian. de dupl. martyr. Non credit in deum, qui non in eo solo collocat totius felicitatis suae fidutiam.  he believeth not in God that placeth not the confidence of all his happiness in God only. But believing in Saints cannot be understood but to import putting of trust and confidence in them. Therefore we cannot believe in Saints, but with the overthrow of our belief and trust in God. And that the Popish believing in Saints, importeth the putting of their trust and confidence in them, it plainly appeareth as by other their offices of devotion, so specially by their Lady's Psalter wherein they blasphemously use to the Virgin Marie those words whereby David professed his trust in God: 
r Psalter. Mariae. Psal. 7. Domina in te speravi; de inimicis meis libera animam meam. & Psal. 10. In domina confido propter dulcedinem misericordiae nominis sui. & psal. 21. Quia ego speravi in gratia tua, sempiternum a me opprobrium abstulisti. & Psal. 45. Domina refugium nostrum tu es in omni necessitate nostra. & Psal. 53 Domina in nomine tuo saluum me fac.  O Lady, in thee have I hoped, deliver my soul from mine enemies; I trust in our Lady for the sweetness of the mercy of her name; Because I have trusted in thy grace, thou hast taken away from me everlasting reproach: O our Lady, thou art our refuge in all our necessity; O Lady save me by thy name. And whereas M. Bishop saith, that our believing in God is the giving of our whole heart unto him, they yield the same to our Lady, also saying; I confess unto thee 
s Ibid. Psal. 9 Confitebor tibi Domina in toto cord meo. & Psal. 102. Omnia praecordia mea glorificate nomen eius.  O Lady, with my whole heart, let all my heartstrings glorifiy her name. By these and infinite other such speeches it appeareth that by their believing in Saints they commit idolatry, and do give that honour to the Saints which belongeth to God only.   

4. W. BISHOP.  
He chargeth us first, with the breach of the third article, Conceived by the holy Ghost: Which (saith he) is overturned by the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Mass, into the body and blood of Christ: for here we are taught to confess the true and perpetual incarnation of Christ, beginning in his conception, and never ending afterward.  
Answ. Hear is a strange exposition of the Creed. Is Christ's incarnation perpetual, and not yet ended? then it is true to say, that Christ is not yet incarnate; as we may say truly, that a man is not borne, until his birth be accomplished and ended. But to the present purpose: because Christ's incarnation began at his conception, cannot bread be turned afterward into his body? how hangeth this together? Belike he means that Christ's body was but once conceived, and that was by the holy Ghost in his mother's womb: therefore it cannot afterward be made of any other thing. This to be his meaning, he declares in the question of the Sacrament; but it is too too simple and childish. For we hold him not to be so conceived by bread, as he was by the holy Ghost, who was the efficient cause of his conception: but that the same body that was conceived by the holy Ghost, is made really present in the Sacrament, by transubstantiation of bread into it, which hath no opposition at all with this article, as I have more largely proved in the for said question. And whereas he saith farther, clean besides the purpose of this article, that Christ's body hath the essential properties of a true body, standing of flesh and bone: we grant the same; but when he addeth, that local circumscription cannot be severed from a body, he is deceived: for the greatest body of all others, (which is the highest heaven) is not circumscribed by any place; because there is no other body without it, whose extremities might compass in, and circumscribe that body of the highest heaven. And when he saith, that to be circumscribed in place, is an essential property of every quantity; and that quantity is the common essence of every body: he makes himself but a common mocking-stocke unto every simple Legician, who knoweth that no accident (such as every quantity is) can be of the essence and nature of a substance, such as Christ's body is. Neither would any man say, (that cared what he said) that to be circumscribed in a place is essential to every quantity, when all numbers that be quantities, have no relation unto any place: neither is it of the essence of any quantity to be actually circumscribed by a place; but it is a property flowing out of the essence of one only kind of quantity, to be apt, and fit to be circumscribed and compassed about with a place. And naturally all bodies (except the highest heaven) have one place, out of which they pass (as Saint Austin said) when they come into another: but by the omnipotent power of God, any body may be separated from his place, or be in as many places at once, as it shall please God to seat it: because to be circumscribed with a place actually, is a mere accident unto a substantial body, and without the nature of quantity; and God may not without blasphemy be disabled to separate a substance from an accident.   

R. ABBOT.  
M. Bishop, save that he was disposed to cavil, knew well enough what M. PERKINS meant by the perpetual incarnation of Christ; 
The truth of Christ's body destroyed by Popish transubstantiation.  that whereby he took flesh once for all and to continue man for ever. Now it is true, that because Christ hath but one only body, and that body was perfect by that incarnation, therefore bread, which hath his being after, cannot be said to be turned into the body which was before. For when one thing is turned into another, the latter is not, till it be produced of the former, neither hath the one beginning, but by the ending of the other. Aaron's rod was turned into a serpent, but the serpent was not till of the rod there became a serpent. Our Saviour Christ turned water into wine, but the wine was not till of water there became wine. And absurd it is, that one and the same thing being fully and perfectly made already, should yet be said to be made of any other thing. As for M. Bishop's exception, it is childish and impertinent, because we do not charge them to hold, that the body of Christ is so conceived by bread as it was conceived by the holy Ghost, who was the efficient cause of his conception: but we say, that sith the body of Christ by the power of the holy Ghost was conceived and made of the substance of the Virgin Mary, and thereby became a consummate and perfect body, it is therefore absurd to affirm that the same body is now to be made of any other thing. But this is not the thing that M. PER. aimed at; it is the condition and nature of a true body whereof he argueth, which we profess to believe that Christ took in his conception and incarnation, but is overthrown by Popish transubstantiation. He saith, that Christ's body hath all things in it which by order of creation belong to a body, which he namely specifieth in local circumscription, which he saith, can no way be severed from a body, it remaining a body; implying, that the Papists affirming the body of Christ without local circumscription, do thereby destroy the truth of his body. M. Bishop answereth, that M. PER. herein is deceived; For, saith he, the greatest body of all other, which is the highest heaven, is not circumscribed by any place, because there is no body without it to circumscribe it. Well, but yet it hath dimension and position and distance of parts, and motion accordingly; and therefore quantum inse, it is locally circumscribed; the only defect is, that it hath not a body without it to be circumscribed thereby. Yea we may truly say, that it hath a kind of local circumscription by the superficial clausure and determination of it own substance. In as much therefore as in itself it hath every way the condition of local circumscription, it is no instance against M. PER. rule, that local circumscription cannot be severed from a true body. But because he taketh local circumscription so nicely as we see he doth, I would gladly have him to resolve us one question thereof, and his answer shall show the nullity of his own exception. He hath told us 
a Preface to the Reader, sect. 2.  before that the body of Christ is in one place circumscribed, and in another uncircumscribed: circumscribed in heaven, and in the Sacrament uncircumscribed. Now let him tell us how the body of Christ in heaven hath local circumscription? To speak of Physical and material heavens, it is true of Christ which the Apostle saith, 
b Ephe. 4.10.  He is ascended far above all heavens, and therefore above that highest heaven, which M. Bishop nameth to us, beyond which there is neither vacuum nor locus properly so called, but the incomprehensible habitation of divine light, which our thoughts are in no sortable to conceive. How then is the body of Christ locally circumscribed, where yet there is no Physical or natural place? Let him give us answer hereof, and then we will answer him, that look what giveth local circumscription to the body of Christ in heaven, the same also giveth local circumscription to the highest heaven. Understand the highest heaven, gentle Reader, as M. Bishop doth, for the uttermost sphere of the material globe of this visible world, beyond which is that heaven into which we believe our Lord jesus to have ascended, and where we hope to dwell with him. This exception being frustrate, let us see the rest, where M. Bishop standing nicely and precisely upon terms of schools, telleth us, that M. PERKINS makes himself a common mocking-stocke to every simple Logician, of whom notwithstanding I dare boldly say, that he was as good a Logician as Doctor Bishop is, though writing to the people he used his words accordingly. He saith that quantity is the common essence of every body, and who knoweth not, saith M. Bishop, that no accident, as every quantity is, can be of the essence of a substance as Christ's body is. Well Sir, but yet quantity giveth existence to every body, which is enough to M. PER. purpose, and to be the subject of quantity, or endued with quantity, is the common and true essence of a body. If he will say, nay; we desire him of his courtesy to take the pains to send us without quantity the true definition of a body. Albeit his reading might serve him to understand, that there are few learned men, or none at all, so strict in terms, but that they call by the name of essential properties whatsoever doth immediately and necessarily issue from the essence of a thing, though according to Logic rules it be no part of the essence thereof. And thus M. PERK. saith again, that to be circumscribed in place is an essential property of every quantity: which saith M. Bishop, no man would say that cared what he said. And why? Because all numbers, saith he, which be quantities, have no relation unto any place. But he might easily have conceived that M. PER. as I said before, spoke according to vulgar use, which for the most part understandeth quantity of the magnitude and greatness of bodies, in which meaning it is a property flowing out of the essence of every quantity, not only to be apt to be circumscribed with a place, but to be circumscribed and determined locally according to that meaning of local circumscription which I have before expressed. Therefore in this sort it is not a mere accident to a substantial body to be circumscribed, but it is proprium quarto modo, agreeing always to every body, and to nothing but a body, necessarily arising of the dimensions of the length, breadth and thickness of a body, and the denial whereof is the taking away of the nature of a body. As for his allegation of the almighty power of God how idle it is, it hath been 
c Preface to the Reader. sect. 8.  before declared. For God doth not by his omnipotency contradict himself, neither doth his power serve to make good the fantastical dreams of giddy headed men to be said to destroy the nature of a thing, and yet to leave it still continuing the self-same thing. But it is worth the noting how M. Bishop here playeth the micher and stealeth by two allegations used by M. Perkins, very pertinent to the matter here in hand. It is for the illocality of the body of Christ that M. Bishop pleadeth the omnipotency of God: but M. Perkins bringeth in Leo Bishop of Rome, saying that 
d Leo. epist. 70. Nulla ratione extranostri est corporis veritatem.  the body of Christ is in no sort without the truth of our body. This he passeth by without any mention of it, as if he had not seen any such thing. The words of Saint Austin he vouchsafed to take some knowledge of, but apply them generally to all bodies, whereas Saint Austin also spoke of the body of Christ; making a difference betwixt Christ, as God and man. 
e August. in joan. tract. 31. In terra loquebatur, & tamen in caelose esse dicebat: sic venit ut inde non abscederet: sic redijt ut nos non derelinqueret. Quid miramin●? Deus hoc facit. Homo enim secundù; m corpus in loco est & de loco migrat, & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco unde venit non est: Deus autem implet omnia, & ubique totus est, non secundum spatia tenetur locis.  Christ, saith he, spoke upon earth, and yet said he was in heaven; the son of man which is in heaven. He so came, as that he departed not from thence; he so returned, as that he did not forsake us. Why do ye wonder hereat, saith he? God doth this. For man according to his body is in a place, and departeth from the place, and when he is come into another place, is not in that place from whence he came: but God filleth all things, and is whole every where, and is not contained in ●ace of place. Thus doth Saint Austin distinguish the Godhead and manhood of Christ, making the body of Christ of the same condition with our bodies, so as that it leaveth one place whensoever it cometh to another. The church of Rome therefore affirming a body of Christ without extension or space of place, that is, a ghost in stead of a body, impugneth the article of our faith, whereby we believe that he was conceived and borne of the substance of the Virgin Mary according to the truth and condition of our bodies.   

5. W. BISHOP.  
By this is confuted also his second instance: Christ is ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, therefore his body is not really and locally in the Sacrament. This followeth not, 
Chrysost. lib. de sacerd.  because it is in both places at once, as Saint chrysostom in express terms teacheth. O miracle! O goodness of God he that sitteth above with his Father, at the very same instant is touched with the hands of all men, 
Real presence denied by our belief of Christ's ascension.  and giveth himself to them that will receive and embrace him! See more of this in the question of the blessed Sacrament, where M. PER. citeth the very same authorities, which he here repeateth; see my answer to to them there.   

R. ABBOT.  
It is a true argument and very consequent, Christ is ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of God the father: therefore he is not really and locally in the sacrament. The connexion is Saint Augustine's: 
a August. in joan tract. 50. Conuersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis, & eye deducentibus videndo non sequendo ascend it in caelum, & non est hîc.  He is ascended into heaven, and is not here, as touching the presence of his body. Saint Austin saith, that because he is ascended, therefore as touching his body he is not here. M. Bishop saith, that notwithstanding his ascension he is still here according to his body. Whether now may we think is more likely of these two to be believed? But M. Bishop to save himself, will set chrysostom and Austin together by the ears. Forsooth, chrysostom reporteth it as a miracle, that he who sitteth above with his father, at the very same instant is touched with the hands of all men, and giveth himself to them that will receive and embrace him. What Chrysostom's mind was in this behalf, appeareth by that which otherwhere he saith, that 
b Chrysost. op. imperf. hom. 11. In vasis sanctifacatis non est verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis eius continetur.  in the holy vessels, not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of his body is contained. And by this mystery of his body, Saint Austin saith, that 
e August. epist. 23. Secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est.  after a certain manner it is the body of Christ; and Cyprian saith, that 
d Cyprian. de resurrect. Christi. Quod videtur nonane & virtute Christs corpus censetur.  in name and power it is accounted the body of Christ. As therefore Saint Austin saith, that 
e August. in Psal. 33. conc. 2. Ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret, Hoc est corpus meum.  Christ did in some sort bear himself in his own hands, when he said, This is my body, in some sort, he saith, or after a sort, not verily and indeed: so chrysostom intendeth, that he who sitteth at the right hand of God is after a sort touched in the Sacrament, with the hands of all the partakers thereof; not as touching the reality, but as touching the mystery of his body, yet so (wherein consisteth the miracle which chrysostom mentioneth) as that he indeed giveth himself spiritually and by faith to all them that are truly willing to receive him. And in what meaning Chrysostme spoke those words, we may easily conceive by other words which he useth in the very same place: 
f Chrysost. de sacerd. lib. 3. Dum conspicis dominum immolatum, Sacerdotem sacrificio incumbentem ac preces fundentem, tum verò turbam circumfusam pretioso illo sanguine intingi ac rubefieri, etiamnè te inter mortales versari atque in terra confistere censes? anon potiùs evestigiò ad caelum transferris? anon omnem ca ni●c●gitationem abijcre●s mente ●ura circumspie●●quae in ce●● sunt? O miraiu 'em; O d●● bemgintatem; q●● cum patre sursum sedet, in illo ipsotemporis articulo on nium manibus pertractatur, a● s●●p●● tradit w●●tibus ipsum excipere acc●m●lecti, fit autem id nullis praestigijs, sed apertis ac●●reumsp●tientibus circumsistentium omnium occutis.  When thou seest the Lord offered, the Priest leaning to the Sacrifice and pouring forth prayer, and the people round about died and made red with that precious blood, dost thou think that thou art amongst mortal men, or standing upon the earth? Art thou not forthwith lift up to heaven? Dost thou not cast away all carnal cogitation, and with pure mind behold those things which are in heaven above? Then using the words which M. Bishop hath alleged he addeth: And this is done, not by collusion, but so as that the standers by with open eyes behold all that is done. Let M. Bishop now tell us: do the standers by with open eyes see Christ offered? Are they made red with the blood of Christ? Must they think that they are indeed carried up to heaven, and are not upon the earth? If he cannot deny, but that these words are used by excess and vehemency of speech, to draw the minds of his hearers, to divine and heavenly meditation of the mysteries then in hand: can he deny but that we have just cause to understand the other words in the very same sort? The other testimonies cited by M. PER. out of Vigilius, Fulgentius, Austin, do make the same good, because they show, that Christ according to his manhood, is not really upon the earth. M. Bishop biddeth us see his answers to those authorities: but as yet we do not see them; and if ever we do see them, we shall see him as wise, or rather as wilful, in them as he hath been in all the rest.   

6. W. BISHOP.  
Thirdly, he reasoneth thus: 
The Church as it is believed is not seen.  In that we believe the Catholic Church, it followeth that it is invisible, because things seen, are not believed.  
We answer: that the persons in the Catholic Church are and ever were visible, even to jews and Heathens who persecuted them; but the inward endowments of those persons: that is, their faith, hope, and charity: their assistance by God's spirit, and such like Christian qualities, are invisible & to be believed. And even as a man is truly said to be visible, though he consist aswell of an invisible soul, as of a visible body: so the Church is visible, for the usible persons, visible teaching and administering of Sacraments in it: albeit the inward qualities of it be not visible.   

R. ABBOT.  

a Origen. in Cant. hom. 1. Ecclesiam coetum omnium aduerte sancto●um Et hom. 2. Ecclesia ante constitutionem mundi: sic enim dicit Paulus: sicut elegit nos in Christo. etc.  The holy Catholic church is the company of God's saints, whom he hath elected in Christ before the foundations of the world, and 
b Gregor. in Cantic. cap. 3. Secundum praescientiae suae gratiam Christus sanctam ecclesiam de in aeternum permansurissanctis construxit.  whom he hath by the grace of his foreknowledge appointed to continue with him for ever. It is 
c Ephe. 1.23.  the body and 
d Revel. 21 9  Spouse of Christ: 
e Revel. 5 9  redeemed and 
f 1. Pet. 1.2.  sprinkled with his blood, 
g Rom. 8 11.  quickened by his spirit, 
h Rom 5.19.  justified by his obedience, 
i 2 Cor. 1.22. Eh●. 1.13.14. 2. Tim. 2.19.  sealed to the remssion of sins and everlasting life. That God hath such a people, we believe it, we see it not, neither can our eyes discern who they are that appertain to this number, it being one of the proper emblems of God's honour, ʲ The Lord knoweth who are his. In this sort do we in the articles of our Creed profess to believe the holy Catholic church. That there is a church also visible no man denieth, no man doubteth: nay we affirm, that it is amidst that church which we see that God gathereth unto himself that church which we cannot see. And to speak of this visible church also, we cannot see it to be God's church, or that it is God's word that there is preached, or that they are the Sacraments of Christ which are there administered, or that there is any fruit or benefit to be reaped thereby. We see these things done, but the estimation of them is a matter of faith and not of fight: we see the persons, but we do not by our eyes perceive them to be that that they take upon them to be. But being by faith instructed that these things are of God, or professing so to be believe, we discern by hearing and seeing who they are to whom we are to adjoin ourselves for the exercise of our faith. So then the church is both visible and invisible: visible as touching the persons, visible as touching open assemblies and exercises; but not visible to be the church of God: for than jews and heathens would see so much, and would leave to persecute, which now they do not, because they have no faith, and the church is no otherwise known so to be, but only by faith. Now what saith M. Bishop to hurt any thing that we say? The persons, saith he, in the Catholic church are visible, but their endowments are invisible. Well, and men are not true members of the true church by being such and such persons: but by having such and such inward endowments: and therefore though they be visible as touching their persons, yet they are not visible as true members of the church. The church therefore which we profess to believe, which consisteth in them that are the true members of the visible church, must needs be granted to be invisible. Yea I say further, that men are not at all members of the visible church by being such and such persons, but by profession of the faith and name of Christ and participation of his Sacraments. And therefore M. Bishop doth much amiss to compare visible persons and inward qualities with the body & the soul, because to be a visible person is not to be in part a member of the church, as the body is part of a man, for then every Turk and Infidel might be said to be in part a member of the church, because he is a man: but outward acceptance of the faith and visible communion with the church, maketh a man outwardly a member thereof, and is as it were the body: the life and soul whereof is the inward grace of the spirit: whereby he is indeed to the eyes of God, that which outwarly he seemeth to be to the eyes of men. But a further difference also there is, for that the soul though in itself it be invisible, yet is certainly perceived and discerned by the actions and motions of the body, and therefore well may a man be said to be visible as a man, though as touching the soul itself he be invisible; whereas there are no such actions or motions of a member of the visible church whereby the eye of man can certainly see that he hath life within, or is spiritually the same to God, that outwardly he giveth semblance to men to be. Because therefore the true members of the church are not to be discerned with the eye, it followeth that the church properly so called, consisting of those true members is visible to God only.   

7. W. BISHOP.  
His last objection against us out of the Creed, is: That the articles of remission of sins: resurrection of the body: and life everlasting, contain a confession of special faith. For the meaning of them is thus much: I believe the remission of mine own sins, and the resurrectition of mine own body to life everlasting.  
Answer. That is not the meaning, unless you add some conditions: to wit, I believe the remission of my sins, if I have duly used the means ordained by our Saviour for the remission of them; which is after Baptism, the Sacrament of Penance. Item, I believe I shall have life everlasting, if I keep (as Christ willed the youngman to keep) God's commandments, or (at the least) if I do die with true repentance. Now whether I have done or shall do these things required of me, I am not so well assured, as that I can believe it: for I may be deceived therein; but I have or may have a very good hope, by the grace of God to perform them. Neither is there any more to be gathered out of Saint Augustine, as some of the words by himself here alleged do convince. For he requireth beside faith, that we turn from our sins, conform our will to Gods will, and abide in the lap of the Catholic church; and so at length we shall be healed. See the question of certainty of salvation. Note also by the way, the uncertainty of of M. PER. doctrine, concerning this point: for he holdeth that it is not necessary to have a certain persuasion of our own salvation, 
Pag. 2●0. &. 275.  but that it is sufficient to have a desire to have it: and that doctrine he putteth there (as he saith himself) to expound the Chatechismes, that propound faith at so high: reach, as few can attain unto: yet here and elsewhere, the goodman forgetting himself, chargeth us to cross the Creed, because we do not wrest faith up to so high a strain: and so in heat of quarreling, often expoundeth this contrary to his own rule. Now for proof of S. Augustine's opinion herein (whom he only citeth) take these two sentences for the two points be speaketh of. For the first, that we be certain by ordinary faith of our salvation, let this serve. Of life everlasting, which God (that cannot lie) hath promised to his children, 
De bono persever. cap. 22. De correct. & great. cap. 13.  no man can be secure (and out of danger) before his life be ended, which is a tentation upon earth. Secondly, that a man once truly justified may afterward fall: We must believe (saith this holy father) that certain of the children of perdition do live in faith, that worketh by charity, and so do for a time live faithfully and justly (they were then truly justified) and yet afterward do fall, and that finally; because be calleth them the children of perdition. Thus much in answer unto that, which M. PER. objecteth against our religion out of the Creed, which (as you have seen) consisteth wholly upon his own forced exposition, and vain illations.   

R. ABBOT.  
That our profession of saith in the Creed, importeth a particular application of those things which we believe, 
Romission of sins is believed, not wrought.  hath been sufficiently declared 
a Sect. 3.  before in the question of the certainty of salvation. M. Bishop referreth his Reader to that question, as having there justified what he saith here: but with what face can he so do, before he hath made it appear that he is able to defend what he hath said there? What exceptions he hath used there, the same he useth here; he giveth them no further strength, he cleareth them not from those answers whereby hath been showed the invalidity of them; but goeth on with his cuckoos note, saying over and over still one and the same thing. But his adding of conditions is the destroying of the nature of true faith, which when it professeth to believe the remission of sins doth thereby disclaim the working of it, resting upon God's promise, 
b Agust. in Psal. 88 Non s●cundi●m merita nostra, sed secundùm miserecordiam eius, firma est promissio  which.. as S. Austin saith, is sure, not according to our merits, but according to his own mercy; 
c jere. 31.34.  I will forgive their iniquities, and their sins will I remember no more. His sacrament of penance we know not, because Christ hath not taught it; but the true Sacraments which Christ hath ordained are to the faithful repentant, not works of merit whereby they purchase, but seals and confirmations of God's gift, whereby he freely bestoweth the remission of sins. As for the keeping of God's commandments, we say with S. john; He that saith he knoweth him, that is, as Gregory Bishop of Rome expoundeth it, 
d Gregor. in Ezechiel. hom. 22. De fide & operatione joannes fatetur dicens; Qui dicit se nosse deum. etc.  he that saith he believeth in him, & keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and there is no truth in him. 
e Rom. 7.12.  The commandment is holy and just and good, and 
f Heb. 12.14.  without holiness no man shall see God. But the keeping of God's commandments is one thing according to the condition of the law, another according to the precept and exhortation of the Gospel. The Gospel favourably commendeth unto us the keeping thereof as a fruit of faith; the law strictly requireth it as the condition of eternal life. The Gospel admitteth forgiveness of that that by human frailty is left undone: the law is never satisfied unless 
g Gal. 3.10.  all be done. Therefore if the belief of out obtaining eternal life must rest upon our works according to the law, we can never have assurance of faith, because we can never find sufficiency and contentment in our own works. It followeth therefore, that to build the faith of the Gospel upon the works of the Law, is to confound the Law and the Gospel, and to destroy the truth of faith. 
h Rom. 4.14.  If they which are of the law be heirs, saith the Apostle, than faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect. But 
i v. 16.  therefore it is of faith, that it may be of grace (and therefore 
k Rom. 11.6.  not of works) and the promise may be sure to all the seed, that is, to all that believe according to the example of Abraham's faith. Now than whereas M. Bishop saith, that he believeth to have life everlasting if he keep the commandments, that is no belief at all, because he cannot keep the commandments, as is required for covenant of eternal life. Whereas he telleth us, that he may have a very good hope by God's grace to perform them, his own heart telleth him that he saith untruly, because he knoweth himself debarred from that hope by God himself, by whose words we are taught, that 
l Eccles. 7.22.  there is not a man just in the earth, that doth good and sinneth not, and that 
m james 3.2.  in many things we offend all, and that 
n Psal. 143.2.  in God's sight no man living shall be found righteous. Therefore amidst all our keeping of God's commandments, amidst all our fightings and wrestlings against sin, we still hold fast that confession, that the just (even the just) shall live by faith; because all our justice in this life is maimed and halting, and 
o August de ciu. det, lib. 19 cap. 27. Ipsa justitia nostra tanta est in hac vita, ut potiùs remissione peccatorum, constet quàm prefectione virtutum.  consisteth rather in forgiveness of sins than in perfection of virtues. It remaineth therefore, that true faith is the apprehension and particular application of the promise of God, expecting the effect and participation thereof, not for any works of ours, but for his own mercy's sake. Of which faith it followeth indeed, that we turn from our sins, and conform our will to Gods will, and abide in the lap of the Catholic church, but these are effects and not causes of that state of salvation which we attain by faith only. Saint Austin therefore requiring these things, doth not shake his own assertion of particular faith, whereby he teacheth a man, as M. Perkins showeth, to believe as touching himself, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and everlasting life. As for the contradiction which M. Bishop noteth in M. PER. words, it is more in his conceit than it is indeed. He saith here, that the act of faith is particularly to apply: he saith elsewhere, that faith notwithstanding doth not always attain to a distinct application by formal proposition, but that it is sometimes involved and inlapped in sighs and groans, in desires and prayers to God, which cannot be without an expectance of God's goodness and mercy, and yet a perplexed and trouled mind by questioning itself cannot see so much in itself. He saith again, that some define faith generally to be a certain and full persuasion, which he calleth, so high a reach as few can attain unto, because as there is strong faith to persuade certainly and fully, so there is also weak faith which apprehendeth and persuadeth comfortably, but yet not with fullness and undoubted certainty. He saith nothing here contrary to this, because whether it be strong faith to apply strongly, or weak faith to apply weakly, yet both serve in their degree particularly to apply. It is then M. Bishops want of understanding here that maketh him to mistake, not M. PER. heat of quarreling that maketh him to forget. But now to show what Saint Augustine's opinion is concerning these matters of belief, he bringeth us two sentences, the one to show that by ordinary faith a man cannot be certain of his salvation; the other, that a man once truly justified may afterwards finally fall away; both tending to this, that a man cannot be said by the articles of the Creed, to believe the remission of his own sins unto everlasting life. The first, as he allegeth, is thus: 
p August. de bono persever. cap. 22. De vita aeterna quam filijs promissionu promi sit non mendax deus ante tempora a terna, nemo potest esse secu●usmisicum ●ōsummata fuerit ista vita, quae tentatio est super terram; sed faciet nos perseverare in se usque in huius vitae ●nem, cui quotidie dicin us; Ne nos inferas in tentationem.  Of life everlasting, which God that cannot lie hath from everlasting promised to the children of promise, no man can be secure before his life be ended, which is a temptation upon earth. But what, M. Bishop; did your breath fail you that you could go no further? did you not think the end of the sentence as worthy to be repeated as the beginning? Go on man, tell out your tale; for Saint Austin addeth further: But he will make us to persevere in him unto the end of this life; to whom we daily say, Led us not into temptation. What could Saint Austin devise to speak more agreeable to our assertion, than this is? We say, that respecting ourselves we have no security; we are continually beset with danger and fear; many occasions we have of distrust and despair; and with these temptations we have to wrestle the whole course of this life; but amidst all our distractions and fears this is still the support of our faith, that he will make us to persevere in him to the end of our life, to whom we daily say, Led us not into temptation. 
q 1. Thess. 5.24.  Faithful is he, saith the Apostle, who hath called you, who will also do it. In the other place Saint Austin saith, that 
r ●e corrept. & gratia. cap 13. Credenaun est, qu●sdam de filijs perditionis non accepto do. no perseverantiae usque in finem, in fide quae per dilectionem operatur incipe re vivere, & aliquandiu fideliter aciustè vivere, & postea cadere etc.  we are to believe, that some of the children of perdition, not having received the gift of persevering to the end, do begin to live in faith, that worketh by love, and for a while do live faithfully and justly, and afterwards doefall away. But this Saint Austin speaketh according to men, and as seemeth to the eyes of men, and of that profession of faith, which by outward fruits carrieth for the time the semblance of true faith. For to the eyes of God, I have 
s Of the certainty of salvation. sect. 10.  before showed out of Austin, that reprobates are never effectually called, never justified, never partakers of that healthful and spiritual repentance, whereby man in Christ is reconciled unto God. Therefore Gregory Bishop of Rome faith, that 
t Gregor. Moral. l. 25. c. 8. Specie tenus credunt quotquot certum est electorum numerum summamque transire. Ad fidem specie tenus regni veniunt, qui a numero regnicaelestis excluduntur.  they who are not of the number of the elect, do believe but only in show; do in show only come to the faith of the kingdom; 
u Ibid. lib. 34. cap. 13. Aurum quod pravis eius persuasionibus quasi lutum sternipotuerit, aurum ante dei oculos nunquam fu●t. Qui enim seduci quandoque non reversuri possunt quasi habitam sanctitatem ante oculos hominum videntor amittere, sed eam ante oculos dei nunquam habuerunt.  that 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 the holiness which they had after a sort before the eyes of men, but indeed they never had it in the sight of God. Behold here M. Bishop, one of your own Bishops of Rome, either a corrector, if you will so have it, or as we will rather say, an expounder of Saint Augustine's words, but wholly adverse and contrary to you, denying unto reprobates that faith and holiness which you so confidently attribute unto them. So that in fine we see, that M. PERK, not by forced exposition or vain illations, but directly and according to truth hath charged you with impious violation of the first principles of the faith.   

8. W. BISHOP.  
Hence he proceedeth to the ten Commandments. But before I follow him thither, I may not omit here to declare how the Protestant Doctors do foully mangle, and in manner overturn the greatest part of the Creed. Observe first, that according to their common doctrine, it is not necessary to believe this Creed at all, because it is no part of the written word: secondly, that Caluin doubteth whether it were made by the Apostles or no; being then no part of the written word, 
Cal. lib. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sess. 18.  not made by the Apostles, it must by their doctrine be wholly rejected. Now to the particulars.  
1. Concerning the first article, I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth; they do err many ways. First, they do destroy the most simple unity of the Godhead, 
Confess. fidei gener.  by teaching the divine essence to be really distinguished into three persons. If the divine nature be really distinguished into three, there must needs be three divine essences or natures: ergo, three Gods. Caluin also saith, 
In acts Serueti. pag. 872.  that the Son of God hath a distinct substance from his Father. Melancthon, that there be aswell three divine natures, as three persons, in locis de Christo.  
Secondly, they overthrow the Father in the Godhead, by denying the Son of God, to have received the divine nature from his Father: as Caluin, Beza, and Whitakers do, See the Preface.  
Thirdly, how is God almighty, if he cannot do all things that have no manifest repugnance in them? But he cannot after the opinion of divers of them, make a body to be without local circumscription, or to be in two places at once; which notwithstanding some others of them hold to be possible, 
In colloq. Marpurg. art. 29. Li. 1. cont. Scargum, cap. 14. Dialog. de corpore Christi. pag. 94. De consil. part. 2.276.  as Zwinglius, Oecolampadius, Andreas Volanus, etc.  
Fourthly, though we believe God to be maker of heaven and earth; yet never none but blasphemous Heretics, held him to be true author and proper worker of all evil done upon earth by men. Such nevertheless be Bucer, Zwinglius, Caluin, and others of greatest estimation among the Protestants. See the Preface.  
2. And in JESUS Christ his only Son our lord They must needs hold Christ not to be Gods true natural Son, which deny him to have received the divine nature from the Father: again, thy make him according to his Godhead inferior to his Father. See the Preface.  
3. Born of the Virgin MARY. Many of them teach, that Christ was borne as other children are, with breach of his Mother's virginity, as Bucer, and Molineus in Vnione evangelii part. 3. and Caluin signifieth no less in harmo. sup. 2. Math. vers. 13.  
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and buried. Friar Luther (with a great band of his followers) doth toughly defend, that the Godhead itself suffered; which to be blasphemy, Musculus doth prove in his book of the errors of Luther's Scholars: yet Beza with all them that hold Christ to have been our Mediator, according to his divine nature, can hardly save themselves from the same blasphemy. For the chiefest hast of Christ's mediation consisteth in his death: if then the Godhead did not suffer that death, it had no part in the principal point of Christ's mediation. Hither also appertain all these their blasphemies, to wit: that Christ was so frighted with the apprehension of death, that he forgot himself to be our Mediator, yea refused (as much as in him lay) to be our redeemer: Item, that he thought himself forsaken of God, and finally despaired. See the Preface. 
Caluin denieth not the Creed to be Apostolic.    

R. ABBOT.  
Whether M. Bishop deal honestly with Caluin as touching his opinion of the Creed, let it appear by the very words of Caluin in the very place alleged. Where having named it, the Apostles Creed, he taketh occasion thereupon thus to say: 
a Caluin Institut. lib. 2. cap. 16. sect. 18. Apostolicum autem nuncupo, de authore interim minime solicitus. Apostolis certè magno veterum Scriptorum consensu ascribitur, sive quod ab illis in common conscriptum & editum existimabant, sive quòd compendium istud ex doctrina per corum manus tradita bona fide collectum tali elogi● confirmandum censuerunt. Neque verò mihi dubium est quina prima flatim ecclesiae origine ad ecque ab ipso Apostolorum seculo instar publicae & omnium calculis receptae confessionis obtinuerit, undecunque undem initio fuerit profectum. Nec ab uno aliquo privatim fuisse conscriptum verisimile est, ●●m ab ultima usque memoria sacrosanctae inter pios omnes authoritatu fu●sse constet. Quod unicè curandum est, id extra omnem controuersi●m positum habemus, totam in eo fidei nostrae historier saccinctè, distinct●qu● ordine recenseri; nihil autent contineri quod solidis Scripturae testimocijs m● sit consignatum. Quo intel●ecto de anth●re vel anxiè laborare vel cum alique digladiari nihil attinet.  I call it Apostolic, not making any great scruple who was the author of it. Surely by the general consent of the ancient writers it is ascribed to the Apostles, either for that they thought it in common written, and set forth by them, or for that they thought good by such a title to confirm this Brief, which is faithfully gathered out of the doctrine delivered by their hands. Neither do I doubt whencesoever it first began, but that from the first original of the Christian Church and from the very time of the Apostles it took place, as a public and generally approved confession. Neither is it likely to have been written in private by any one, because it is certain that from the very beginning it hath been of sacred authority amongst all godly men. That which we are entirely to regard, is without all controversy or doubt, that the whole story of our faith is therein briefly and distinctly set down, and nothing contained in it but what is confirmed by sound testimonies of the Scripture. Which understood and known, it is bootless for a man either much to trouble himself, or to contend with any other concerning the author of it. Which words of Caluin containing both his own judgement and ours concerning the authority of the Creed, do sufficiently refel the malicious cavils of this vain and absurd wrangler. By our doctrine, he saith, it is not necessary to believe the Creed, yea it is wholly to be rejected, because it is no part of the written word. Indeed formally it is no part of the written word, because it is not a part of the very text of Scripture there set down in that frame of words wherein we use it: but do we any where say, that whatsoever is not so a part of the written word is wholly to be rejected, or not necessary to be believed? Nay we are so far from saying or thinking so, as that we hold many things in M. Bishop's books necessary to be believed, which notwithstanding are so far from being a part of the written word, as that for the manifold vain cavillations and impudent falsehoods therein contained they deserve rather to go for wall paper, than to be read for learned books. As touching the matter and doctrine of the Creed, Caluin affirmeth that it is taken out of the doctrine of the Apostles, set down in the written word, and therefore it is no more to be rejected than the word itself from whence it is taken. He denieth not but that the Apostles might be and were the authors of it, though he cannot certainly affirm that they were so. He acknowledgeth the consent of ancient writers that it was composed by the Apostles. He confesseth the antiquity thereof even from their very time. He holdeth it unlikely to have been published by any private man, and therefore leaveth it most likely to be done by them. By whomsoever it was done, because it is consonant to the Apostolic spirit and doctrine, he acknowledgeth all sacreed authority and opinion as heretofore, so now to be attributed unto it. What is there here that malice itself could blame, but that Popish malice above other is blind and cannot see it own shame? Let us now go along with him to the particulars, and see what wise work he maketh to prove that which he saith, the Protestant Doctors do foully mangle and in manner overturn the greatest part of the Creed. Concerning the first article he saith, we err many ways. But how I pray you? first, saith he, they do destroy the most simple unity of the Godhead, by teaching the divine essence to be really distinguished into three persons. But how doth that follow? 
One essence of God distinguished really into three persons.  for if unity of essence in this distinction be terminus a quo; and triality of persons, be terminus ad quem; and the reality of distinction be understood not in the essence for itself but only in the persons, how shall it destroy the simple unity of the God head, to say that one divine essence is really distinguished into three persons. What, will M. Bishop say that the distinction of the persons is intellectual only and not real? Let him then set up a school for Sabellius and Praxeas, the heretics, and teach as they did, that 
b August. de haeres. ad Quod vultd. c. 41. Dicunt eundem ipsum esse patrem & filium & sp. sanctum.  the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, are but one and the same person, only termed diversly. But if for avoiding thereof he will say, as all learned divines say, that the persons of the Trinity are really distinguished, then let him understand that he saith no more than we say, nor knoweth more than we know, who know how to speak as well as he. Our Divines do sometimes indeed say, that the one essence of God is distinguished really into three persons, but meaning it no otherwise than according to the definition of Thomas Aquinas, that 
c Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 1. q. 28. art 3. in corp. Oportet quòd sit in deo distinctio realts non secundum rem absolutam quae est essentia, in qua est summa unitas & simplicitas, sed secundum r●m relativam.  there is in God a real distinction, not according to that that is absolute, which is the essence, but according to that that is relative, which is the divers subsistence of the persons. Or rather they mean it according to that which Saint Austin saith: 
d August. de fide a● Pet. diacon. c. 1. una est patris & filii & sp sancti essentia, in qua non est aliud pater, aliud filus, a●ad sp. sanctus, quan ●is person●tlitèr sit alius p●ter, alius filius, alius spsanctus.  There is one essence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, wherein the Father is not one thing, the Son another thing, and the holy Ghost another thing: and yet personally the Father is one, the Son another, and the holy Ghost another. What is it but the same to say, either, that in one essence there are (really) three persons, or that one essence is really distinguished into three persons? He saith, that if the divine nature be really distinguished into three, there must needs be three divine esserces or natures. If, saith he, it be distinguished into three: but three what? for if he had added as he should, into three persons, than his folly had appeared to argue in that sort, 
The son how understood to have a distinct substance from the Father.  that if one essence be really distinguished into three persons, there must needs be three essences. That which he addeth out of Caluin, that the Son of God hath a distinct substance from the Father, Caluin speaketh not of himself, but of Tertullian; nor by his own phrase, but by Tertullia's phrase, who though he differ from latter times in manner of speech, yet defendeth the truth of the Godhead in three persons as other godly Fathers have always done. Praxeas' the heretic denied the Trinity, affirming that the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, were but only names given in divers respects to one and the same person. Tertullian writeth against him, and coming to the word, the second person in Trinity, he disputeth that the same is, 
e Tertul. adu. Praxed. Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse sermonem? Planè. Novimus enim eum substantiwm habere in re per substantiae proprietatem, ut res. & persona quae. damn videri possit. etc. Nihil dico de deo maene & vacuum prodire potuisse etc. nec carere substantia quod de tanta substantia processit. etc. Quod ex ipsius substantia missum est, sine substantia non erit. Quaecunque ergò substantia sermonis fuit, illam dico personam, & illi; filii nomen vindico; & dum filium agnosco, secundum a patre defendo.  not an empty or idle name, but importeth some substantial thing by propriety of substance; that it cannot be without substance that proceeded from such a substance, and was sent of the substance of the Father. But yet he presently expoundeth himself; Whatsoever the substance of the word is, that I call the person, and challenge to it the name of the Son; and whilst I acknowledge him the Son, I defend him to be a second to the Father. By substance therefore with Tertullian, is not meant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the essence, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the personal and individual existence, wherein each person distinctly hath the one true and perfect substance, that is, essence of one Godhead, the word being purposely intended to cross the heretical conceit of Praxeas, of void and empty terms. Even as Hilary reporteth, that a Council of Antioch against the same heresy, challengeth to every person 
f Hilar. de Synod adu. Arianos' His nominibus significantibus diligenter propriam uniuscuiusque nominatorum sul stantiam & ordinem & gloriam ut sint quidem per substantiam tria, per consonantiam verò unum. Ex●●cil. Antiocheno.  his proper substance, and saith, that they are three in substance, but in accord one, 
g Ibid. paulo post. Tres subst iutias esse dixerunt, subsistentium personas per substantias edocentes, non substantiam patris & f●●ij & spiritus sancti diversitate dissimulu essentiae separantes.  meaning, saith he, by substances the persons subsistent, not separating the substance of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost, by diversity of unlike essence. The blasphemy of Praxeas and of the Sabellians was in these latter times revived by servetus. Against him Caluin disputeth, and bringeth in Tertullian in his own language oppugning that damnable fancy, and in that whole discourse with all integrity he maintaineth our belief of one substance in three persons: and is not M. Bishop ashamed thus by advantage of another's words only by him alleged, and in the authors meaning used, so ill to requite him, and to charge him with that whereto he purposely defendeth the contrary in the same place? But why do I speak of shame; for what are those men ashamed of? And therefore he sticketh not here again very grossly to bely Melancthon also, charging him to say, that there be as well three divine natures as there be three persons, whereas neither in the place by him quoted nor any otherwhere ever any such matter proceeded from Melancthon. Upon his second point I will not stand, because it is before handled in the sixth section of the Preface. So is the third point handled there also in the eight section, and the fourth in the tenth, and that which he saith as touching the second article, in the sixth and seven. His objection as touching the third article is a very lewd and unhonest slander. None of us affirmeth that Christ was borne with the breach of his Mother's virginity, 
Christ borne without breach of his mother's virginity.  because her virginity stood in being free from the company of man, not in that she had not her womb opened when she bore Christ. For if the opening of her womb in her childbirth were the breach of her virginity, than the Evangelist shall be said to impeach her virginity in applying to the birth of Christ that saying of the law: 
h Luk. 2.23. Exod. 13.2.  Every man-child that first openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. Which words divers of the ancient fathers, 
i Tertull. de carne Christi. propè finem. Origen. in Luc. hom 14. Ambros. in Luc. 2. lib. 2. Hierom. cont. Pelag. l. 2.  Tertullian, Origen, Ambrose, Hierome, hold to be most properly verified in the birth of Christ, who opened the womb that was not opened before, whereas for all other the womb is first opened by carnal copulation. Hereupon Tertullian saith, that 
k Tertul. ut supra. Virgo & non virgo: virgo quantum à viro: non virgo quantum à partu.  the virgin Mary was both a virgin, and not a virgin: a virgin as touching man, not a virgin as touching childbearing; that is, a virgin as free from having the womb opened by man; not a virgin as free from having the womb opened by birth of child. So Saint Austin saith, that 
l August. de fide cont. Manich. cap. 22. Maria non incongruè propter partum dicitur mulier, virgo verò quòd virilem nescierit conventionem, neque pariendo virginitas eius corruptasit. Christ as God our Mediator, yet the God. head itself suffereth not.  she may not unfitly be called a woman in respect of her childbirth, and a virgin for that she know not the company of man, neither was her virginity corrupted by bearing child. What, will M. Bishop now say that all these were heretics, and did deny that the mother of Christ continued a virgin? Let him say what he will, but we will hold him for a sorry fellow that concludeth breach of virginity of that opening of the womb. As touching the fourth article, that Luther affirmed the Godhead itself to suffer, it is a lie. These are but devices of Gifford, and Knogler and such other base hungry starvelings, who to gain favour make collections and conclusions of their own, and then affirm them of our men. That Christ according to his divine nature also is our Mediator, even whole Christ both God and man, hath been before justified in answer to the seventh section of his preface to the Reader. But to infer, that therefore the Godhead itself suffereth, is as good a reason as to say, that because the man dieth, therefore the soul is mortal. But saith M. Bishop, the chiefest act of Christ's mediation consisteth in his death. True, and what then? If then, saith he, the Godhead of Christ do not suffer that death, it hath no part in the principal act of Christ's mediation. As if he should say; the chiefest act of a faithful and good subject is to die for his Prince and country: if then the soul itself do not suffer that death, it hath no part in the chiefest act of a faithful and good subject. Would he take it patiently to hear another man to reason in this sort? If he would not, why doth he himself thus play the wiseman, and mock simple men that are not able to perceive his fraud? It is the man that dieth, though he die not in the soul, but in the body; and it is Christ God and man, that suffereth, though he suffer not in the God head but in the manhood. 
m Vigil. count Eutych. lib. 2. Passus est deus in unione personae, non est passus in proprietate naturae; siquidem possionis iniurias etiam divinitas pertulit, sed passionem sola etus caro persensit.  God suffered by union of person, saith Vigilius, but in propriety of nature he suffered not; the Godhead did bear the injuries of the passion, but the flesh only did feel the same. Though the soul itself die not, yet it is the soul that exposeth the body unto death; and though the Godhead suffered not, yet it was the Godhead that yielded the manhood to suffering and death, 
n Heb. 9.14.  offering himself without spot unto God by his eternal spirit; as the Apostle speaketh. The rest of his quarrels being most impudent and shameless fictions, are already handled in the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the answer to the preface.   

9 W. BISHOP.  
5. Descended into hell, the third day he arose again from the dead. It is worth a man's labour, to behold their goodly variety of expositions about Christ's descending into hell. Beza followed of Corliel our Countryman, 
2. Apolog. ad Sanct.  thinks this to have crept into the Creed by negligence; and so the French Hugonots, and Flemish Gues have cast it clean out of their Creed: but they are misliked of many others, who had rather admit the words, because they be found in Athanasius Creed, and also in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus: but they do most perversely expound them. Caluin saith, that Christ's suffering of the pains of hell on the Cross, is signified by these words: but he pleaseth not some others of them; because Christ's suffering and death also, goeth before his descending into hell, and the words must be taken orderly as they lie. Thirdly, divers of them will have it to signify, the laying of Christ's body in the grave; but that is signified plainly by the word, buried. Wherefore some others of them expound it to signify, the lying of his body in the grave three days, which M. PER. approveth as the best; but it is as wide from the proper and literal signification of the words, as can be. For what likeness is there between lying in the grave, and descending into hell? Besides, Caluin their great Rabbin misliketh this exposition, as much as any of the rest, 
Lib. 2. Instit. cap. 16. sess. 8.  and calleth it an Idle fancy. Fourthly, Luther, Smideline, and others cited by Beza, art. 2. do say, that Christ's soul after his death went to hell, where the Devils are, there to be punished for our sins, thereby to purchase us a fuller redemption; which is so blasphemous that it needs not any refutation. As ridiculous is another, received of most Protestants; that Christ's soul went into Paradise, which well understood is true. For his soul in hell, had the joys of Paradise; but to make that an exposition of Christ's descending into hell, is to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it. All these and some other expositions also, the Protestants have devised, to leads their followers from the ancient, and only true interpretation of it: to wit, that Christ in soul descended unto those lower parts of the earth, where all the souls departed from the beginning of the world, were detained by the just judgement of God, till Christ had paid their ransom; and were not admitted into the kingdom of heaven, before Christ had opened them the way thither.   

R. ABBOT.  
We hold, 
Of Christ's descending into hell.  that all the articles of our Creed are so to be understood, as that our faith may make use thereof concerning ourselves, and not only concerning others. It is a very barren and cold construction which M. Bishop maketh of the descending of Christ into hell; that his soul descended into the lowest parts of the earth, to bring from thence the souls that were detained there by the just judgement of God till Christ had paid their ransom. But mark how wisely he setteth down the matter. All the souls, saith he, departed from the beginning of the world. What; all the souls without exception? the soul of Cain, of Esau, of Ishmael, and of other such infidels and reprobates? Well, though he writ he knoweth not what; we must take his meaning by that that his fellows say, 
a Greg Marti. Discovery chap. 7. sect. 6.  that the Patriarches and other just men of the old Testament, were in some third place of rest, called Abraham's bosom, or Limbus patrum till our Saviour Christ descended thither & delivered them from thence. So then, not all souls, but the souls of the just were delivered by Christ's descending into hell. But what? is it the meaning of Christ's descending into hell, that he descended into a place of rest? Surely M. Bishop will have but very bad rest, if he have no better than is any where to be found in hell. He upbraideth us with the improbability of divers expositions made of this article; but surely this is above all other a mad exposition, to say that Christ descended into hell, that is, into Abraham's bosom, into a place of rest. Let him not press us with the authority of men's names for the justification of it; Saint Austin knew their names as well as he, and they could not so much prevail with him, but that he freely professed, that 
b August. epist. 99 Ne ipsos quidem inferos uspiam scripturarum locis in bonum app●llatos potuti reperire. Quod si nusquam in divinis authoritatibus legitur, non utique sinus ille Abrahae, id est, secretae cuiusdam quietis habitatio, aliqua pars inferorum credenda est. etc. si in illum Abrahae sinum Christum mortuum venisse sancta scriptura dixisset, non nominato inferuo eiusq; doloribus, miror si quisquam ad inferos eum descendisse asserere auderet.  he could no where in Scripture find hell spoken of or named in good part; and saith, that because it is not so read in any divine authority, therefore Abraham's bosom, which is an habitation of quiet rest, is not to be believed to be any part of hell. And if the Scripture had said that Christ being dead went into Abraham's bosom, not mentioning bell or the sorrows thereof, I wonder if any man would dare thereupon to say that he descended into hell. So in another place he saith; 
c Idem de Genes. ad lit. l. 12. c. 33. Illud me nondum invenisse confitetor, inferos appellatos ubi justorum anima requies●●nt. etc. Et ideo quomodo apud inferos eum (Abrahae sinum) credamus esse non video.  I do not find it any where called hell, where the souls of just men do rest; and I do not see how we may believe that Abraham's bosom is in hell. And this he observeth out of the story of the Gospel, where it is that we read of Abraham's bosom; 
d Ibid. Videmus inferorum mentionem non esse factam in requie pauperis, sed in supplicio di●itis.  We see that there is no mention made of hell in the rest of the poor man, but in the punishment of the rich. Thus strange it seemed to Saint Austin and unprobable, which now forsooth we must take to be a very Catholic construction, that Christ descended into hell, that is to say, into a place of rest. But this placing of Abraham's bosom to be a part of hell, was the device of Martion the heretic, who borrowed it from the Poets dream of the Elysian fields; Tertullian therewith upbraiding him, that 
e Tertull. count Marc. lib. 3. Vester Christus posi decursum vitae pocticetur apud inferos in sinu Abrahae refrigerium. Et lib. 4. Mercedem refrigerij apud inferos determinat eis positam qui legi & prophetis obedierint.  their Christ promised to the jews after life ended, rest in hell, in Abraham's bosom; and did determine a reward of rest in hell for them that obeyed the law and the Prophets. So doth Origen bring in the Marcionite heretic alleging, that 
f Origen. de recta in deum fide dialog. 2. Ait in inferno Abraham fuisse non in regno caelorum. Ex eo quòd illi cum divite colloquium intercesserat simul fuisse intelligitur.  Abraham was in hell, not in the kingdom of heaven; For by that they talked one to the other, it is understood, saith he, that they were together. But Origen answereth him, that 
g Ibid. Ingentem hiatum qui nominatur non attendisti; Medium enim illud inter caelum & terram hiatum vocat.  he listeneth not to the great gulf that is there said to be betwixt them; which he expoundeth to be the middle space betwixt heaven and earth, as importing that Abraham was in heaven. He observeth also, that the rich man is said, 
h Ibid. Erigens oculos suos: tollere verò oculos in caelum visitatum est.  to lift up his eyes: and men use, saith he, to lift up their eyes to heaven. The very same reasons Tertullian also useth to show, that 
i Tertul. ut supra lib. 4. Aliud inferi ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. Name & magnum ●it intercedere inter istas regiones profundum & transitum utrinque prohibere. sed nec allevasset di●e● oculos, & quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora.  Hell is one thing, and Abraham's bosom is another, because it is said, that a great depthis betwixt those places, and no passage betwixt the one and the either, and the rich man would not have lifted up his eyes, being far off, but to a higher place. He expoundeth it therefore to be the receptacle of the souls of the faithful now departing, where they enjoy rest and peace till the time of the resurrection; not in heaven as he thinketh, but yet higher than to be any part of hell. Amiss indeed in that he excludeth it from being a part of heaven, but yet destroying that Popish fancy whereby it is made a part of hell. For we believe that the souls of the faithful go immediately to heaven; and because in their departure they are said to go to Abraham's bosom, therefore we believe that Abraham's bosom is in heaven, nothing being thereby imported, but what Christ saith in the Gospel, 
k Mat. 8.11.  They shall come from the East, and from the West, and from the North, and from the South, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and jacob, in the kingdom of God. So saith Origen, that 
l Origen. in Genes. hom. 11. Omnes sancti qui de quatuor terraepartibus veniunt in sinum Abrahae portantur ab Angelis.  all the Saints which come from the four parts of the world, are carried by the Angels into Abraham's bosom. In like sort Saint Austin saith of Nebridius, a faithful man deceased; 
m August. Confess. lib. 9 cap. 3. Et nuncille vivit in sinu Abraham.  He now liveth in Abraham's bosom. Now than we are come to this, that because Abraham's bosom is in heaven, and Christ's descending to hell was no other but his going to Abraham's bosom; therefore the meaning of Christ's descending into hell is, that he ascended up to heaven. It were well that they should first clear these matters for themselves and make good their own assertion, before they should take in hand to question ours. Whatsoever the meaning be of Christ's desecending into hell, we are sure that that which they bring is vain and false. Now the article of Christ's descending into hell, being according to their exposition impertinent and idle, and no use to be made thereof in the Creed, some in respect thereof have thought the same to have crept into it of latter time, and not to have been there from the beginning; and some, it may be (for I know it not, neither dare I take M. Bishop's word for it) have quite omitted it in the Creed. Neither do they want inducements hereunto from the ancient church, in which there are many Creeds and confessions of faith, in which there is no mention of Christ's descending into hell. And herein we are to note Doct. Bishop to be a man singularly impudent, who allegeth the article to be in the old Roman Creed expounded by Ruffinus, whereas the words of Ruffinus himself do expressly affirm the contrary. 
n Ruffin. in exposit. symb. Apost. Sciendum sanè est quòd in ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non habetur additum, Descenditad inferna, sed neque in Orientis ecclesiis habetur hic sermo.  We are to know, saith he, that in the Creed of the Roman church it is not added that he descended into hell, neither are those words used by the Eastern churches. The Nicene Creed saith nothing of it, which in likelihood would not have omitted it if it had been found in the ancienter Creed of the Apostles. Saint Austin hath 
o Tom. 9 de symb. vel reg. fidei ad Catechumenos.  four expositions of the Creed in one place, and 
p Tom. 3. de fide & symbolo.  one in another, and in none of these expositions is it found that Christ descended into hell. Tertullian hath 
q Tertul. de prescript. & adu. Praxean, & de veland. virginib.  three declarations of the rule of faith, and this point is not found in any of them. Neither doth Ireneus mention it, where 
r Iren. adu. heres. lib. 1. c. 2. &. lib. 3. cap. 4.  twice he expresseth the Apostolic faith. There is a confession of faith set down by 
s Synod. Roma. tom. 1. Concil.  a Synod at Rome in the time of julius the first, another in the 
t Concil. Constantin. 1 cap. 7.  first Council of Constantinople, another in a Council at 
u Synod Alevand. apud. Cyril. & in Concitio Ephes.  Alexandria, confirmed by the Council of Ephesus, and many other more, wherein there is nothing said of Christ's descending into hell. Thus from many examples and authorities of the ancient church, those men perhaps think that they have warrant to leave out that article without being culpable of any violation of Christian faith. And although Athanasius and sundry other in their writings have delivered this as a point of faith, yet they hold that those acts and instruments of public recognition, which are very frequent to this purpose, do overwaigh private judgements, and are sufficient to excuse or defend that that is done by them. But for our parts we see no sufficient reason to move us to follow them herein. We see divers phrases of Scripture tending to the assertion of this article of our belief. We read our Saviour Christ professing his rejoicing to his Father, 
x Acts. 2.27. Psal. 16.10.  for that he would not leave his soul in hell, which is vainly spoken if the soul of Christ were not at all in hell. Therefore we admit the article, and in the confession of our faith we always recite it, neither doth any man make question to do otherwise. But M. Bishop excepteth against the variety of expositions that are found amongst us concerning the same. And what; is there no variety of expositions thereof to be found amongst them? Do they all so accord in one, as that we can observe no difference of one from another? first, that learned devout Author Durand, as M. Bishop 
y Preface to the Reader. sect. 5.  before hath styled him, doth hold that 
z Durand apud Bellarm. de Christianima. cap. 15.  Christ descended not into hell at all by real presence, but only by effect and power. 
a Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 3. q. 52. art. 2. in concls. Christus secundùm effectum in omnem infer●● locum descendit, secùndum verò substantialem praesenti●m non descendit nisi ad locum justorum.  Thomas Aquinas determineth, that by real presence he went only to Limbus Patrum, but to the other parts of hell he descended by virtue and power. Bellarmine setteth it down for 
b Bellarm. de Christianima. c. 16. Probabile est profectò animam Christi ad omnia inferni lo●a descendisse.  probable, that the soul of Christ did verily descend to all the places of hell. Thomas Aquinas resolveth, that 
c Tho. Aqui. ut supra art. 4. in concls. Animam Christi tamdiu fuisse in inferno credendum est, quamdin corpus fuit in sepulchro.  the soul of Christ was so long in hell as his body was in the grave; and so they commonly hold, as did Vigilius of old, 
d Vig. ●o. Eutyc. lib. 2. Anima (Christi) per illud triduum in inferno.  that for those three days space, the soul of Christ was in hell. But S. Austin holdeth it, a thing impious to be affirmed, 
e Augst. count Felic. Arian. ca 15. Si mortuo corpore ad paradisum anima (latronis) mox vocatur, quenquamnè adhuc tam impium credimus, qui dicere audeat, quoniam anima salvatoris nostri triduo illo corporeae mortis apud inferos custodiae mancipetur?  that the soul of the thief being forthwith called to Paradise, the soul of our Saviour should for the three days space of his bodily death be in custody in hell. Thomas Aquinas is of opinion, that 
f Thom. Aquin. sum. pa. 3. qu. 52. art. 1. in corp. Conueniens fuit Christen ad infernum descendere, quia ipse venerat portare poenas nostras ut nos a poena eriperet: ex peccat● autem homo incurrerat non solum mortem corporis, sed etiam descensum ad inseros.  it behoved that Christ should go to hell, because he came to bear our punishments, so to deliver us from the same; and we by sin had incurred, not only bodily death, but also going to hell. But Bonaventure saith, and to him Bellarmine inclineth, that 
g Bellerm. de Christi anima, cap. 16. ex Bonaventura. Dicit Christi animam dum esset in inferno fuisse in loco p●●●ae, sed sine poena.  the soul of Christ when it was in hell was in a place of punishment, but yet without punishment. It should seem then by these, that there is not so great agreement amongst them concerning this article, as that M. Bishop should have any great heart to object disagreement amongst us. As for the expositions which he citeth on our part, setting aside the fourth, they all contain truth according to the Scripture, though happily they do not fitly express the meaning of this article; yea they all are anouched by some of his own side. That Christ endured the agonies and anguishes of soul, that belong to our damnation in hell, Caluin affirmeth to be the meaning of this article. The thing itself is affirmed for a truth by their own Cardinal Cusanus, that 
h Nicol. Causan. Excitat. lib. 10. ex sermone in iliud; Qui per sp. sanctum se metipsum obtulit. Passio Christi (qua maior nulla potest esse) suit ut damnatorum, qui ●agis damnari nequeunt, scilicet usque ad poenam infernalem. Etibid. Illam poenam sensus conf●rnem daemnatis in inferno pati voluit in gloriam der patris sui.  the passion and suffering of Christ, than which none can be greater, was the like as of the damned, which cannot be more condemned, even unto the pains of hell; and that Christ would suffer that pain of sense and feeling, correspondent to the damned in hell, to the glory of his father. The like in effect doth their Friar 
i Ferus. in Math. 27. Poenam & meritum peccatorum (quae sunt Frigus, calor, efuries, sitis, timor, tr●pidatio, horror mortis, horror inferni, desperatio, mors, infernus ipse) in se transferens. &.  Ferus discourse at large, writing upon those words of Christ upon the cross, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? That this, taken in no other meaning than they speak it is a truth, I have before showed in 
k Sect. 13.14.  answer to the Preface: but that it must necessarily be taken to be the meaning of this article, I will not contend, because it may be contained in the other article of the cross and suffering of Christ. So neither will I say, that it is the intent of this article, that Christ was buried in the grave, albeit that he was so, is a truth of Scripture; and they that affirm that there is nothing else meant by his descending into hell, may so much the more be confirmed therein, for that Andradius, one of their own greatest Scholars, and a chosen defender of the Council of Trent resolveth, that in 
l Andrad. Defence. fidei Trident. lib. 2. Animaduerta. mus infernum hoc loco (solutis doloribus inferni. Act. 2) pro morte atque sepulchro Hebraeorum dicendi more usurpari, ut Psa. 15. is quem mox Petrus citat, Quoniam non dere●●quisti an man in inferno. etc.  some of the chief places, whereby Christ's descent to hell is proved, there is nothing meant by hell but death and the grave only. The third exposition addeth nothing to the second, but only a circumstance of continuance and abiding in the state of death and of the grave; which in like sort is true, though we may well refuse it, as touching the meaning of this article. The fourth exposition which he allegeth out of Luther, Smideline and others, whether truly or not I cannot tell, namely, that Christ after death went to hell, in soul there to be punished for our sins, swerveth indeed from the truth; but yet Suarez the jesuit out of Medina confesseth, that 
m Suarez in Thom. Aqui. p. 3. q. 52. art. 8. disp. 43. §. 1. Me lina dicit a iquos Catholicos sensisse Chriflūpassū esse aliquas extrinsecas poenas dāna●●●● in inferno.  some Catholics, as he calleth them, have thought the same, namely, that Christ suffered some extrinsical pains of the damned in hell: and how nearly Thomas Aquinas cometh thereto, we have seen before. The last construction, which above all other he nameth ridiculous, is their very own, & he lewdly belieth the Protestants, in that he attributeth it to the most of them, namely, that Christ's going to Paradise, is meant by his descending into hell. They say, that the soul of Christ went immediately to Abraham's bosom, as being a part of hell, there to continue till his resurrection. But yet he saith to the thief, 
n Luk. 23.43.  This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. It must needs be therefore by their opinion, that Abraham's bosom must be Paradise, and so that Christ's descending into hell importeth, that he went to Paradise, which if it be to expound a thing by the flat contrary of it, let him thank his own for the folly of it: as for us we have nothing to do with it. There remaineth after all these the common received opinion of our church, that the soul of Christ being departed from the body, as the letter of the text importeth, went to hell, as a King into the prison, not to be holden in it, but to declare his power and command over it; to bid Satan defiance in his own kingdom, and upon his own ground, and in himself to carry away, by way of spoil, all them whose person and cause he had undertaken, and whom he had, by the grace of his foreknowledge and election, made members of himself.   

10. W. BISHOP.  
6. Concerning Christ's resurrection, they do also err. For whereas a resurrection is the rising up of the very same body that died, with all his natural parts: they deny Christ to have taken again the same blood, which he shed in his passion; 
Cal. in 27. Math. Perkins pag. 194. In. ca 24. Lucae,  and yet is the blood one notable part of the body. Caluin also affirmeth it to be an old wives dream, to think that in Christ's hands and feet there remain the print of nails, and the wound in his side, notwithstanding that Christ showed them to his Disciples, and offered them to be touched of Saint Thomas.  
7. About Christ's ascension into heaven, they do somewhat dissent from the truth. For some of them say, that Christ's body did not pierce through the heavens by virtue of a glorious body (lest they should thereby be compelled to grant, that two natural bodies may be together in one place, and therefore as well one true body in two places at once) but that broad gaps were made in the lower heavens, to make him way to the highest, which is very ridiculous, and more against true Philosophy: they say also, 
1 Cor. 15. vers. 21. Coll. 1.18. Beza. inc. 2. Actorum L. 1. ar. 25. the concor. Caluinist.  that he was not the first man that entered into the possession of heaven; which is flat against the Scriptures, that call Christ the first fruits and first begotten of the dead. Thirdly, they lock Christ so closely up in heaven, that they hold it impossible for him to remove thence at any time before the last judgement (for fear they should otherwise be enforced to confess, that his body may be in two places at once) which is to make him not Lord of the place, but some poor prisoner therein. And as for Christ's sitting one the right hand of his Father, they are not yet agreed what it signifieth. See Conrade. 
* L. 2. Insti. c. 14 ss. 3.  Caluin plainly saith, that after the latter judgement he shall sit there no longer. That God shall then render to every man according to his works (as holy Scripture very often doth testify) all the pack of them doth utterly deny.   

R. ABBOT.  
I do not know any of our writers that denieth, 
Christ in his resurrection resumed his blood again.  but that Christ in his resurrection by his almighty power, resumed his blood again. He quoteth M. Caluin and M. Perkins, affirming the contrary, but I could not find that which he mentioneth of them. For my part I resolve; that if any of them, or any other have said so, they have erred therein, because I believe that it is true, both of the whole and every part of the body of Christ, which David saith; 
a Psal. 16.10.  Thou wilt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Saint Austin resolveth, that 
b Aug. de. ciu. Dei. lib. 22. ca 19 Non quòd existimem corpori cuiquam periturum quod naturaliter inerat.  of our bodies there shall nothing perish that is naturally belonging thereto, and groundeth upon the words of Christ, that 
c Ibid. cap. 14. & 20 Luk. 21.18.  not a hair of our head shall perish. If then it be so in our bodies, much more are we so to conceive of the body of Christ, that nothing at all perished, that did belong to the substance of it. As for the now remaining of the print of the nails, in the hands & feet of Christ, & of the wound in his side, M. Bishop can give no reason why Caluin might not well account it an old wives dream. For whereas he allegeth, that Christ after his resurrection did show the same to his Disciples, it may well be answered, that so Christ after his resurrection, did eat and drink with his Disciples, and yet it doth not follow, that therefore now Christ doth eat and drink. Both these Saint Austin holdeth to be of like use, to give to his Disciples assurance of his resurrection; whereas now there is no such use, and therefore no reason of the remaining of them. 
d August. de. civi dei. lib. 22. cap. 19 Quando ille à suis ita deberet attendi ut p●ss●t agnosci Quò pertinuit etiam ut contrectantibus ostenderet suorum vulnerum cicatrices, ut etiam cibum potumque sumeret; non alimentorum indigentia, sed ea qua et hoc poterat potestate.  He was so to be seen of them, saith he, as that he might be known. Thereto it served, that to them handling him, he showed the scars of his wounds, as also, that he did eat and drink, not for want of food, but by that power whereby he could so do at his own pleasure. But of Christ ascending he saith; 
e August. in Psal. 23. Contrecta cicatrices & senties reparatas & immortalitati redditam humanam infirmitatem. The heavens gave way to Christ's body in his ascension.  Handle his scars, and thou shalt perceive them to be repaired, and that human infirmity is restored to immortality. That in the ascension of Christ, the heavens opened way and passage to his body we believe, and that necessarily it was so, because Christ had a true body, which was glorified in taking possession of heaven, where is the place of glory; albeit in the glorifying of it, 
f August epi. 57 Cui profectò immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abstulit.  he gave it immortality, but took not from it the nature of a body, so that, 
g Ibid. sub finem. In aliquo cali loco propter veri corporis modum.  it is in some certain place of heaven, because of the condition of a true body. Thus Saint Austin saith that he ascended, 
h Idem in Psal. 23. Patefactis sibi caelestibus.  the heavens being made open for him. So where the Psalm saith, Lift up your heads, O ye gates; Saint Hierome saith, that 
i Hieron. in Psal. 23. Ipse dominus nunc regna caelestia repetens nunciatur. etc. Tollite portas. etc. Hoc est, reserate caelestes aditus, pateat aeternalis ingressus.  thereby is set forth Christ ascending to heaven and expoundeth the words thus; Open ye the entrances of heaven, let the everlasting entry be set open. As for M. Bishops foolish Philosophy we regard it not in this case; we would know of him by his Philosophy how Saint Steven said, 
k Act. 7.56.  Behold I see the heavens open, and the Son of man slanding at the right hand of God. We wish him to remember, that in the measuring of matters of faith by rules of Philosophy, Tertullian saith, that 
l Tertul. adu. Hermog. Philosophi haereticorum patriarch.  Philosophers were the Patriarches of heretics; the Apostle therefore giving warning, 
m Col. 2.18.  Beware lest any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ. We ask him again, how it standeth with his Philosophy, that 
n 2. Kin. 2.11.  Elias in a whirlwind ascended into heaven. We believe that the heavens yielded him way to go thorough; and M. Bishop will not say that he had as yet a glorified body to go otherwise. What he will affirm otherwise, 
The souls of the faithful in heaven before Christ's incarnation.  let him prove it, or else he shall not find us very hasty to believe it. Now that Elias ascended into heaven, the text plainly affirmeth, as I have alleged, and therefore we believe undoubtedly that he did so. The same Elias with Moses, 
o Luk. 9.31.  appeared unto Christ in glory, and to his Disciples, which glory they could not bring with them from the Popish Limbus patrum, and therefore we cannot doubt but they brought it with them from heaven. We cannot doubt therefore, but that the souls of the faithful that died before the incarnation of Christ were received into heaven. For as by the faith of Christ's death and resurrection, they were acquitted from hell, even so do we believe, that by the faith of Christ's ascension, they were received to heaven. And of faith the Apostle telleth us, that 
p Heb. 11.1.  it is the subsistence of things hoped for, the demonstration or evidence of things which are not seen, to which in effect and after a sort, the things are, which yet indeed are not. By faith Abraham so long before 
q john 8.56.  saw the day of Christ, and was glad thereof. To faith Christ was 
r Revel. 13.8.  the lamb slain from the beginning of the world. To faith therefore Christ from the beginning of the world was ascended into heaven, because they so believed in him as if he were already ascended. In effect then, Christ was the first that ascended into heaven, because no other ascended, but by the faith of his ascension. As for the places cited by M. Bishop, they make nothing to the contrary, as which belong properly to the question of the resurrection of the dead, to signify, that Christ is the first that 
s Rom. 6.9.  rose from death, to die no more, and in whom all the rest shall so rise again: but as touching the state of the souls departed, it proveth nothing. As touching the being of Christ in heaven, 
Christ until his second coming abideth in heaven only.  we teach nothing but what he himself hath taught. If M. Bishop will call it, a locking of him in heaven, it is not we that lock him, but he himself hath locked himself, who hath told us, that 
t john 12 8.  we shall not have him always with us; that 
u Acts 3.21.  heaven must contain him until the time that all things be fulfilled, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his Prophets since the world began; 
x Heb. 10.12.13.  that he is at the right hand of God, henceforth expecting or waiting till his foes be made his footstool. To affirm then, that Christ is in heaven only, and not upon the earth; and that he so abideth until the time that he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead, is not to lock up Christ in heaven, but to justify the words of Christ. They may rather be said to lock up Christ, who of their own heads, so tie him by the words of the Priest, as it were by a charm, to their consecrated host, as that 
y See the Answer to the Epest. sect. 14.  so long as the form of bread continueth, he may by no means be released, though he pass by the stomach into the draft, though he be eaten by mice, or dogs, or swine, though he be cast into the dirt, and teach it to be heresy to affirm the contrary. Of the meaning of Christ's sitting at the right hand of his father, I know no difference at all, but that all acknowledge it to import the exaltation of the human nature of Christ to the communion and fellowship of the majesty and glory of God, so as that all creatures both in heaven and earth are made subject unto him. He referreth us to Conrade, some wizard or other; but if that which Conrade saith, be not worth his reporting, we hold it not worth our seeking, nor list to look after every fool which will suck fancies out of his fingers ends, and then make us the authors of them. As for that which Caluin saith, 
How Christ shall continue or cease to sit at the right hand of God.  that after the last judgement, Christ shall no longer sit at the right hand of God, in that meaning wherein he speaketh it, it is very true, not for that there shallbe absolutely any end of his kingdom, which the Angel saith 
z Luk. 1.33.  shall continue for ever, and shall have no end, but he shall thenceforth reign only in personal union with the Godhead, who now reigneth by delegated office, 
a john 5.22.27.  having all judgement committed unto him, in that he is the Son of man. For we must understand, that God who ruleth and governeth the world, yet doth it not now immediately by himself, but useth thereto the ministry and service of men and Angels, and performeth all things by means. But for the execution of this government, he hath specially exalted his son, even the man jesus Christ, in whose obedience and humbling of himself, he took that delight, as that as it were in hue thereof, he would set him up, according to his human nature, 
b Ephe. 1.21.  far above all Principalities, and Powers, and Might, and Dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that that is to come, 
c Mat. 28.18.  giving unto him, in special manner, all power both in heaven & in earth; that as he had purchased the church with his precious blood, so for the behoof of the church, he might have a sovereignty and dominion over all creatures to limit their power, to determine their courses, to command, or compel their service, to do by them and with them, whatsoever is to be done, till he fully and for ever accomplish the perfection thereof. Which being done, and the end come, and all rule and authority and power abolished, there shall be a cessation of that commission, because there shall be no further use thereof; 
d 1. Cor. 15.24.  he shall deliver up the kingdom to God the father, and with us according to his manhood, shall be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Not for that he is not now according to his manhood subject to the father, but he is now in such sort subject, as that for the father in his manhood, he exerciseth a kingdom of power for the confusion of his enemies, and preserving of his from the force of them. Not for that he shall not then also reign for ever God and man, but he shall not reign in that sort as man, because all adversary power being utterly abolished and for ever, there shall be no need of such a kingdom, his reigning being thenceforth the enjoying of them, whom he hath redeemed & purchased; not the rescuing or defending of them. And thus doth Saint Austin set down from some ancients, a stinting of the kingdom of Christ as now he reigneth; 
e August. lib. 83. q 69. Oportet eum regnare donceponat omnes inimicos suos sub peaibus suis, qu●a talis regni quale habent principes armatorum nulla exit causa, host ita subiecto ut rebellare non possit. Nam utique dictum est in evangelio, Et regni cius non erit finis, secundum quod regnat in aeternum; secundum autem●d quòd adversus diabolum sub eo militatur, tamdiu erit utique ista militia donec ponat, etc. postea verò non erit, cum pace perpetua perfruemur.  He must reign till he put all his enemies under his feet, because there shall be no cause of such a kingdom, as have Princes or Captains of armed men, when the enemy shall be so subdued as that he cannot rebel; for it is said indeed in the Gospel, Of his kingdom there shall be no end, according to that he reigneth for ever; but according to that we war under him against the devil, so long shall this warfare be, till he put all his enemies under his feet; afterwards it shall not be, when as we shall enjoy everlasting peace. Thus and no otherwise doth Caluin say, that Christ's sitting at the right hand of God is but for a time, because the end of his sitting is for the subduing of his enemies, which thenceforth shall be none; and for the bringing of us to God, who then shall perfectly and immediately be joined unto God, 
f 1. Cor. 13.12.  to see face to face, and to know even as we are known, 
g August. de Trin. lib. 1. ca 10.  iam non interpellet pro nobis Mediator & Sacerdos noster filius Dei & filius hominis, sed & ipse in quantum Sacerin est, assumpta propter nos servi forma, subiectus sit ei qui illi subiecit omnia ut in quant is Deus ●●t cum illo nos subiectos habeat; in quantum Sacerdos nobiscum illi subiectus sit.  so as that our Mediator and Priest, the son of God, and the son of man, shall no further make intercession for us, saith S. Austin, but he also as our Priest, having taken for us the form of a servant, shall be subject to him, who hath subdued to him all things, that as he is God, he may have us subject together with himself (as man,) and as our Priest, may with us be subject to himself (as God;) the kingdom thenceforth to abide, not in the manhood of Christ, as now it doth, but in the Godhead, that God, as the Apostle saith, may be all in all. For conclusion of this section, M. Bishop addeth; That God shall then render unto every man according to his works, all the pack of them doth utterly deny. But M. Bishop, you should for example have named one; you should have quoted some place, where either in common or private judgement this denial is set down. 
God's rendering according to works proveth no merit.  If you can bring none, what a shame is it, for a man of your degree and profession, thus wilfully to lie, and to wrong them that have done no wrong to you? The Scripture indeed hath taught it, as he allegeth, and we believe, and so preach to all men, that 
h Rom. 2.6.  God shall render unto every man according to his works. We give warning with the Apostle, 
i Gal. 6.7.  that no man deceive himself; for whatsoever a man soweth, the same shall he reap. He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit re●pe everlasting life. We teach by the word of Christ, that 
k john 5.28.  the hour shall come when all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. And yet we teach withal, that we are 
l Rom. 3.24.25.  justified freely by the grace of God, throuh faith in the blood of Christ; and that God doth save us, not for any merits of ours, but only for his mercy's sake. Can he not tell how these two may stand together? Let him learn then of Gregory Bishop of Rome, who propoundeth the question, and answereth it; 
m Gregor. in Psal. penitent. 7. Si illa sanctorum foelicitas misericordia est & non meritis acquiritur, ubi erit quod scriptum est, Et tu reddes unicuique secundum opera sua? si secundum opera redditur, quomodo misericordia aestimabitur? sed aliud est secundum opera reddere, aliud propter ipsa opera reddere. In eo enim quod secundum opera dicitur ipsa operum qualitas intelligitur, ut cuius apparuerint hona op●r●, eius sit & retributio glori●sai●● namque heatae vitae in qua cum deo & de deo v●●i ur nullus potest aequari labour, nulla opera compara●i, praesertim cum Apostolus dicat, Non sunt condignae passiones, etc.  If the bliss of the Saints be mercy, and be not purchased or gotten by merits, how shall that stand which is written; Thou shalt render unto every one 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; another thing to render for the works sake. For when it is said, according to works, the quality itself of the works is considered, that whose works appear good, his reward may be glorious. For to that blessed life where we are to live with God, and of God himself, no labour or pains can be equalled, no works may be compared, for that the Apostle saith, that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed upon us. Notwithstanding then that God do render to every many cccording to his works, yet the doctrine of merits, which M. Bishop would build thereupon is excluded; because our good works, though they be sufficient as marks to distinguish us from others, yet they are not sufficient to obtain salvation for us; yea, as 
n Of justification sect. 49.  elsewhere hath been declared out of Gregory, if God should in strict judgement examine the defects and blemishes of them, they should therein be sufficient to condemn us. Whatsoever they are, they are not our own but God's works in us, and 
o August. de great. &. lib arbit. cap 7. Si dei dona sunt bona merita tua, non deus cororat merita tua tanquam merita tua, sed tanquam dona sua.  when he shall crown them, he shall crown them, not as our merits, but as his own gifts, as S. Austin saith.   

11. W. BISHOP.  
8. I believe in the holy Ghost. First, Caluin and his followers (who hold the holy Ghost to have the Godhead of himself, and not to have received it from the Father and the Son) must consequently deny the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son, 
In the Preface. In cap. 6. &. 17. Isa. & in 16. Marc.  as hath been elsewhere proved. Secondly, they make him much inferior unto the other persons: for they teach in their French Catechisms, that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of the Son. And Caluin against Gentil saith, that the title of creator belongeth only to the Father: and elsewhere, that the Father is the first degree and cause of life, and the Son the second. And that the 
* In 26. Math. v. 64.  Father holdeth the first rank of honour and government, and the Son the second; where the holy Ghost is either quite excluded from part with the Father and the Son, or at most, must be content with the third degree of honour.   

R. ABBOT.  
As touching the Frst point, he referreth his Reader to the Preface, and there it is already answered. That which Caluin saith, is namely concerning the second person in Trinity, the Son of God. M. Bishop by consequence draweth it to the third person, the holy Ghost. The objection then, or rather the slander, being cleared, as touching the Son, is consequently cleared concerning the holy Ghost. His second cavil is, 
The holy Ghost not made inferior to the Father and the Son.  that we make the holy Ghost much inferior to the other persons. And how may that appear? Marry in their French Catechisms they teach, saith he, that the Father alone is to be adored in the name of his son. But what? because they say, the Father alone, must they needs be taken to exclude the holy Ghost? Hath he not so much divinity as to know that the name of the Father, is sometimes used for distinction of persons, sometimes indefinitely of God, without any such distinction? When our Saviour saith, 
a Matt. 23.9.  One is your Father, who is in heaven, doth not the name of Father there, extend to God the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost? Doth it not so also, where the apostle saith, 
b Eph. 4 6.  There is one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Doth M. Bishop otherwise understand it, when he saith, Our Father which art in heaven? Surely the French Catechism may say as he rereporteth, (who yet seldom reporteth truth) & yet import nothing thereby, but what Origen saith Christians of old did, namely 
c Origen. count Cells. ●. 8. Christiani soli Deo per jesum preces offerentes.  to offer prayers to God only by jesus, or in the name of jesus. The next cavil against Calum is of the same kind, that the title of Creator belongeth only to the Father. Which M. Bishop might well have understood, in the distinction of the people by their several attributes, as 
d Calu. Opus in Explicat. perfidiae Valent. Gentle. Certè vn● consensu fatemur Christum impropriè vocari creatorem coeli & terrae quoad personae distinctionem. Neque enim dubium est quin seriptura patri nomen Creatoris vendicans personas distinguat.  Caluin setteth it down to be very true; and the rather, for that in the very articles of the Creed he findeth it so applied; I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. For although it be true, which S. Austin oftentimes delivereth, that 
e August de praedest. sanctor. cap. 8. Inseparabilia dicimus ●sse opera Trinitatis.  the works of the Trinity are inseparable, and in the act of any of the persons is the concurrence of all; yet they so concur, as that they retain therein their several proprieties, so as that of several actions arise several denominations; which in common phrase of speech are used as in some specialty belonging to one person rather than another. As therefore we attribute it to the son alone to have redeemed us, and to the holy Ghost alone to sanctify us, albeit both the Father and the holy Ghost, had their work in our redemption; and the Father and the Son have their work also in sanctifying us; even so to the Father alone, the title of Creator is applied, not but that the Son and the holy Ghost have their work in the creation, but because, 
f Origen. count Cells. lib. 8. Dicimus immediatum opifice● esse fi●um dei verbum. etc. Ver● aut●m patrem, curus mandato mundu● sit per ipsum filium conditus, esse primarium opincem.  the Father is the primary or principal worker, as Origen saith, at whose commandment the world was created by the Son, and 
g Hilar. de Synod adu. Aria. Si suis unum dicens deum, Christum autem deum ante secula filium dei obsecutum patri in creatione omnium non confitetur, anathema sit.  wherein, as the Syrmian Council saith, and Hilary approveth, the Son did obedience to the Father. As for the rest that he here quarelleth at, that the Father is called the first degree and cause of life, and the Son the second; and again, that the father holdeth the first rank of honour and government, and the son the second; not to question the truth of his allegations, I would in a word ask his wisdom, doth he that saith, that the Father is the first person in Trinity, and the Son the second, deny thereby the holy Ghost to be the third? or doth he hereby exclude the holy Ghost from having part with the Father and the Son? Doth the Apostle when in his epistles he saith, 
h Rom. 1 7. 1. Cor. 1.3. et in reliq.  Grace and peace from God our Father, and from our Lord jesus Christ; doth he, I say, exclude hereby the holy Ghost from being the author of grace and peace, or from having part with the Father and the Son? Or when he saith; 
i 2. Cor. 1.3. Ephe 1.3.  Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord jesus Christ, doth he deny the Son and the holy Ghost to be blessed and praised together with the Father? If he do not, why then doth this idle headed Sophister thus take exception, where there is nothing for him justly to except against? Forsooth at most, saith he, the holy Ghost must be content with the third degree of honour. But what, M. Bishop; do not you also place the holy Ghost in the third degree, when you name him the third person? Doth not your head serve you to understand degree of order only, without imparity or minority, as all Divines in this case are wont to do? But why do I thus contend with a blind buzzard, a wilful and ignorant wrangler, and not rather reject him as a man worthy to be altogether contemned and derided? He hath 
k Preface to the Reader. sect. 7.  before cited the latter of these words, to show that Caluin made the Son of God inferior to the Father, but how lewdly he dealeth in the alleging of it, and to how small purpose, it is there declared, & there is no cause here to speak thereof.   

12. W. BISHOP.  
9 
one.  I believe the holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints. First, where as there is but on Catholic church, as the Council of Nice expressly defineth following sundry texts of the word of God; they commonly teach that there be two churches: one invisible of the elect; another visible of both good and bad. 
holy.  Secondly, they imagine it to be holy, by the imputation of Christ's holiness to the elected brethren, and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faithful. 
Catholic.  Thirdly, they cannot abide the name Catholic in the true sense of it: that is, they will not believe the true Church, to have been always visibly extant since the Apostles time, and to have been generally spread into all countries; otherwise they must needs forsake their own church, which began with Friar Luther, and is not received generally in the greatest part of the Christian world. Finally, they believe no Church, no not their own in all points of faith: but hold that the true Church may err in some principal points of faith. How then can any man safely rely his salvation, upon the credit of such an uncertain ground and erring guide? may they not then as well say that they do not believe the one Catholic Church: because they do as well not believe it, as believe it? And as for the communion of Saints, their learned Masters do commonly cassier it out of the Creed, and that not without cause. For by the Saint's understanding (as the Apostles did) all good Christians whether alive or departed this world, they that deny prayer to Saints, and for the souls in Purgatory, have reason to reject the common society and enter course that is between the Saints, and the mutual honour and help which such good Christian souls do yield and afford one to another.   

R. ABBOT.  
The holy Catholic church which we believe in the Creed, being the communion of Saints, is only one, 
The Catholic Church only one.  which is the body of Christ, whereof all the faithful are members, being joined into this society by one spirit. Visible and Invisible, being but circumstances, cannot argue any multiplication of the church, because the invisible church importeth all them, and them only, who are the true members in their time of the visible church. For in the visible church, the name of the church properly belongeth to them only, who live by faith and by the spirit of Christ; the rest are not members, but 
a August. in 1 joan. epist. tract. 3. Sic sunt in corpore Christi quomodo humores mali.  as evil humours in the body, which wait their time to be purged out. In the mean time, because all profess to seek Christ and to serve him, and our eyes cannot distinguish betwixt them that truly do so, and them that do not, therefore visibly and to us all go together under the name of the church, though many there be hypocrites and time servers, who with God and to his sight are no part thereof. So then the church visible and invisible, in substance are the same, they differ only in respect; and M. Bishop knoweth that respects change not the natures of things; and therefore those different respects do nothing hinder, but that the church in nature is always one. As touching the holiness of the church, M. Bishop. in the delivering of our opinion keepeth his wont. He saith, 
The holiness of the church imputative and real.  that we imagine it to be holy, by the imputation of Christ's holiness to the elected brethren, and not by the infusion of the holy Ghost into the hearts of all the faithful: Whereas we do not imagine only, but by the word of God believe and know, that the church, and all the members thereof are holy, not only judicially, by the imputation of Christ's holiness, but also really by the infusion of the holy Ghost, begun in this life by 
b Rom. 8.23.  the first fruits of the spirit, and fully to be perefected when the promise of Christ shall be fulfiled; 
c Mat. 5.6.  Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness; for they shall be satisfied. Again, he excepteth against us, that we cannot abide the name Catholic in the true sense of it. 
Of the true sense of the name Catholic.  But what is that true sense? That is, saith he, they will not believe the true church to have been always visibly extant since the time of the Apostles. But what ancient father did ever set this down for the true sense of the name Catholic? If any, let him be brought forth. If none, why doth he contrary to his own prescription introduce a new exposition of an article of our belief? Cyril in his Catechism, bringeth in all the meanings of the name Catholic that he could learn, that the church is so called, for that 
d Cyril. Hierosci. Catechis. 18. Illuminat. Catholica vocatur quia per untuersum sit or●em terrarum diffusa etc. Et quia doret Catholicè, hoc est, universalitèr & sine ullo defectu vel differentia omnia dogmata quae deberent venire in cognitionem, etc. Et quòd omne genus hominum ipè subiugat; et quia in universum curat omne genus peccatorum etc. habiturqe in illa omne genus virtutis. etc.  it is universally spread thorough the whole world; for that it teacheth universally all doctrines that are to be known; for that it subjecteth to it alkinde of men for that it healeth all kind of sins; for that it hath in it all kind of virtues: but of M. Bishop's meaning, that it should be always visibly extant, he had learned nothing. Surely S. Ambrose saith, 
e Ambros. Hexaem lib. 3. cap. 2. Ecclesia habet tempora sua persecutionis & pacis. videtur sicut luna deficere, sed non deficit; obumbrari potest, deficere non potest.  The church hath her times of persecution and peace, it seemeth as the Moon to fail, but it faileth not; it may be overshadowed, but utterly fail it cannot. If the church may be as the Moon, so overshadowed by persecution, as not to be seen, than it is not necessary to be always visibly extant; and if that be not necessary, then M. Bishop hath played here the false merchant to tell us, that the church is therefore called Catholic, because it is always visibly extant. Albeit there is somewhat also to be observed concerning the name of the true church, that we may speak to that time of the visibility of the church which M. Bishop specially intendeth. For if we call that the true Church which truly hath the outward vocation and calling of the church, than we deny not but that the church, in the time of Antichrist must be and hath been always visibly extant, because Antichrist was to possess and hath possessed the visible state of the church. But if by the true church, we mean those members of the church which are truly correspondent to the vocation and calling of the church in faith and obedience unto God, than the true church is not always visible, because the greater part being the worse doth many times oppress the better and weaker part, and proudly carrying itself in the opinion and confidence of itself, persecuteth and driveth into corners all them that gainsay their traditions and wilworships, which by their own authority they establish to delude thereby and frustrate the word of God. And thus we say, that the true church, in the time of the exaltation of Antichrist was in a sort invisible, the public state of the church yielding itself in thraldom to his tyranny, and persecuting the true members of the church, who disclaiming his obedience sought to keep themselves entire, and faithful unto God. Whereas he further addeth for the notation of the name Catholic, that the church was so called as being generally spread into all countries, we willingly acknowledge the same, as being before acknowledged by the ancient church, and defended against the Donatists, who by other expositions sought to draw the name unto themselves, as the Papists now do. Only we add that caution which Bellarmine himself hath delivered, as necessary for himself, that 
f Beliarm. de notis eccles. cap. 7. Si solae una provincia retineret veram fidem, adhuc verè & propriè diceretur ecclesia Catholica, dummodo clarè ostenderetur eam esse unam & eandem cum illa quae fuit aliquo tempore vel diversis in toto mundo.  if one only country should retain the true faith, yet the same should truly and properly be called the Catholic church, so that it might clearly be showed to be one and the same, with that which hath been at any time or times over the whole world. For by this rule nothing hindereth but that our church, though now it be not received generally in the greatest part of the Christian world, yea if it were but in one only country, yet may truly and properly be called the Catholic church, if it be proved to be one and the same with the church, which at any time heretofore was spread over all the world. But that our church is the same with that, which at the first was spread throughout the world, it is very evident, as Tertullian teacheth us to prescribe 
g Tert. de prescript. adu. haeret. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae.  by consanguinity or agreement of our doctrine, with the doctrine of that church. For by the Gospel which the Apostles preached, the church was founded throughout the whole world. 
h Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Quod quidem tunc praeconiaverunt, postea per dei voluntatem in Scriptures nobis tradiderunt fundamentum & columnam fidei nostrae futurum.  The gospel which the Apostles preached they afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. The same Gospel delivered to us in the Scriptures we receive; we add nothing to it, we take nothing from it; as we find it, so we teach it. Our faith therefore is the same with the faith of that church, which at the first was planted throughout the whole world. There is no cause then for us to forsake our own church, or to think that the same began with Friar Luther, as this dreamer imagineth, which by so plain deduction is approved to be the same with the first church, and consequently to be truly and properly the Catholic Church. Finally, saith he, they believe no church in all points of faith. But doth his wisdom find it in the articles of the Creed that we are to believe any church in all points of faith? 
The church how far to be believed in points of faith.  We are taught there to believe that there is a holy catholic Church, which is the communion of Saints: but nothing do we find there of believing any Church in all points of faith. We believe the Church in points of faith, so far as she yieldeth herself like a faithful and obedient spouse to be guided by the voice of her Lord and husband jesus Christ. But if the Church prefer her own will before the word of Christ, as the proud harlot of Rome doth, it should be a wrong to Christ to believe the Church, and a way to set up human error in stead of divine truth. It is not the voice of the Church, but the word of the written Gospel which God hath appointed, as Irenaeus even now hath told us, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For the words of the Church are many times the words of error and untruth; and therefore if we should rely our salvation upon the credit thereof, we should indeed rely upon an uncertain ground and erring guide; but the word of the Gospel is always one and the same, without any variableness or uncertainty, and therefore safely may we rely our salvation thereupon. Now therefore it cannot be said, but that we always believe one holy catholic Church, according to the profession of faith specified in the Creed, though sometimes and in some things we do not believe, that is, credit the visible Church as touching points of faith, because the Church sometimes teacheth us to believe otherwise than God hath taught. Which though it seem strange to M. Bishop in that language which he hath learned to speak, yet to us it is not strange, who in the Canonical histories of the Churches both of the old and new Testament do so often see them diverting and turning from the right way. As for that he saith, that our learned masters do commonly cashier out of the Creed the addition of the communion of saints, it is but a fruit of the harnessing of his face, and he is therefore bold to say it, because he hath learned not to be ashamed of any thing that he list to say. That by the Saints are there meant all good Christians, all the faithful, whether alive or dead, we will not deny; 
Communion of Saints implieth neither Purgatory nor prayer to saints.  but that either prayer to saints, or prayer for souls in purgatory, belong to this communion of Saints, we never yet learned, and are too old to learn it now. For as for the Saints in heaven 
i Aug. de vera relig. cap 55. Honoramus eos charitate, non servitute: honorandi propter imitationem, non propter religionem adorandi.  We honour them with love, as Austin saith, but not with service; to follow them by imitation, not to adore them by religion, and therefore not to pray unto them. Further intercourse as yet there is none betwixt them and us, because 
k Esay 63.16.  they know us not, nor are acquainted with us, nor can we any way acquaint them what we say unto them. Now beside the Saints triumphant in heaven, we acknowledge none but those that are militant upon the earth, because the holy Ghost divideth the whole body of the Church into 
l Eph. 1.10. Col. 1.20.  those that are in heaven, and those that are in earth, and pronounceth them all 
m Reu. 14.13.  blessed that are dead in Christ, as who rest from labours and sorrows, and thereby are discharged from all Purgatory pains. But if there be any souls in Purgatory, to which all good Christian souls should yield and afford their help to do them ease, and this be one matter of the intercourse and communion of God's Saints, why doth the Pope violate the communion of Saints, by withholding from those tormented souls that help and ease which he is able to afford them. Surely, if he cannot do them ease, then is he an impudent liar, and a notable impostor and cozener of the world. If he can do it, then is he a cruel wretch that without compassion suffereth poor souls to lie broiling in those fiery flames. But we rather approve the former member of this division, and take him for a liar, both for that without warrant he thrusteth in Purgatory into the articles of our faith, and with less warrant challengeth the same for a jurisdiction to himself.   

13. W. BISHOP.  
10 The forgiveness of sins. It is not easy to find what is their settled opinion, touching theforgivenesse of original sin in Infants. Some attribute it to Baptism; but that cannot stand with their common doctrine, that Sacraments have no virtue in them to remit sins, or to give grace. Others say, that God without any means doth then, when they be baptized, of himself immediately justify them. But that cannot stand in their own doctrine, because Infants want the instrument of faith to lay hold on that 〈◊〉 then offered by God, and therefore cannot, being so young, take it unto them. Others will have Infants sanctified in their mother's womb, by virtue of a covenant, which they suppose God to have made with old father Abraham, and all his faithful servants, that (forsooth) their seed shall be holy. But this is most fantastical, and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience: for Isaac was the son of promise, and yet Esau his son was areprobate; David's father was a godly Israelite, and yet David affirmeth, 
Psal. 51.  that he himself was conceived in iniquities; and we may see whole Countries now turned Turks, whose ancestors were good Christians: therefore not all the souls of the faithful are sanctified in their mother's wombs. Secondly, how evil soever they agree about the remission of sin; yet there is a perfect consent among them, that such relics of original sin remain in every man baptized and sanctified, that it infecteth all and every work he doth, with deadly sin: yea that which remaineth is properly sin in itself, though it be not imputed to the party; so that sin is always in them, though their sins be never so well forgiven. And as for the Sacrament of Penance, by which we hold all sins committed after Baptism to be forgiven; they do renounce the benefit of it, and are at utter defiance with it.   

R. ABBOT.  
If we were as full of differences in our doctrine as M. Bishop's head is full of idle fancies, it should be hard indeed to find any settled opinion amongst us, whereas now our opinion being settled, he out of sundry terms and words that are used in the expressing thereof, dreameth of great difference and uncertainty amongst us. 
Original sin how it is forgiven to Infants.  The matter is concerning the forgiveness of original sin in Infants. Some, saith he, attribute it to baptism. And whom, I marvel, doth he know that doth otherwise? Who of us doth not acknowledge baptism to be God's instrument for the actual application of that grace which he hath intended towards us in jesus Christ, before the foundation of the world? which notwithstanding hath his effect, not by the very work wrought, or by any virtue infused into the water, or by any power given to the very words and syllables that are pronounced, but by the assisting power of the holy Ghost, accompanying the outward Sacrament to give grace and forgiveness of sins, not indifferently or generally, but 
a Rom. 4.5, vulgat. Eph. 1.5.9  according to the purpose of the grace of God. Now of this that we say, that it is the holy Ghost which in baptism worketh the effect of grace, he out of the abundance of his wit frameth another opinion, which with us is no other but only the explication of the former. As for his exception, that children have not the instrument of faith to lay hold on the grace of God which is offered in baptism, it availeth nothing, because children are brought to baptism, though not in their own faith, whereof they are uncapable; yet in the faith of their parents, who apprehending the promise of God according to the tenor thereof, both for 
b Gen. 17.7.  themselves and for their children, do thereby derive and transport unto them an interest in the grace of God, whereby they are sacred and holy unto God, and are therefore by baptism to be received to be made partakers of that grace. Hear again M. Bishop imagineth a third opinion, whereas still there is nothing said but what is dependent upon the first. And this third opinion he delivereth according to his own absurd conceit thereof, and not according to that that by us is intended. We say nothing but what the Scripture hath taught us, that 
c 1. Cor. 7.14. Children of faithful parents how understood holy.  the children of faithful parents are holy. He betwixt his pride and ignorance, will take no knowledge that the Scripture so speaketh, thereby to give a true sense and meaning of that it saith, but scornfully derideth it, and out of his own distempered brains bringeth a foolish reason to dispute against it. This is most fantastical, saith he, and contrary to the Scriptures and daily experience. And how so? Forsooth Isaac was the son of promise, and yet Esau his son was a reprobate, and many children of Christians afterwards become Turks: Therefore the children of the faithful are not sanctified in their mother's womb. But did not his eyes see that out of his own doctrine a man might by the same argument overthrow the sanctification of baptism also? for in like sort a man may say; The children of many faithful become reprobates and castwaies; therefore the children of the faithful are not sanctified in baptism, which I suppose he will not admit. Surely he knoweth that by the doctrine of their schools sanctification once had may afterwards be lost, and that many reprobates are for the time partakers thereof. It is then no argument to say, that because many children of the faithful are reprobates, therefore they were not sanctified in their mother's womb, because, as he will say of them, who are sanctified in baptism; so it may be answered him of them who are sanctified in their mother's womb, that by apostasy they forego that which by grace they had received. I speak not this to affirm that sanctification which he imagineth, but only to show him the silliness of his argument whereby he impugneth it. His other instance as he setteth it down, is as weak as that; David's father was a godly Israelite, and yet David affirmeth that he himself was conceived in iniquities. For though David were conceived in iniquities, yet that letteth not but that after his conception he might be sanctified in his mother's womb. But we do not only make him say that he was conceived in iniquity, but also that he was 
d Psal. 51.5.  borne in sin, even as we confess generally of all, that 
e Aug. Enchir. ca 33. Cum hac quip (ira dei) omnis homo nascitur.  we are borne guilty of the wrath of God, 
f Eph. 2.3.  the children of wrath; and that unless the grace of Christ do thenceforth relieve us, 
g john. 3.36.  the wrath of God abideth upon us. When therefore the Apostle saith, that the children of believing parents are holy, we do not thereby understand any inward endowment or gift of holiness, but only that they are with us to be holden and accounted as belonging unto God, and comprehended within his covenant, that therefore we may not doubt but that the fellowship of the grace of God, as God himself hath ordained, is to be imparted unto them. We know that many things by the law were called holy, which yet were not capable of inward and spiritual holiness; and therefore albeit we say by the Apostles phrase, that the children of the faithful are holy unto God, even from their mother's womb; yet is there no necessity to understand this holiness of any grace of inward regeneration, as they wilfully understand it; it being sufficient both to the Apostles words, and to our meaning, that they be reckoned as belonging to God's household, partakers of his vocation and calling, designed to his use, and in case to be made partakers of his holiness. That the remainder of original sin is properly sin in the regenerate, and that it infecteth and staineth all our good works, so as that it should prevail against us to condemnation, save only that God imputeth not the same unto us, it hath been at large before declared, and M. Bishop for shame should no more gainsay it, till he have made good that, that there he hath said against it. As for his Sacrament of penance, we know it not. Repentance Christ hath taught us, but Sacrament of penance he hath taught none, and therefore justly may we leave it to them that have been the devisers of it. For remission of sins, which we commit after baptism, we look back always in our repentance to baptism itself, where it was sealed unto us, not for the present only, but for ever, that 
h 1. joh. 2.2.  if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father jesus Christ the just, and he is the propitiation for our sins.   

14. W. BISHOP.  
11 The resurrection of the bodies. Whether Farel the first Apostle of the Genevian Gospel doubted thereof or no, let his successor Caluin tell you, who answereth Farels letter thus: 
Epist. ad Farellum.  That the resurrection of this our flesh doth seem to thee incredible, no marvel, etc. Again, many of them teach that Christ took not his blood again, which he shed upon the cross: yea, some of them are so graceless, as to say; that his precious blood wherewith we were redeemed, 
Vide Conradum lib. 1. art. 20.  rotten away on the earth 1600. years ago. If then it be not necessary to a true resurrection, to rise again with the same blood; why is it necessary to rise again with the same bones and flesh, the one being as perfect a part of a man's body as the other?   

R. ABBOT.  
The epistle wherein are the words mentioned by M. Bishop, importing a doubt of the resurrection of the body, was not written to Farel, as he falsely quoteth, but to one 
a Caluin. epist. 103. Quòd res tibi incredibilis videtur huius carnis resurrectio, nihil mirum.  Lelius Zozimus an Italian, who seemeth to have been but meanly persuaded of some other points of Christian doctrine. After two epistles to this Zozinus, in the former whereof these words are, there follow two epistles to Farell. But what drowsy fit was M. Bishop in to take Farels name from an epistle that followed after, and by forgery to add it to the epistle that went before? But this is one of the Romish holy frauds; whether true or false it skilleth not, so that it be fit to serve the turn. What we think of Christ's resuming his blood again, I have 
b Sect. 10.  before showed. As for Conrades reports of the opinions of some of our men concerning the same, they little move us without better testimony, because we know what the guise of Romish Sycophants in that case is wont to be.   

15. W. BISHOP.  
12 Life everlasting. First, Captain Caluin holdeth it for very certain, that no soul doth enter into the joys of heaven (wherein consisteth life everlasting) until the day of doom. These be his words: 
3. Institu. 25. sess. 6.  The souls of the godly having ended the labour of this warfare, do go into a blessed rest, where they expect the enjoying of the promised glory: And that all things are holden in suspense until Christ the redeemer appear. Whose opinion is yet better than was his predecessor Luther's. For he teacheth in many places, 
Enarra. in Gen. cap. 26. In Ecclesi. c. 9 v. 10.  that the souls of the godly departing from their bodies, have no sense at all, but do lie fast asleep until the latter day: Take this one for a taste. Another place to prove, that the dead feel, or understand nothing: wherefore Solomon thought the dead to be wholly asleep, and to perceive nothing at all. And again, The sleep of the soul in the life to come, is more profound than in this life. And Luther with this one position of his (as that famous historiographer john Sleidan recordeth) overthrew two points of Popery: to wit, 
Lib. 9 hist.  praying to Saints: for they are so fast asleep, that they cannot hear us: and praying for the dead; For they in Purgatory slept also so sound, that they felt no pains. A meet foundation surely to build such false doctrine upon. 
In 20. Luc. hom. 35.  But Brentius is most plain in this matter, who ingeniously confesseth; that, albeit there were not many among them, that did profess publicly the souls to die with the body; yet the most unclean life, which the greatest part of their followers did lead, doth clearly show, that in their hearts they think no life to be after this: yea, that many such speeches do sometimes proceed from them. Finally, it is a gross error of theirs, to think that every mean godly man, shall be then made equal in glory with the Apostles, which Luther teacheth; whereas clean contrary S. Paul declareth, 
In 1. c. Petri 1. 1. Cor. 15.42.  that as one star differeth from another in glory: so also shall be the resurrection of the dead.  
I omit here many other particularities, that I be not over tedious: For these their bicker against the very principles of our Christian faith, (not leaving any one article of our Creed unskirmished with all) will serve any indifferent man for a warning, to beware of their profane doctrine, that leadeth the high way to Infidelity. They use to cry out much against the Antichrist of Rome, for corrupting the purity of the Gospel, as the wicked Elders did against the adultery of Susanna: but the judicious Christian may easily espy, them themselves to be the true forerunners of Antichrist indeed, by their so general hacking and hewing at every point of the ancient Christian faith. Thus much concerning the Creed: now let us pass to the Commandments.   

R. ABBOT.  
Note well, 
The souls of the faithful affirmed by Caluin and Luther to be in heaven.  gentle Reader, the wilful impudency and malice of this man. He saith that Caluin denieth to souls departed the joys of heaven, until the day of doom; and yet in the words by him cited, he seethe that he affirmeth them, having ended this warfare to go into blessed rest; and in his other words in the same very place might have seen, and in likelihood did see it, that he placeth this blessed rest no otherwhere but with Christ in heaven. He apply generally 
a Cal. Instit. l. 3. ca 25. sect. 6. De fidelibus loquens.  to the faithful the words of the Apostle, that 
b 2. Cor. 5.1.  when this earthly house shall be dissolved, we have a house or building in heaven. He saith that 
c Nisi superstites essent animae corporibus quid est quod habet deum praesentem ubi fuerit à corpore separatum? Nisi etiam animae corporibus exutae retinerent suam essentiam, ac beatae gloriae capaces essent, non dixisset Christus latroni: hody mecum eris, etc.  the soul separated from the body hath the presence of God; that unless the souls severed from their bodies did still retain their being, and were capable of blissful glory, Christ would not have said to the thief, This day shalt thou be with me inparadise. Hereupon he taxeth, as well he might, the infinite curiosities of the schoolmen, in enquiring and disputing of the place and state, the manner and degrees of heavenly glory as now it is, and hereafter shall be, and condemneth it as a point of rashness and folly, further to search concerning things unknown to us than God permiteth us to know. 
d Scriptura ubi dixit Christum illis praesentem esse & eas recipere in Paraedisum ut consolationem percipiant, reproborum verò animas cruciatus quales meritae sunt perpeti, non ultra progreditur.  The Scripture, saith he, hane said that Christ is present with them (meaning the faithful souls before spoken of) and doth receive them into Paradise to receive comfort, and that the souls of the reprobate do suffer the torments which they have deserved, goeth no further. For conclusion he saith by and by after: 
e Quum scriptura ubique iubeat pendere ab expectationae adventus Christi & gloriae coronam eousque differat, contenti simus his finibus divinitus nobis praescriptis, animas piorum militiae labore perfunctas in beatam quietem concedere ubi cum foelici laetitia fruitionem promissae gloriae expectent, atque ita omnia suspensa teneri donec Christus appareat redemptor.  Seeing the Scripture every where biddeth us to depend upon the expectation of Christ's coming, and thither doth defer the crown of glory, let us contain ourselves within these bounds which God hath prescribed unto us, that the souls of the godly having ended the labour of this warfare do go into blessed rest, where with happy joy they expect the fruition of the promised glory, and so all things are holden in suspense until Christ our redeemer shall appear. By all which words it appeareth, that although Caluin according 
Col. 3.3.4. 1. joh. 3.2. 1. Pet. 5.4.  to the scriptures do refer the full revealing of the glory of the faithful unto the coming of Christ, when the same both in soul and body shall be made manifest to the whole world; yet that in the mean time he denieth not but that their souls departed, are received into Paradise, into heaven, and do enjoy blissful glory, blessed rest, the presence of God, the presence of Christ, and therefore doth not exclude them from the joys of heaven, unless Christ himself, whose presence they enjoy, be excluded from heaven. And whereas M. Bishop maketh him absolutely to say that all things are holden in suspense until the coming of Christ, he lewdly falsifieth his words by leaving out the term of limitation, the same being thus set down as hath been said, And that so all things are holden in suspense until Christ's coming, importing that these things acknowledged before expressed, all things further are to us holden in suspense until Christ shall come, are therefore God not having revealed the same, and not to be curiously inquired of. The sum of all which belief, Caluin himself in another place hath briefly comprised thus; that 
g Caluin. adu. Libertin. ca 22. Etsi fidelium animae simulac separatae sint à corporibus viwnt cum deo ac foelici regni gaudio potiuntur, tamen perfecta omnium filiorum dei foelicitas usque ad secundum Christi adventum defertur.  albeit the souls of the faithful so soon as they are separated from their bodies do live with God, and do obtain the blessed joy of the heavenly kingdom, yet the perfect happiness of all the children of God is deferred until the second coming of Christ. Now what is there here for blind Bishop to dislike in captain Caluin, but that his malice overruleth his wit, and carrieth him as it were with a violent stream to condemn that which notwithstanding his own judgement and conscience doth approve? And if Caluin had been of that mind, yet M. Bishop might with the more favour have excused it, for that Bellarmine driven thereto by the testimony of Pope Adrian, doth confess that Pope john the two and twentieth was of that mind, 
h Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 14. Revera sensit animas non visuras deum nisi post resurrectionem.  that the souls of the faithful shall not see God till after the resurrection. But as he dealeth with Caluin, so doth he also with Luther, most maliciously and lewdly. It is true that Luther writing upon Ecclesiastes, retaining as yet somewhat too much of the dregs of Popery, speaketh hereof somewhat obscurely, though not to that meaning as M. Bishop citeth him. Upon the words of the Preacher, 
i Eccles. 9.10.  Whatsoever thy hand can do, do it instantly; for there is neither work nor invention, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in hell, as he readeth, whither thou goest; he commenteth thus, that 
k Luth. Eccl. 9 Alius locus quòd mortui nihil sentiant: nulla enim, inquit, est ibicogitatio, ars, cognitio, sapientia: sensit ergò Solomon mortuos omninò dormire & nihil prorsus sentire. jacent ibi mortui non numerantes dies vel annos, sed excitati videbuntur sibi vix momentum dormivisse.  the place showeth that the dead perceive nothing; for there is there no cogitation, art, knowledge, wisdom. Solomon therefore thought, saith he, that the dead do sleep, and have no sense of any thing. The dead lie there, not reckoning days or years, but being raised up, they shall seem to have slept a very little while. Now in these words there is no ambiguity, as shall appear by the other place, because that which he saith of sleeping and not perceiving any thing, hath reference only to the affairs and doings of this life. Only his error is, that he construeth hell (for which we rather choose to read the grave) to be the place where the souls thus sleep, expounding it 
l Ibid. Insernus propriè me judice significat illum abditum recessum in quo dormiunt mortui, etc. ut intelligas infernum dici ubi continentur animae & quasi quoddam sepulchrum animae extra hunc corporalem mundum, stcut terra est sepulchrum corporum: quid autem illud sit nobis est incognitum.  to be that secret withdrawing place where the souls are contained, and which is as it were the grave of the soul, without the compass of this corporal world, as the earth is of the body: but what this is, saith he, it is unknown to us. This conceit it seemeth he drew, either from the error of Pope john aforesaid, or from the Popish fable of Limbus patrum, retaining as yet some taste of that corruption which had been long growing in him, and in respect whereof, he somewhere beseecheth his Reader to read many of his works with compassion, remembering that he was sometimes a Monk, as acknowledging that from his Cloister he drew many things that were unsound, and in his writings might escape him unawares. But whatsoever his fancy were when he wrote that Commentary upon Ecclesiastes, he was afterwards in expounding Genesis so far from that opinion wherewith M. Bishop chargeth him, as that most comfortably he setteth forth the hope of the faithful in their death, yea even in that very place whence M. Bishop cireth him: the greater is his sin, that by dismembering a sentence would make him say that that is directly contrary to the drift and purpose of that whole discourse. He taketh occasion of his speech by the story of Abraham's death, and thereupon saith: 
m Luther. in Gen. c. 25. Nos habemus gratiam & donum ac manifestam & multiplicem scientiam de morte & vita. Siquidem certi sumus salvatorem nostrum Christum jesum sedere ad dexteram dei patris & expectare nos decedentes ex hac vita. Quandocunque igitur excedimas è vivis, ad Episcopum animarum nostrarum egredimur, qui recipit nos inmanus suas: is noster Abraham est cuius complexu fruimur: is vivit, imò regnat perpetuò.  We have a grace & gift, even a manifest and manifold knowledge concerning death and life: for we are sure that our Saviour jesus Christ sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, and expecteth us when we depart out of this life. Whensoever therefore we die, we go to the bishop of our souls, who receiveth us into his hands. He is our Abraham, whose bosom or embracing we enjoy: he liveth and reigneth for ever. Again he saith; 
n Ibid. In Christo mors non est acerba sicut impijs est, sed est commutatio huius miserae & calamitosae vitae in quietam & bes●. tam. etc. Et paulò post. Multi loci scripturae sanctae comprobant quòd post mortem non morimur, sed vivimus simplicitèr. Esa. 57 Requiescit in cubili, etc. Ingrediuntur non in mortem, purgatorium aut infernum, sed in pacem.  Death in Christ is not bitter as it is to the wicked, but it is the changing of this wretched and miserable life into a quiet and blessed life. Many places of Scripture, saith he, do prove that after death we die no more, but do simply or perfectly live. And alleging the words of Esay, 
o Esa. 57.2.  Peace cometh; he shall rest in his bed, whosoever walketh before him, he inferreth; They enter not into death, into purgatory or hell, but into peace. Hereupon he moveth a question, 
p Et mox. Alia quaestio nascitur, cùmcertum sit vivere & esse in pace animas, qualis illa vita aut quies sit. Haec verò sublimior & difficihor est quàm ut à nobis possit definiri: deus enim noluit id a nobis cognosci in hac vita: sufficit igitur nobis haec cognitio non egredi animas ex corporibus in periculum cruciatuum aut poenarum inferni, sed esse eis paratum cubiculum in quo dormiant in pace. Differunt tamen somrus sive quies huius vitae & futurae. Homo enim in hac vita defatigatus diurno labore sub noctem intrat in cubiculum suum tanquam in pace, ut ibi dormiat & ea nocte fruitur quite, neque quicquam scit de ●llo malo sive incendij sive caedu. Anima autem non sic dormit, sed vigilat & patitur visiones & loquelas angelorum & dei. Ideo somnus in futura vita profundior est quàm in hac vita, & tamen anima coram deo vivit.  seeing it is certain that the souls live and are in peace, what manner of life or rest that is. This, saith he, is a higher and harder question than can be decided by us; for God would not have us to know it in this life. It sufficeth us to know that our souls depart not from our bodies to danger of the torments or pains of hell, but that there is a chamber provided for them where they may sleep in peace. But yet, saith he, there is difference betwixt the sleep or rest of this life and of the life to come. For man in this life being wearied with the days labour, at night entereth into his chamber as in peace, that there he may sleep, and so in the night he enjoyeth rest, and knoweth nothing of any evil either of fire or of sword. But the soul sleepeth not so, but waketh and enjoyeth the sight, and heareth the speeches of the Angels and of God. Therefore the sleep in the life to come is more profound than in this life, and yet the soul liveth in the presence of God. Out of these last words M. Bishop taketh the occasion of his quarrel, expounding sleep as we commonly take it, as if Luther meant that the soul in death became wholly devoid of all sense, knowledge and understanding, and were as it were dead until the last day. But what truth or conscience may we think is in this man, who thus objecteth the words as if Luther had put the soul in case of death, when notwithstanding in the end of the same sentence he addeth, that it liveth in the presence of God, and in the whole circumstance of the place, testifieth by the Scripture, that it enjoyeth the bosom of jesus Christ, the sight and speech of God and his Angels, a most peaceful and blessed life, and that this sleep is not such, but that the soul waketh always. The meaning of Luther is plain, who finding the rest of the souls of the faithful termed in Scripture a sleep, would signify that this sleep is a more sound and perfect rest than any is in this life, void of trouble and fear, free from all knowledge of misery and sorrow, not distracted or interrupted with the cares or cogitations of our state, not reckoning number of days, or length of years, all time seeming short for that blissful and happy pleasure and conten●ment that is yielded to the soul thereby. For further declaring hereof, he addeth anon after: 
q Ibid. Qui somnum naturalem dormit nihil eorum scit quae geruntur in domo vicini, & tamen vivit, licet contra naturam vitae nihil sentiat in somno. Idem in illa vita fiet sed alia & meliore ratione. Proinde sicut matter desert infantem in cubiculum, ponit in cunas, non ut moriatur sed ut dormiat & quiescat suavitèr, ita ante Christum & multò magis post Christum ingressae sunt & ingrediuntur omnes animae credentium insinum Christi.  He that sleepeth a natural sleep, knoweth nothing of those things that are done in his neighbour's house, and yet he liveth, though contrary to the nature of life he perceive nothing in his sleep. The same shall come to pass in that life to come, but in other and better sort. As therefore the mother bringeth the child into the chamber, putteth it into the swaddling clouts, not to die, but sweetly to sleep and rest: so before Christ, and much more since Christ, all the souls of the faithful did and do enter into the bosom of Christ. The sleep then whereof Luther speaketh is in the bosom of Christ, where faithful souls are sequestered from the affairs and troubles of this world, and live with him in perfect bliss, and therefore is no such sleep as M. Bishop dreameth, or rather lewdly deviseth by wilfully misconstruing Luther's words. And this is that position of Luther whereof Sleidan speaketh, who mentioning that ghosts and apparitions of spirits were very common in Popery, and that the souls of the dead, as they were thought to be, did make much stir and trouble after burial, and tell why either they were condemned, or for the time tormented in Purgatory fire; and hereupon solicited their neighbours, kinsfolk, and friends to help them in that misery, and that the usual manner was, that they requested either some vows to be paid which they had made to the Saints, or that Masses and sacrifices to such a number might be performed for them, whereby the opinion of Purgatory and of the Mass wonderfully increased, to the great advantage and gain of the Priests; telleth consequently, as indeed the event every where hath proved, that 
r Sleidan. Comment. lib. 9 Sed postquam innotuit, & aliquid roboris assumpsit Lutheri doctrina, paulatim evanuerunt eiusmodi spectra. Docetenim Lutherus è sacris literis mortuorum animas quiescere & supremum judicij diem expectare: turbas autem illas & strepitus formidolosos ac phantasmata per Satanam excitari dicit, qui nullam praetermittit occasionem ut impios cultus & falsas opiniones in animis hominum coufirmet & Christi seruatoris nostri beneficium extinguat.  when Luther's doctrine began to be known, and had gathered some strength, these ghosts and apparitions by little and little vanished away. For Luther teacheth, saith he, out of the holy Scriptures, that the souls of the dead are at rest, and do wait for the last day of judgement (meaning that where they are at rest, there they abide until the day of judgement, without that wandering and walking which was commonly fancied of them) and that those stirs and fearful noises and sighs were caused by Satan, who omitteth no occasion to confirm in men's minds ungodly devotions and false opinions, and to extinguish the benefit of Christ our Saviour. Now he that weigheth these words, may easily see how M. Bishop playeth the Skoggin in the application of them, there being here nothing at all directed against prayer to Saints, and that that is intended against Purgatory, not being for that the souls are so sound asleep, as he objecteth, but for that they are at rest & in peace with Christ if they belong to him, not subject to any torments, nor having any cause of those complaints which Satan cunningly pretended under their names. As for the complaint of Brentius, we do not doubt but that he might find cause of it in many, who notwithstanding did live under the name of Christians, of the professors of the faith and Gospel of Christ. The Prophets, the Apostles complained of such, and yet the pearls than were not the worse esteemed, for that swine trod them under their feet. The Pagans of old saw many taking upon them to be Christians, who yet were men of most wicked and damnable conversation, and they took occasion hereby to condemn all Christians and Christian religion; and will M. Bishop say that they did well in so doing? 
s Aug. in Psal. 30. con. 3. Quàm multos putatis fratres mei velle esse Christianos, sed offendi malis moribus Christianorum?  How many think you would willingly be Christians, saith S. Austin, but do stumble and are offended at the evil behaviour of them that are Christians? And what? will M. Bishop say that there are no such amongst them? yea amongst their Popes, their Cardinals, their Bishops, are there not that live as if there were no God, no hell, no resurrection, no judgement to come? yea that stick not sometimes to profess that they think so? If he will deny it, their own stories shall reprove him. If he must needs confess it, then must he needs confess also, that he hath very idly brought in this speech of Brentius against us. That every mean godly man shall at the last day be made equal in glory with the Apostles, is not Luther's assertion, but M. Bishop's calumniation. He affirmeth a parity of Christians as they are Christians, as touching mutual reckoning each of other in this life, but no parity or equality of reward or glory in the life to come. By occasion of the name of brethren, he saith that 
t Luther. in 1. Pet. c. 1. Fraternitas est qu●d Christiani inter se ut fratres esse debent, nec ullum prorsus discrimen admittere: siquidem omnes in communi unum Christum, unum baptisma, unam fidem, unumque the saurum habemus. Non possum equidem pluris esse quàm tu: quod tu babes & ego habeo, etc. Christus aequè meus est ac D. Bernardi: tuus non minus atque D. Francisci, etc. unam Christiani omnes fraternitatem habemus, quam in baptismo sumus consecuti, de qua nullus diws plus habet quàm ego ac hi. Nam quanto ille pretio redemptus est, tanto sum & 〈◊〉 redemptus, etc.  brotherhood is for that Christians ought to be one amongst another as brethren, and not make any difference at all; for we all in common have one Christ, one baptism, one faith, one treasure. I cannot be of more worth than thou, and what thou hast, I have the same also. Christ is mine as well as S. Bernard's; and S. Frances hath no more right to Christ than thou. All we that are Christians have one brotherhood which we have attained in baptism, whereof no Saint hath more than thou and I. For with what price he was redeemed, with the same was I redeemed. It cost God no less for me than for the greatest Saint; only he hath perhaps better laid hold of this treasure, that is, hath stronger faith than I. Now what is here as touching equality of glory in the world to come? Hear is a common brotherhood in this life, wherein none can challenge more than other; but this hindereth not but that who in this brotherhood doth the greater work, shall hereafter receive the greater reward. Albeit if Luther do affirm equality of glory, what is that to the impeachment of the article of life everlasting, when as by the common judgement of the fathers, life everlasting is that 
u Matt. 20.2.12.13. Aug. de Sanct. Virgin. cap. 26. Hiero. count jovinian. lib. 2. Gregor. Moral. lib. 4. cap. 31.  penny mentioned in the Gospel, which in howsoever great difference of work and labour, yet is indeed equal and alike to all? Now albeit M. Bishop have here said whatsoever his malice could devise, and more than truth and honesty would have said, yet he would make his Reader believe, that he hath omitted many other particularities, that he might not be over tedious: but what his other particularities are, may be esteemed by those that he hath here set down, consisting more in lies and cavils than in any matters of moment and truth. Nothing hath he said whereby it may in any sort be conceived, that either our doctrine tendeth to infidelity, or that it is without cause that we cry out against the Antichrist of Rome for corrupting the purity of the Gospel.   

16. W. BISHOP.  
First (saith Master PER.) it is a rule in expounding the several Commandments, that all virtues of the same kind are reduced to that Commandment: Hence it followeth, that counsels of perfection are enjoined in the law, and therefore prescribe no state of perfection beyond the scope of the Law.  
Answ. None of the counsels of perfection are enjoined in the ten Commandments, though for some affinity they may be reduced to some of them. For example: It is commanded that I shall not steal, that is, to take any of my neighbour's goods against his will; but to give away all my own to the poor, is beyond the compass of the law: so likewise it is commanded not to commit adultery, but we are not commanded to vow perpetual chastity and obedience. Such offices only that are necessarily required to the performance of any Commandment, are comprehended within the same, but no others; though some men take occasion of the Commandment, to treat of the counsels of perfection.   

R. ABBOT.  

a Psal. 19.7.  The law of the Lord is a perfect law, 
All works of perfection prescribed by the la.  and therefore prescribeth whatsoever is necessary to perfection. It requireth 
b Deut. 6.5. Luk. 10.27.  all the heart, all the mind, all the soul, all the strength, and because beyond all there can be nothing more, therefore there is no virtue, no righteousness, no perfection that is not commanded thereby. It is commanded, saith M. Bishop, that I shall not steal, but to give all mine own to the poor is beyond the compass of the law. But I answer him, that where it is beyond the compass of the law, there it is not a work of perfection, but an act of superstition. If God command it, than not to do it, is sin: if God command it not, there is no piety but folly in the doing of it, because God casteth it off with that reproof, 
c Esa. 1.12.  Who required these things at your hands? Let M. Bishop tell us, when Christ said to the rich man in the Gospel, 
d Luk. 18.22.  Go, sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, & come and follow me; did he sin or not in refusing to do as Christ advised him? If not, why doth our Saviour except against his entering into the kingdom of heaven? If he did sin, than he broke the law; for 
e Rom. 4.15.  where there is no law, there is no sin, and therefore the giving of all his goods to the poor, was within the compass of the law. He boasted that he had kept the law, but our Saviour Christ would discover how far he was from loving the Lord with all his heart, which the law requireth, who had so tied his heart to his worldly wealth, as that he could not find in his heart, God so requiring, for the relief of his neighbour, whom he should love as himself, to void himself of the possession thereof. To give all that a man hath to the poor is then a work of righteousness, when the calling of God and the following of Christ requireth it, and then it is commanded by the law. To do it when duty to God requireth it not, may well be called a work of supererogation, but work of perfection it is none. We are not commanded, saith he again, to vow pertual chastity and obedience. It is true, and therefore those vows are no matters of true devotion and religion, but of rash error and presumption. Such offices only, saith he, as are necessarily required to the performance of any commandment, are comprehended within the same; and I answer him, that no offices are at all required, but what are necessary to the performance of some commandment. For notwithstanding all that can be said or alleged for advices and counsels, and howsoever it may be pleaded, that they may seem in some particulars rightly so called, yet circumstance and occasion always maketh them necessary duties, and the omitting of them is either the violation of the brief of the first table, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc. or of the second, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, there being reason of the doing of them, either for the glory of God, or for the edification of our brethren, of which neither can be neglected without trespass of the law.   

17. W. BISHOP.  
Secondly (saith M. PER.) the Commandment, Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, etc. hath two several parts: the first forbiddeth the making of Images: the second the adoration of them. He concludeth out of Deuteronomy, that the Images of the true jehova are forbidden in the Commandment, and consequently the adoration of such Images. Hence he will have it to follow, that to worship God in or at Images with religious worship, is abominable Idolatry.  
Answ. First if the Images of God only be there prohibited, and then worship done to them according to his own exposition, than it followeth most clearly, that there is no probibition for either making or worshipping the Images of any Saints; and therefore with a very evil conscience doth he wrest the commandment against them. Secondly I say, though God had forbidden us to worship Images, yet doth it not follow thereof, that we must not worship God in, or at Images. For as God is every where; so may he be worshipped in all places, and as well at or before an Image, as in the Church, and before the communion table. Thirdly, we make no Images to express the nature of God, which is a spirit, and cannot be represented by lines and colours, but only allow of some such pictures, as set out some apparitions of God, recorded in the Bible; not doubting but that such works of God, may aswell be expressed in colours to our eyes, as they are by words to our ears and understanding. Lastly, touching religious worship to be done to Saints or pictures, 
Analogon.  the Heretics cavilling consisteth principally in the divers taking of the word religious. For it is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the worship only due to God; in which sense to give it to any creature were Idolatry: but it is also with the best authors taken some other time, to signify a worship due to creatures, for some supernatural virtue or quality in them; and in this sense to term it detestable Idolatry, is either detestable malice, or damnable ignorance. And whereas (he saith) that common reason teacheth, that they who adore God in Images, do bind God & his hearing of us, to certain things and places: I say the contrary, that God may be worshipped in all places; but we rather choose to worship him in Churches and before Images, than in other places, because the sight of such holy things, do breed more reverence and devotion in us, and better keep our minds from wandering upon vain matters. If we taught that God could be worshipped no where else, or by no other means, than he had not lied so loudly.   

R. ABBOT.  
M. 
All Images generally forbidden to be worshipped.  Perkins concludeth indeed, that the images of God are forbidden in the commandment, but neither saith nor meaneth that only the Images of God are there forbidden, and therefore he useth no evil conscience in urging the commandment against the images of Saints; but M. Bishop with evil conscience defendeth the images of Saints against the commandment. And whereas he saith, that though God do forbid to worship images, yet he doth not therefore forbidden us to worship God in or at Images, he doth but frame himself to the guise and wont of all the masters of idolatry, it being the common pretence of them all, as hath been 
a Of Images. sect. 5.  before showed, that they do not worship the Image itself, which they know to be but metal, or wood, or stone, but that in the Image or at the Image they worship the divine essence, which they believe to be immaterial and immortal. Yea, and by what reason M. Bishop here defendeth the worshipping of God in or at Images, for at God is every where, so may he be worshipped in all places, and as well at or before an Image, as in the Church or before the communion table, by the same did jeroboam persuade the Israelites to worship God at or before, or in his golden Calves at Dan and Bethel, 
b joseph. Ant. judaic. l. 8. c. 3. See of Images. sect. 5.  because no place is void of God, neither is he included any where, and therefore they might as well worship him nearer hand before those calves as in the temple and before the sanctuary at jerusalem. But as jeroboam committed damnable idolatry, in worshipping God before the Calves, so doth M. Bishop also in worshipping God in or before an image commit idolatry against God, who will not be mocked, nor can abide to have honour done to an idol by pretence of his name. His third exception, that they make no Images to express the nature of God, but only to set forth some apparitions of God recorded in the Bible; how vain it is, hath been also fully declared in 
c Of Images, sect. 4. & 7.  the handling of that question. And very strange it is that M. Bishop should make those apparitions a colour for their idoll-images of God, when God himself affirmeth that therefore he did forbear in the day when he gave the Law, 
d Deu. 4.12.15  to appear in any image or likeness, because he would not have them to make any image of him. Whereas he saith, that such works of God may aswell be expressed in colours to our eyes, as they are by words to our ears and understanding, he should understand that it is one thing to speak of the works of God, another thing to speak of the person of God. We question not the expressing of the works of God, but we condemn the expressing of the person of God. And if the expressing of those apparitions by words to our ears and understanding, be a reason why we may express the same by pictures to our eyes, than nothing hindereth but that the nature of God also may be expressed by colours and pictures to our eyes, because the same is by words according to our capacity expressed to our ears and understanding. But God hath commanded himself to be preached to the ear and understanding; he hath not commanded, nay he hath forbidden himself to be painted to the eye; and therefore the one is lawful and godly, the other wicked and unlawful. His distinction of religious worship is most ridiculous and absurd. The very name of religion, as Austin and Lactantius do derive it, impotteth the 
e Aug. de vera relig. ca 55. Ad unum deum tendentes & e● uni religantes animas nostras, unde religio dicta creditur. Lactant. Instit. li. 4 cap. 28. Hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti deo & religati sumus; unde ipsa religio nomen accepit.  obliging and tying of our souls to God only; and if to God only, than it cannot be truly called religion, that is performed to any other. Therefore Lactantius saith again, that 
f Lactan. Instit. l. 1. c. 20. Religio ac veneratio nulla alia nisi unius dei tenenda est.  there is no other religion to be holden but towards God only. So saith Austin, that 
g Aug. count 2. ep. Pelag. lib. 3. c. 4. Debent observari Christiani, ut uni deo religionis obsequio seruiatur.  Christians are with duty of religion to serve God only; and that 
h Idem cont. Faust. Manich. lib. 14. cap. 11. Apostolus creaturam laudat, & ei tamen cultum religionis exhiberi vetat.  the Apostle forbiddeth worship of religion to be given to any creature. He telleth us, that 
l Idem de eiu. dei, l. 5. c. 15. Pietas vera non exhibet servitutem religionis, quam latriam Graeci vocant, nisi uni vero deo.  service of religion is that which the Greeks' call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which true piety yieldeth to God only. Therefore he saith, that 
k Idem de vera relig. cap. 55. Non sit nobis religio cultus hominum mortuorum. Honorandi sunt propter imitationem, non adorandipropter religionem.  we are not to make a religion of the worship of dead men, and that we are to honour them for imitation, not to worship them for religion. Now all these so express and peremptory resolutions, M. Bishop at once overthroweth with a distinction, taken, as he saith, from the best authors: but he saith it very falsely and unhonestly, not being able to bring one good author for the approving of it. The word religious, saith he, is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the worship only due to God; but it is taken some other time to signify a worship due to creatures. And as well he may say, that the word marriage is ambiguous, and principally signifieth the bond that is betwixt the husband and the wife, but yet is with the best authors taken some other time for that affiance that is betwixt the fornicator and the harlot, so that lawfully may the one enjoy the other, because there is betwixt them a bond of marriage. We are told that religion in Ecclesiastical use belongeth only to God, and that no service of religion is to be done to creatures; and he telleth us that religion belongeth principally to God, but that there is religion also belonging to creatures: yea even to vile and abominable idols. And what marvel is this, whenas we see the Valentian jesuit distinguish in like sort of idolatry, that because S. Peter nameth 
l 1. Pet. 4.3.  abominable idolatries, therefore we should understand that there are idolatries which are not abominable, and that 
m Greg. de Valent. de idolat. lib. 2. c. 7. Quid attinebat ita determinatè cultus simulachrorum illicitos notare, si omninò nullos simulachrorum cultus licitos esse censuisset?  some idolatry is lawful? Surely religious worship given to creatures, is no other but idolatry; but yet forsooth we must not condemn it, because all kind of idolatry is not to be thought unlawful. These are men of sharp wits, and can, if ye will put them to it, distinguish God out of heaven, and Christ out of the Creed, or by a distinction can bring a great number of gods into heaven, and a great many Christ's into the Creed. As for us, we take the fathers before alleged to be herein ingenuous and honest as we are, and that they did not intend with one breath to appropriate religion unto God, and to blow it from him with another. Albeit not only under the name of religion, but under the name of worship also they have affirmed the same to belong to God only, as namely, 
u Cypria. de exhort. martyr. ca 2. Quod Deus solus coiendus sit.  that God only is to be worshipped, 
o Origen. count Cells. lib. 1. Cultus & adoratio nulli creaturae concedi potest absque divinitatis iniuria.  that worship and adoration can be given to no creature without injury and wrong to God; 
p Hieron●. aed Ripar adu. Vigilant. Ne  quidem & Lunam, non angelos, non archangelos, non Cherubin, non Seraphim, & omne nomen quod nominatur & in praesenti seculo & in futuro colimus & adoramus.  that we worship neither Sun nor Moon, neither Angels, nor Archangels, neither Cherubin, nor Seraphim, nor any other name (of any creature) that is named either in this world, or in the world to come. Therefore of the Virgin Marie Epiphanius saith: 
q Epiphan haer. 79. Collyrid. Sat in honore Maria: Pater, Filius, Sp. Sact adoretur: Marian nemo adoret.  Let Mary be in in honour; elt the Father, Son, and holy Ghost be worshipped, but her let no man worship; and Ambrose, 
r Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, l. 3. cap. 12. Maria erat templum Dei, non Deus templi: & ideo ille solus adorandus qui operabatur in templo.  Marie was the temple of God, but not God of the temple; and therefore he only is to be worshipped who wrought in the temple. Thus the fathers knew no religion, they knew in religion no worship, but what belongeth to God alone; and M. Bishop's distinction both in the one and in the other, was wholly unknown unto them. But it is worth the while to note, how the said distinction, such as it is, is applied by him to pictures and images. Religious worship, saith he, doth sometimes signify a worship due to creatures for some supernatural virtue or quality in them. But good Sir tell us, what supernatural virtue or quality is there in your images and pictures? If any religious worship be due unto them, you tell us that it must before some supernatural virtue or quality in them. If there be no such, then how shall religious worship be due unto them? May we not think that you have sent us a very natural distinction, that giveth supernatural virtue and quality to stocks and stones? But if supernatural virtue & quality do yield a title of religious worship, how is it that 
s Reu. 19.10.  the Angel refused to be worshipped of S. john, and 
t Act. 10.25.  the Apostle Peter of Cornelius, seeing it cannot be doubted but that there was a supernatural virtue and quality in them? Well, he will tell us that the next time; in the mean while he giveth us leave to think their Romish favourites to be very naturally affected, that conceive so supernaturally of the devisers of such blind and witless tales. As for that he saith, that they do not bind God and his hearing of us to certain things and places, because they hold that God may be worshipped in all places, he saith no more than jeroboam hath in effect said before for the setting up of his idols; no more than the Pagans and Heathens conceived, that their gods were in heaven; and therefore that in all places they might pray and sacrifice unto them. Notwithstanding as they thought, that to pray before their Images, was a more special and solemn devotion, and they had there the heavenly powers more nearly present unto them, so have they been affected in Popery, and have thought those prayers to be most effectual which they have made in the presence of filthy idols, and to that end have taken great pains to go long journeys and pilgrimages unto them. But saith M. Bishop, the sight of such holy things doth breed more reverence and devotion in us, and better keep our minds from wandering upon vain matters. He should have said if he would have spoken as the truth is, that they breed superstition and error, rather than reverence and devotion, that they cause God and his Saints to be contemned in that stolidity and blockishness of dumb idols, or at leastwise do hold the mind so entangled here upon the earth, as that it hath not power and liberty of affection to ascend to heaven, as hath been 
u Of Images, sect. 5.8.  before sufficiently declared, and needeth not here to be repeated. His coupling of Churches and Images is like 
x Deut. 22.10  the yoking of an ox and an ass; because Churches have their use for yielding conveniency of place and assembly for prayer, for hearing of God's word and ministration of his Sacraments, for which uses only it is that they are holy; but Images have no use at all to these purposes or any other, yea they serve to set the mind a wandering, and to withdraw it from that steadfastness and devotion which these spiritual offices and exercises do require of us. In a word, Lactantius maketh it 
y Lactant. Inst. l. 2. c. 19 Non est dubium quin religio nulla sit ubicunque simulachrum est.  a thing undoubted, that where Images are, there is no religion, and therefore very justly do we affirm, that the Popish use and defence of Images is no furtherance as M. Bishop would persuade, but the very bane and overthrow of all true religion.   

18. W. BISHOP.  
But let us hear the end of his discourse: thus he argueth: They that worship, they know not what, worship an Idol. This exposition is false, unless they worship it with divine honour. But go on: the Papists worship they know not what. I prove it thus: To the consecration of the Host, there is required the intention of the Priest: but they cannot have any certainty of the Priest's intention: wherefore they are not certain whether it be bread, or the body of Christ. ergo, worshipping of it, they worship they know not what.  
Answ. First, here is leaping from the Commandments to the Sacraments, which is out of order: secondly, I return his argument upon himself. To their service and in the administration of the Lords Supper, the Minister's intention is required: for if he intent to serve the Devil, and by giving them the communion to bind them the faster to him; then do they (in saying Amen to his prayers, and receiving the communion at his hands) join with him in the devils service. Now they have no more certainty of their Minister's meaning, than we have of our Priest's intention: yea much less of many of them, who are mad-merry fellows, and care not greatly whereabout they go, nor what they intent: must they therefore fly from their divince service and holy communion, because they be not certain of their Minister's intention therein? Surely they should, if his reason were aught worth. But in such cases we must persuade ourselves that God's Ministers do their duty, unless we see great cause to the contrary; and thereupon are we bold to do our duty to the blessed Sacrament: If he should fail in his, yet our intention being pure to adore Christ's holy body only, and nothing else there, we should formally be the true worshippers of Christ, though materially we were mistaken in that host; which to term Idolatry, is to style our Saviour jesus Christ an Idol, and therefore blasphemy in the highest degree.   

R. ABBOT.  
They that worship they know not what, 
The Papists worship they know not not what.  saith M. Perkins, do worship an idol. M. Bishop saith that this is false, unless they worship it with divine honour. But that worship whereof M. Perkins speaketh, is no other but divine honour; and in the subject whereto he maketh application of this rule, which is the Sacrament, M. Bishop himself doth no otherwise understand it, and therefore his exception is very idle. Neither is there here any unorderly leaping, as he speaketh, from the Commandments to the Sacraments, but very orderly and direct proceeding, when as having in hand to set forth their breaches of the Commandment, he exemplifieth the same by their idolatry committed in the Sacrament. For proof whereof M. Perkins useth this argument; They that worship they know not what, do worship an idol. This M. Bishop acknowledgeth, if they worship it with divine honour. But the Papists in worshipping the Sacrament do worship with divine honour they know not what: Therefore they worship an idol. That they know not what they worship, it is evident and plain, because they cannot know whether it be bread or the body of Christ. For they confess that it is not the body of Christ, 
a Bellarm. de Sacra. in Gen. ca 27. sententia Catholicorum est requirs intentionem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia.  without the Priest's intention in consecration to do that which the Church doth. But how can any man tell whether the Priest have this intention or not? who can look into his heart to be assured of his meaning, when as it is God only that knoweth the heart? If no man can search into the Priest's heart to know his intention, then can no man know whether the Sacrament be the body of Christ or not, and therefore in the worshipping of it, they worship they know not what, which is no other but idolatry. With this argument M. Bishop is cruelly pinched, and knoweth not which way to avoid the absurdity that is thereby cast upon them; and yet somewhat he must say, howsoever little help he receive by it. First he would return the argument against us, as touching the intention of our Ministers, but dealeth therein childishly and vainly, because he knoweth well that we hang not the Sacrament or any power thereof upon the intention of the Minister, but wholly upon the word of Christ. It may be that some Ministers be as the greatest number of their Priests have been wont to be, mad merry-fellowes that care not greatly whereabout they go; but this hindereth us nothing, who by the words of Christ himself, by them delivered, do firmly apprehend that which Christ hath promised. But to salve the matter the best he can, he telleth us, that we must persuade ourselves that God's Ministers do their duty, unless we see great cause to the contrary. Where he should remember, that the matter here urged is not determined by our persuasion, but by the Priest's intention. We may be in charity well persuaded, but in our being well persuaded, we may be deceived, and therefore do not yet know but that we commit idolatry in that which M. Bishop calleth duty to the blessed Sacrament; and the rather for that he himself 
b Sect. 63.  afterwards confesseth, that it is idolatry in the Sacrament to worship for Christ, that which is not Christ. But now welfare a distinction to help at a pinch: for if the Priest in his intention fail, yet our intention being pure, saith he, to adore Christ's holy body only, and nothing else, we shall be formally the true worshippers of Christ, though materially we be mistaken in that host. Let him speak plain English, and tell us, that formally we shall be true worshippers of Christ, but materially we shall be idolaters, and then let him resolve us how in one and the same act it may be justified that we are both true worshippers and idolaters, & what shall become of the formally true worshipper, when for being materially an idolater he shall be adjudged to hell. I have wondered at a saying which I have read, cited out of the great schoolman  Robert Holcot, thinking it to be more absurd than that any Christian man would utter it, namely, 
c Humphred. de vita & obitu juelit, pa. 120. ex Holcot. Asserit fidem laici adorantis hostiam non consecratam sufficere illi ad saluationem, tametsi erroneam: & hominem posse mereri per fidem erroneam, etsi contingat ut adoret diabolum.  that the faith of a lay man worshipping an Host that is not consecrated; though it be an erroneous faith, yet sufficeth to salvation; and that a man by an erroneous faith may merit, although it fall out that he worship the devil. This speech is strange, but yet M. Bishop now by his distinction teacheth us, how it may very well stand, because though a man materially worship the devil, yet by his intention he doth formally worship God. Now what ill hap had jeroboam, that he was not acquainted with these Romish schoole-trickes; for he might well have answered both for himself and for the people, that though materially they errend in the Calves, yet their intention was pure and holy, to worship the true God, and therefore formally they were true worshippers. Yea this distinction will serve to clear a great part of the idolatries of the Gentiles and Pagans, because albeit the devils did present themselves at their idols and images, to receive the sacrifices & devotions that were there performed, as in Popery they have also done, yet this hindered not, but that formally they were true worshippers, because though they were materially mistaken, as before was said, in taking the devil for God, yet their formal meaning and intention was to do service to the only true and immortal God. Thus shall they be excused of whom Christ saith, 
d joh. 16.2.  The time will come, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth God service. Which many undoubtedly thought in the crucifying of Christ, being (formally) 
e Act. 22.3.  zealous towards God, but 
f Luk. 23.34.  not knowing (materially) what they did. So S. Austin saith of the Donatists: 
g Aug. epist. 48. Arbitrabantur se pro ecclesiae dei facere quicquid inquieta temeritate faciebant.  Whatsoever they did in their turbulent rashness and fury, they thought they did it in behalf of the Church of God. The same we say of all schisms and heresies, that the followers thereof, at least many of them, are formally true worshippers of Christ, because they have an unfeigned intention and purpose to serve the Lord jesus Christ, howsoever materially they be mistaken in some things. Thus doth M. Bishop make a hodge-podge and mixture of all religions, and by his distinction of materialitèr and formalitèr a man may in any religion be a true worshipper of God, because he may have a zealous intention to serve God. But if his learning and understanding did not fail him, he would remember that 
h joh. 4.23.  the true worshippers do worship God, not only formally in spirit, but also materially in truth. It was the religion of the Samaritans 
i Ibid. vers. 22.  to worship they knew not what; but the religion of the true jews, of whom was salvation, was to know what they did worship. Our Saviour would thereby instruct us that there is no salvation where men worship they know not what. God hath revealed unto us the knowledge of himself and of his will, that thereby we may be directed to serve him. In this 
k joh. 17.3.  knowledge is eternal life, but 
l Os● 4.6.  in the want of knowledge is perdition and destruction. Intention & zeal is good, and in the service of God necessarily required, but yet our intention and zeal is no other but fury and madness, and fight against God, if it have not knowledge to guide it (materially) in the way of God. Now if it be idolatry to worship that for God which is no God, and yet it followeth not that God is hereby styled an Idol, then surely it is likewise Idolatry to worship the Sacrament under the name of the body of Christ, when it is not the body of Christ, and yet we do not thereby style our Saviour jesus Christ an idol, as he fond objecteth against us for blasphemy in the highest degree.   

19 W. BISHOP.  
His third objection is out of the fourth Commandment, which (as he saith) giveth a liberty to work six days in the ordinary affairs of our calling, which liberty (saith be) cannot be repealed by any creature: the Church of Rome therefore erreth, in that it prescribeth other set and ordinary festival days, to be observed as straightly, and with as much solemnity as the Sabbath of the Lord.  
Answ. Doth not the Church of England also prescribe the Nativity of our Saviour, and of S. john Baptist, the feasts of the Apostles, and many others to be kept holy, and command that no man work in the affairs of their calling those days? doth their own church also err therein? How say you then to the church of the Israelites, which kept the feasts of Easter, Whitsuntide, and of the Tabernacles, as straightly and with as much solemnity, as they kept the Lords Sabbath? was it also misled to the breach of God's commandments? or must we not rather thereby learn, that six days in the week, were at the first left us free to labour in; but yet so, that by the decree and commandment of our spiritual Governors, any of them might (upon just occasion) be made festival, and thereupon every good christian bound to keep them, by their obedience unto their Governors? to think the contrary is a high point of Puritanisme.   

R. ABBOT.  
M. 
Festival days lawfully prescribed by the church.  Perkins intendeth nothing against the authority of the Church, for the prescribing of some solemn and festival days, but condemneth the church of Rome justly for prescribing such days to be observed, as straightly and with as much solemntie, he should have said more straightly, and with much more conscience and solemnity, than the Lords Sabbath day. Yea it is a thing impious in the Bishop of Rome, that he taketh upon him to make such days, in themselves 
a Bellar. de cultu sanct. l. 3. ca 10. Sunt dies festi verè alijs fanctiores & sacratiores, & pars quaedam divini cultus.  more sacred and holy than other days, and a part of the very true worship and service of God. Whereas M. Perkins saith, that it is not in the power of any creature to repeal the liberty of working six days, he saith rightly, if we understand it of the liberty of conscience; for no creature may bind the conscience from the acknowledgement of a lawfulness with God, to work all and every of the six days in the affairs of our callings, but yet in charity and obedience we yield to our governors, and to our brethren somewhat upon occasion to refrain our liberty, and to forbear the doing of those things, of which notwithstanding we know and are persuaded that in conscience and with God, they are free and lawful to be done.   

20. W. BISHOP.  
Fourthly (saith M. PER.) the fift Commandment enjoineth children to obey father and mother in all things, specially in matters of moment; as in their Marriages and choice of their calling, and that even to death: and yet the Church of Rome against the intent of this Commandment, alloweth that clandestine Marriages and the vow of religion shall be in force, though they be without and against the consent of wise and careful parents.  
Answ. It is very false to say that children must obey their parents in all things: for if parents command them any thing either against God's law or the Princes, they must not obey them therein. And touching clandestine and privy Marriages, they are of force aswell in the Church of England, as in the Church of Rome: yea more too. For by the Church of Rome always they have been forbidden very severely; and since the Council of Trent, are made void and of no force, where the Council can be published. Concerning entering into religion, children's vows (during their minority) may be annullated and made of no force by their parents: marry, when they come to riper days, if their father stand not in necessity of their help, they may forsake him to follow Christ in a more perfect kind of life: as S. james and S. 
Matth. 4.22.  john forsook their father Zebedee, and followed Christ.   

R. ABBOT.  
There is little discretion in M. Bishops first exception, because M. Perkins did use no other but the Apostles words; 
a Col. 3.20.  Children, obey your parents in all things, for that is well pleasing unto the Lord. When the Apostle saith, in all things, M. Bishop should not be so rude as to say, It is very false to say, in all things; howsoever we deny not but that the words have their limitation and restraint to those things wherein they command in right of parents. 
The validity of contracts & marriages without consent of parents.  As touching marriages without consent of parents, M. Bishop misreporteth the Council of Trent, which though it do detest and prohibit the contracts of such marriages, yet doth also 
b Conc. Trident. sess. 24. Sancta Synodus anathemate damnat eos qui falsò affirmant matrimonia à filijs familias sine consensis parentum contracta irrita esse, & parents rata vel irrata facere posse.  condemn them who say that such marriages when they are contracted are void, and that it is in the power of the parents either to ratify or disannul them. The Church of England not meditating contradiction but truth, approveth so far the sentence of the Council, and albeit it endeavoureth with all good care and circumspection to prevent and to exclude such wilful and ungodly courses of marriage, yet it acknowledgeth that marriages being so acted and done, cannot be revoked; lamented they may be, and greened at, but voided they cannot be. M. Perkins seemeth to be of other mind, and he followeth therein the judgement of sundry late Divines; whom though otherwise we greatly esteem and honour, yet we cannot subscribe that which they determine in this point. Consent of parents belongeth to the honest and orderly proceeding of marriage, and it is true that children sin against the fift Commandment, in neglecting their consent, but this consent is no part of the essence and being of marriage, which therefore being complete and perfect without it, must necessarily stand good, albeit the parents give no consent unto it. The very essence of contract and marriage, consisteth in the parties actual giving of themselves mutually each to other, according to the form and manner of the country and place wherein they live, which being done, the want of parent's consent cannot undo it, neither may they be sundered in two, who by God's ordinance, though unlawfully abused, are become one. By God's ordinance, I say, because albeit they have not used that manner of proceeding which God hath ordained to the fastening of this bond, yet the bond itself wherewith they are fastened, is the ordinance of God to remain inviolable betwixt them that are once bound thereby. Neither doth it make against this which is objected, that God joineth not such together, that they marry not in the Lord; for so may it be said of them that marry only for carnal & worldly respects, of the believer that matcheth him or herself with an unbeliever, that they are not joined by God, nor married in the Lord, because God hath forbidden such kind of marriages to be made. But yet as the bond of marriage though unlawfully entered into holdeth these together, and may not be broken, even so though children may not lawfully marry without consent of parents, yet being married, they are tied by the covenant of God each to other, as husband and wife, and may not shake off the yoke which they have taken upon themselves. As for those phrases of Scripture which are urged in this behalf of parents, 
c Gen. 21.21. Exod. 34.16. Deut. 7.3.  taking wives for their sons, or husbands for their daughters, and giving their sons and daughters in marriage, they imply indeed the parents right and power for the bestowing of their children; but yet we cannot from thence argue, that if the children prevent their parents, and do give and bestow themselves, their gift should be void, and their marriage a mere nullity, as if it had not been. For as we read of parents taking wives for their sons, so we read of sons also without consent of parents, taking wives for themselves, when yet the want of such consent hath been no disannulling of their marriage. Esau 
d Gen. 26.34.  took him two wives of the daughters of Heth or Canaan 
e Ibid. 28.8.  contrary to the liking of his father and mother, and yet when he had taken them hay held it not in their power to frustrate his taking of them, but with grief were forced to endure them. And if the sons taking of a wife be of no force without the parents consent, than Rebecca had no such cause of fear 
f Ibid. 27.46.  lest jacob also should take a wife of the daughters of Heth, because his taking had been nothing, so long as his father and mother should give no consent unto it. So is it said of 
g Gen. 38.2.  judah, that he took him to wife a daughter of a Canaanite, which we cannot doubt but that it was as offensive to his father jacob, as it had been before to Isaac, and yet his marriage was not taken to be of no effect. To be short, as the one phrase of Scripture may be deemed to import a right in the father to bestow the children, so the other may be thought to import a validity of that which the children do, though unlawfully, without the father. It is here, I know, commonly objected, that God by his law provided, that 
h Num. 30.4.  the vow of the daughter should not stand that was disavowed by the father, and thereof is inferred, that the daughters bestowing of herself in marriage cannot stand good without the father. But that law if it be duly weighed, maketh as little to that purpose as any thing else that is alleged. For the vows and bonds there spoken of, are of things futurely to be done; but here the question is of a thing already done. If the daughter made a vow of an offering to the Lord, it was in the father's power to disannul her vow; but if she had already offered any thing to the Lord, it was not then in the father's power to revoke her offering. Even so if the daughter make a vow or give a promise that she will marry thus or thus, it is in the hand of the parents to resist and frustrate her vow; but if by contract and marriage she have effected her vow and promise, it is then past the parents' hands to undo what she hath done, and it is not lawful marriage but adultery to bestow her otherwise. To conclude this point, it is a true rule in law; Multa fieri non possunt, quae tamen facta valent: Many things may not be done, which yet stand good when they are done. 
i Exod. 4.25.  Zipporah might not have circumcised her son, but yet when she had done it, there was no reversing of it. Corah, Dathan and Abiram, might not have presumed to offer incense to the Lord, and yet when they had so done 
k Num. 16.38.  their censers were holy unto him. It is not lawful for children rashly and headstrongly to bestow themselves at their own will; God hath forbidden it, there is no blessing to be expected in it; but yet when it is done, it cannot be avoided. It is not without cause, that I say rashly and headstrongly, because the necessity of parents' consents is not always absolutely to be understood, there being sometimes cases of conscience by the iniquity of parents that do necessarily enforce a mitigation of this law, and rules of this nature are commonly taken to hold only ordinarily and for the most part. 
children's vows of Moonkerie unlawful.  Concerning children's vows for entering into religion, as they fond term it, M. Bishop speaketh more honestly and handsomely than they practise in that behalf. It is neither minority of years, nor necessity of parents that can redeem the children out of the hands of these Wolves and Bears, if once they have found means to make a pray of them. Yet well it is that he will confess what ought to be respected, howsoever amongst them it be not so. His words of following Christ in a more perfect kind of life, are ill applied to their Moonkerie, and so is the example of the Apostle james and john, forsaking their father Zebedee to follow him. james and john were called by Christ to do that which they did, and where God calleth, no respect of man must prevail to hold us back; but they of whom M. Bishop speaketh, have no calling of God, neither hath Christ prescribed any such kind of life for them to be called unto. But against all their hypocrisy in this behalf, we oppose the ancient Canon of the Council of Gangra; If any children by pretence of serving God, do forsake their faithful parents, thinking it just so to do, and shall not rather yield due honour unto them, to reverence it in them that they are faithful, accursed be he.   

21. W. BISHOP.  
Fiftly, The last Commandment (saith M. PER.) forbiddeth the first motions to sin, that are before consent. 
l Conc. Gangrenes. cap. 16. Si qui filii parentes maximè fideles deseruerint occasione Dei cultus, hoc justum esse iudicantes, & non potius debitum honorem parentibus reddiderint, ut hoc ipsum in eyes venerentur quòd fideles sunt, anathema sint.  He proveth it thus: Lusting with consent is forbidden in the former Commandments: Thou shalt not commit adultery, and thou shalt not steal: therefore if the last forbidden no more, it is confounded with the former. Again, the Philosophers knew that lust with consent was evil, even by the light of nature; but Paul a learned Pharisee, knew not lust to be sin, that is forbid in the Commandment. 
Rom. 7.  Lust therefore that is forbidden here, is without consent. Wicked then is the doctrine of Rome, that requireth our consent to every mortal sin.  
Answ. Their doctrine is most reasonable and godly: For the first motions to sin, are rather the actions of the evil spirit, tempting us to evil; than of a man, in whose mind they are before he is aware of them; and who assoon as he beginneth to mark them, disliketh them and chaseth them thence: and how can he carry a right opinion of the mild goodness of God, that thinketh him so hasty with his frail creature man, as to punish him eternally for such a thought, as is thrust into his mind at unawares, and may come upon him in his sleep, went he never so well disposed to bed? See more of this in the question of original sin. To his reasons to the contrary, I answer to the first, that lust with consent is not expressly forbid in the former Commandments, but the act of adultery and stealing: yet, it might well have been reduced unto them, as it is in the other Commandments. Neucrthelesse, because our frailty is more prone to the wicked lust of concupiscence, and desire of our neighbour's goods; it pleased God for the better bridling of of them, to give us particular precepts against them; specially considering, that it was also very hard, by the dim light of our darkened reason, to discern them to be such capital sins. And whereas he saith, that the Philosophers knew the inward consent of our mind, without any exterior acts to be mortal sin: I take him to speak at random, and more than he can prove. Sure it is, that many learned jews, who should know more than Philosophers, 
Cap. 5.28. & 29.  knew not so much: as may be gathered out of S. Matthew, and out of josephus, lib. 12. Antiq. c. 13. and David Kimhy upon the 66. Psalm verse 17. And S. 
Rom. 7.7.  Paul's own confession rightly understood witnesseth the same: For (saith he) I had not known concupiscence to have been sin, unless the law had taught it to be sin. Wherefore it was very expedient, after the inhibition of the acts of adultery and theft, to forbid in plain and express terms, the lusts and desires of them.   

R. ABBOT.  
I refer thee here, gentle Reader, as M. Bishop doth, to the question of Original sin, 
That concupiscence is sin in the first motions thereof.  where it hath been already fully declared that the Romish doctrine is neither reasonable nor godly which denieth the first motions of concupiscence to be sin. In the sixth and eleventh section of that question, those particulars are answered, which here he setteth down in the first part of this section. I only note therein further, that he maketh the first motions to sin, the actions of the evil spirit, contrary to the express testimony of S. james, that 
a jam. 1.14.  every man is tempted of his own lust. If it be his own lust wherewith he is tempted, then is it not the action of the evil spirit: and that it is the action of the person, is showed in the third section of the aforesaid question. His answers to M. Perkins are unsufficient. The question is, whether consents to wicked lusts be forbidden by the several commandments to which the acts of them do belong. Our Saviour Christ briefly decideth it, that 
b Matt. 5.28.  to look upon a woman to lust after her, is the breach of the seventh commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Now if the lust of adultery with consent be forbidden by the sevench commandment, then that which is forbidden by the tenth is lust without consent. Now such lusts with consent M. Bishop confesseth are forbidden in the other Commandments; only they belong not to the commandments against adultery and stealing. And why? Because our frailty, saith he, is more prone to the wicked lust of concupiscence, and desire of other men's goods, it pleased God to give particular precepts of them. But that is not true, specially in the one of these, that we are more prone to these than to other lusts; for we are as prone to self-love and pride, and wilfulness, to hypocrisy and lying, to malice and envy, and wrathfulness, and sundry other like sins, to say nothing of the lusts that tend to the breach of the first table of the law. The cause why God would exemplify lust by those particulars, is because those are most familiar and sensible, and of them groweth the most ●●all and common breach of the society of men. But distrusting that reason, he addeth another of more specialty, which maketh specially against himself. Specially considering, saith he, that it is very hard by the dim light of our darkened reason, to discern them to be such capital sins. But by what reason I marvel doth he make these more capital sins than all the rest? Is not the lust of murder as capital as the lust of adultery? Is not the motion and will of dishonouring parents, and rebelling against Princes as heinous as the desire of other men's goods? And doth not he himself presently signify that it is as hard by the dim light of our darkened reason to discern them also to be such capital sins; inasmuch as the Philosophers, as he saith, in whom was the greatest light of reason, did not see so much concerning any consent of mind without the exterior act. If it be not as hard to discern the one as the other, let him give us reason of the difference. If it be as hard, and there be in that respect no difference, then let him acknowledge that there was as great reason of giving particular precepts against the lusts of other sins, as of adultery and theft; which being not done, let him acknowledge as the truth is, that the lusts of adultery and theft, where consent is yielded to them, are as in the heart reputed for the acts themselves, as by the former words of Christ is testified, and therefore are forbidden by the seventh and eighth commandments; and therefore that it is very lust itself, without consent that is forbidden by the tenth commandment. He maketh M. Perkins to say, that the Philosophers knew the inward consent of our mind without any exterior acts to be mortal sin: but M. Perkins saith nothing of mortal sin, knowing well that the Philosophers had no such knowledge of sin, or of the death that is effected spiritually thereby; but affirmeth only that they knew the same to be evil; and it is M. Bishop indeed that roveth at random in the denial of it. Tully saith, that 
c Full. Offic. l. 1. Cavet in omnibus opinionibus & factis nequid libidinosè, aut faciat, aut cogitet.  nature and reason (rightly informed) shuneth to do or to think any think libidinously or licentiously. He affirmeth them 
d Idem Tuscul. quaesi. lib. 4.  turpes sunt qui efferunt se laetitia tum cum fruuntur venereis voluptatibus; sic flagitiost qui eas inflammato animo concupis●ūt. Et paulò post: We haec omittamus, (stupra, corruptelas, etc.) perturbatio ipsa mentis in amore foeda ser se est.  to be lewd men that with eager minds covet after venereous pleasures; and that setting aside fornications, deflowrings, adulteries, incests, the filthiness whereof is subject to accusation, even the perturbation of the mind in wanton love, is by itself a filthy thing. In the same place he setteth it down for a rule, that 
e Ibid. Quae crescentia perniciosa sunt, caedem sunt vitiosa nascentia.  what things are pernicious in their increase (namely when they come to exterior acts) the same are vicious in their beginning; that is, in the thoughts and cogitations of the mind. But M. Bishop saith, that some learned jews knew not so much. And I answer him, that some unlearned jews did know so much. They knew it that did obediently submit themselves to the law and word of God; they knew it not, as also many other things, who made the law of God subject to themselves. It is many times so, that men who are, with the world, of reputation, for wisdom and learning, yet do not see those things which children see, and there was a time and occasion for God to complain, not of the unlearned only, but also of the learned amongst the jews; 
f Esa. 42.19.  Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger that Isent? Who is blind as the perfect, and blind as the Lords servant? Albeit it may perhaps be rather said, that they would not know this than that they did not, because out of the first common principles of moral discipline, they could not but understand, that a man is evil and wicked, not only for his outward actions, but also for his inward habit and quality, howsoever the same by occasion be restrained from breaking forth into outward acts. Therefore the constructions which they are reported by the Evangelist to make of the commandments, as M. Bishop here allegeth, may seem rather to have been partial and wilful depravations of the law of God, than matters of mere ignorance, as not to know that God condemned the wickedness and evil imaginations and intentions of the heart. Again, he citeth josephus, who mentioning that Polybius said, 
g joseph. Antiq. Iudat●●. l 12. ca 13. D●m●r●r Polybium qui ait 〈◊〉 Antiochum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conatu● sit Dianae templi thesaures & donaria 〈◊〉 V●●u●sse enim tan 〈◊〉, ac non etiam perse●●sse 〈◊〉, non vitetus res ●●g 〈…〉.  that Antiochus perished for that he went about to make spoil of the treasures & offerings of the temple of Diana, excepteth against him with these words, Only to will or intend sacrilege, and not to do it, seemeth not a thing worthy of punishment. Which testimony of josephus, M. Bishop hath quoted only, and that upon the credit of his Master Bellarmine, who reporteth the words as if josephus had said, 
h B●●l de Amiss. gr●● & s●at. p●●c. l. 5. c. 10. Qu● s●ribit motum internum non esse 〈◊〉 ●●si 〈◊〉 se prodat.  that the inward motion is no sin, unless it do outwardly show or bewray itself. Wherein he dealeth very unhonestly, to make his Reader believe that he setteth down the author's words, when he setteth down only what he himself list to collect and gather of them. The words of josephus, considering the occasion are very unfitting and absurd, and so contrary to common sense, as that we may wonder they should come from so wife a man. Antiochus brought his army against the city of Elymais, as josephus there declareth, where the temple of Diana was: he assaulted it with all his might, he left nothing undone that he could do for the achieving of his purpose, though by the valour of the Citizens he was resisted and frustrate of his desire. Now was it for josephus here to say, that to intend a mischief, and not to act it, seemeth not worthy of punishment, when notwithstanding he himself confesseth that th●●e wanted no endeavour or attempt for the effect 〈◊〉 it? It seemed strange to Tully, that 
i Tu●. Orat pro 〈…〉 forti 〈…〉, non 〈…〉: perind● 〈◊〉 〈…〉 non h●m aum con●●●ia legibus vindic●ntur.  a thing should 〈◊〉 be punished unless it were effected; as though, saith he, the issues of things only were punished by laws, and not men's counsels and purposes of them. And do not human laws every where take hold of attempts and practices of murder, of treason, and other villainies, albeit they attain not their intended end? And if by the laws of men such intents and purposes are thought worthy of punishment, would not, or might not josephus think that much more they are so adjudged by the law of God? But taking the words as they are, yet that followeth not which Bellarmine reporteth, that the inward motion is no sin, because josephus might think the same a sin, and yet not such a sin as that a man therefore should be punished. And so it seemeth the rabbin conceived thereof, whom M. Bishop further citeth out of Bellarmine, who where David saith, 
k Psal. 66.18.  If I have locked unto or regarded iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear, maketh this exposition and meaning of it, 
l Bell ut supra ex R. David Kimhi. Non imputabit ad p●ccatum desiderium minstum, si tantùm sit in cord.  The Lord will not impute an unjust desire for sin if it be only in the heart. Where he doth not say, that it is no sin if it be only in the heart, but only that the Lord will not impute it or punish it for sin. For that it is sin he acknowledgeth, in that he calleth it unjust; but he acquitteth it from punishment so long as it is restrained and kept in. But S. Paul's own confession, saith M. Bishop, rightly understood witnesseth the same. And what is that? for 
m Rom. 7.7.  saith he, I had not known concupiscence to have been sin, unless the law had taught it to be sin. But what hindereth this, but that as he knew by the law concupiscence to be sin, where it hath consent, so by the law he knew it to be sin also, though it have no consent? It is true, that 
n Rom. 4.14.  where no law is, there is no transgression; and without the law either written in our hearts, or written in our books, we know nothing to be sin. But what hindereth this confession, I say, but that as by the law he know the one, so he knew the other also? Doth not M. Bishop himself see how idly he hath brought this in? And in truth the Apostle spoke those words of concupiscence itself by itself, where it hath no consent. For of the same concupiscence he saith soon after, 
o vers. 15.  I allow not that which I do; for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. All which complaint being made in the person of 
p Aug. count 2. epist Pelag. l. 1. c. 10. & ●ont. julian. l. 6. c. 11.  the regenerate man, who hateth the evil concupiscences of his own heart, and therefore giveth no consent unto them, doth plainly evict, that of concupiscence without consent the Apostle saith, that by the law he knew it to be sin, as hath been 
q Of original sin sect 2.  otherwhere declared more at large. But howsoever M. Bishop will cavil concerning some learned jews, the Roman Catechism itself will justify that which M. Perkins saith, that 
r Catech. Rom. part. 3. de 9 & 10 precept. Quodam naturaetumine intellectum est, alienae uxoris potiundae cupiditatem prohiberi, vetito adulterio: nam si concupiscere liceret, fa● item esset potiri.  by light of nature it was understood, that in the forbidding of adultery, was forbidden the lust of having or enjoying another man's wife, because it should be lawful to have her, if it should be lawful to desire her. Now if by light of nature it be discerned, that in the forbidding of adultery, the will and desire of another man's wife be also forbidden, and therefore that the forbidding hereof belongeth to the seventh Commandment, then M. Perkins concludeth very rightly, that the tenth Commandment goeth further, to condemn even the first motions of concupiscence and lust, though they proceed not so far as to gain the will. We may hold nothing here superfluous: God would not add a latter commandment to forbid that which was already forbidden by a former.   

22. W. BISHOP.  
Lastly (saith M. PER.) the words of the second Commandment (and show mercy unto thousands on them that love me, and keep my commandments) over throweth all human merits. For if the reward be given of mercy to them that keep the law, it is not given for the merit of the work done.  
Answ. Either simple was this man's judgement sometimes, or else most perversely bend to deceive the simple. For God speaketh there, neither of the reward that is rendered in heaven for good works; neither of any reward at all, that is rendered unto the person himself that keepeth God's commandments: but of a superabundant favour, that God of his bounty will show unto thousands of others, for one man's sake that loveth him and keepeth his commandments: therefore very peevishly doth he draw hence any thing against merits.   

R. ABBOT.  
I have before declared, 
God's mercy excludeth the merit of man.  that this promise of mercy maketh plainly against merit, that it concerneth not the children only, but the fathers themselves; and that if it be mercy, by which God bestoweth the things of this life, which are the lesser, then that it cannot be merit for which he bestoweth eternal life, which is the greater. See the seventh section of the question of Merits before handled.   

23. W. BISHOP.  
And to begin here where M. PER. leaveth, to show how their new doctrine and inventions, doth cross and make void the commandments of God. First in that, that he promiseth mercy and favour unto thousands for ones sake, that keepeth his Commandments, we gather: that God in regard of his Saints (who so holily observed his Commandments) doth grant unto us many favours and graces: also, that the satisfaction of one may serve for another; for else God would not punish children unto the third and fourth generation, for the offence of their great grandfather, unless their punishment served to satisfy for their ancestors offence: hence also we gather, that some men do keep God's commandments, otherwise God did in vain promise to favour thousands for their sakes that keep the Commandments, if he knew well that there should be none such. Therefore most ungodly is that position of the Protestants, that it is impossible to keep the Commandments: and which alone overthroweth all the ten Commandments. For as all men skilful in the true nature of laws do hold: there can be no just law, that is impossible to be kept, by the greater part of them to whom the law is given; because laws are both to direct our actions, and do also bind every man to observe them. Now what reasonable lawmaker will beat his brain to direct a man to do that, which he knoweth before hand, not to lie in the man's power to do? and as tyrannical should he be esteemed, that would bind a man under a great penalty, to do that which he know to be impossible for him to do. Which two points, S. Augustine doth in one sentence confirm, 
Defid. count Manich. cap. 9  saying; Who doth not cry out that it is folly to give him Commandments, in whose power it is not to perform them? & who doth not say that it is unjust, to condemn him for not doing just things, when he could not do them? The Protestants therefore affirming the Commandments not to be possible to be performed, do make them no laws at all; and so they at one blow, do beat down all the ten Commandments. But let us come to the particulars.   

R. ABBOT.  
M. Bishop's head is old, and therefore he thinketh our doctrine to be new. If his head and heart were renewed 
a Rom. 1.5.  to the obedience of faith, he would easily see our doctrine to be old, even that 
b jer. 6.16.  old way which is the good way, wherein they that walk shall find rest for their souls. Sure we are that Popery is not the old way, because they have taught us nothing of it, who of old declared the right way. But yet he here taketh upon him to show that our doctrine crosseth and maketh void the Commandments of God. And how, I pray? First, in that he promiseth mercy and favour to thousands for ones sake that keepeth his Commandments, we ga-gather, saith he, that God in regard of his Saints, who so holily observed his Commandments, doth grant unto us many favours and graces. But what Saints doth he mean? for shall we say, or doth the Commandment say, that to every man God showeth mercy for every man's sake that keepeth his Commandments? If so, than we must also say, that God to the third and fourth generation punisheth every man for every man's sake that hateth him. If he had spoken more distinctly we could easily have told in what sort to answer him. But because he speaketh at random, I answer him in general, that God indeed showeth favour to one man for another's sake, but so, as that the Commandment saith, he showeth mercy on both sides: and therefore that it is his mercy that taketh occasion, and not man's me●t that giveth cause of doing whatsoever he doth. His second collection is most ridiculous and absurd, 
No satisfaction of one man for another.  that the satisfaction of one may serve for another. For how come we here to satisfaction? Marry God would not punish children to the third and fourth generation, for the offence of their great grandfather, unless their punishment served to satisfy for their ancestors offence. O admirable device! But yet tell us, M. Bishop; what if neither the fathers nor the children be in the state of grace, for then 
c Of Satisfaction. sect. 11.12.  by your own doctrine neither are the father's capable of satisfaction to be done for them, neither are the children capable of the doing of it. And such it seemeth the Commandment intendeth, because it nameth them that hate God. Yea and of the Babylonians God saith; 
d Es. 14.21.  Prepare a slaughter for the children for the iniquity of their fathers, where both the fathers and the children were infidels and idolaters, and wholly estranged from the grace of God. How then shall we understand that any satisfaction is here intended? or how may we not think this man to be drunk and senseless that setteth forth such paradoxes that can no way stand with their own grounds? God teacheth no satisfaction there, but proclaimeth the terror of his judgement & wrath, which being once kindled, is not easily quenched that both the parents may dread to offend God for the safeguard of their children, and the children may beware of following the evil example of their fathers, 
The keeping of God's commandments not denied.  knowing that how much they add to their father's sins, so much they add to their own plagues. Thirdly, he gathereth from hence, that some men do keep God's commandments: And we also gather the same, and do say further with S. john: 
e 1. joh. 2.4.  He that saith, I know him and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. Therefore we do not say, that it is impossible to keep God's Commandments, but that it is impossible in this mortality and frailty to keep God's Commandments perfectly, so as to be justified thereby. But the residue of this tale I leave, as being but babbling of course, whereof he hath sundry times received ample and full answer, which he cannot gainsay; only like the carriers horse he is acquainted with a way, and out of that he will not go. I refer him to that that hath been said hereof before, both in the former parts of this work, and in the answer to his Preface of this book; and further vouchsafe him no answer, but with that dictate of Solomon; 
f Pro. 27.22.  Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar, as wheat is brayed with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness departed from him.   

24. W. BISHOP.  
1 The first Commandment, as it forbiddeth us to worship false Gods: so doth it also include a commandment to worship aright the only true God, which is done principally by Faith, Hope, Charity and Religion. The Protestants by their perverting of many articles of our belief (as hath been showed) have lost the true Faith, and by their new certainty of Faith, leave no place for Hope: for they are past hope of salvation, 
1. Epist. 5. v. 3.  that make themselves so assured of it as they do. And as for Charity, which S. john defineth to be the keeping of God's Commandments, they must needs confess themselves to be far from it, which hold that to be impossible: and with the principal part of true religion (which consisteth in offering a true, real, and external sacrifice unto God, as in that question hath been proved) they are at utter defiance.   

R. ABBOT.  
You have showed your own folly M. Bishop, and dishonestly, 
The Protestants teach faith, hope and charity aright.  but for the perverting of any articles of faith on our side, you have showed nothing. We teach faith, hope, and charity as God hath taught them, not as your school hath newly framed them. We teach faith whereby 
a 1. Io. 5.10.11.  to believe the record that God witnesseth of his Son, that God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. We teach hope whereby 
b Rom. 8.25.  to wait with patience for the reveilling of that which God hath given us. We teach charity, whereby to perform 
c Eph. 2.10.  those good works which God hath prepared for us, as the way wherein to walk to the receiving of it. True, real and external sacrifice for propitiation of sin we teach none but the sacrifice of the passion of Christ, because by 
d Heb. 9.28. & 10.14.  being once offered, he hath taken away our sins, and made perfect for ever them that are sanctified. Therefore the sacrifice which he intendeth, is no other but sacrilege and idolatry, and because God hath condemned it, therefore are we justly at defiance with it. I may not omit how he here bobbeth his Reader with, as in that question hath been proved, whereas of that question he hath said just never a word.   

25. W. BISHOP.  
2 Touching the second Commandment after our account; as God is honoured by swearing in justice, judgement, and truth; so he is also by vows made unto him of godly and religious duties, which the Prophet David signifieth, when he saith: vow ye, 
Psal. 75.13.  and render your vows unto the Lord your God. Hereupon many Catholics have, and do continually vow perpetual poverty, chastirie, and obedience, the more fully and freely to serve God: which holy vows the Protestants disallow wholly: neither do they allow of any other vows, for aught I have heard: they do therefore diminish the service of God, and pair away a part of that which is reduced to the second Commandment.   

R. ABBOT.  
We diminish not the service of God, because we teach all that the word of God hath taught, and with men's devices God will not be served. 
Spiritual vows admitted; Popish vows rejected.  The true spiritual vows whereby we consecrate ourselves to God we duly approve, but Popish vows we reject and detest, not only as superstitious, but also as they teach them with opinion of merit and purchase of remission of sins for themselves and others, most wicked and damnable. There needeth hereof nothing more to be said, then hath been before delivered in the handling of that question.   

26. W. BISHOP.  
3. And whereas in the third we are commanded to keep holy the Sabaoth day, which is principally performed by hearing (attentively and devoutly) that divine service, which was instituted by Christ, and delivered by his Apostles, which is the holy Mass: they may not abide it, but serve God after the invention of their own brains, with a mingle-mangle of some old, some new, oddly patched together.   

R. ABBOT.  
What Christ instituted, appeareth in the Gospel: what the Apostles practised and delivered, appeareth by S. Paul, holding himself entirely to that 
a 1. Cor. 11.23  which he had received of the Lord. What do we find there that doth in any sort resemble the ugly monster of the Popish Mass? Gregory Bishop of Rome saith, that 
b Greg. ep. l. 7 Indict. 2. ep. 63. Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent.  the Apostles were wont with the Lords prayer only to consecrate the sacred host, and shall we then think the Apostles to have been the authors of those gewgaws and fooleries, those turnings and windings, and cross & blessings, and murmurations and elevations, that are used in the Mass? julius Bishop of Rome the first, condemned the dipping of the Sacrament of Christ's body in the cup of the blood of Christ, 
c De cons. dist. 2. Cum omne. Quòd pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt Eucharistiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex evangelio testimonium receperunt, etc.  because no witness hereof is brought out of the Gospel. If nothing be to be done in the celebration of the Sacrament, but whereof there is witness in the Gospel, and 
d Cyp. l. 2. ep. 3. In sacrificio quod Christus est nonnisi Christu. sequendus est.  none, as Cyprian saith, be to be followed therein but only Christ, we have just cause to reject the Mass, which hath so little of that that Christ did, and so much that he did not. The Mass therefore is no sanctifying, but a profaning of the Lords Sabaoth: but the true sanctifying of the Sabaoth is in our divine service, wherein God's word is read and taught, prayer is made to God in the name of jesus Christ, and the Sacraments are administered accordingly as Christ himself hath left the same unto us. Wherein we have retained whatsoever the abomination of desolation had left remaining of the ancient service of the Church; and whatsoever was wanting, we have supplied agreeably thereto, and to the word of God; and no man will account it oddly patched together, but such odd fellows as M. Bishop is, who are so far in love with the Romish harlot, as that they like to eat no bread but what is moulded with her unclean and filthy hands.   

27. W. BISHOP.  
In the fourth we are commanded to obey our Princes, as well as our parents, and all other our Governors in all lawful matters: yet the Protestants hold, that our Prince's laws do not bind us in conscience.   

R. ABBOT.  
What; Is Saul also amongst the Prophets? 
Prince's laws how they bind in conscience.  Is M. Bishop now come to speak of obedience to Princes; by the problems of whose religion no Prince shall be obeyed, if the Pope list by any pretence of religion to pick a quarrel against him; nor any matters shall be lawful for him to command, but what must stand with the Pope's law? Doth he speak of obedience to Princes, who because his Prince liketh not to follow his course, hath before threatened him, 
a Epist. to the king sect. 34.  God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity will drive men unto at length? When the Fox preacheth, beware the Geese. To the point, I answer him briefly, we teach that Prince's laws in things subject to their command do bind the conscience to external obedience, though not to any spiritual opinion of the things wherein we do obey. And that we do not deny this, he himself 
b Preface to the Reader. sect. 3.  before hath testified for us, so that we shall see that he had need of one to remember him, that a liar must bear a brain. See further what hath been said hereof to the first section of his answer to M. Perkins his Dedicatory Epistle.   

28. W. BISHOP.  
5. The fift Commandment, teacheth that no man be killed by private authority: yet Protestants hold it lawful to take arms, even against their lawful Princes for the advancement of their Gospel; and haue●n th●● quarrel killed, and caused to be killed millions in Ger●anie, ●rance, Flanders, and Scotland.   

R. ABBOT.  
This is a mere slander lewdly devised b● some Papists, to take from themselves the envy and just reproach of that savage and barbarous cruelty which they have practised in Germany, 
Popish barbarity coloured by slandering the Protestants.  France, Flanders, in shedding the blood of so many thousands of innocent persons without respect of time, place, sex, age or degree. They have been in their Churches together to pray to God, and to hear his word, suspecting no harm, when these Tigers and wools have come armed upon them, and there slain them without any difference, both man, woman and child. It were too long to set forth the tragedy of those but cherries that have been committed in such like sort by the means of the Guises in France, of the duke of Alba, and others in Flanders, and in Germany by the impetuous & headlong tyranny of Charles the fift. The Protestants arms in this case have been only defensive, when as contrary to public edicts and proclamations, contrary to laws & rights, and privileges, and without legal course of proceeding, they have been thus barbarously destroyed. Neither have they then taken arms by private authority, but by law, and by the public direction of them to whom the maintenance and defence of those rights and liberties did belong. Now that Papists for the advancement of their idolatries and superstitions do hold it lawful and by their Confessors have been resolved that it is lawful not only to take arms against their Princes, but by secret practice to murder them, and by gunpowder to blow up a whole Parliament house, to the utter confusion and subversion of a whole state, our experience from time to time hath sufficiently made known to us. But 
a See hereof, The difference betwixt Christian subjection, and unchristian rebellion. part. 3. by D. Bilson then Warden of Winche, and now Bishop there.  that Protestants hold it lawful as he objecteth to take arms against their lawful Princes for the advancement of the Gospel, it is a lie, and contrary to the doctrine and profession of all our Churches.   

29. W. BISHOP.  
6 The sixth forbiddeth adultery, which is allowed of by Protestants in some case. For they permit one party after dinorcement to marry again, the other yet living; whereas our Saviour saith: Whosoever dimisseth his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery upon her. And if the wife dimisse her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery. Moreover, incest is also forbidden in this Commandment: now by the Canons of the Catholic Church, and the authority of the ancient Fathers, it is incest for one cozen germane to marry with another: yet is it not seldom practised; yea, it is generally allowed of in the church of England.   

R. ABBOT. 
Protestants allow neither adultery nor incest; Papists do both.   
The limitation of divorce which our Saviour Christ hath set down (
a Mat. 5.32. & 19.9.  except it be for fornication) maketh it lawful for the party innocent to marry again, the delinquent being left to the censure of the Church until satisfaction shall be given of true repentance for so heinous sin. The Church of England notwithstanding for the preventing of some mischiefs that by the wickedness of men do arise by abusing the liberty of marriage upon divorce, useth a restraint of that liberty, that the parties divorced shall put in caution not to marry again so long as they both live. But the Church of Rome doth openly admit adultery in this behalf, making it free to the Pope to pronounce of a solemn marriage a nullity, and to give liberty to the husband to marry again, the former wife being neither deceased nor divorced. As for incest (so determined by the law of God) the Pope hath given allowance to it in giving dispensation to the king of Spain last deceased, to marry his own sister's daughter, as also to King Henry the eight of England to marry his own brother's wife. But that whereof M. Bishop speaketh, for one cousin german to marry with another, is no incest by God's law, nor there determined to be unlawful. Yet thereof we commend that conceit which of old was had of it as S. Austen noteth; 
b August. de ciu. d●i l. 15. c. 16 ●actum etiam●●●●um propter vicinitatem horrebatur illiciti.  that that which was lawful to be done, yet was abhorred, for that it is so near to that that is unlawful. Therefore albeit by law we prescribe no other bounds than God hath set, yet we dissuade such marriages rather than approve them, lest men by taking the uttermost of that that is lawful, should thereby the rather presume to that that is altogether unlawful. As for the Canons of the Church of Rome we little respect them, because we know they make no conscience to permit or prohibit as they themselves list, who have brought in a new devise of spiritual kindred unknown to ancient times whereby it is unlawful for them to marry each to other, who have been godfathers and god mothers together at the baptism of a child. Let them make Canons for themselves, but for us by the grace of God they shall make none.   

30. W. BISHOP.  
7. The seventh Commandment, condemneth with theft, usury, and all withholding of our neighbour's goods, which was gotten unlawfully: yet Protestants commonly make no conscience to take ten in the hundredth, which is plain usury; and as for restitution of evil gotten goods, it is clean out of fashion among them.   

R. ABBOT.  
Hypocrite, 
Our laws allow no usury at all.  as though it were not common amongst Papists also to take ten in the hundred. Yet our law alloweth not this, but punisheth it, if it be informed, with the loss of the increase. If M. Bishop will say that because there is no execution of this punishment, therefore it must be taken to be permitted. I answer him, that it is permitted as Moses permitted the bill of divorce only 
a Mat. 19.8.  for the hardness of men's hearts, who cannot be induced to lend to supply the occasions and necessities of their brethren, unless they may be suffered to make benefit of their lending. As for restitution of evil gotten goods, we say that the wanting thereof wittingly is a token of the want of true repentance, without which there is no salvation. And albeit I doubt not but that I may say hereof that it is more sincerely practised with us than it is with them: yet I will not now stand to contend thereabout. But whereas Watson the Proctor for the Priests against the jesuits hath particularly set down great value of goods gotten by the jesuits through mere collusion and fraud, let him acquaint us that they have made restitution hereof and then I will give him further answer.   

31. W. BISHOP.  
8. The eight prohibiteth us to bear false witness against our neighbour: and yet do Ministers (the master Procestants) in their pulpit (where truth should only be taught) most commonly bear such false witness against Catholics, that the very stones may be astonished at their most impudent slanders: to wit, that Papists believe in stocks and stones: that they will not be saved by Christ and his passion, but by their own works: that they rob God of his honour, and give it to Saints; and a hundredth such like most notorious and palpable lies. Wherefore as the Preachers be guilty of bearing false witness: so the auditors deserve to be seduced by them, who hearing them to lie so shamelessly in some things, will nevertheless believe them in others.   

R. ABBOT. 
Papists believe in stocks and stones.   
The very stones if they could speak would justify the Protestants in this behalf and cry out against the idolatry and abomination of the Papists. Whether Papists believe in stocks and stones and teach men so to do let it appear by Thomas Aquinas who propounding the question, 
a Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 3 q. 25. art. 4. See before of Images. sect. 14  whether the cross of Christ be to be worshipped with the worship of Latria, determineth the matter in this sort: We give the worship of Latria to that wherein we put the hope of our salvation. But we put the hope of our salvation in the Cross; for the Church singeth, All-haile O Cross our only hope at this time of the passion; To the godly increase righteousness, and to the guilty grant forgiveness; Therefore the Cross is to b●e worshipped with Latria. Let M. Bishop now tell us whether they trust in stocks and stones who place the hope of their salvation in that Cross to which they say All-haile O Cross, etc. that is in a Cross of wood or stone. Yea and Polydore Virgil acknowledgeth of their rude people that 
b Polyd. Virgil. de invent. rerum. l. 6. c. 13. his (imaginibus) magis fidunt quam christ vel alijs divis quibus dicatae sunt. Papists will be saved by their own works, not by the passion of Christ  they put more trust in their images than they do in Christ or in the Saints whose images they are. He spoke gently of it being loath to touch the sore too hard for fear of offence; but it is well known how the common people have been affected with these delusions and still are where their abominable idolatry holdeth still it former strength. The second point that Papists will not be saved by the passion of Christ but by their own works is made plain to us by the Spanish inquisitors in their 
c Index Expur. Hispan. Ex libro qui inscribitur, Ordo baptizandi cum Modo visitandi, impresso venetijs, ann. 1575.  Index Expurgatorius, who finding in an Order for visiting the sick imprinted at Venice these questions to be asked of the sick man, 
d Deieantur illa verba: Credis non proprijs meritis sed passionis domini nostri jesu Christi virtute ac merito ad gloriam pervenire? Credis quòd dominus noster jesus Christus pro nestra salute mortuus sit, & quòd ex proprijs meritis vel alio modo nullus possit salvari nisi in merito passionis ipsius?  Believest thou, not by thine own merits, but by the power and merit of the passion of Christ to come to glory? Believest thou that our Lord jesus Christ died for our salvation; and that none can be saved by his own merits or by any other means but by the merit of his passion; with comfort given that 
e Deleantur illa verba: Non erit desperandum vel dubitandum de salute illius qui suprapositas petitiones cord crediderit & ore confessus fuerit.  there is no doubt to be made of the salvation of him who thus believeth with the heart and confesseth with the mouth, have defaced all these words and appointed them in new impressions to be wholly left out. The third point also is manifest; for sith worship and devotion of religion belongeth to God only, as hath been 
f Supra sect. 17  before showed, surely the Papists in giving religious worship to Saints, do rob God of his honour and give it unto the Saints. These things, M. Bishop, are clear and plain; they are not our notorious and palpable and shameless lies, but they are your notorious and palpable and shameless heresies. We know you daub these things and set colours upon them, as heretics have been wont to do upon their false and wicked opinions; but your colours with us are soon washed off, and where you are in your own kingdom, there we know how you appear in your own likeness. As for our auditors, thanks be to God, they are not like yours. Yours are like 
g 1. Cor. 12.2.  the Gentiles of old carried away to dumb Idols even as they are led. They must follow you blindfolded without seeing which way they go. They must search nothing, they must know nothing, but take what you tell them. But our hearers, thanks be to God, have the liberty of God's word, wherein they see with their own eyes, and whereby they plainly understand that we seduce them not, because we teach them nothing but what they find there that God hath taught. And you they thereby learn to hate and detest as seducers and deceivers, because you go about to teach them those things which they see God hath not taught you.   

32. W. BISHOP.  
9 and 10. Of the ninth and tenth I have spoken already; wherein they err grievously, in teaching every man to sin damnably, by having any evil motion cast into his mind by the Devil, albeit he resisteth it presently, and forthwith chase it away. In which conflict and overcoming of temptation, the grace and power of God is perfected, as S. Paul witnesseth: and S. james calleth the allurement of concupiscence temptation only; and then first sin when it conceiveth (that is) getteth some liking of the party.   

R. ABBOT.  
Where the mind is free from sin, the Devil can cast no evil motion into the mind. 
Every evil motion is sin.  If the Devil cast evil motions into the mind, it is a token that he findeth there a mould wherein he casteth them, and a mine whence he diggeth the matter of them. From the habitual corruption of our nature, all evil motions flow, which both in the spring and in the stream, both in the root and in the branch, is before justified to be sin. We resist it, he saith, and chase it away; but therefore we resist it and chase it away, because it is sin; it being the use and work of our warfare 
a Heb. 12.4.  to fight against sin, and the grace and power of God assisting us, whereby we overcome sin. He allegeth that S. james calleth it only temptation, and then first sin when it conceiveth: and I answer him, that S. Paul calleth it sin before it be temptation, 
b Rom. 7.8.  sin wrought all manner of concupiscence in me, and therefore in temptation it is sin. See hereof the question of original sin handled at large before, and of this place of S. james, the sixth section.   

33. W. BISHOP.  
Now to conclude this passage, if you please to hear to what height of perfect observance of the Commandments, the evangelical Preachers have brought their followers in Germany unto, by teaching the Commandments to be impossible, and that only faith justifieth, and that good works have no reward in heaven, and such like; jacobus Andreas a famous Lutheran shall inform you, 
De planetis.  who writeth thus. That the whole world may see these men alienated from the Papacy, and to put no confidence in works; 
De Planetis.  therefore they do no good work at al. In stead of fasting, they feast, and are drunken day and night: in am of Alms, they oppress and pill the poor: they have changed praying into cursing and blaspheming the name of God, so profanely, that no Turks nor Saracens commit the like impiety against Christ: for humility, there reigneth pride, disdain, cruelty, and riot in apparel, etc. and much more to the same purpose. And that this truth may be confirmed by the testimony of two sound witnesses; Musculus, a man of no small account among them, thus reporteth of his brethren in the Lord. 
De prophetia Christi.  Such now adays is the condition of the Lutherans, that if any man list to behold a great number of Knaves, robbers, malicious persons, cozeners, usurers, and such like deceivers, let him but enter into a City where the Gospel is taught, and there he shall find good store of them: and a little after. Surely it is true, that among Heathens, jews, Turks, and other Infidels, none can be found more unruly, and that less esteem of honesty and virtue, than the evangelical brethren; with whom all things pass currant, and nothing almost is blamed (except virtue:) For the devil hath shaken off all their bands, and turned them lose.   

R. ABBOT.  
And what M. Bishop, are there not, think you, 
The virtuous conversation of Papists.  as many knaves in Rome as in any city of the Lutherans? What, are there no Minions, & Courtesans there that serve for the use of the Pope & his Cardinals? Did you not remember what was said of Rome by one of your own Poets? 
Vivere qui sanctè cupitis, discedite Roma.  
Depart from Rome all ye, whose care is to live holily.  Did you not consider that it was easy for us to retort your words to yourselves, and to say; If you please to hear what good effects the Popish doctrine of justification by works doth bring forth, look to the jesuits Catechism, to watson's Quodlibets, and to the rest of those books of the same argument, written by Popish Priests concerning the jesuits, who are the Puritane-Papists, and the very quintessence of their religion, and yet are there described to be no other but Epicures, Atheists, fornicators, Sodomites, cozeners, traitors, proud, malicious, contentious, covetous, and what not? Now we know that the jesuits will say that you are as lewd and nought as you have described them to be. Like will to like, and get you both together: there is no such goodness in either of you, as that you should take upon you to question our goodness. And if I should rip up this matter of your virtues to the full, I should but cause a loathsome and filthy stink, troublesome both to myself and to the Reader. Therefore I rest myself with that answer that I have 
a Sect. 15. and of satisfaction sect. 19  before given upon the like occasion. Only I must note it for one of M. Bishop's Sycophants tricks, that he reckoneth it amongst our doctrines, that good works have no reward in heaven.   

34. W. BISHOP.  
Having done with the Creed and ten Commandments, we must now come to our Lord's prayer.  
Master PER. beginneth with it thus. The Lord's Prayer is a most absolute form of prayer: now in this we are taught to direct our prayers to God alone, Our father, etc. and that only in the name and mediation of Christ; for God is our father only by Christ: therefore to use any mediation of Saints is needless.  
Ans. We allow our Lord's prayer to be a most perfect form of prayer: yet hold that many other sort of prayers may be made unto God very acceptably, as sundry other prayers used by Christ, and set down in the Gospel do teach us: and therefore to argue, that because one prayer of Christ's making is directed to God, that no other may be made to any Saint, is very childish. We gather prayer to Saints out of S. Paul's requesting the Romans and Corinthians, and others to pray for him: and out of the mediation of the woman of Cananea to Christ for her daughter: and the Disciples speaking to Christ for her; with such like, both out of the old and new Testament. For if it had been either needless or bootless, to have prayed unto God any otherwise, than in the name and by the mediation of Christ; then S. Paul would not have requested the help of mortal men's prayers to God for him: and if poor sinners prayers may help us, much more may the intercession of the glorious Saints do, who are in far greater favour with God: See the question of intercession of Saints. Again, if that only form of prayer were to be used, neither were it lawful to pray to Christ himself; neither could it be proved thereby, that we should pray in Christ's name. For there is no express mention of Christ's name; neither any petition for Christ's sake. For God may be truly called our Father, in that he immediately createth and giveth us our souls, which is more than our bodies, that we receive from our carnal fathers.   

R. ABBOT.  
If the Lords prayer be a most perfect form of prayer, 
The Lord's prayer excludeth prayer to Saints.  as M. Bishop alloweth it to be, then are we perfectly thereby directed, both to whom and for what we are to pray. It cannot be called a most perfect form of prayer, wherein there is any want of either of these things. To add any thing to that that is perfect, is to deny the perfection of it, and to take away any thing from it, is to make it maimed and unperfect. Seeing then by the most perfect form of prayer, we are instructed to pray no otherwise but to God only, it followeth necessarily, that prayer to Saints is unlawful, because it is exorbitant from that most perfect form. M. Bishop's exception hereto is very childish and vain, that other prayers may be made unto God very acceptably, and that other prayers are used by Christ, and set down in the Gospel, because in other prayers there may be nothing, and in the prayers set down in the Gospel there is nothing, but what is consonant and agreeable to this form. For though prayer be conceived in other words, yet it varieth not from this form, so long as we pray to no other but to whom in this form we are directed, nor for any other thing, but what in this prayer is concluded. And albeit M. Bishop can allege, that in the Gospel and otherwhere there are other prayers used and set down beside the Lord's prayer, yet in the whole course of Scripture can he find us no example of any prayer but to God alone. If he did bring us example of prayer to Saints, somewhat it were, but now it is idle that he allegeth that there are prayers in other words. But he telleth us that they gather prayer to Saints out of S. Paul's requesting the Romans, Corinthians, & others to pray for him. And well indeed they may, if they can prove that S. Paul in the same sort prayed to the Romans & others to pray for him, as they pray to the Saints in heaven to pray for them. But if that which S. Paul did, were but a familiar request of mutual charity, whereas their prayer to Saints is a service of religious duty; and he did beseech them only as fellow members of the same body to give assistance to his prayers, not as Mediators, as they make the Saints to obtain for their sakes the acceptance thereof; then doth M. Bishop show himself a ridiculous man, that will draw from the one of these a conclusion of the other. Or if he will needs confound the one of these with the other, it shall be well that his disciples that crave the help of his prayers do take their ghostly father and set him up like sweet S. Rood, and devoutly kneel down and pray unto him. But if to crave each others prayers be piety, and to do that each to other which they do to the Saints be damnable idolatry, than it is apparent that they gather that which was never sowed, and do colourably allege these instances for the abusing and blinding of simple men. As for 
a Matt. 15.22.  the woman of Canaan, we read that she prayed to Christ for her daughter, but we do not read that her daughter prayed to her; and we find that by her prayer she showed her compassion, but that she took upon her any power of mediation, we do not find. 
b Chrysost. ex varijs in Math. locis hom. 17. Vide prudentiam mulieris: non rogat jacobum, non obsecrat joannem, neque pergit ad Petrum, nec intendit Apostolorum chorum, non quaesivit mediatorem, sed pro omnibus illis poenitentiam accepit comitem, quae adu●cati locum in plevit & sic. ad summum fontemperrexit.  But whereas he addeth the disciples speaking to Christ for her, he showeth little discretion therein, because it appeareth not that they spoke for her, but only requested their master to send her away, as being offended at her importunate crying. And so little help is there out of this example for prayer to Saints, as that Chrysostom rather giveth us hereby a note to except against it. Behold, saith he, the wisdom of this woman; she requesteth not Iames, she entreateth not john, she goeth not to Peter, she looketh not to the company of the Apostles, she seeketh for no mediator, but in stead of them all she taketh repentance for her companion which supplied the place of an advocate, and so went to the wellhead. And whereas he hath before demanded of her; 
c Ibid. Dic mihi mulier, quemadmodum ausa es, cùm sis peccatrix & iniqua, accedere ad Chrisium? Ego, inquit, nou● quid agam etc. propterea descendit, propterea carnem assumpsit & hon●o factus est ut ego ei audeam loqui.  Tell me woman, how dared thou, being a sinful and wicked woman thus come to Christ? he bringeth her in answering; I know what I do: therefore descended he from heaven, therefore did he take flesh and became man; that I might be bold to speak unto him. It should seem then that it is a point of godly wisdom, neither to go to one Saint nor other but to go directly to Christ himself, and not to be terrified by the conscience of our sins, because for that purpose he became man that we might be bold to come to him and to seek of him the remission thereof. But M. Bishop addeth another wise reason and well beseeming his learning; If it had been either needless or bootless to have prated unto God any otherwise than in the name and mediation of Christ, then S. Paul would not have requested the help of mortal men's traiers unto God for him. As if S. Paul when he requested them to pray for him, did intend that they should pray otherwise for him than in the name and by the mediation of jesus Christ. He prayeth for them and they pray for him, not to be heard each for others sake, but all to be heard for Christ's sake. 
d Aug. count epis. Parmen. l. 2. c. 8. Sic oratio pro in vicemmembrorun omnium adhuc in terra laborantium ascendit ad caput in quo est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris.  Thus, as Austen saith, the prayer of all the members labouring upon the earth, each for other, goeth up to the head who is gone before into heaven, in whom is the propitiation for our sins. Now therefore M. Bishop very vainly inferreth, that if poor sinners prayers may help us, much more may the intercession of the glorious saints, because poor sinners prayers do not help us by way of mediation, but only in loving care they join themselves to pray with us, that we may both be helped for Christ's sake; whereas Popish intercession of Saints intendeth not so much that the Saints should pray for us for Christ's sake, as that Christ should accept us for the Saints sake. As for the favour of the Saints we know God favoureth us no less than he favoureth them, being redeemed with the same blood, and by one spirit sealed to the same hope; and no more will he suffer an elect to perish on earth, than he will suffer a Saint to perish in heaven. Whatsoever M. Bishop will plead for their favour, sure we are that they have no favour in this respect, and therefore without assuming any thing to themselves, they have left us to depend upon Christ's favour as they have done. Now here again, see, saith he, the question of the intercession of Saints, whereas he hath taken pains to skip over that question also, and hath said nothing of it. But remembering himself, he goeth further here and saith, that if that only form of prayer were to be used, neither were it lawful to pray to Christ himself, neither could it be proved thereby that we should pray in Christ's name. As if any of us do say, that that only form of prayer is to be used, who do commonly ourselves use other forms of prayer, and condemn them that hold it unlawful so to do. We only say, as hath been already declared, that no prayer is to be made, the matter and substance whereof is not contained in the Lord's prayer. And though that only form were to be used, yet it followeth not that Christ is not to be prayed unto, because Christ is that God who is our heavenly father, and therefore to Christ also we pray when we say; Our father which art in heaven. Neither doth it follow that then we should not pray in the name of Christ, because it should nothing detract from the perfection of this form of prayer, that we be otherwhere taught to make this prayer in the name of Christ. Albeit the prayer itself, though not in words, yet in effect leadeth us thereunto, because God is our Father no otherwise but in Christ, who hath taken us into his communion and fellowship where he hath said; 
e john 20.17.  I ascend to my father and your father, to my God and your God; 
f Cyprian. de orat. Domin. Hoc nomen nemo nostrum in oratione auderet attingere, nisi ipse nobis sic pernasisset orare.  Which name (of father) saith Cyprian, none of us might presume to use in prayer but that Christ hath given us liberty so to pray. Now therefore we cannot truly say unto God Our Father but with implication of the name of Christ, in whose name only it is that we understand him to be our father. As for that which M. Bishop saith, that God may be truly called our father, in that he immediately createth and giveth us our souls, that is nothing to the purpose, because we question not how God may be called our father, but in what meaning it is that we do call him father when we say, Our father which art in heaven. For sith 
g Catechis. Roman p. 4. cap 9 sect. 1. Quid iucundius est patrius nomine quod induigentiam sonat & charitatem?  the name of father importeth kindness and love, as their own Roman Catechism expoundeth, surely it followeth, that because God is no otherwise kind and loving unto us but 
h 2. Cor. 1.20.  only in Christ, therefore in Christ only it is that we can call him father.   

35. W. BISHOP.  
Secondly, he hoppeth to the fourth petition; Give us our daily bread: in which words we acknowledge (saith he) that every morsel of bread is the mere gift of God: what madness then is it for us to think that we should merit the kingdom of heaven, that cannot merit so much as bread? It is false that we cannot merit our bread: 
Math. 10. v. 11. 1. Cor. 9 v. 14.  For Christ teacheth, that he who goeth to preach the Gospel, is worthy of, that is, meriteth and deserveth his meat; which S. Paul testifieth, saying: that our Lord ordained, that those who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. And do not day-labourers deserve their bread, before they eat it? and others that buy their bread, do I hope deserve it. What ignorance then is it, in the very principles of our faith, to avouch that we cannot merit bread? which notwithstanding we pray God to give us; because, neither could we deserve and yearn it, without his help and as sistance; neither would it do us any good without his blessing.   

R. ABBOT.  
When Christ saith, 
Our daily bread is of God's mercy.  
a Mat. 10.10.  The workman is worthy of his meat, he maketh one man debtor to another, but God is debtor to no man. The preacher deserveth his lively hood of the hearer, but yet at God's hands he can challenge nothing by desert. He that setteth a day-labourer to work is bound to pay him his hire, but God is not bound to pay him bread. Yea many a man laboureth most painfully, and yet cannot thrive to maintain himself with bread, and will M. Bishop say that God doth him wrong in not giving him his desert? And if the labour of the hands be to merit at God's hands, than the wicked man meriteth as well as the just, because the wicked often laboureth as carefully as the just. So if to buy bread be to merit bread, than the ungodly also meriteth his bread, because he hath money to pay for it. Would any man expect such silly and childish toys from so learned a man as M. Bishop would be thought to be? Notwithstanding all the labour and travel of our hands, notwithstanding all the virtues and righteousness of our life, yet we beg our bread at God's hands as the gift of his mercy. M Perkins therefore rightly argueth, that if by merit we cannot claim of God the bread of this life, much less can we have any merit whereby to lay claim to everlasting life.   

36. W. BISHOP.  
Thirdly, in the next petition: Forgive us our debts; four opinions of the Roman religion (saith he) are directly overthrown. What four at one blow! what a Hercules have we here? let us hear which. The first is human satisfaction: for the child of God is taught here to pray for the pardon of his sins; now to pray for pardon and to make satisfaction be contrary.  
Answ. This is a silly overthrow: for it is so far off, that prayer and satisfaction are contraries, that prayer itself is one of the three works of satisfaction: Fasting, Praying, and giving of Alms are not contrary, but the very works of satisfaction. And our Lords prayer is esteemed by S. Augustine (who is assoon to be believed as M. 
Lib. 1 de Symbolo. cap. 6. in Enchir. cap. 69.  PERKINS) sufficient of itself, to satisfy for the light daily offences that just men fall into: beside, Christ himself prayed for pardon of these mortal sins, for which notwithstanding God's justice was fully satisfied by Christ his sufferings; wherefore satisfaction and to sue for pardon, are not so contrary, but they may well stand together.   

R. ABBOT.  
Christ offered himself to God for the sacrifice and satisfaction of our sins, 
Forgiveness of sins excludeth our satisfaction.  that by virtue of this satisfaction he might entreat pardon for us, and we thereby also in his name might entreat pardon for ourselves. Therefore we do not say that prayer for forgiveness of sins is the denial of satisfaction, but we say that this prayer being grounded upon a satisfaction made already in Christ is a denial of satisfaction to be made by us. Our sins being satisfied for in Christ, remain upon our faithful prayer freely for his sake to be forgiven us. The forgiveness of sins is noted in scripture to be 
a 2. Cor. 5.19.  the not imputing of them. If satisfaction be required for sin, it cannot be said not to be imputed; and if it be not imputed, because 
b Bernard. in Cant. ser. 23. Omne quod mihi ipse non imputaredecreverit sic est quasi non fuerit.  it is as if it never had been, as Bernard saith there can no satisfaction be required for it. What a frantic dream it is whereby they have made prayer for forgiveness of sins to be a satisfaction for sin, and that S. Augustine's words make nothing for their purpose, it hath been 
c Of satisfaction. sect. 6. & 15.  before sufficiently declared, and is needless here to be repeated.   

37. W. BISHOP.  
Now to the second downfall: Merits are here also overthrown. For we acknowledge ourselves debtor, and we daily increase our debts: now it is madness to think that they, who daily increase their debts, can deserve or purchase any good of the creditors; in a word, this must be thought upon, etc.  
And good reason too. First then I answer, that venial sins and small debts that just mendaily incur, do not hinder the daily merit of their other good works. As aseruant hired by the day, by committing some small fault, doth not thereby lose his days wages: again, though he should commit such a fault, that might make him unworthy of his days hire; yet, if his Master did forgive him that fault, his wages were notwithstanding due to him: and so the ask pardon for our sins doth not overthrow, but rather establish and fortify our merits.   

R. ABBOT.  
Venial sins, 
Confession of sins is the demall of merit.  small debts, small faults, saith M Bishop. A vain man, that knoweth neither God nor himself, and therefore hath so small conceit of the sins that he daily committeth against God. No doubt but he could plead the matter in Adam's behalf, that God did h●m wrong to censure him so severely for so small a fault. What, it was but the eating of an apple or a fig, and he might by his merits soon have made amends for it, and would God for so light a trespass adjudge him to death, yea, and all his posterity for his sake? Well, God make him wise to know with whom he hath to do, and then he will see that his sinallest faults are great enough to blow up all his merits, yea, and that in his best merits there is enough to condemn him, if God should enter into judgement with him. And let me ask him out of his own wise saws that he hath here set down, if a hired servant of his by breach of conenants from day to day, have voided the condition of his wages, and yet he be in the end content to remit all, and to yield him his conditioned hire, will he think it well that his servant shall say, that he oweth him no thanks because he hath nothing but what he hath merited and deserved? Surely M. Bishop would expect that his good will and bounty should be acknowledged in this case, and would think it a wrong to be upbraided with his servants merit. But though his head serve him not to conceive this, yet do thou remember, gentle Reader, that one forfeiture of a man's estate, putteth him wholly under the mercy of his Lord, and whatsoever he can plead for himself otherwise, it serveth not the turn, but he standeth at the courtesy of him whom he hath offended. And what shall we say then for ourselves, whose life is a continual forfeiture of our estate with God by our trespassing daily and hourly against him? Shall we think we have merits to plead? shall we not acknowledge and confess that we stand merely and wholly at the devotion of his mercy? And if remitting aliour trespass, he vouchsafe to remember our service otherwise, and to reward it, shall we say that he giveth us but our own desert? Do we not see our good deeds whatsoever they be, to be so drowned and overwhelmed with our sins, as that it is Gods mere mercy that any mention is made of them? But when furthermore our good deeds have in themselves such spots and stains of sin as do give God just cause to reject them, as hath been 
a Of justification, sect. 44. etc.  before declared, shall we be so drunk with our own fancies as that we will still dream of merit towards God? These things need not to be strongly urged, because they pretaile mightily in the consciences of all that are not of benumbed and dead hearts, and more hath been answered hereof before, than that M. Bishop should think fit to trouble us any more with these blind reasons. He never ceaseth to oppose, though when he is answered he never knoweth what to reply.   

38. W. BISHOP.  
The third opinion imagined to be confuted by this petition, is: that temporal punishment may be retained after the crime itself, and the eternal is remitted: but this cannot stand (saith he.) For we own to God obedience, and for the defect of this payment, we own to God the forfeiture of punishment. Sin then is called our debt, in respect of the punishment: And therefore when we pray for pardon of our sins, we require not only the fault to be pardoned, but the whole punishment; and when debt is pardoned, it is absurd to think that the least payment should remain.  
Answ. Hear is a most absurd collection: For when we in our Lord's prayer crave pardon of our debts, we confess that we are in his debt, and that there is payment of punishment yet due unto us, the remission whereof we then require: now this prayer is made by the best men after their conversion (as he confesseth) who standing in God's favour, and therefore free from eternal punishment, do notwithstanding crave pardon and release of some punishment, by M. PER. own interpretation: Whereupon it followeth most evidently out of this petition, that after eternal punishment is forgiven unto the just, there is some other punishment remaining, of which they crave pardon; and consequently this opinion of ours is (by this very petition and M. PER. own exposition of it) much strengthened and confirmed, and nothing at all weakened.   

R. ABBOT.  
If M. 
Temporal punishment remitted in forgiveness of sins.  Bishop may be the expounder of M. Perkins exposition, we doubt not but he will make some good matter of it. M. Perkins meaning is plain enough, and so are his words, that after our first converting & turning unto God, we have still cause from day to day to humble ourselves before God, and to beg of him remission both of temporal and eternal punishments, which by our sins from day to day we run into. It followeth not of any thing that Master Perkins saith, that the eternal punishment being already forgiven, we ask here the forgiveness of some temporal punishment, but that as our sins are daily, so we ask forgiveness daily both of the one and of the other. 
a Aug. de vera & falsa paenit. cap. 5. Quia quotidiana est effensio, oport●t ut sit quotidiana etiam remissio.  Because the offence is every day, saith S. Austin, therefore we have need to have remission eucry day. Now the collection against M. Bishop is pregnant and clear; for if to ask forgiveness of the sin be to ask release of the punishment, than it followeth, that our petition being granted, there is no remainder of punishment after the forgiveness of the sin. The ground of this collection he himself approveth, saying, When we in our Lord's prayer crave pardon of our debts, we confess that we are in his debt, and that there is payment of punishment due unto us, the remission whereof we then require. If then we here require the remission of punishment, I ask him, do we not require theremission of eternal punishment? What, have we the remission of eternal punishment without ask or praying for it? Doth Christ teach us to beg the forgiveness of temporal punishment and not of eternal? Tell us your mind plainly M. Bishop: do not gloss the matter with a false application of M. Perkins words. A man committeth mortal sin, and thereby incurreth eternal punishment. He cometh to God and humbleth himself and saith as Christ hath taught him: forgive us our trespasses. Doth he not hereby crave of God for Christ's sake, the release of of that punishment? If he say, no, he is more absurd than that Christian ears will give him the hearing. If he say, yea, he is confounded in the cause, because it must then needs be granted, that the hearing of our prayer is the relaxation both of temporal and eternal punishment; of temporal, by his own confession; of eternal, by a truth which he must confess whether he will or no. Their opinion therefore is not strengthened as he vainly pretendeth, but is plainly overthrown by the true and necessary construction of this petition.   

39 W. BISHOP.  
The fourth point of our doctrine hence impugned by M. PER. is: that a man in this life may fulfil the law. Whereas in this place every servant of God is taught to ask daily pardon for the breach of the law: answer is made, that our daily sins are venial, and not against the law, though besides the law: but this which they say, is against this petition: for a debt that cometh by forfeiture, is against the band or obligation. Now every sin is a debt, causing the forfeiture of punishment, and therefore is not beside, but against the law.  
Answ. I grant that every sin is a debt, causing the forfeiture of punishment; but this punishment may be small and short, and so the sin venial, and the debt not against the law directly, yet against the band of some moral duty: as the misspending of time, using of some idle words, and the committing of such like light faults, which I am bound in reason to avoid; but not by any prescript law directly. And thus in fine we see, how foully M. PER. was mistaken, that thought to overthrow four points of our doctrine at a clap, when not so much as one is thereby any whit at all stirred.   

R. ABBOT.  
It will be well for M. Bishop that misspending of time and using of idle words be reckoned for venial sins; for God knoweth he hath misspent a great deal of time in the writing of these books, and hath sent us a number of idle words. Tush, saith he, the sin is but venial, and the punishment but small and short for such light faults. But if it be a point of godly 
a Ephe. 5.16.  wisdom to redeem the time, as S. Paul teacheth, surely it is a point of folly to esteem so lightly of misspending time; and he will not so easily swallow idle words, that regardeth what our Saviour saith that 
b Mat. 12.36. No man liveth without breach of God's law.  of every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account at the day of judgement. To come to the matter, M. Perkins reason is very good, There can be no forfeiture without breach of the condition of a bond. Every sin is a forfeiture. Therefore every sin is a breach of the condition of a bond. The obligation or bond here is the law of God.  then every sin, and therefore every venial sin maketh a man subject to a forfeiture of punishment, it must needs be that every venial sin must be holden to be a breach of the law of God. And because no man can live without daily committing venial sins, therefore it followeth that no man can live without daily breach of the law of God. I dispute not here whether sin be rightly called venial in his sense or not; I aim at the point, that because no man by their confession can live without venial fins for which he daily saith, forgive us our trespasses, and every venial sin is a breach of the law of God, therefore no man can live without daily breach of God's law, and therefore that no man in this life doth fulfil the law. But well far a schoole-tricke yet that shall put this argument quite out: forsooth there is a twofold bond whence the forfeiture ariseth. One is the law of God, and venial sins he telleth us are not against the law directly; we are not bound to avoid them by any prescript law directly. Thus faintly and fearfully he speaketh: his own conscience telleth him that they are against the law of God, but being loath to confess the truth, which thus notwithstanding reigneth over him, he minceth the matter with directly and indirectly. But if the curse of God which is the penalty of the law do light upon him for these sins, what shall it boot him to say, that he did but indirectly run into it? Well they are not directly against the law, but against what are they directly? They are, saith he, against the bond of some moral duty, and we are bound in reason to avoid them. Hear is then the other obligation or bond, the bond of reason, the bond of moral duty. But is there any bond of moral duty but only the law of God? and doth not the law perfectly determine all moral duty? or doth the reason of man find itself otherwise bound than by the conscience of the law? Surely S. Paul saith, 
c Rom. 7.7.  I knew not sin but by the law, and hath M. Bishop a way to know sin otherwise than by the law? S. Paul saith; 
d Rom. 4.15.  Where there is no law, there is no transgression, and shall we believe M. Bishop that there is transgression where there is no law? 
e August. de pecc. meritis & remiss. l. 2. c. 16. Quomodo non vetatur per justitiam si peccatum est? Neque peccatum erit siquid erit, si non divinitus iubeatur ut non sit.  How should it not be forbidden by righteousness, saith S. Austin, if it be sin? and that that is sin, saith he, shall be no sin if God do not forbid the being of it. Doth God forbid all sin or else it is no sin; and yet is there some sin that is not against the law of God? Well, let us leave M. Bishop to his reason; for we see he knoweth not the law. As for us, we doubt not but the law of God is the full description of all moral duty, and that every trespass in moral duty, and namely their venial sins are transgressions of the law, and therefore that no man fulfilleth the law because no man liveth without daily venial sins: venial as they call them, though all sin by the law be adjudged mortal. Thus we see how foully M. Bishop was mistaken to think with his elder sticks to prop up his four points of Popery, which whether he will or not are fallen to the ground, and he can devise no further to hold them up.   

40. W. BISHOP.  
He saith further, In this clause (as we forgive our debtor) it is taken for granted, that we may certainly know that we repent and believe, and are reconciled by God; which all Roman Catholics deny.  
Answ. Nothing less, because much more is required to the one, than to the other. For it is far easier to discern, whether I do yet bear any evil will to my neighbour, than to know assuredly, that I do heartily repent me of all my sins, and that for the love of God; and further, that I have a firm purpose not to commit hereafter, any kind of mortal sin: these things (as every one may plainly see) are far more difficult, than the other of forgiving them that trespass against us.   

R. ABBOT.  
M. Perkins doth not say, 
Our repentance and faith to be known as well as our charity.  that in this clause it is taken for granted that we may certainly know that we repent and believe, as M. Bishop hath falsely and guilefully set down, but that in this clause it is taken for granted that we may certainly know that we are in love and charity with men when we make reconciliation. Whereupon he inferreth the other, Why then may we not know certainly that we repent and believe, and are reconciled to God? M. Bishop telleth us, that much more is required to the one than to the other, but what that is he telleth not. He saith it is far easier to discern the one than the other, but reason he giveth none. He saith that every one may plainly see it, and we think we can see into a millstone as far as he, and yet we cannot see but that a man may discern the truth of his heart in the one as well as in the other, and till he give reason to the contrary, we so leave him.   

41. W. BISHOP.  
In the last words: and lead us not into temptation, 
Psal. 26.1.  we pray not (saith he) that God should free us from temptation, for it is otherwhiles good to be tempted: but that we be not left unto the malice of Satan, and held captive of the temptation: for here to be led into temptation, and to be delivered, are opposed. Now hence I gather, that he who is the child of God truly justified and sanctified, shall never fall wholly and finally from the grace of God; and I conclude on this manner: 
1. joh. 5.  That which we ask according to the will of God, shall be granted: But this the child of God asketh, that he might never be wholly forsaken of his father, and led captive into temptation: this therefore shall be granted.  
Answ. If this argument were sound, never should any Christian that saith our Lord's prayer, fall finally & be damned; because they all make this petition, and that according to the will of God, who would have all men saved. Many things then besides saying our Lord's prayer, are required to salvation, for want of which many that have often said that prayer fall finally. Again, he mistaketh the true sense of that petition: for therein we do not ask that we continue not in sin, which we asked in the former petition (forgive us our trespasses) but we pray that we be not overcome by the devil, by yielding our consent to the temptation, and so fall into sin. Lastly he forgetteth himself much when he saith, that it is good to be tempted: for he holdeth for certain, that the very first motions to sin in us (which is the beginning of the temptation) are mortal sins; and so by himself, it is good to fall into mortal sin, if it be good we should be tempted.   

R. ABBOT.  
Many there are who are Christians in name, 
The true Christian never falleth away.  but not in deed; Christians to men, but not to God, Christians by outward profession and partitipation of Sacraments, but not by inward regeneration and grace. M. Perkins namely speaketh of them who are truly justified and sanctified, who with a true heart and unfeigned faith, do call upon the name of our Lord jesus Christ. The rest speak prayers, but they do not pray: they repeat words with the mouth, but the heart, where is the true seat of prayer, hath no feeling of that they say. Now of them that are truly the children of God, and do faithfully and truly pray, it is undoubtedly true which M. Perkins saith, that never any doth wholly and finally fall away from the grace of God. For 
a Psal. 145.18.  the Lord is nigh unto all them that call faithfully upon him, and fulfilleth the desire of them that fear him; he will hear their cry and will help them. And 
b 1. joh. 5.14.  this is the assurance that we have of him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us; and if we know that he heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have desired of him. 
c Aug. do bono persever. cap. 6. Quisquis igitur exauditur hoc poscens, non infertur in contumaciae tentationem qua possit vel dignus sit perseverantiam sanctitatis amittere. At enim voluntate sua quisque deserit deum ut merito deseratur à deo. Quis hoc negaverit? sed ideo petimus ne inseramur in tentationem ut hoc non fiat, & si exaudimur utique non fit quia deus non permittit ut fiat.  Whosoever then is heard, saith S. Austin, in that he prayeth, not to be led into temptation, he is not brought into the temptation of that wilfulness, whereby he should fail to persevere in holiness. And whereas it may be objected, Yea, but it is by a man's own will that he forsaketh God, so as to be worthily forsaken of God; he answereth, Who will deny that? But therefore do we ask not to be brought into temptation, that that may not come to pass; and if we be heard, surely it doth not come to pass, because God doth not suffer it so to be. As touching the sense of the petition, M. Bishop to assume somewhat to himself, taketh upon him to correct M. Perkins, whereas the sense delivered by M. Perkins, is the more sound and effectual, that our prayer is; not to be left to the malice of Satan, and held captive of the temptation. For whereas M. Bishop saith, that we pray that we be not overcome by the devil, by yielding our consent to the temptation, and so fall into sin, it is true indeed that so we pray; but yet because we know that God doth not so free his elect from temptation, but that they are sometimes overcome, and do consent to the temptation, and fall into sin, we understand further, that if God see it expedient thus to let us fall by temptation, yet he will not leave us to be holden captives therein, nor suffer us so to be tempted, but that he be always with us, to deliver us from evil, that 
d Psal. 37.24:  though we fall, yet we may rise again whilst he supporteth us with his hand. For whereas M. Bishop saith, that M. Perkins much forgetteth himself, in saying, that it is good otherwhiles to be tempted, it is he indeed that much forgetteth himself in so blameing M. Perkins, who intendeth not that temptation is good of itself, but only accidentally in respect of the good use which God maketh thereof, turning the poison of one sin to be a preservative against another, and by falling once making a man the more wary not to fall again. And thus S. Austin by the words of the Apostle saith, that 
e Rom. 8.28.  all things to Gods elect work together for good; 
f Aug. de corrept. & great. ca 9 Talibus diligentibus deum omnia cooperantur in bonum, usqueadeo prorsus omnia ut si qui corum deviant & exorbitant, etiam hoc ipsum eis faciat proficere in bonum.  even so altogether all things, as that if any of them serve and go aside out of the w●y, he maketh that also to further their good. 
g Bernar. de divers. ser. 1. An verò ei peccata ipsa non cooperantur in bonum qui ex eis humilior, feruentior, solicitior, timoratior, & cauti or invenitur?  For do not sins work for good to him, saith S. Bernard, who is found thereby more humble, more fervent, more careful, more fearful and wary than before? And thus Gregory very truly saith, that 
h Greg. Moral. l. 2. c. 25. Fit mira dispensatione pietatis ut unde malignus hostis cor tentat ut interimat, inde misericors conditor hoc erudiat ut vivat.  by the wonderful dispensation of piety, it cometh to pass that by what the wicked enemy tempteth the heart to destroy it, by the same our merciful creator nurtureth it to life. But the concupiscences and lusts of sin, do specially serve for this end; which God hath left as an enemy within our own berders, to fight against us for the exercising of our faith and hope, that seeing our own weakness and danger in ourselves, we may the more earnestly call upon God, and depend upon his power; that being vexed and afflicted with the temptations of sin, we may hunger and thirst after righteousness so much the more; that being wearied with war, we may the more long after the place of our peace; and obtaining through his grace the conquest and victory, we may through his mercy obtain the promise of the crown of glory. Thus God 
i 2. Cor. 4.6.  commandeth the light to shine out of darkness, and out of evil worketh good unto those that are his, which M. Bishop also I doubt not would acknowledge, but that a malicious spirit of wilful contradiction carrieth him headlong to resist apparent and known truth.   

42. W. BISHOP.  
Finally (he saith) this clause (Amen) signifieth a special faith concerning all the former petitions, that they shall be granted, and therefore a special faith concerning remission of sins.  
Answ. It signifieth a special hope and confidence to obtain them, but no certainty of faith, unless upon a condition which is uncertain: that is, if we do our parts, God will not fail of his; if we do hearty repent us, and use the Sacrament of Penance duly, we shall assuredly obtain remission of our sins.   

R. ABBOT.  
The Roman Catechism in this point confirmeth that which M. 
Amen what it importeth in the Lord's prayer.  Perkins saith and maketh good our special faith, expounding Amen to be added by our Saviour Christ 
a Catec. Roman. p. 4. cap. 17. sect. 4. Cui voci illa quodammodo subiecta sententia est, scito tuas auditas esse preces. Habet enim vim respondentis & illum qui precibus quod velit impetrarit cum bona gratia dimittentis dei. Et sect. 6 Intelligentes nos iam impetrasse omnia ac sentientes praesentem vim divini auxilij illud unà cum propheta canimus; Ecc● dominus adiwat me etc.  as God's answer to this effect; Know that thy prayers are heard; and that we are to understand it, as that we have obtained all our desires, and feeling the present power of the help of God do sing with the Prophet; Behold God is my helper; the Lord is the protector of my soul. If I be to conceive Amen to be God's answer that he hath heard the prayer that I have faithfully made unto him, then am I to believe that God hath forgiven me my sins, because that is one part of the prayer which I have made. Whatsoever poison there is in the Roman Catechism that M. Bishop sucketh very greedily; but this acknowledgement of truth, though perhaps unwarily delivered, he can by no means admit. As for his uncertain condition I have before showed that it is the overthrow of Christian faith and hope, which wholly withdraweth our eyes from looking upon ourselves and our own merits that we may rest wholly and only upon the mercy and goodness of almighty God. It may well stand with that doubting and fear which elsewhere he requireth, but confidence and hope can in no sort grow upon it.   

43. W. BISHOP.  
Hitherto M. Perkins hath argued against us out of the Lords prayer: now I will briefly show how the Protestants doctrine cotrarieth it.  
I have in my answer to his objections, touched some points already: I add, that one position of their doctrine crosseth three of the first petitions. I prove it thus: In every petition we must be assured (as M. Perkins holdeth) or at the least have a good hope to obtain that we pray for, or else it booteth us not to pray: but according to the Protestants doctrine no man can be assured, nay can have any hope to obtain the three first petitions: for if original sin do continually dwell in us, and infect all our actions with deadly sin, as they teach: God's name cannot be sanctified in us, that are infected with such an unclean leprosy: neither secondly, can God reign as a King in us, if sin possess and command all our members: and thirdly, God's will cannot be done by us on earth as it is done in heaven, if we cannot keep his laws and commandments, which they in heaven do: wherefore the Protestants have no assurance to obtain the three first petitions, who are by their teachers assured, that they are not to be expected or hoped for: nor they cannot (according to their own rules) from their heart make the said petitions, being out of all hope to obtain them.   

R. ABBOT.  
There is a notable picture of the regenerate man in the holy woman Rebecca when 
a Gen. 25 22.23.  the children strove within her, and the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be divided out of thy bowels, and the one people shall be mightier than the other, and the elder shall serve the younger. For so are there in the faithful the old and the new man, the flesh and the spirit, somewhat whereby they are the children of God, and somewhat whereby they are still the children of this world. The original leprosy still cleaveth unto us, but it is begun to be cleansed and the strength of it is abated already. Sin still possesseth and dwelleth in our members, but we do not say, as M. Bishop falsely pretendeth, that it hath the commanding of them. 
b Aug. de peecat. mer. & remiss. l. 2. c. 7. Nunc ei similes esse tam coepimus per primitias spiritus, & adhuc dissimiles sumus per reliquias vetustatis, proinde in quantum similes, in tantum regenerante spiritu filii dei: in quantum autem dissimiles, in tantum si. ij carnis & seculi. Illinc ergò peccare non possumus; hinc verò si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nosi, so● decipimus etc.  We are now like unto God, saith S. Austin, by having the first fruits of the spirit, and we are still unlike unto him by the remnants of our old state. So far therefore as we are like him, so far are we by the spirit of regeneration the sons of God: and so far as we are unlike him, so far are we the children of the flesh and of the world. On the one side therefore we cannot sin, but on the other side if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us. Now then semblably we answer M. Bishop, that according to that we are renewed, and by the spirit of God are become the sons of God, the name of God is sanctified in us, his kingdom is begun in us, and we do his will in earth with ready will as it is done in heaven. But by the remainder of the corruption of flesh and of the old man, there is a let that God's name is not perfectly sanctified in us, his kingdom taketh not full place in us, neither do we his will in such measure as we ought to do. Yet we pray that the old man, the body of sin may more and more be destroyed, that the work of God's kingdom may more and more be fulfilled in us; that we may more and more keep his commandments and do his will, not only with ready will, but without all let and hindrance fully and perfectly as they in heaven do. Herein we pray that we may increase from day to day, and we believe that God heareth us and granteth our request and will go forward with his good work till he bring us in heaven to the perfection of it: so far are the Protestants from being out of hope of the obtaining of these three first petitions as M. Bishop fond dreameth.   

44. W. BISHOP.  
In the fourth we ask aswell to be made partakers of Christ's blessed body in the Sacrament, which is the food of our souls: as for our daily corporal sustenance. For so do the ancient fathers expound that petition: as namely S. Cyprian in oratione Dominica: S. Hiero. in 6. Matt. S. Amb. li. 5. de Sacra. c. 4. where he hath these memorable words of the blessed Sacrament: that before the words of Christ it was bread, but after it is the body of Christ. Why then (saith he) is it called here bread? he answereth, that it is called bread not simply, but supersubstantial bread. For so doth the Greek word Epióusion signify, as well as daily:) it is (saith he) not such bread as passeth into our body, but it is the bread of eternal life that upholdeth the substance of our souls. Now you may be well assured, that Protestants who will not believe any such bodily presence, do not pray to God to give it them.   

R. ABBOT.  
We wots well that sundry of the ancient Fathers have expounded this petition, 
Real presence fond collected out of the Lords prayer.  not only literally of corporal food, but also mystically of the participation of the blessed Sacrament, wherein Christ is spiritually offered and given unto us to be unto us the bread of everlasting life. Of this we will not contend with the fathers; only we would know of M. Bishop, if this daily bread be understood of the Sacrament, how is it that the people with them are not called and urged to the daily participation of the Sacrament, that daily they may be partakers of this bread, accordingly as they are taught to pray? Or if without the receiving of the Sacrament, a man may be partaker of the spiritual food of the body and blood of Christ, as by their construction of this petition compared with their practice it may seem they do confess, than they must acknowledge that there is no necessity of their real presence, to make us partakers of the body and blood of Christ. Which although I do not see how M. Bishop should well and handsomely avoid, yet he thought good here to put in one place for the same real presence of Christ's body, his choice notwithstanding being so small, as that he hath brought us one that saith nothing for him, yea in very truth saith altogether against him. The words of Ambrose are these: 
a Ambr. de Sacram. l. 5. cap. 4. Ante verba Christi quod offertur panis est: ubi Christi verba deprompta suerint, iam non panis dicitur sed corpus appellatur.  Before the words of Christ that which is offered is bread; but when the words of Christ are uttered, it is not now termed bread, but it is called the body. M. Bishop falsifieth the words: but taking them as they are, what doth he find in them, for assertion of the real presence? Is it any proof of real presence, to say that the Sacrament is called the body of Christ? Now as it is called the body of Christ, so is it also called supersubstantial bread, not for that that it is really to the mouth & belly, but for that that it signifieth and presenteth to our faith. And this doth Ambrose himself immediately declare when he addeth, 
b Ibid. Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus, sed ille panis vitae eternae qui anima nostrae substantiam fulcit.  for it is not this bread which passeth into the body, but that bread of eternal life that upholdeth the substance of our soul. Where when he divideth the bread of eternal life, from that which goeth into the body, he plainly showeth, that that which goeth into the body, is not the real body of Christ, which is the bread of eternal life. What hap had M. Bishop here to speak of the real presence, having no better witness to plead for it?   

45. W. BISHOP.  
And touching forgiveness of their debts to God, and sins; they are so assured of that before hand, by the certainty of their new faith, that they can no more request of God forgiveness of their sins, than they can ask, that God will make them reasonable creatures, which they see that he hath done already. And they holding the first motions to evil in temptation, to be mortal sins, which no mortal man ordinarily can now avoid; how can they pray God not to suffer them to be lead into temptation, when they teach it to be impossible to escape the venom of it? And if they understand it so, as M. PERKINS teacheth: to wit, that they there pray, not to be left to the malice of Satan, they cannot without loss of the certainty of their faith pray so; because they hold themselves assured of that before hand.  
Neithey can they pray God generally to deliver them from all evil, affirming as they do, that we must needs fall into mortal sin at every step almost, which is the greatest of all other evil. And finally, if it belong to God to deliver us from sin, and all other evil; then Caluin and his followers do wickedly blaspheme, who teach God to be the author and worker in us, of all error, sin, and wickedness. Thus much of the Pater noster.   

R. ABBOT.  
Our belief and assurance of the forgiveness of sins is, that when we beg the same of God by faithful prayer, he granteth us our desire; and therefore do we pray for it, because he hath promised, and we believe his promise, that in praying we shall obtain it. Of this idle Sophism of his, there hath been enough said 
a 
Of the certainty of salvation. sect. 5.18.  
How we pray not to be led into temptation, but delivered from evil.   before. We pray that we be not led into temptation, in such meaning as before hath been said, understanding simply temptation, so as to be left of God therein, without the assistance of his grace. This hindereth not but that the first motions of lust wherewith we are tempted, are in their own nature mortal sins, though by the mercy of God they become not so to us. For we do not say, as he untruly allegeth, that it is impossible to escape the venom of temptation; nay, we say that the faithful do escape the venom and poison of it, because 
b Rom. 8.28. See before sect. 41.  all things (even temptation and sin) work together for good unto them that love God. And thus do we pray also, to be delivered from evil, that though we be not as yet set free from temptation, yet the same by his overruling providence, may be so ordered, as that by his mercy we may be free from the evil and danger thereof. And what should let but that we may pray God generally to deliver us from all evil, even from that 
c Rom. 7.21.  evil which is (always) present with us when we would do good; from 
d vers. 23.  the law of sin that is in our members; from 
e Gal. 5.17.  the flesh that lusteth against the spirit, because we believe that God heareth us when we so pray, and will deliver us from that bondage wherein we are forced for the time to serve? Yea this he hath begun to do already, destroying by the power of his spirit more and more the body of sin, and yielding 
f 2. Cor. 4.16.  the outward man to be corrupted, that the inner man may be renewed from day to day, until perfect newness shall come, and all evils shall be fully abolished, because 
g 1. Cor. 15.28.  God who is all good, shall be all in all. And if we cannot pray generally to be delivered from all evil, because we affirm the first motions of sin which are evil to continue still in us, let M. Bishop tell us how they pray to be delivered generally from all evil, who though they acknowledge not the first motions to be sin, yet acknowledge them to be evil as well as we; and that from this evil no man is set free so long as he continueth in the warfare of this life. As for the certainty of salvation, we lose it not by these prayers, but are rather thereby confirmed in it, because we believe as hath been said, that God heareth us when we so pray, and therefore rest assured according to the measure of our faith, that God will guide us in safety through the midst of all temptations, and will finally deliver us from all evil, and bring us to be partakers of his kingdom for ever. That which he saith of Caluin is an odious repetition of an impudent slander, which is cleared before in the answer to his Preface, the tenth sect.   

46. W. BISHOP.  
Now before I come to the Sacraments, I may not omit to speak a word of the Aue-Maria, which in old Catechisms followeth immediately after the Pater noster. The Protestants have cassierd it, and may not abide to hear it once said; but therein, as much as in any other such matter, they disgrace their doctrine, and discredit themselves. For all the words used of old therein, are the very words of the holy Ghost, registered in S. Luke's Gospel; and therefore they bewray either great ignorance, or a wicked spirit to dwell in them, that cannot endure to hear the words of God's spirit. Besides in holy Scripture it is prophesied, 
Luk. 1.  that from henceforth all generations should call the Virgin MARY blessed. In what terms then can we more conveniently so call her, then in the very same that were composed by an Archangel, are penned by the Evangelists, and by them commended unto all good Christians? beside, the sense of them is comfortable unto us, as containing a remembrance of the incarnation of the Son of God for our redemption, and we on our parts do thereby give thanks to God for that inestimable benefit, and congratulate our Saviour with humble thanks therefore, saying: Blessed be the fruit of thy womb, JESUS. I need not in such clear evidence of God's word, allege the testimony of any ancient father: he that list to see how it hath been used in the purest antiquity, let him read S. Athanasius in evang. de deipara. S. Ephem. de laudibus B. Mariae. S. Basils and S. Chrysostom's liturgies, which can with no more reason be denied to be theirs, than the rest of their works. One short sentence I will set down in commendations of it, out of that most reverend and devout Bernard. The Angel's triumph, and the heavens do congratulate with them; the earth leapeth for joy, and hell trembleth when the Aue-Maria is devoutly said. 
Apud Dionisi. Corinth. 1. part. in evan. c. 5.17.  Good Christians then must needs take great delight in it, even as the bad may not abide it.   

R. ABBOT.  
The Protestants do so well endure to hear the words of God's spirit, as that they have made special choice thereof as the principal weapon wherewith to fight against the superstitions and abominations of the Papists. Whose absurd dotage as many other ways, so in their Aue-Marie most notably appeareth, in that of a salutation to the virgin Marie being present, they have made an invocation of her being absent, and think it a matter of great merit and devotion to use it like a charm by saying it over thus or thus many times at once which the Angel spoke but once. M. Bishop allegeth for it the old Catechisms, but he neither telleth us what Catechisms he meaneth, nor how old they are; which if he had, we should easily have descried the vanity of his speech. For if by old Catechisms he mean as he should, the Catechisms of the ancient fathers and primitive Church, he is therein found a liar, because in those Catechisms there is nothing of it. But if by old Catechisms he mean any that have been of latter times under the darkness of Popery, he abuseth his Reader, who in case of Religion looketh for satisfaction even from the first age, because what was not then a part of religion can be no part of religion now; the truth of Christ being one and the same from the beginning and for ever. The words, he saith, are the words of the holy ghost, and so say we; but we say that the words of the holy ghost may be abused, as here they are, against the purpose and meaning of the holy Ghost. They are the words of the holy Ghost which Christ used to the Apostles, 
a Luk. 24.25.  Fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken: and will M. Bishop therefore say that we may use those words for invocation of the Apostles? He allegeth again that it is prophesied that all generations should call the virgin Mary blessed; and we deny it not but we may call her blessed in the meditations of our own hearts, and in speaking of her to them that hear us, though we speak not idly as to her that heareth us not. Be it that the words were composed by the Archangel, penned by the Evangelists, commended to the reading of all good Christians as other words of scriptures are; be it that the sense of them is most comfortable unto us, yet what is all this to prove that these words are to be used for a devotion and service to the virgin Mary? specially in such sort as Popery hath used them in a strange and unknown tongue, which could yield no comfort of the sense, nor remembrance thereby of the incarnation of Christ, nor performance of thanksgiving or congratulation towards God. That purest antiquity which he allegeth is but corrupt novelty, and lewd forgery. The Liturgies of Basill and chrysostom are very falsely so termed, and yet in Basils' Liturgy there is no mention of the Aue-Mary. Of Chrysostom's Liturgy there are so many different copies published, one by Leo Tuscus, another by Erasmus, another by Pelargus, who also testifieth that he hath seen a fourth, as that if chrysostom did leave any, yet no man is able to say of any of them that this is it. The sermon of Athanasius in Euangel. de Deipara, is by 
b Nann. epist. nuncupatoria praefixa oper. Athanasij. In tertiam classem: relegavi omnes supposititios libros quos Athanasij non puto.  Nannius their own translator put amongst the rank of bastards and counterfeits. The name of Deipara was not so famous in the time of Athanasius as to be prefixed in the title of a sermon; neither could it have wanted memorable testimony in the council of Ephesus if it had been then known for his. Ephrems works, as 
c Hieron. in Catalogue. script. ecclesiast. Multa syro sermone composuit.  Hierome saith, were written in the Syrian tongue. If M. Bishop can show them in the same tongue, yea or anciently translated into the Greeketongue, we can give the better credit that they are his indeed. Otherwise we know that they have been in hucksters handling; neither can we but be suspicious of that juggling and foisting which we find to have been so usual and common with them. And if M. Bishop will have us to take it for Ephrems work, let him tell us who is the translator of it. Gerardus Vossius who translated and published the works of Ephrem by the warrant of Pope Sixtus the fift, whereas he putteth his name to so many as he translated, putteth no name to the Sermon which M. Bishop citeth, showing thereby that it is not in Greek, and therefore importing it to be a counterfeit. He saith, that these can with no more reason be denied to be theirs, than the rest of their works: But I answer him, that though there were no other reason, yet it is sufficient reason for us to be suspicious of these, because in them some things are set down, whereof in the rest of their undoubted works, and in the infinite volumes of antiquity which are approved and acknowledged, there is no token to be found. As for Bernard he lived in latter times of great apostasy and corruption. In that truth which he retained, he is a good witness for us against them; but he can be no witness for them to make good those corruptions which he drew from the time wherein he lived. And yet neither is his testimony cited out of any of his own works, but from another, I know not whom, and therefore is the less to be regarded; to say nothing, that the speech is ridiculous and fond: for why should we imagine that the Angel's triumph, and the heavens congratulate, that the earth leapeth for joy, and hell trembleth at the devout saying of the Aue-Mary, more than when we say devoutly, Our Father which art in heaven, & c? Surely good Christians will reject such absurd dotages and idle dreams, though with bad Christians all is fish that cometh to net: and what custom offereth, they are ready to entertain, never regarding to consult with the word of Christ for warrant of that they do.   

47. W. BISHOP.  
Now let us come to the last part of the Catechism, which is of the Sacraments, where M. PER. doth briefly repeat his arguments, used before against the real presence: I might therefore, send the Reader unto the first Chapter of this book for the answer; but because the matter is of great importance, I will here again give them a short answer. First (saith he) the real presence is overthrown out of these words, he took bread and broke it: ergo, that which Christ took, was not his body, etc.  
A simple overthrow, Christ (indeed) took and broke bread, but presently after blessing it, made it his body by these words, this is my body.   

R. ABBOT.  
I might send the Reader, saith M. Bishop, unto the first chapter of this book for the answer, and yet in this book there is no such chapter where his answer should be found. But touching the real presence, M. Perkins argueth out of the words of Christ to this effect; that Christ broke that which he took, and that which he took was bread and not his body, and therefore that it was bread and not really his body which he broke; it being absurd that Christ should be said to break himself, and therefore remaining that that which he broke was the Sacrament only, and not himself. To answer this M. Bishop we see is somewhat hardly bestead, and forceth the words of Christ to another order than the Evangelists and S. Paul have observed in the delivering of them. Yea he crosseth the Canon of the Mass of rather setteth the Canon of the Mass at variance with the institution of Christ. In a word he saith he knoweth not what, and and cannot tell what to say. The Evangelists and the Apostle constantly and with one consent put blessing before breaking; but he saith that Christ first broke and then blessed. He saith that it was bread which Christ broke, but if it were bread which Christ broke, than what is it which the Priest breaketh? If it be bread, then there is no transubstantiation. If it be not bread, than he swerveth from Christ's institution. He maketh Christ to break the host before consecration; but the masspriest breaketh it not till after consecration. How then shall the mass-book and the Gospel be thought to agree together? All this it seemeth he runneth into because he cannot tell how it should be said that Christ did break himself which was the thing that M. Perkins urged. But let him reconcile these differences, and then send us a more perfect answer; otherwise we must hold him for a simple man that could not avoid such a simple overthrow.   

48. W. BISHOP.  
Again: 
M. Per. 2.  Christ said not under the form of bread, or in bread; but this that is, bread is my body.  
Answ. It is false to say that this word (Hoc. This) doth demonstrate bread: for it is of a different gender from it, both in Latin and Greek; and if he had said, that that bread had been his body, his word was so omnipotent, that it had been of force to make it his body; so that M. Perkins maketh a false constraction, which nothing helpeth his error.   

R. ABBOT.  
His exception as touching the different gender is excepted against, I will not say by his Grammar rules; for I will not shame him so much as to send him to his Grammar, but by their gloss of the Canon law which telleth him that 
a Extravag. de schismat. c. dudum. in glossa. Neutrum adiectiwm de omni genere praedicatur.  the adjective in the neuter gender is spoken of every gender. Though therefore the particle demonstrative This be in the neuter gender in the Greek and Latin tongue, yet that hindereth not but that bread being of the masculine gender may be demonstrated thereby. And so the ancient fathers understood it that 
b Tertul. count Marcionem. l 4. Panem corpus suum appellans.  Christ called bread his body, even 
c Cyprian. l. 1. epist. 6. Corpus suum panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum.  bread made of many corns he calleth his body; that 
d Theodoret. Dialog. 1. symbola & signa quae videntur appellatione corporis & sanguinis honoravit.  he honoured the visible signs with the name of his body and blood; that 
e Orig. de rectae in deum fide. Corporu & sanguinis signa & imagines ● anem & poculum ministravit.  he ministered bread and wine for signs and tokens of his body and blood; that 
f Cyprian, de unct. Chris. In mensa in quae vitimum cum Aposto●is participavit conuivium proprijs manibus tradidit panem & vinum.  he gave to his Apostles at his last supper bread and wine; and in a word that 
g Aug. ser. ad Infant. Quod autem fides postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi.  bread is the body of Christ. Now if there be no bread, than it cannot be said that bread is the body, or that it is called the body of Christ. If bread be called the body of Christ, then is it necessarily imported that there is bread which is so called. Which because it cannot be before consecration, therefore after consecration there must be bread to be and to be called the body of Christ. And beyond this the omnipotent force of the word of Christ doth not extend itself. He thereby maketh the bread his body, not as 
h john 2.9.  of water he made wine, so as to be no longer water, but as 
i john. 1.14.  the word was made flesh, and yet still continued to be the word, 
k Theodoret. ut supra, Non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens.  not changing nature, as Theodoret expresseth it, but adding grace unto nature. Albeit to dispute here what the word of Christ had been of force to do, is fantastical and idle: what he did intend to do, is manifest and plain unto us. He purposed to institute a Sacrament; and 
l Aug. epi. 23. si sacramenta similitudinem quandam non haberent earum rerum quarum sunt sacramenta, omninò sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerunque rerum ipsarum nomina acci●iunt.  sacraments have a resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, and by reason of that resemblance they commonly take the names of the things themselves. Christ therefore according to this accustomed manner calleth the Sacrament of his body and blood by the name of his body and blood, and saith of bread, This is my body, and of the Cup, This is my blood, and not in name enely but 
m Cyprian de resurrect. Christi. Quod videtur, nomine & virtute Christi corpus censetur.  in power and effect they are to the faithful receiver the same that they are called. Herein the force of Christ's word is seen, that to so weak and simple creatures he addeth so rich and unspeakable grace; and by so slender means worketh so great effects whereby he maketh us poor creatures of the earth to become one with himself in heaven. But if M. Bishop will deny the meaning to be, This bread is my body, we desire him to declare a better meaning, and to tell us certainly whereto to refer This; which if he can define, we will hold him for a wiser man than any hitherto hath been amongst them. After much tossing this matter to and fro needless here to be stood upon, their great Master Bellarmine cometh to strike the matter dead, and telleth us that the meaning is; 
n Bellar. de sacram. Eucharist. l. 1. c. 11. Hoc, id est, substantia sub his spectebus contenta.  This, that is, the substance contained under these forms. But his wisdom might have seen that the question here continueth still the same, what the substance is that is contained under the forms. The body of Christ they say, is not there till 
o Tho. Aquin. sum. p. 3. q. 75. art. 7. ad 2 ultimuminstans prolationis verborum est primum instans in quo est in sacramento corpus Christ's; in toto autem tempore praecedente est ihi substantia panis.  the last instant of the words of consecration, and till then the substance of bread is there. The sustance then demonstrated by This, must necessarily be granted to be bread as we expoundit, because as yet there is no other. Much ado they make about this matter, and can resolve nothing, and whilst they will not submit themselves to the truth, they are so entangled in their own error that they know not which way to quit themselves.   

49. W. BISHOP.  
Thirdly, 
Per. 3.  Bread was not given for us, but only the body of Christ, and in the first institution, the body of Christ was not then really given to death.  
Ans. This maketh nothing at all against the real presence, but doth greatly fortify it: For Christ gave us in the Sacrament, that which should be put to death for us, this is my body that shall be given for you. Now not bread, but Christ's true body was given to death for us: ergo Christ gave us to eat not bread, but his true real body.   

R. ABBOT.  
If M. Bishops argument be good against us, we will return it to himself again. Christ gave us in the Sacrament that which should be put to death for us; but not the form of bread: but Christ's true body was given to death for us, therefore Christ gave us to eat, not the form of bread, but his true real body. And doth M. Bishop believe so? If he do not, then let him answer his own argument, and we shall thereby find a way to answer him. It is true that Christ in the Sacrament giveth his body, but he giveth not only his body, but also the Sacrament of his body. He giveth the Sacrament of his body externally and corporally to be received by the mouth: he giveth-his true body internally and spiritually to be received by faith. He giveth us then that body that was given to death for us, but he doth not give it to the swallowing of the throat, but to the meditation of the heart. And this S. Austin notably declareth, when for exposition of the words of Christ, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, etc. he saith, or rather maketh Christ to say: 
a August. in Psal. 98. spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent, sacramencum aliquod comn endani vohi●; spiritualitèr intellectum vivificabit v●s.  Understand spiritually that which I have said; Ye shall not eat this body which ye see, nor drink that blood which they shall shed that crucify me: I have commended unto you a Sacrament, which understand spiritually, and it shall give you life. Where understanding eating and drinking properly with the mouth, he denieth the very body and blood of Christ to this eating and drinking, and leaveth only the Sacrament to be appertaining thereto. Now in this mean while M. Bishop hath slipped M. Perkins argument, and let it go without answer that the Sacrament is not simpl●e the body of Christ, but only as it is given to death for us, and because the body of Christ neither was in the first institution, nor now is in the Sacrament really given to death for us, therefore the Sacrament is not really the body of Christ.   

50. W. BISHOP.  
Fourthly, 
Per. 4.  The cup is the new Testament by a figure, why not then the bread the body of Christ by a figure?  
Answ. A goodly reason, if there be one figure there must needs be two. How followeth this? if those words of S. Paul be obscure, why did he not rather clear them by conferring them with S. Matthew, and S. Mark, who deliver it plainly thus: this is my blood of the new Testament that shall be shed, & c? But he that delighteth in cavilling, must seek darkness.   

R. ABBOT.  
M. Bishop anon 
a Sect. 63.  after telleth us that no good Christian may think but that our Saviour Christ jesus very well foreseeing all such inconveniences, as he hath there expressed, did deliver the Sacrament in such terms as he would have to be taken properly, and not be construed at men's pleasures figuratively. If this be true, how doth he here think of himself that doth admit, that Christ in the delivering of the Sacrament, namely of the cup, did speak figurarively? Or if he be a good Christian notwithstanding, that contrary to his own rule he admit a figure in Christ's delivering of the Sacrament, must we be no good Christians if we admit two? Surely there is the same reason of the one part of the Sacrament as there is of the other; and sich there is a necessity to understand a figure in the one, either he must give us sound reason to the contrary, or else he must leave us to our own reasons to conceive the like of the other also. Though it be not a goodly reason to say, if there be one figure, there must needs be two, yet it is a good reason to say, if there may be one figure, nothing hindereth but there may be two. If Christ might say by a figure, 
a Luk. 22.20. 1. Cor. 11.25.  This cup is the new Testament in my blood, as S. Luke and S. Paul have set down, than he might say also by a figure, This is my body; this bread is my body. But saith he, if those words of S. Paul be obscure, why did he not rather clear them by conferring them with S. Matthew and S. Mark? So then there may be here somewhat obscure, but it must be only what pleaseth them, who, notwithstanding of that that is most clear, as we have seen in the former section save one, do by their exposition make a matter most intricate and dark. But what cleared doth S. Paul receive from S. Matthew and S. Mark? Forsooth they deliver it plainly thus, This is my blood of the new testament that shall be shed, etc. He setteth down the words, but what cleared it is that he meaneth, he showeth not. And indeed the words on both sides are alike; S. Luke and S. Paul speak by a figure; and so do also S. Matthew and S. Mark. S. Matthew saith; 
b Mat. 26.28.  This is my blood of the new testament; but what meaneth he by This? Surely This hath here the nature of a relative, and must be referred to his antecedent before set down. And what is the antecedent but the cup? jesus took the cup, and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of this; of what, but of this cup? for this, that is, this cup is my blood of the new testament, etc. The words of 
c Mark. 24.23.24.  S. Mark do bear also the same sense; which as it is the very Grammatical construction of the words, so it is also fully confirmed in that S. Luke and S. Paul do expressly deliver it in that sort. So then by all three Evangelists and S. Paul, there is a figure in one part of the Sacrament; let us then ask M. Bishop again, why may there not be so in the other also? But he doth not love to be troubled with too many questions. He cannot tell as yet what answer to give us, and therefore we must be content to give him further time till he may better bethink himself.   

51. W. BISHOP.  
Fiftly, Christ did eat that supper, but not himself? 
Per. 5.   
Answ. A Protestant cannot say that Christ did eat of that Sacrament, as M. PERK. doth, because he hath no warrant for it in the written word: yet we do grant that he did so, and hold him most worthy to taste of that heavenly food.   

R. ABBOT.  
If the written word do not warrant that Christ did eat of the Sacrament, I marvel why M. Bishop citeth to that purpose out of S. Luke those words which 
a Sect 62. ex Luc 22.15.  anon he doth; that he marvelously desired to eat this last banquet with his disciples. Whether he cite it truly or falsely, let himself look to that; but either he must confess that he hath cited amiss there, or else that he hath spoken rashly here. But if Christ did eat of the Sacrament, will M. Bishop have us to believe that he did eat himself, or drank the blood of his own body? May we be persuaded that one and the same Christ at one and the same time was both wholly within himself, and wholly also without himself? that he sat visible by his Apostles, and yet was then wholly contained within the compass of his own bowels? or that in his own bowels he at that time carried his own blood? or that moreover he was then by the Sacrament in the bellies of all the Apostles, even of the traitor judas? Surely what Christ did eat, the same judas did eat also. But of judas S. Austin teacheth, that 
b Aug. in joan. tract. 59 Non est ex eis iste, etc. Illi manducabant panem dominum; ille panem domini contra dominum.  he did eat of the Lords bread, but not of the bread which is the Lord. Therefore although Christ did eat the Sacrament, yet may we not imagine that he did eat himself. These are horrible and unchristian fancies; but out of the school of Transubstantiation they come, and they that maintain the one, must necessarily maintain the other also.   

52. W. BISHOP.  
Sixtly, We are bid to do it till he come: Christ then is not bodily present.  
Answ. We are bid by S. Paul to show the death of our Lord till he come to judgement, which we may very well do, 
1. Cor. 11. v. 26.  his body being present: as certain noble Matrons preserved of their husband's blood, to represent more freshly unto their children, the slaughter of their fathers.   

R. ABBOT.  
It is true that his coming shall be to judgement; but what shall he need to come if he be here already? It was not questioned whereto he should come, nor whether we may show the death of the Lord, his body being present, if it were present; but why the Apostle should say till he come, if he be intended to be here already present. His body being present saith he, as though he meant that Christ were not wholly present, whereas they tell us that whole Christ is in the Sacrament, both God and man, soul and body, flesh blood and bone as he was borne of the virgin and nailed afterwards to the Cross. And if Christ be wholly present, what reason had the Apostle to say till he come? He telleth us a ridiculous and impertinent tale of certain noble Matrons, who preserved of their husband's blood to represent more freshly to their children the slaughter of their fathers. But what is this to the matter here in hand? If those noble matrons had had their husbands with them, and in the presence of their children; then let him tell us whether it had not been a witless thing to bid them expect their fathers till they come? But he stealeth away from the point, and though he do but gull his Reader with an idle jest, yet he would have it thought that he hath given a worthy answer. As touching the truth of this matter, our Saviour informeth us when he telleth his disciples, 
a john. 12.8.  The poor ye shall have always with you, but me ye shall not have always. S. Austin giveth a reason of those word; 
b August. in joan. tract. 50. Quoniam conversatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta diel. us cum discipulis suis & eye deducentibus videndo, non sequendo a scondit in caeiu● & non est hic.  because according to the presence of his body, he was conversant forty days with his disciples, and then they bringing him on the way by seeing, but not by following, he ascended into heaven, and is not here. Christ then according to the presence of his body is not here; yea 
c Acts 3.21.  the heaven must contain him, saith S. Peter, until the time that all things be restored, and therefore 
d Phil. 3.20.  from heaven we look for him, saith S. Paul, even as in our Creed we profess to believe that from thence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. Now because we believe according to the scripture, that Christ as touching his body is in heaven and not here, and that from heaven we are to look for him at the last day, we are able to give a just reason why the Apostle should say, until he come, which M. Bishop out of his learning cannot do.   

53. W. BISHOP.  
Seventhly, Christ bid us to do it in remembrance of him; but signs of remembrance are of things absent.  
Answ. We see one thing and remember another. By Christ's body really present, we remember the same to have been nailed on the Cross for our redemption: as Goliaths sword was kept in the tabernacle, in remembrance of the cutting-off of Goliaths head with the same sword; and the women before rehearsed, kept their husband's blood, & might much easier have preserved their bodies embalmed, to keep the better their deaths in fresh memory.   

R. ABBOT.  
We see one thing, saith M. Bishop, and remember another. But 
a Aug. serm. ad infants, apud Bedam in 1. Cor. 10 Quod videtis panis est & calix, quod vobis esiam oculi renunti●nt.  that which you see, saith S. Austin, is bread, as your very eyes tell you. If then our remembrance be by our sight, it is by bread that we remember the body of Christ. M. Bishop, I hope, will not say that we see the body of Christ really present; and if we see it not, how should we remember any thing by it, seeing signs of remembrance must be things seen? Such was Goliaths sword, such was the husband's blood kept by the wines, as much pertinent to this purpose as a goose quill to a woodcock's tail. The real presence therefore in this behalf, is altogether idle neither is there any fruit or effect of it, because there is nothing thereby to be seen. Albeit Christ did not say, see this in remembrance of me, but do this in remembrance ofme. And what he bid us do, S. Paul telleth us, namely 
b 1. Cor. 11.26  to eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. And how shall we eat of this bread in remembrance of him, if it be true which they say that in the sacrament there is no bread? If he will say that by the form of bread we may be remembered, though the body be not seen, we can also say that by the bread we may be remembered though there be no real presence of the body, and therefore the real presence because it is needless is justly affirmed to be none at all.   

54. W. BISHOP.  
Eightly, If the real presence be granted, 
Per. 8.  than the body and blood of Christ are either severed or joined together: if severed, than Christ is still crucified: if joined together, than the bread is both the body and blood of Christ; whereas the institution saith, the bread is the body, and the wine is the blood.  
Answ. The body and blood of Christ, are (by force of Christ's words) consecrated apart, so that if they could be naturally separated, they should be also severed in that Sacrament, as they might have been at Christ's death, when all the blood was poured forth of his body; but ever sithence Christ's resurrection, they are so joined together, that they can be no more severed: so that we grant under one kind of the Sacrament, to be both Christ's body and blood, which is not wrought by the words of the institution, but by the necessary and inseparable conjunction of Christ's body with his blood, ever since his glorious resurrection.   

R. ABBOT.  
To this it shall be needless to say any thing here, because it cometh more fitly to be spoken of in the next section.   

55. W. BISHOP.  
Finally, M. Perkins condemneth the administration of the Sacrament under one only kind: for the commandment of Christ is, drink ye all of this, Mat. 26. vers. 27. and this commandment is rehearsed to the Church of Corinth in these words: do this as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. vers. 25. and no power can reverse this commandment, because it was established by the sovereign head of the Church.  
Answ. He began to set down the institution of the Sacrament out of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11. here he leapeth back to S. Matthew, because he fitteth him better in this point: to whom I answer, that Christ there spoke only unto his twelve Apostles, who were afterward to administer that holy Sacrament to others; and so something thereabout is spoken to them which may not be extended unto laymen, but unto Priests only, who were to succeed the Apostles in that ministry. All men do confess these words: hoc facite, do ye this: that is, administer ye this Sacrament, to be spoken only to the Apostles, and in them to all of the Clergy alone: even so, drink ye all of this, was in like manner spoken unto them only as Clergy men; and therefore it is a commandment only to Priests so to do: and as for others, they may either drink of it, or not drink of it, as it shall be thought most expedient by their supreme Pastors; and this may be gathered out of those very words, drink ye all of this. For why should the Apostles have a special charge more to drink of that cup, then to eat of that food; unless it were to signify, that whereas all men should be bound to receive Christ's body: they should be further bound to receive that holy cup also; from which bond other men should stand free? But to come to the purpose, when they quarrel with us for taking away from the people one kind of the Sacrament: we answer, that we do them no hindrance thereby; because we give them both the blessed body, and sacred blood of Christ together under one kind: yea whole Christ, both God and man; because they be so united that they cannot be separated. But what can they answer, when we complain upon them, for that they have defrauded the poor people, of both body and blood of Christ, and in am of that most precious banquet, do give them a cold breakfast, of a morsel of bread, and a sup of wine? this is a most miserable and lamentable exchange indeed: our blessed Lord give them grace to see it, and deliver them speedily from it. Hear is the place to show how the Protestants do not only bereave their unfortunate followers of this most heavenly food of Christ's body: but that they also deprive them of the manifold and great graces of God, derived unto us in siue other Sacraments: but because I have touched it in the Preface, I will omit it here, and make an end with M. PER. assoon as I have requited him, by propounding briefly some arguments for the real presence, as he hath done against it.   

R. ABBOT.  
Whether it be S. Matthew or S. Paul, they serve both for the confirming of one truth, and do both condemn the Antichristian and damnable sacrilege of the Church of Rome, in maiming the Sacrament of Christ contrary to the institution of Christ himself, to the very intention and purpose of the Sacrament, to the example and practice of all ancient churches. Our Saviour Christ saith: 
a Matt. 26.27.  Drink ye all of this. But the Church of Rome saith; Not so, for there are just and reasonable causes why it is not fit that all drink thereof, but it is sufficient that the Priest alone drink for all. M. Bishop to make this good, telleth us that Christ there spoke to his Apostles only, and that some thing thereabout is spoken to them, which may not be extended unto laymen, but unto Priests only. But how will he make it appear that Christ in the one part of the Sacrament spoke to the Apostles only, and not in the other also? There were none there present but the Apostles, and what direction have we in the words of Christ, to restrain the use of the cup, as peculiar to the Priests, and to make the other common to the people? And if Christ did so intend, how falleth it out that the Apostle S. Paul in the recital of Christ's institution, professing 
b 1. Cor. 11.23  to deliver precisely what he had received of the Lord, maketh no mention of this restraint? and what presumption was it in the whole primitive Church, contrary to that intendment, to make that common to the laity, which Christ had made the prerogative of the Priests only? He saith, that others may drink of it, or not drink of it, as it shall be thought most expedient by the Pope, whom he falsely nameth the supreme Pastor. But how may it appear that there is any such authority left to the Pope? Surely, if Christ spoke only to the Priests, it should not seem likely that the Pope should have liberty to extend this favour to the people; and if the Pope may give liberty hereof to the people, than it is certain that Christ did not speak only to the Priests. But there is a special secret here which I would gladly have M. Bishop to unfold: for if the words of Christ, Drink ye all of this, were spoken only to Priests, and do belong to them, how is it that 
c Concil. Trid. ses. 5. can. 2. Ecclesia iustu causis & rationibus adducta ut laicos atque etiam Clericos non conficientes sub panis tantum: modo specie communicaret, etc.  Priests also in the church of Rome, he only excepted that ministereth, are excluded from being partakers of the cup? Christ saith, by their own confession, Drink all ye Priests; how impudently then do they transgress the commandment of Christ who bar all Priests from the Cup but him only that saith Mass? Here their wicked and damnable hypocrisy most plainly appeareth, and the knots wherewith they are tied are such, as that they know not which way to untie them. The Priests that minister not, are with them in that behalf as in the case of laymen, and therefore are forbidden to be partakers of the cup. But in that case also the Apostles were at the institution of the Sacrament; for Christ only ministered and not any of them. And yet to the Apostles being thus as in the state and condition of lay men, because they ministered not, our Saviour Christ saith, Drink ye all of this. What now followeth hereof, but that to lay men, and of lay men as well as of Priests, our Saviour Christ said, Drink ye all of this; even you all that have eaten of this bread, drink ye also of this cup? But all men confess, saith M. Bishop, that these words hoc facite, do ye this, were spoken only to the Apostles, and in them to the Clergy alone. And it may be that all his men confess so, or all the men that he had in his head when he wrote this, but otherwise all men will not so confess, because to confess so, should be to confess an untruth. For those words have reference to the whole celebration of this mystery, requiring the same to be performed in remembrance of him by whom it was first ordained. Yea and that they have their respect to the receivers, appeareth plainly by the very coherence and consequence thereof; 
d Mat. 26.26. Luke 22.19.  Take, eat; do this, namely that I have bidden you do, to take and eat, in remembrance of me. And this is as clear in the Apostles description of the institution of the Cup; 
e 1. Cor. 11.25  He took the cup, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood which is shed for you; this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. Which later words sound plainly to this effect; Drink ye all of this, and as oft as ye do so, do it in the remembrance of me. But yet we will deal courteously with M. Bishop, and grant him his desire, that Christ here speaketh of the ministration of the sacrament which appertaineth to the Clergy alone; and will he hereof conclude that when he saith Drink ye all of this, his meaning was that the Clergy only should drink thereof? Verily the contrary rather most plainly followeth. For when he saith, Do this, what else doth he say, but what ye see me do, the same do ye; I say to you all here present, Take and eat; I deliver the cup to you all that you may all drink thereof; do you administer to others in the same sort; what I have done to you, the same do you to them in remembrance of me. And this rule Cyprian most vehemently presseth, and urgeth it to Cecilius again and again; 
f Cyprian lib. 2. ep. 3. In commemorationem domin● hoc faciamus quod secit & dominus &c. Ab Euangeii●i● praeceptis omninò recedendum non esse, & eadem quae magister docuit & fecit, discipulos quoque observare & facere debere etc. Vtique ille sacerdos vice Christi verè fungitur qurid quod Christus fecit imitatur. etc. Nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere debemus etc. Quotiescunque calicem in commemorationem domint & passionis eius offer●mus●● quod consia● dominum fecisse, faciamus, etc.  that in remembrance of the Lord, we are to do the same that the Lord did; that we are not in any sort to departed from the precepts of the Gospel; and the disciples are to observe the same things which their master hath taught and done; that that Priest doth truly supply the room of Christ, who imitateth that which Christ hath done; that we ought to do nothing but what he hath done; that so often as we offer the cup in remembrance of the Lord and of his passion, we are to do the same which we are assured Christ did. Now if the minister be to do the same that Christ did, then is he to administer both parts of the sacrament alike to all that are present, because we find that Christ did so. Yea but why should the Apostles, saith M. Bishop, have a special charge more to drink of that cup, then to eat of that food, unless it were to signify that whereas all men should be bound to receive Christ's body, they, namely the Apostles, should be further bound to receive that holy cup also; from which bond other men should stand free? Thus he falsifieth the institution of Christ, that from an imagined ground of his own, he may infer a conclusion answerable thereto. For had not the Apostles as special charge to eat of that food, as to drink of that cup? did not Christ aswell say to all his Apostles, Take, eat, this is my body, do this in remembrance of me; as he said, Drink ye all of this? If he did so, and thereby all men are bound to eat of that food, doth it not follow that by the other all men are bound also to drink of that cup? Christ commandeth all his Apostles to take & eat. He commandeth all his Apostles to take the cup & drink. On the one side he saith, Do this. On the other side he saith, Do this. What reason can M. Bishop give why all Christians should be concluded on the one side; and all save the Priests should be excluded on the other; yea and all the Priests also that are present, save he only that administereth for the time? What, will he wilfully blind himself? Will he stop his own eyes, that he may not see that which he cannot choose but see? Well, he will yet make amends for all, telling us, that when they take away from the people one kind of the Sacrament, they do them no hindrance thereby, because they give them both the body and blood of Christ together under one kind. But who hath taught them so to do, or that so they can do? and if both may be given under one, why did Christ by his institution ordain severally a Sacrament of both? Let him satisfy us in this behalf; if the whole intention of the Sacrament be attained in one kind, why our Saviour Christ would do a needless work to institute both? and if it be needful for the Priest to drink of the Lords cup, why is it needless for the people? or if it be sufficiently available for the people that the Priest drink thereof, why is it not also sufficient that the Priest only do eat for all? He telleth us that the body and blood of Christ be so united that they cannot be separated; and we grant so much of the body and blood of Christ as now they are, but he should remember that by this Sacrament 
g 1. Cor. 11.26  we show forth the death of the Lord, and in the death of the Lord his body was broken, and his blood was shed for us, accordingly as it is said, 
h 1. Cor. 11.24.  This is my body which is broken for you, 
l Mat. 26.28.  this is my blood which is shed for you, and therefore that the sacrament must represent and offer unto us the blood of Christ, as separated from the body. Which because it cannot do, being used in one kind, therefore it followeth, that the Popish usage thereof in that sort, excludeth the intention of the sacrament, and robbeth us of the comfort of Christ's blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins. And surely if the effect of the sacrament be wholly attained by receiving only in one kind, there was no cause why Gelasius Bishop of Rome, hearing of some, 
k De consecrat. dist. 2. Comperimus quosdam qui sumpta sacri corporis portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant; qui quia nescio qua superstitione docentur astringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integru arceantur; quia divisio unius einsdemque mysterij sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire.  who receiving the portion of Christ's sacred body, did forbear the cup of his sacred blood, should decree as he did, that either they should receive the whole sacrament, or else be excluded from the whole, adding a reason thereof, which clearly cutteth off all Popish exceptions, because the dividing of one and the same mystery cannot come without great sacrilege. Why should Gelasius urge a matter so needless if it be true which now is taught in Popery? or if Gelasius then saw it to be sacrilege to divide this mystery of Christ, how cometh it about that it is not so now? In the time of julius the first, long before Gelasius, another abuse was creeping into the Church, of dipping the Sacrament of Christ's body into the cup, as thereby to save a labour, and so under one to deliver both. It appeareth hereby, that Christian people were not then taught as they are now in the Roman church, that the one part of the Sacrament is by concomitancy, as their Schoolmen have devised, both the body and the blood of Christ, neither did julius upon that ground condemn that dipping as superfluous and causeless, which both he and they should in that respect have conceived so to be if that fancy were true. But they by Christ's institution conceived a necessity to receive both, and therefore in this sort by dipping the Eucharist in the cup, provided so to do; in which sort notwithstanding to receive both, julius approved it as a thing unlawful, 
l Dist. 2. cap. Cum omne. Quod pro complemento c●mmunionis ineinctam tradunt Eu haristiam populis nec hoc prolatum ex evangelio testimonium receperunt, ubi Apostolu corpus suum commendavit & sanguinem; seorsum enim panu & scorsum calicis commendatio memoratur.  because there is no testimony hereof in the Gospel where Christ commended to his Apostles his body and blood; for there is recorded severally the delivery of the bread and severally of the cup. Now if Christ to the end he might commend to us both his body and blood, would severally commend the one, and severally the other; surely the church of Rome in debarring the people from the cup, confoundeth the institution of Christ, and commendeth the one only without the other. And sith julius did hold that for direction in this behalf, the Church is to have recourse to the example of Christ in the Gospel, to do as Christ there is recorded to have done, we must needs conceive that the Church of Rome now, is not of the same mind that julius was, which so manifestly crosseth that which is described in the gospel. And not julius only but the whole Church of Christ held itself tied to that example, and practised accordingly: neither was there any Church in the world which held it sufficient or lawful to administer the sacrament to the people in one kind. Hierome saith that 
m Hieron. in 1. Cor. 11. Dominica coena omnibus debet esse communis, quia ille omnibus distipulu suis qui aderant aequaliter tradidit sacramenta.  the Lords supper ought to be common to all, because the Lord jesus equally delivered the sacraments to all his disciples that were present. So chrysostom saith 
n Chrysost. in 2. Cor. hom. 18. Est ubi nihil differt sacerdos a subdito ut quando fruendum est sacris mysterijs; similiter enin, omnes ut 〈◊〉 participemus digri habemus.  that in the receiving of the holy mysteries there is no difference betwixt the Priest and the people; for we all, saith he, are vouchsafed to receive them alike. 
o Theophylact. in 1. Cor. c. 11. praesertim cum tremendus hic calix pari cunctis conditione sit traditus.  This dreadful cup, saith Theophylact, was in like or equal condition delivered to all. In a word, when Cyprian saith that 
p Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 2. Quomodo ad martyrij poculum idoneos facimus si non eos ad bibendum prius in ecclesia poculum domini iure communicationis admittimus?  by right of communion we admit the people to drink in the Church of the Lords cup, what doth he but plainly declare that the Church of Rome doth apparent wrong to the people of God, in that it bereaveth them of this right? We may therefore justly think them very impudently obstinate, whom neither the authority of Christ, nor the consent of fathers, nor the practice of Christian Churches universally through the world, nor the very reason of the Sacrament itself can move to reform this maiming of the sacrament of Christ, but do make choice rather to continue still in error, than to acknowledge that they have erred. But M. Bishop here pretendeth that they have more cause to complain of us, than we of them; for he saith that we have defrauded the poor people of both body and blood of Christ, and in am of that most precious banquet, do give them a cold breakfast of a morsel of bread, and a sup of wine. Which words he useth rather of malice, then for that he knoweth not that we affirm in the due participation of this Sacrament a heavenly riches of grace and of the communion of the body and blood of Christ. Tell us M. Bishop, when Gelasius saith, that 
q Gelas. count Eutych. & Nestor. Certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguined domini, divina resest, & per illa diumae consortes ●fficimur naturae, & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini.  the Sacraments which we receive of the body and blood of Christ are a divine thing, and we are thereby made partakers of the divine nature, & yet there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, did he make the Sacrament to be no more but a morsel of bread, and a sup of wine? If we respect the nature of the outward and visible elements, it is true that we receive in the Sacrament a morsel of bread, and a sup of wine, for these creatures 
r Theodoret. dialog. 2. Manent in priore substantia & figura & forma, etc.  remain still, as Theodoret saith, in their former substance: but if we respect them in their use and effect, this bread is heavenly bread, and this cup is the cup of salvation and life eternal. And as he is a mad man who having a rich gift confirmed unto him by his Prince's seal, will vilify the seal and say it is but a piece of wax; even so is he as mad who of the Sacrament of Christ, which is 
s Rom. 4.11.  the seal of the righteousness of faith, the pledge of the remission of sins, the means whereby grace and life through faith are derived unto us, will say either in baptism that it is but a handful of water, or in the Lord's supper that it is but a morsel of bread and a sup of wine. But of this and of his five other sacraments, as he hath spoken before, so I have answered him 
t Preface to the Reader, sect. 20.  before: and I refer the reader to that that is there said, where he shall easily see that he hath no cause to account himself unfortunate for following us, but rather to hold them for unfortunate fools that yield themselves to be guided by such fancies.   

56. W. BISHOP.  
Let this be the first.  
The state of the new Testament, which is more perfect than the old, requireth accordingly Sacraments of greater grace and perfection than the old had: they had Manna, which for substance and taste far passed our bread, and in signification was equal to it: Wherefore, either we must grant our Sacrament of bread and wine, to be inferior to theirs of the old Testament; or else acknowledge and confess it to be the true body and blood of Christ, which doth surpass theirs exceedingly, as the body doth the shadow. This argument is confirmed by our Saviour himself, who in express terms doth prefer the meat that he was to give to his disciples, before that of Manna, 
joh. 6.48.49.  which their Fathers had eaten in the wilderness.   

R. ABBOT.  
If this argument be good, it proveth real presence in Baptism as well as it doth in the Lord's supper. If in Baptism without any real presence, there be greater grace & perfection, as in a Sacrament of the new testament, than there was in the Sacraments of the old, than nothing hindereth but that in the Lord's supper the like also may be: neither can M. Bishop allege any reason to prove it necessary in the one, that shall not prove it in the other also. The pre-eminence of the state of the new testament above the old, standeth in clearness of light; not in difference of faith; in the performance of promises, not in any diverse effect of them. 
a 2. Cor. 4.13.  We have the same spirit of faith: and a little to turn the Apostles words; 
b Act. 15.11.  they hoped to be saved by the grace of our Lord jesus Christ even as we do. 
c Aug de nat. & great. cap 44. Ea fides justos sanavit antiquos quae sanat & nos, id est, mediatoris dei et hominum, hominis jesu Christi; fides sanguinis eius, fides crucis eius, fides mortis & resurrectionis eius.  The same faith, saith S. Austin, saved the just of old time that saveth us; even the faith of the Mediator betwixt God and man, the man jesus Christ; the faith of his blood, the faith of his cross, the faith of his death and resurrection. To them he was to come, to us he is already come; he hath stood as it were in the midst betwixt us; they looked upon him forward, we look upon him backward, but both receive from him the same grace. Accordingly therefore the Sacraments of the old and new testament, though in outward form and administration they differ much, yet in inward power and effect they are the same. 
d Aug. ep 118. Leus iugo suo nos subdidit & sarcinae levi; unde sacramentis numero paucissimis, observatione facillimis, significatione praestantissimis societatem novi populi colligavit.  Christ as S. Austin noteth, hath laid upon us an easy yoke by Sacraments, in number very few, in observation most easy, and in signification most excellent: they were forced to attend to many types and figures, and encumbered with infinite operositie of manifold observations and ceremonies. Our state therefore is better than theirs, for that we with more ease are partakers of the same effects of grace, which with greater labour and difficulty, God so disposing, they did attain unto; but otherwise what benefit we receive by our Sacraments towards eternal life, they also received by theirs. For why doth the Apostle say, that the Israelites 
e 1. Cor 10.2.  were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, but to signify, that in these types and figures they were made partakers of the same spiritual blessing and grace that in baptism is ministered unto us. And why doth he say, that they did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, but to give to understand that they also did 
f joh. 6.54.  eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, that they might live thereby? for if we respect the outward signs, they did not eat the same, or drink the same that we do. It must needs therefore be as touching the spiritual and inward meat and drink which is the body and blood of Christ. And so the Apostle saith, that they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ. 
g Amb. de Sp. Sanct lib. 1. in Prologue. Quod utique non ad divinitatem eius sed ad carnem relatum est quae sitientium corda populorum perenni rivo sui sanguinis inundavit.  Which, saith Ambrose, is not referred to the godhead of Christ, but to the flesh, which did water and refresh the hearts of the thirsty people, with the everflowing stream or river of his blood. And thus S. Austin saith of Manna, that it signified 
h Aug. in joan. tract. 16. Hunc panem significavit Manna; hunc panem significavit Altare dei. Sacramenta ill: fuerunt; in signis diversa sunt; in re quae significatur pariasunt.  the same bread (even the body of Christ) that is signified in the table of the Lord; they are both Sacraments saith he; in signs they are divers, but in the thing signified they are equal and alike. Now if without any real presence the faithful in Manna did eat the flesh of Christ, and in the water of the rock did drink the blood of Christ, than it followeth, that there is no necessity of the real presence to our eating the flesh of Christ, and our drinking of his blood. But I would yet further ask him how the real presence maketh our Sacrament of greater grace and perfection than the old, seeing the body of Christ is thereby made subject to be eaten of wicked and ungodly men, who receive no grace by it, yea of swine and dogs, and mice, as they affirm, which are not capable of any grace? For if the very receiving of Christ's body into our bodies do work effect of grace, than should grace be wrought in these also. But if the effect of grace be to be attributed unto faith, than the real presence is needless, because faith touching the Sacrament, but as the hem of Christ's garment upon earth, receiveth virtue from the body of Christ in heaven to heal, to feed and strengthen us unto eternal life. That which he bringeth for confirmation of his argument belongeth nothing thereto. Christ, saith he, preferreth the meat that he was to give to his disciples before that of Manna which their fathers had eaten in the wilderness. And who doubteth thereof, when as our Saviour saith; 
i joh. 6.48.51.  I am the bread of life? The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world (for who doubteth but that Christ or the flesh of Christ is to be preferred before Manna?) but that this flesh of Christ is to be eaten in the Sacrament really with the mouth and into the belly this place proveth not. Christ there compareth not their sacrament with ours, but he compareth their sacrament as the sign with himself, as the thing that was signified thereby. 
k Augu. cont. Faust. Manich. li. 12 c. 29. veterem figuram carnalitèr accip●entes, mortui sunt.  Which sign or figure they who understood no otherwise but carnally, died and perished; but they who understood the same aright, understood Christ therein; they did eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, as before was said, and obtain life by his name. 
l Aug. in joan. tract. 26. Visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt, spiritualiter esurierunt, spiritualiter gustaverunt, ut spiritualitèr satiarentur.  The visible food, saith Austin, they understood spiritually they spiritually hungered after it, they spiritually tasted it, that spiritually they might be satisfied. So do we in our Sacrament, and without any real presence it is life to us even as it was to them.   

57 W. BISHOP.  
Secondly, Christ promised to give to his Disciples his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink: and when they marveled how that could be, he assured them; 
joh. 6.55.  that unless they did eat his flesh, they should not have life in them; and further certified them, that his flesh was truly meat, and his blood truly drink: whence it is most plainly deduced, that he who never faileth of his promise, gave them his true flesh to eat.   

R. ABBOT.  
We grant his conclusion, that Christ gave to his disciples, and further giveth unto us his true flesh to eat: but the question still is how or in what sort we eat it. Christ indeed hath taught us that 
a john 6.55.  his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; but will M. Bishop say that they are meat and drink to the body; that the body is nourished and fed with the body and blood of Christ, and that the same is turned by digestion into the substance of our bodies? If not, than it cannot be said that with the body we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, but this must necessarily be understood to be an action of the mind. Therefore Cyprian saith that for the doing hereof 
b Cyprian. de caena domini. Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acu imus, sed fide syncera panem sanctum frangimus.  we do not sharpen our teeth to bite, but with sincere faith we break the sacred bread: and Austin questioneth; 
c Aug. Cur paras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti.  why preparest thou thy teeth and thy belly? believe and thou hast eaten; and defineth it 
d Idem. in joan. tract. 26. Qui manducat intus non foris; qui manducat cord, non qui premit dente.  to be eating within, not without; to be eating with the heart, not crushing with the teeth. And otherwise to understand it of eating the very flesh of Christ with the mouth, what is it but the gross error of the Capernaits, literally understanding the words of Christ, because they were no other but carnal men? 
e Tertul. de resurr. carnis. Durum & intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem eius, quasi verè carnem suam illis edendam determinass●t.  They thought his speech to be hard & intolerable, saith Tertullian, as though he had determined that they should verily eat his flesh. But if they had been intelligent hearers, and men spiritually minded, they would have discerned by the other words of Christ the true meaning of this speech. For when he attributeth the same to believing in him, that he doth to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, that 
f john 6.47.  whoso believeth in him hath everlasting life, he plainly giveth to understand that the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is to be expounded by believing. And so doth S. Austin construe it when he saith; 
g August. in joan. tract. 26. Credere in Christum hoc est manducare panem viwm: qui credit, manducat.  To believe in Christ, that is, to eat the bread of life: he that believeth eateth. Again, when he perceived their repining at his words, he saith unto them; 
h ver. 61.62.  Doth this offend you? What then if ye shall see the son of man ascend where he was before? 
i Aug. ut supra ille putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum; ille autem dixit se ascensurun in calum, utique integrum. Cum vid eritis filium hominis, etc. certè vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum; certè vel tunc videbitis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus.  They thought, saith Austin, that he would impart to them his very body, but he telleth them that he will go up to heaven even whole. When ye shall see the son of man ascend where he was before, surely than ye shall see that he doth not impart his body in that manner as you think; ye shall then understand that his grace is not devoured by morsels. Now if the ascending of Christ into heaven were an argument for the reforming of their fancy, and correcting of their error, than it must needs be a misconstruction of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ whereby the same is said to be done by his being really present upon the earth. And that it might not be so understood, he further saith; 
k vers. 63.  The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life: it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, thereby advertising them as S. Austin giveth to understand, that 
l Aug ibi. Quomodo quidem edatur & quisnam sit manducandi modus ignoratis.  they knew not in what sort his flesh was eaten, or what the manner thereof is, and that they should spiritually conceive the doing of it, in such manner as was before expressed out of Austin. And hereof Origen saith; 
m Ori. in Leuit. hom. 7. Est & in novo testamento litera quae occidit eum qui non spiritualiter advertit. Nam si secundum literamsequaris id quod dictum est; Nisi manducaveritis carnem etc. litera illa occidit.  There is in the new Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually listen to it; for if thou follow according to the letter that which is written, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, that letter killeth. Therefore S. Austin delivering certain rules whereby figurative speeches are to be known doth by his rule find that this speech of Christ is not properly or literally to be understood, but by a figure. 
n Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 16. si flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem & beneficentian vitare, figurata est. Nisi manduca●eritis carnem filii hominis etc. facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. figura ergò est praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum & suavitèr atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod car● eius pro nobis crucifixa & vulnerata sit  If any speech seem to command a heinous or wicked act, or to forbid well doing or any profitable thing it is a figurative speech. Where Christ saith, Except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood etc. he seemeth to command a heinous thing. It is therefore a figure instructing that we are to communicate of the passion of the Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in mind that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. In which sort S. Bernard also expoundeth that 
o Bernar de verb. Habac. super custodian etc. sub edendi corporis sus mysterio discipulos ad commun●● andum passionibus suis aumonens.  under the mystery of eating his body Christ admonisheth his disciples to communicate of his passions. Here is therefore no other but a spiritual action of the heart and soul, which requireth no real presence because the spirit of man by faith climbeth up to heaven and looketh back unto the cross of Christ, and there receiveth nourishment and strength of him to live by him for ever.   

58. W. BISHOP.  
Thirdly, Christ said in most clear terms, this is my body: this is my blood. What could be more certain or more perspicuous?   

R. ABBOT.  
The words as we expound them out of the circumstance of the text and the consent of ancient fathers are indeed perspicuous and clear yielding this meaning, This bread is my body, this wine is my blood, that is, the sign, the sacrament, the participation of my body and blood. But M. Bishop for his life cannot make any certain and definite meaning of them whereby their transubstantiation and real presence may be made good If the words be so perspicuous and clear for them, how cometh it about that they have so tossed and tumbled them, and yet there is no certain meaning thereof concluded amongst them till this day? I need not stand hereupon having before said what is sufficient for this purpose in the eight and fortieth section.   

59 W. BISHOP.  
Fourthly, These words of the institution are recorded by three Evangelists, and by S. Paul: and they all uniformly deliver it to be, not the figure of Christ's body, but his body; and that his body which should be given for our redemption on the cross: ergo, it was that his true real body, which was nailed to the cross for us.   

R. ABBOT.  
Even so three Evangelists and S. Paul do uniformly deliver that the cup is the blood of Christ or the new testament in his blood, as hath been 
a Sect. 50.  before said, and yet M. Bishop will not say, I hope, that the cup is really the blood or testament of Christ. That the Sacrament is the figure of Christ's body, is no new speech. S. Austin saith, that 
b Aug in Psal. 3. Conuinium in quo corporu & sanguinis sui figuram discipu●usuis co●mendauit & tradidit.  Christ commended and delivered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. Tertullian expoundeth thus, 
c Tertul. count Martion ●●. 4. Ac●eptum panem corpus suum fecit, dic●●do, hoc est corsus meum, id est, figura corporis mei.  This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Gelasius the Bishop of Rome saith, that 
d Gelas. count Eutych & Nest. Et certo imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis domini in actione mysteriorum celebratur.  an image and semblance of the body and blood of Christ is celebrated in the administration of the Sacraments. chrysostom saith, that 
e Chrysost. Opimperf. in Mat. hom. 11. In quibus non verum corpus Christi, sed myst●rium corporu eius continetur.  in the sacred vessels not the true body of Christ, but the mystery of his body is contained. The ancient Liturgies do usually call the Sacraments 
f Constit Clem. l. 7. c. 26. Antitypa corporis, etc. Iacob● Liturg. Typus corporis & sanguinis Christi tui.  the signs of the body and blood of Christ, and so 
g Carol. Magn. epist. ad A cuin. Panem fregit & calic●m pa●iter dedit eye in figuram corporis & sanguinis sui.  Charles the great, styleth them in his epistle to Alcuinus. It should not therefore seem strange to M. Bishop, that we also should expound the sacrament to be the figure of Christ's body. Yea but Christ, saith he, saith not that it is the figure of his body, but his body. And even so S. Paul saith not that the rock was a figure of Christ, but 
h 1. Cor. 10.4.  The rock was Christ; 
i August. in Leuit. q. 57 Quod utique non erat per substantiam sed per significationem.  which yet, saith Austin, was not Christ in substance, but in signification. If S. Paul might say, that the rock was Christ, though in substance it were not so; then might Christ say of bread, this is my body, though it be not so in substance, but in signification and power only, even as hath been 
k Sect. 48.  before said, that Sacraments commonly bear the names of those things whereof they are sacraments, and that because though they be signs and figures, yet they are such signs as do by the ordinance of God truly and effectually exhibit and yield to the faith of the believer the heavenly and spiritual grace that is signified thereby. Now when we say that the Sacrament is thus the figure of Christ's body, how do we mean it but of his body which was given for our redemption upon the cross? and therefore that addition set down by M. Bishop is impertinent and maketh nothing at all for him.   

60. W. BISHOP.  
Fiftly, 
1. Cor. 10.16.  S. Paul demandeth thus: the Chalice of benediction which we do bless, is it not the communication of the blood of Christ? and the bread that we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? if than we do in receiving the blessed Sacrament participate Christ's body, and communicate his blood, they surely are there really present.   

R. ABBOT.  
We do in receiving the blessed Sacrament participate Christ's body, and communicate his blood, and yet they are not there really present, because we participate Christ's body by faith in spirit and soul, not in body by the mouth and belly, as hath been before showed. S. Austin supposing Christ to be absent in body yet teacheth us how we receive him when he saith; 
a Aug. in joan. tract. 50. Quomodo tenebo absentem? quomodo in coelum manum mit●am ut ibi sedentem teneam? fidem mitte & tenuisti.  How shall I lay hold of him being absent? how shall I put up my hand to heaven, to lay hold of him sitting there? send up thy faith, saith he, and thou hast taken hold of him. There needeth then no real presence for the receiving of Christ's body, but by faith we lay hold thereof sitting at the right hand of God the father.   

61. W. BISHOP.  
Again, S. Paul saith: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 
1. Cor. 11.28.  eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the body of our Lord: and before, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ: ergo, the body and blood of Christ are there present; or else why should a man incur that guilt, but by his unworthy receiving of it, and by not discerning Christ's body to be there present?   

R. ABBOT.  
M. Bishop thinketh that we do indignity to the Saints when we pull down their images which they worship, and yet he will not say that those images are the Saints themselves; and can he not conceive that in the dishonour of the sacrament, is the dishonour of Christ, though the sacrament be not verily Christ himself, but the representation and sign of his body and blood? the despite and villain that is done to the Prince's picture or seal is construed to be an indignity to the Prince, and so will the Apostle have us to conceive of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. It is by God's ordinance to us, and in our use as it were the body and blood of Christ, and therefore justly is he said not to discern the Lords body, and to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, who unreverently and with contempt presumeth to offer himself to these mysteries of Christ, though Christ himself be not really present in the usage thereof.   

62. W. BISHOP.  
Besides all these plain texts of holy. Scripture in confirmation of the real presence, the very circumstances of it do much fortify our faith therein. In S. Luke we have, 
Luc. 22.15.  that our Saviour marvelously desired (desiderio desideravi) to eat that this last banquet with his Disciples. S. john addeth, that whereas he loved his that were in the world, unto the end he loved them: and knowing that the Father gave all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and goeth to God, etc. What coherence (I say) with this exceeding love and infi●●te power of Christ, to be showed in his last supper, if he hath left only bread and wine to be taken in remembrance of him, any mean man might easily have done as much; and Helias departing from his Disciple Heliseus, did much more: for he left a more noble remembrance of himself behind him, to wit, his cloak and double spirit. But Christ bequeathing us his true natural body to be the food of our souls, and comfort of our hearts as we believe and teach, he then (indeed) showed his infinite power and love towards us, and that he came from God, and as God bestowed an inestimable gift upon us, such a one as never any other did, or could possibly do.   

R. ABBOT.  
It is truly said by Tertullian, that 
a Tertul. de Baptism Nihil adeò est quod obiurat mentes hominum quàm simplicitas divinorum operum quae in actu videntur & magnificentia quae in effectu repromittitur, etc.  nothing so much offendeth men's minds (in the Sacraments) as the simplicity of God's works, as they seem in act, and the magnificence which is promised in effect. M. Bishop looking to the outward signs in the Lord's supper, taketh the same to be a simple token of Christ's exceeding love towards us, a matter that any man might do; and not so much as that that Elias left to his scholar Elizeus. Thus in his blind fancy he amplifieth the matter as if we taught that Christ in his last supper had recommended nothing to us but bread and wine. But let him understand that we see and teach in this sacrament, the exceeding great love of Christ, not in those simple creatures which we see in act, but in the magnificence of grace which is promised in effect. If we consider these creatures in act, they are but bread and wine, but consider them in use and effect, and then this bread is heavenly bread, the bread of life, the food of immortality; there is in it the spirit of Christ, even the power of the word of God, not only feeding but also sanctifying and cleansing the soul. I will express it by M. Bishops own words, that Christ hath bequeathed and hereby giveth unto us his true natural body, to be the food of our souls; of our souls, I say, not of our bodies; which if he did rightly mean, as he rightly speaketh, he would not understand it to be received by the body. And thus Christ sealing unto us in the Lord's supper, all the fruits of his passion, and giving himself unto us spiritually to become one with us, and to make us one with him, he hath without real presence bestowed, as M. Bishop saith, an inestimable gift upon us, such a one as never any other did or possibly could do.   

63. W. BISHOP.  
Moreover, the institution of a religious rite and ceremony, to be used in the whole Church unto the world's end, and to be received of all Christian people of age and discretion, did necessarily require that it should be done in most certain and clear terms; otherwise, there might arise great strife and contention about it, and be the ruin of thousands. And specially great perspicuity is required in this holy Sacrament, where the mistaking of it, must needs breeed either idolatry, if we worship for Christ, that which is not Christ: or impiety, if on the other side we should not give to it (being Christ God and man) divine honour. Wherefore, no good Christian may think, but that our provident Saviour Christ jesus, who very well foresaw all these inconveniences, did deliver it in such terms as he would have to be taken properly, and not be construed at men's pleasures figuratively. Add, that he spoke those words to the twelve Apostles only, whom he was accustomed to instruct plainly, and not in parable darkly; and who were wont also to ask for the interpretation of obscure speeches, who here made no question about this high mystery, because they were sufficiently forewarned, that they should eat Christ's flesh, 
joh. 6.  and that his body was truly meat: and therefore believed Christ's words without further question.   

R. ABBOT.  
The institution of a religious rite and ceremony for the use of the Christian Church, required such terms as had been formerly accustomed in the institution of such religious rites, wherein as hath been 
a Sect 48.  before noted out of Austin, Sacraments commonly bear the names of those things whereof they are Sacraments. So is circumcision called 
b Gen. 17.13.  the covenant of the Lord, being but the sign and seal of his covenant. So is the lamb called 
c Exod. 12.11.  the Lords Passeover, though it were but a signification and remembrance thereof. So were the sacrifices of the law called 
d Levit. 1.4. & 4.20 etc.  atonements or reconciliations for sin, which yet they were not in themselves, because 
e Heb. 10.4.  it was unpossible that the blood of calves and goats should take away sins, but were only signs and figures of the atonement that should be made by the blood of jesus Christ. And thus Cyprian saith expressly of the Lords supper, that therein 
f Cyprian de Vnct. Chrismat. significantia & significata eyes. dem nomenibus censentur.  the signs, and the things signified are reckoned by the same names, being both termed the body & blood of Christ. And herein is no occasion of contention but to them only that are contentious, & will prefer their own absurd fancies before the light and truth of the word of God. Who as they do perversely and wilfully mistake, so do wilfully by mistaking run into idolatry, 
g Rom. 1.25.  worshipping the creature instead of the creator, & giving to the sign or sacrament that divine honour which belongeth properly to Christ himself. And if it be idolatry, as here he telleth us, to worship for Christ, that which is not Christ, than he hath told us amiss before, that men do not commit idolatry, though they worship the Host when the Priest hath had no intention of consecration. In a word our Saviour Christ though he spoke by a figure, yet spoke so, as that not at men's pleasures, but according to the course of God's word he might easily be understood. And as for the Apostles, we cannot doubt but that they were so well instructed in those other signs and sacraments wherewith they had been before acquainted, as that they could not make any scruple or question what his meaning was in the institution of this. Therefore no cause was there for them to be troubled, or to ask interpretation here, as of some dark and obscure matter, but there had been cause for them to have questioned many things in the words of Christ, according to that interpretation which the Church of Rome hath made thereof. For though Christ spoke to them before of the eating of his flesh, and that his flesh was truly meat, yet had he said nothing unto them that they should eat a whole body in the likeness of a piece of bread. Yea though he spoke to them of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, yet withal he spoke enough whereby to give them instruction how that should be understood, as 
h Sect. 49. & 57  before hath been declared.   

64. W. BISHOP.  
Finally, this holy Sacrament is a principal part of the new Testament, and one of the chiefest legacies by Christ bequeathed unto us Christians. Now what law or conscience will permit, that any legacy should be interpreted figuratively? to wit: that for a house, goods, or lands bequeathed and given by last will and testament, you should understand a figure of a house to be given, or the signification and representation of some goods or lands. If this be most absurd and ridiculous in the testament of any ordinary man, about temporal goods: how much more pernicious and intolerable is it, to suffer this in the eternal Testament of the Son of God, and that in his divine and inestimable treasures?  
And thus at length by the grace of God I come to the end of this book, wherein (good Christian Reader) if thou find any thing, that may confirm thee in the true Catholic faith, or further thy knowledge therein; give God (the Father of lights, from whom all good gifts descend) the whole praise: If any thing be amiss, impute it partly to my slender skill, oversight, or negligence; and partly to the want of a convenient restingplace, commodity of books, and conference: all which, these times of persecution do deprive us of.   

R. ABBOT.  
He that maketh his last will and testament and giveth thereby great legacies of lands and goods, and putteth to his seal for confirmation of the legacies that he hath given, shall he be said in giving his seal to bequeath only a piece of wax, or a figure and representation of lands and goods? The seal indeed is but wax; it is but a sign and token of somewhat, but yet it serveth to give assurance of the legacies for confirmation whereof it is appointed. The new testament of Christ is, the covenant and promise of forgiveness of sins purchased by his blood. This hath he published by the Gospel to all that repent and believe in him. For confirmation hereof he hath put to his Sacrament as a seal, thereby to deliver after a sort, and to put into our hands the thing which he hath promised; even as he who hath received a seal presumeth that thereby he hath in effect the thing that is sealed unto him. And shall a man say that Christ in giving us this seal, hath bequeathed to us no other but a figure, a signification or representation of somewhat, and not the thing itself that is represented thereby? If it be absurd to say so in human testaments and wills, what meaneth M. Bishop to transfer such an absurdity to those things that are divine? I need not stand upon this matter; I say briefly, that it is idle to say that the Sacrament is the chiefest legacy that Christ hath bestowed upon us. He hath bequeathed unto us himself, the fruit of his passion, the riches of his grace, the inheritance of eternal life, which he will undoubtedly give to every true believer, and in the mean time hath given his Sacrament to be to our faith the pledge and assurance thereof.  
And thus M. Bishop telleth us that he is come at length to the end of his book; wherein I guess he hath taken small joy, because he hath quite left out the middle, even whole twelve questions handled by M. Perkins, and which he notwithstanding pretendeth to have answered, as hath been before observed. We are beholding to him for that he giveth us leave if any thing herein be amiss to impute it partly to his slender skill, oversight, or negligence. And surely, what betwixt his slender skill one way, and his oversight and negligence, another way, he hath sent us so many things amiss, as that the Reader hath small cause hereby to be confirmed in that which he by a wrong name calleth the true Catholic faith. Thou hast gentle Reader, what he can say on the one side; thou hast what I have had to answer on the other side: it is now left to thee to judge of both, which so do, as being thyself to give answer of thy judgement to Christ the judge of all.    

AN ADVERTISEMENT for the time concerning Doctor Bishop's Reproof lately published against a little piece of the Answer to his Epistle Dedicatory to the King.  
With an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. TH. higgon's lately become a Proselyte of the Church of Rome.  
1 THou mayest well remember, gentle Reader, that it was full three years in February last since I published an answer to Doctor Bishop's Epistle to the King's Majesty, whom he had thereby solicited to entertain the now-Romane religion, pretending many great and weighty reasons, that it should be expedient and necessary for him so to do. Wherein, how unfaithfully and undutifully he demeaned himself towards his liege and Sovereign Lord, seeking by false glosses and colours very treacherously to abuse him; I was careful in the said answer to make it plainly to appear, for the satisfaction of all, who in that behalf were desirous to be satisfied. With what conscience of fidelity and truth I have carried myself in all that business, from the beginning hitherto, it is known to God, who shall be both M. Bishop's judge and mine, and doth appear to them who without prejudice or forstalled opinion, do take knowledge of the cause betwixt him and me. That to M. Bishop himself it seemeth not so, it is no wonder, because by overstudying himself in the schools of Rome, he is grown squint-eied, and can see nothing aright, or rather hood-winketh himself, that he may not see, that which indeed he doth see. By reason whereof it cometh to pass with him, as in the like case with the rest of his consort, which Saint Augustine said of the Donatists long ago; 
a August. con. epist. Parmen. lib. 1. cap. 7. Cum eos obmutescere compellit veritas, tamen silere non permittit iniquitas.  Though truth compelleth them to be dumb, yet iniquity suffereth them not to be silent. They see themselves overmastred in the cause, but a state they have to maintain, and somewhat they must say for it, whether it be right or wrong. From this iniquity it hath proceeded, that M. Bishop though convicted in his conscience that the answer aforesaid was such, as that howsoever in some things he might cavil at it, yet in the main he could not tell by any means how to contradict it; yet that he might from his Romish masters receive the thanks, which upon an infamous overthrow and loss of a whole army Terentius Varro received by the policy of the Roman senate, 
b Liu Decad. 3. lib. 2 in fine.  Quòd de rep. non desperasset, For that he had not despaired of the state of their commonwealth, he would make show by writing some kind of reply, be it what it might be, to carry still a courage, and no whit to distrust the quarrel that he had taken upon him to defend. This is the drift of his Reproof which he hath lately published, which goeth abroad amongst his complices under a name, and with an applause, that I am answered, I am now answered; as if he had made me some great answer; whereas, if we respect them aine question and controversy of religion, save only that he hath given a snatch at one or two points by the way, he hath written (whether it may be said, he hath answered, it resteth further to be considered) only to four sections of my first book, the second, third, fourth and seventh; which he hath inched out with enlarging sundry retorsions and matters of discourse, and divers silly excuses and defences of the traitorous speeches and practices of himself and his confederates, against the King and the State, in answering the Epistle Dedicatory and Preface to the Reader, and the first and thirty four sections; but the main substance of the book concerning the suggestions and motives by him pleaded to pervert the King, he hath by a figure of preterition quite let go, 
c Reproof pag. 259. 286.  remitting the points thereof to be handled (ad calendas Graecas) in their proper questions, because he was loath (forsooth) first lightly to skim them over in haste, as I had done, and afterward to recoil and turn back to them again.  
2. But he should have remembered that he wrote that Epistle to his Prince and Sovereign, where being charged to have dealt perfidiously with his most excellent Majesty, and to have very lewdly attempted to abuse him with many falsehoods and lies, with many broken and lame conclusions; and that he could not make good that which he had written, he should have thought, that whatsoever became of the rest of his book, it concerned him in all loyalty and duty to yield to his Majesty, a special and clear justification of that Epistle. Again, he knew well that there were many points handled by occasion of his Epistle, which belong not to any question after ensuing, and that the rest, though handled other where, yet being here written to the King, were to be answered by me, and therefore maintained by him in the same nature wherein they were written; and would he then thus like a micher steal away from all, and leave the chief and principal matters of his suggestion without succour or defence? I had often said, and he hath now verified it, that either he would not reply at all, or else would do it in that patching sort as he hath now done. And surely, had not I myself ministered unto him the matter whereupon he hath framed his Reproof, without any necessity thereof arising out of his Epistle, I should have gone for this time without any reproof at all. Upon mention made of the Catholic faith, I took occasion, further than I was compelled by him, to insist upon the name of Catholic, and to show their abuse thereof. Upon his appeal to the Roman Church, when the same was in the best and most flourishing estate, I took occasion of a comparison of the doctrine, of the old and new Church of Rome, by sundry sentences of the Bishops and other writers of that Church, whereas, it had been sufficient for me to have disproved those instances whereby he took upon him to prove the same faith in both. From these two points ariseth the whole substantial part of his book, and had I omitted these, in hard case had he been for the writing of a book; for, for defence of his own allegations he had had nothing more to say. Now gentle Reader, to confess to thee the truth, I had determined so soon as time should serve, by a special treatise to enlarge the said comparison and to remove their exceptions which they have to take against it, and so more fully to describe, The true ancient Roman Catholic. What then hath M. Bishop in effect done by his Reproof, but only given me further occasion to do that, that I had beforehand purposed to do, and to consider of sundry matters, which happily otherwise not minding I might easily have overpassed? For the doing of this, I must crave thy patience for a time, because it is a matter that will require convenient time; but in the mean time, to give thee some satisfaction as touching that Reproof, I have thought good by a short Aduerisement to make it appear to thee, that Fox's whelps are all alike, & that M. Bishop is no changeling, but continueth in his proceeding the same man that he was in the beginning.  
3. And first, I would have thee to observe what a terrible inscription he hath put in the forefront to fright owls and buzzards, that they may keep them in their corners and not come forth to see the light. A Reproof, saith he, of M. Doct. Abbot's Defence of the Catholic deformed by M. W. Perkins, wherein his sundry abuses of Gods sacred word, and most manifold misapplying and falsifying of the ancient Father's sentences be so plainly discovered to the eye of every indifferent Reader, that whosoever hath any due care of his own salvation, can never hereafter give him more credit in matter of faith and religion. But not contented herewith, to bombast this scarecrow to the full, and to cause the greater terror, taking occasion belike, by my comparing him and his fellow Wright to jannes' and jambres, he underwriteth to that title the words of the Apostle; 
d 2. Tim. 3.8.  As jannes' and jambres resisted Moses, so these men also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith; but they shall prosper no further, for their folly shall be manifest to all, as theirs also was. Now is not this a horrible conjuration, Gentle Reader, and sufficient to make any man's hair to stare? wouldst thou not imagine hereby that there should be cause to cry out upon me, yea to hang me up for abusing Scriptures and fathers, and beguiling the world in such sort as he pretendeth? But stay I pray thee a while; remember that losers must have their words, and they will cry loudest that smart most, neither doth any thing in being handled make so importunate a noise as the filthy swine doth. Saint Austin saith rightly that 
e August. de ciu. dei. lib. 5. cap. 27. Non ideò plus potest vanitas quàm veritas, quia si volverit etiam plus potest clamara quàm veritas.  vanity is not therefore stronger than truth, because if it list it can cry louder than truth. Thou knowest that naughty drabs, when they are reproved for their lewd and unhonest life, do set themselves with all bitterness and violence to devise and frame words and terms to gall and disgrace them by whom they are reproved. Thou mayest well conceive that the greatest occasion of suspicion lieth on his part, who like the silly woodcock that thrusteth his head into a hole, and leaveth his body to be beaten till both head and all be dead, so after three years space, leaving the whole body of his Epistle undefended, thrusteth himself into one corner of a book, there for a time to shroud himself, till his head being crushed in that corner also, he shall have no place left further to yield him breath. But that thou mayest see from what spirit that title of his book hath proceeded, I have thought good here to examine the whole matter of his preface, wherein he taketh upon him to justify the same, and professeth to have said so much therein 
f Page. 11.  as may suffice to discredit me with all indifferent men. Mark well, I pray thee, the matters which he bringeth, consider well the weight and the truth of them, and then take knowledge of some other observations that I shall give thee concerning the whole book.  
4. His Preface he beginneth artificially, according to a precept of Rhetoric, which teacheth a man 
g Quintil. Orator institut. lib. 5. cap. 13. Haec simulatio hucusque procedit ut quae dicendo refutare non possumus, quasi fastidiendo calcemus.  a dissembling trick, that what he cannot confute he shall seem scornfully to reject and trample upon. He telleth his Reader concerning mine answer, that 
h Pag. 3.  he found so little substance in it, that a long time he was unwilling to reply upon it, and could not think the time well bestowed which should be spent in so frivolous and vain altercation. Aquil● non capit muscas. The Fox would none. And in this vein the man much pleaseth himself, having much in his mouth my 
i Pag. 45.  unlearned writings, 
k Pag. 94.  more meet to stop mustard-pots, than likely to stop any mean scholars mouth. He calleth me 
l Pag. 86.  shallow and shuttle witted, 
m Pag. 16.  one of the most shallow and beggerliest writers of these days, 
n Pag. 52.  one of the shallowest for substance of matter that ever he read; and 
o Pag. 40.  if, saith he, there lie more marrow and pith hidden in my writing than one at the first sight would perhaps suppose (spectatum admissi risum teneatis?) then surely it doth require a man of more substance than he, though of lesser show: yea 
p Pag. 47.  if there be more in my book, saith he, than you sometimes would have people to believe, they that have a good opinion of it may hap to think that those grave and wise men in high authority foresaw that it would hardly be answered by laying nakedly testimony to testimony, and reason to reason; wherefore they thought it best policy to make choice of some jolly smooth-tongued discourser, that might with a ruffling multitude of fair pleasing words carry his Reader from the matter. Thus he is all marrow and pith, a terrible man, our grave wise men in high authority were afraid of him, they were put to their shifts to have his book answered; as for me I am no body, all words and no worth; a man of too little substance to encounter with the profound learning of so great a Clerk. I do him here a double favour, both that I traduce not his foolery as it deserveth, and that I forbear to give him a jerk for so lewdly demeaning himself towards those grave wise men in high authority. But what he is, and what I am is not to be determined by him or me, God and the Country must try us both; only this I do not doubt, that my writings, unlearned as they are, have set a dagger at his heart, which he shall never be able to pull away. It appeareth by this Preface, that he hath heard somewhat thereof that pleaseth him not, whereupon he is grown so furiated and enraged, as that he spiteth nothing but poison, and straineth himself to the uttermost, to disgrace that which he seethe to be so disgraceful to himself. But he is herein but as the dog which gnaweth the stone, which causeth pain to his own teeth, but to the stone can do no harm at all. And here it troubleth him, that to his Epistle, being but one sheet and a half, I should write so long an answer of thirty sheets; but I answer him, that in the service of my Prince, and in a business of that nature I was not to huddle up any thing, but to unfold and lay open all things, that the truth might the more fully and plainly appear. I do not wonder that he would have had me more brief, because thereby his unhonest and shameful dealing should have been the less seen. In a word, I wrote as the ancient fathers of the Church have been wont to do, not to serve the humour of Heretics and enemies, but as might best make for the satisfaction and edification of God's Church.  
5. Another quarrel he hath concerning my sharp and bitter words, disgraceful and odious terms, and bitter railing, as he speaketh, against the best men of their side. As touching the persons, I must tell him, that the best of their side are very bad if they be no better than those of whom I have spoken. As touching the words I will not justify myself, but that in a just and righteous cause, human affection may carry me somewhat too far in heat: but yet I must advertise M. Bishop, that there is a difference to be made betwixt words spoken by way of private anger and revenge, and those that are spoken by way of just reproof. By way of just reproof Esay saith to wicked men, 
q Esay 57.3.  Ye witches children, ye seed of the adulterer and of the whore. By way of just reproof, john Baptist said to the Pharisees and Sadduces, 
r Mat. 3.7.  O generations of vipers, who hath forewarned you to fly from the wrath to come? In like sort doth our Saviour Christ bitterly reproach the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them 
s Mat. 12.34.  generations of vipers, 
t Mat. 16.4.  a wicked and adulterous generation; 
u Mat. 23.13.16.17.26.  Hypocrites, blind guides, fools and blind, blind Pharisees, and in extreme passion saith, 
x Ver. 33.  Ye serpents, Ye generations of vipers, how should ye escape the damnation of hell? So doth Steven speak to the jews, 
y Act. 7.51.  Ye stiff-necked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears: And Paul to Ananias, 
z Act. 23.3.  God shall smite thee, thou painted wall. The words than are not always faulty, but the occasion thereof is always to be regarded, and the occasion thereof must be taken to depend much upon the condition of the persons. For where men are in any sort tractable, and do not wilfully oppose themselves against instruction, the Apostle prescribeth that rule alleged by M. Bishop, 
a 2. Tim. 2.24.  The servant of the Lord must not strive, but must be gentle towards all, apt to teach, instructing with meekness them that are contrary minded. But where men absurdly and wilfully resist the truth, and do lewdly seek to draw others to be partakers with them in their sin, there the Apostles example sometimes taketh place, who when he saw Elymas the sorcerer labouring to turn away Sergius Paulus the Roman Deputy from the faith, braced out with great indignation and said, 
b Acts 13.10.  O full of all subtlety & mischief, thou child of the devil & enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the strait ways of the Lord? Now therefore albeit I do not in any sort compare myself in measure of grace with those excellent servants of God, as M. Bishop to make himself work full simply cavilleth, yet according to that measure of the same spirit which God hath given me, let no man marvel that I have been deeply moved in heart to see these vassals of Antichrist by trocherous calumniations of true religion to offer so great indignity to the Anointed of the Lord, and therefore have somewhat dipped my pen in gall to exagitate their hypocrisy and iniquity, in such sort as to me it seemed the cause itself did require. Neither will I for that cause be a foul mouthed wrangler, as M. Bishop hath styled me, but an earnest Advocate of God's truth, 
c Jude vers. 3.  vehemently contending, as the Apostle Jude exhorteth, for the maintenance of the faith, which was once given to the Saints, carried with zeal and indignation towards malicious and wicked hypocrites, who having prostituted their own souls to the fornications of the whore of Babylon seek perfidiously to entangle the consciences of others in the fellowship of their ungodly courses; and in a word, so far from wrangling; and having with so sound reason and proof repulsed the cavillations and Sycophancies of his epistle, as that after three years he can say nothing for justification of his motives which he tendered to the King, but shiftingly abuseth the world by a mere collusion, enlarging a book out of some matters of discourse, and making a miserable answer only to some few sentences alleged against him, without the compass of that that he had written. But it is not to be omitted in this behalf, what M. Bishop himself even here saith; 
d Pag. 4.  I wots well, saith he, that the most mild & sweet penmen are sometimes through zeal of the truth, or by the overthwart dealing of their adversary moved to let slip now and then a word or two. Yea and let it be noted how one sweet penman in this case excuseth another, M. Bishop his fellow Watson, after that he had with all importunity and fury throughout his whole book of Quodlibets run upon the jesuits. 
e Answer to particulars against D. Bishop. pag. 17.  Sorry I am, saith he, that to some blemish of his former virtues, certain books set out of late carry the letters of his name, because the style seemeth too sharp, and some thing in them soundeth harshly in Catholic ears. But to mitigate the matter, the occasion of writing which time and place ministered must be duly considered, and withal, how he and others were before grievously hurt in their reputation by the other party, and that in defence of their honour they might lawfully discredit the injurious aggressours. Now if any man look upon me with the same eyes wherewith M. Bishop looked upon M. Watson, he will easily see that the reputation and honour of our religion being so deeply touched, and so many infamous aspersions being cast upon our whole doctrine and ministry by his malicious and slanderous libel, the zeal of truth, and importunate impudency of such an injurious aggressour, must needs wrest from me what spleen or passion I had to show in the service of my Prince, and in the cause of jesus Christ. And this I hope shall excuse me in this behalf, with all that are friends and well-willers to the cause in hand: or if any take exception further, I must say to him with the words of S. Bernard, 
f Bern. in Cant. serm. 12. Inhumanè corum redarguis opera quorum onera refugis: temerariè obiurgat rirum de praelio revertentem mulier nens in domo.  Thou dealest ungently to blame the doings of them whose burdens thou refusest: it is rashness for the woman that sitteth spinning in the house, to check the soldier returning from the war. 
g Hieron. Apolog. ad Pammach. Delicata doctrina est pugnanti ictus dictare de muro.  It is a dainty kind of teaching, saith Hierome, to sit upon the wall, and to appoint the man in fight, in what manner he shall strike. Consider that thou art but as a beholder and looker on, but I was as he that felt the blows, and therefore do not marvel if I were more moved than thou, yea esteem of me in this business by the experience of thine own affections in that that toucheth thine own cause. But I must needs here entreat thee, gentle Reader, by the way to note how this sweet penman carrieth himself in that kind wherein he objecteth so great fault to me. The flowers of his speech are; 
h Preface to his second part, sect. 10.  Of the same accursed crew was Melancthon; Caluin in his institutions to hell; 
i Reproof. Pag. 50.  craking impudency, and impudent craking: 
k Pag. 64.  a vain craking jangler, and notorious liar; 
l Pag. 211.  devoid of all good conscience & honest dealing; 
m Pag. 264  past all shame, and worthy to be thrust into an Ass' skin; 
n Pag. 272.  base and bastardly minded Ministers; 
o Pag. 283.  cozening companions, false hypocrites, most impudent liars; 
p Pag. 281.  the spirit that possesseth his heart, to wit, the father of all lies, 
q Pag. 283.  he that will be fed with lies let him take the devil to his father and M. Abbot or some other such like of his lying Ministers to be his master. Nay, the term of lying is nothing every where; and it is wonderful to see what a rare dexterity he hath to multiply lies upon me, as for example, five lies in a place, where indeed there is no lie. 
r Reproof. Pag. 83.  A lie it is, saith he, that I denied to his Majesty such authority as would serve for the taking order how God might be rightly served in his Realm; whereas my words are, that he denieth to his Majesty that supreme government in causes ecclesiastical whereby he should take upon him so to do; which he so far denieth as that against this 
s Pag. 170. 171. etc.  Supremacy he hath said more than of any one matter throughout his whole book. What authority he dreameth would otherwise serve so to do, that to me is nothing. Another lie it is, saith he, that the Pope's laws do inhibit Princes to meddle with matters of religion; whereas the law is plain, 
t Dist. 96. Si imperator. Ad Sacerdotes deus voluit quae ecclesiae disponen. da sunt pertinere etc. Non publicis legibus, non a potestatibus seculi, sed a Pontificibus & sacerdotibus opus deus Christianae religionis voluit ordinari. etc.  The ordering of matters for the Church God would have to belong to Priests, not to the secular powers: not by public laws, not by secular powers, but by Popes and Priests would God have the work of Christian religion to be ordered. 
u Sext. de haeret. Quicunque. Inhibemus ne cuiquam laica personae liceat publicè vel privatim de fide Catholica disputare. Qui contra fecerit excommunicationis laqueo innodetur.  We forbidden any lay person either publicly or privately to dispute or reason concerning the Catholic faith; he that doth so, let him be excommunicated. Again he saith: A third lie it is that I affirmed Kings to hold their crowns immediately from God; but that his foolery may the better appear he adeth; Which though it be true in that sense he taketh it, yet it is false that I said so in that place, for I meddle not with those terms of immediately or mediately. So then he saith so, but yet I lie in saying that he saith so, because he saith not so in that place, whereas notwithstanding I neither charge him with mediately nor immediately in that place, but only repeat his own former words, that of God's mere grace and bounty Princes receive and hold their diadems and princely sceptres. Yet again: The fourth lie is that the Pope denieth Princes to hold their Diadems and Princely authority immediately from God, but are to receive them by his mediation; whereas the Pope himself saith of the Emperor; 
x Auent. Annal. lib. 6. Imperator quod habet, totum habet a nobis. Ecce in potestate nostra est imperium ut de●●us i●ud cui volumus, propterea constituti à deo super gentes & regna ut destruamus & evellamus, & edificemus & plantemus. etc. Ex epist. Adriani 4.  What he hath, he hath it wholly of us; the Empire is in our power to give it to whom we will; being therefore appointed of God over nations and Kingdoms, to destroy and to pull up, to build and to plant. Which words I alleged used by 
y Bull a Pij 5. apud Saunder. de schism. Anglic.  Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth, and applied generally to that purpose by the 
z Extravag. de maior. & obed. cap. V●am sanctam. De ecclesiastica potestate verificatur vatietnium jeremiae: Ecce constitui te hody, etc.  Decretal of Boniface the eight, and M. Bishop with a wile slily passeth by them and telleth me that I lie; saying withal, that the common opinion of all their Divines is to the contrary, whereas a number of their Divines have published it to the world, that God hath settled the power of all kingdoms immediately in the Pope, and that the further disposing of them belongeth to him, as is to be seen in the 
a Large Examination of M. Blackwell. pag. 27. 28. etc.  examination of M. Blackwell the Archpriest, by many of their speeches to that effect, some of the books being approved and printed in Rome, as containing nothing contrary to the Catholic faith. The fift lie, saith he, that he maketh within the compass of less than half a side is, that the Pope saith, By me King's reign; whereas notwithstanding the Pope saith expressly, concerning the Emperor, 
b Auentin. ut supra. Per not imperat.  By me he reigneth; and I further quoted the place where he doth say so, in his book of ceremonies, which he suppresseth, as shall appear anon. Now dost thou not think, gentle Reader, that this man hath a great facility in objecting lies? And this is his manner throughout his whole book, whilst as the drunken man cried, fire, fire, when he saw but the redness of his own nose, so doth he cry out every while, a lie, a lie, when the lie is no other but a giddy apprehension of his own distempered brain, being with anger grown so far into melancholy that he thinketh every straw that lieth in his way to be a lie. And indeed we know by experience how the subtle thief when he is pursued crieth out with all his might, stop the thief, stop the thief, that whilst he seemeth to cry after another, he himself may not be taken to be the thief. So it is with M. Bishop, who in policy crieth out upon me, a liar, a liar, that he in the mean time may lie freely and no man may suspect him. But who the liar is, the process shall declare, and let him receive the shame that belongeth thereto. In the mean time, whereas for reproachful words, he hath applied to me those words of Saint Paul, 
c Rom. 3.13.  Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they deal deceitfully, the venom of serpents is under their lips, their mouth is full of malediction and bitterness, etc. I wish him to consider, whether it touch him which is written, 
d Rom. 2.21.  Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? And again, 
e Luk. 19.22.  Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee thou evil servant. Consider him, I pray thee, gentle Reader, throughout his whole book, and think with thyself whether he be not in this behalf a sit master for me to be instructed by. As touching that he saith, that 
f Pag. 5.  if I hold that course of scurrility, I shall drive him to give me over in the plain field, I wonder not thereat, not for that I give him cause by any scurrility of mine to leave the field, but for that he seethe a necessity thereof by the badness and wretchedness of a lewd and unhonest cause, which he seethe himself unable to defend.  
6. His next quarrel is, that I cite for confirmation and proof of any doubt our own writers, Bale, Fox, jewel, Humphrey, Holinshed, and such other. Now if I do so, than I am a fool; but if I do not so, than what is he? Some of them whom he nameth have compiled stories of former times, collecting what they have found recorded by others that were before them, whose stories standing uncontrolled, is it not as lawful for me to cite, as it is for Bellarmine and the rest of his fellows to cite 
g Tert. & Parsons Respo. ad Apolog. pro iuram. fidelit.  Baronius the Cardinal, Blondus the Pope's secretary, Genebrard, 
h Bellarmin. de notis eccles. cap. 14.15.16. etc.  Surius, Cochleus, Staphylus, yea Bolsecke a very infamous runagate and rakeshame, and such other of the like stamp; or for M. higgon's so often to cite 
i Motives. Pag. 44. 75. 78.  Parsons his three Conversions? or for Parsons there to cite 
k Three Conuers. pa. 2. cha. 10. Examen of Fox his calendar, chap. 16. & passim.  Waldensis, Antoninus, Genebrad, Surius, Prateolus, Sanders and such like; yea to report what he list upon hearsay from 
l Ibid chap. 12. sect. 15.  Sir Francis Inglefield? or for M. Bishop to cite 
m Of Images sect. 20.  Bellarmine, 
n Preface 2. part. sect. 13.  Caluino-turcismus, 
o Answer to the Aduer. sect. 10.  Conrade, 
p Ibid. sect. 46.  Ludolph, 
q Of Traditions, sect. 16.  Gregory Martin, yea to report to us a matter out of 
r Preface. 2. part. sect. 8.  a conference at Paris upon his own word? yea to write us a whole book as he hath done upon the credit of Bellarmine and some other of his own side? Surely we have no cause to doubt but that those writers of ours in their relations are men of as great honesty and fidelity as any of theirs: & though I allege from them matters of history and fact, or do perhaps cite a sentence of an author mentioned by one or other, referring the Reader to the reporter because I have not the prime authors works at hand to search the original of it; yet very childishly doth M. Bishop conclude hereof, that I make their word a confirmation or proof for any point of faith, because I respect not at all what they say, but what they have said or done whose doings or sayings they report, and their report I cannot but take to be true, so long as I see M. Bishop can say nothing for the disproof of it. Thus have I alleged out of 
s Answer to the epistl. sect. 4. pag. 26.  Holinshed the epistle of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome to Lucius King of Britain, not to prove any matter of question by Holinsheds' word, (what wizard would so conceive?) but to show by Eleutherius what the duty of a King is towards the Church of God. What a jest is this? saith M. Bishop, how knew this late writer what passed so long before his own time? But I pray thee, gentle Reader, put the like question to him. He telleth thee in great sadness that 
t Reproof. Pag. 248.  amongst many other pardons granted by S. Gregory (whereof he cannot tell one) there is to be seen until this day one altar by him erected in the Monastery of S. Andrews in Rome, whereat whosoever saith Mass for a soul in Purgatory shall deliver a soul from thence. Say now to him, What a jest is this? how knoweth M. Bishop, a new upstart writer, what passed so long before his own time? Would he not, thinkest thou, take pepper in the nose if a man should answer him in this sort? The thing that he reporteth is indeed a very lie, and a tale merely devised by themselves, but yet it goeth for a tradition at Rome, and he will hereupon have it to be believed. But that which Holinshed setteth down is a matter of record, extant and to be seen in the ancient 
u Inter leges. S. Edwardi. cap. 17. Lambert. de priscis Anglor. legib.  laws of our land, and therefore hath testimony sufficient to move us to give credit unto it. And that the matter might not rest upon the silly poor credit, as he speaketh, of Holinshed only; of whom notwithstanding, I may assure any man that he was a man of much more fidelity and honesty than M. Bishop is, I cited also Stow as a witness thereof, a man known to have been too well affected to the Romish religion, so as that for his partiality that way he is commonly alleged by themselves as a most authentic author, specially by Parsons in his three Conversions, of purpose by him to thwart M. Fox the uttermost he can, and therefore of whom M. Bishop cannot doubt but that he found it in good record 
x In lib. Const●● tut. London.  as he professeth to have done, or else he would have made no such mention of it. Now what might be the cause that he could here see Holinshed and could not see Stow, but that he desireth to make some show of exception, where notwithstanding he himself knoweth that justly he can take none?  
7. Now we see that Stow for country's sake findeth more favour with him than Polydore Virgil, whom I cited as testifying Siricius Bishop of Rome to be 
y Answer to the epistle. sect. 8. pag. 60.  a noveller, in forbidding the marriage of Priests, and he saith that I prove it by the worshipful verdict of Polydore Virgil. Surely Polydore Virgil was no Protestant, he was a writer of their own and deserved well of them, a man of great learning and knowledge of history, one that would write nothing in favour of us, and therefore his verdict, in reason and equity, should be strong for us. Yea that which he wrote, he wrote by the warrant 
z Polyd. Virgil. de invent. rer. lib. 5. cap. 4. Siricius primus sacerdotibus & diaconis, ut ait Gratianus dist. 82. coniugio interdixit.  of Gratian, the collector of the Decrees, the founder of their Canon Law; and saith no more than the received Gloss of the Canon Law mentioneth, as a thing commonly received; 
a Dist. 84. Cum in praeterit. in glossa. Dicunt quòd olim sacerdotes p●terant contrahere ant● Siricium.  Men say that of old, before the time of Siricius, Priests might marry. Being then a man of so good worth, and speaking upon so good ground, doth M. Bishop with the flout of a worshipful verdict thus scornfully turn him off? But it is nothing with him thus to spurn at their own writers when they stand in his way, and therefore telleth us afterwards that Matthew Paris the Monk who wrote three hundred years ago, 
b Reproof. Pag. 2●9.  did ignorantly and saucily reprehend Gregory the seventh for forbidding men to be present at the Masses of married Priests; whereas 
c Matth. Paris. in Willielm. 1. ex Chronico Sigeberti, anno dom. 1074.  Matthew wrote the conceit and opinion of many that lived in that time; and borrowed the same from Sigebert the Monk that lived before him.  
8. I come at length to examine how in the process he maketh good that horrible crimination which he hath expressed in the title of his book, of my abusing, mangling, misapplying, falsifying, both scriptures and fathers. Now whereas a man in the entrance of this accusation would expect some great and weighty matter which might work some impression in the Reader, the more strongly to apprehend the rest that followeth, see how coldly he beginneth for want of better matter, with a ridiculous and childish cavil, that by the very beginning it may be conceived how idly he carrieth himself in his whole discourse. In my Epistle 
d Epist. dedicat. to the Answer to D. Bishop's epistle.  to the King's Majesty I noted the necessary use of the course intended by his Highness as touching the answering of the dedications and supplications of these Popish Proctors, for the discovering of the impudence of the petitioners; for the gaining of such as may be gained to the acknowledgement of God's truth; and that as Saint Bernard saith, though the heretic arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confirmed by the faith. From these words he taketh his example of my misapplying the sentences of the fathers, because Bernard meant not thereby 
e Pag 7.  to dissuade any man from the Roman faith, and doth in that discourse describe those heretics to be such as denied Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, and invocation of Saints, etc. Where I pray thee first to observe, that the words by me alleged import only a phrase of speech, no sentence or argument for proof. They serve fitly to signify the thing by me intended, but for any weight they have one way or other, it had been all one to have set them down as mine own words without adding Bernard's name. And who knoweth it not to be a thing usual to borrow the phrases and speeches of Poets, Orators, Philosophers, yea of heretics, of schismatics, of Apocryphal books or writings, without respect what they meant that spoke them, so long as they fitly express the mind of him that useth them? Bernard meant not by those words to dissuade men from the Roman religion: no more did Aratus the Poet mean to dissuade men from Paganism by those words, 
f Acts 17.28.  For we are also his generation, the generation of God, and yet Saint Paul useth them to that purpose. Neither did Menander by those words, 
g 1. Cor. 15.33.  Evil words corrupt good manners, intent to reprove them that denied the resurrection of the dead, which he himself believed not, and yet the same Apostle forbeareth not to turn them that way; and will M. Bishop enter an action against the Apostle for misapplying the Poet's words? Neither did Petilian the Donatist mean it well, and yet who doubteth but that by his words it may be truly said: 
h Apud Aug. count lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 8. Laqueo traditor perijt, laqueum talibus dereliquit.  judas the traitor perished with a halter, and to such as himself he left the halter. Let M. Bishop take an example of this usage from M. higgon's their late convert, who alleging it to be said of him by the Apostles words, 
i Gal. 5.7.  He did run well, who did let him that he did not obey the truth? saith thereto thus; 
k Motives. book 2. in the preface.  Unto these men I return a loving, a faithful and just answer, founded in the demand of an eminent professor of their Gospel; Will you be any longer led by them who thus grossly abuse you? and noteth in the margin; Doct. Abbot against Doct. Bishop part. 2. in fine. These words I used to withdraw M. Bishop from the Romish religion, and yet M. higgon's thought that without offence he might take my words to serve him for an answer why he had now embraced the same, presuming it to be the custom of all writers to take words even out of the adversaries mouth, and to retort them upon himself; how ill he hath done it I will not here say. Now therefore in like sort though Saint Bernard had been mine adversary professedly writing against me, yea though the words had been M. Bishop words, yet nothing could let but that thereby I might thus express the benefit of answering their books, that, to use M. Bishop's words, though the heretic arise not from his filth, yet the Church may be confirmed in the faith. But the words as they are delivered by Saint Bernard do serve fully and directly to that purpose whereto I applied them. He handleth that which is said in the Canticles, 
l Cant. 2.15.  Take us the Foxes; where by 
m Bernard. in Cant. Ser. 64. Vulpes haereses vel potius haereticos ipsos intelligamus. Capiantur non armis sed argumentis quibus refellantur errores corum, ipsi verò si fieri potest reconcilientur Catholicae, revocentur ad veram fidem, etc. Homo de ecclesia exercitatus & doctus si cum haeretico homine disputare aggreditur, ille intentionem suam dirigere debet quatenus ita errantem convincat ut & convertat, etc. Nec propterea sanè nihil se egisse putet qui haereticum vicit & convicit, haereses confutavit, verisimilia a vero clarè aperteque distinxit etc. nam etsi haereticus non surrexit de faece, tamen ecclesia confirmatur in fide.  Foxes, he understandeth generally all heretics which annoy and trouble the Church of God; whom he will have to be taken, not with weapons but with arguments whereby to refute their errors, that so they may be reconciled to the Catholic Church, and recalled to true faith. He saith, that he that disputeth with an heretic should propound to himself to convince his error that so he may convert him, and thereupon to take away all objection of losing his labour therein, he addeth, that though he will not be converted, yet he that hath conquered and convicted him is not to think he hath done no good; for though the heretic, saith he, arise not from his filth, yet the Church is confirmed in the faith: which is fully answerable to the drift of my speech where I used the same words. What, will he tell us that he is not the heretic, and therefore the words are misapplied? But then I will deride his folly that chargeth me with misapplication only upon his own conceit of the point in question. He saith, I am the heretic, & I say that he is so. He saith it only, but proveth it not, but he himself standeth by me convicted of many heretical positions and doctrines delivered in his epistle and otherwise in his book, so as that he cannot find how to traverse the evidence thereof. Yea but S. Bernard, in that very place, describeth those heretics to be such as denied Purgatory and prayer for the dead, etc. But M. Bishop therein saith untruly; for Bernard in that place speaketh of heretics in general, as I have showed, and therefore leaveth his words to be applied to M. Bishop, who doth patronize and defend so many wicked and damnable heresies. True it is, that in the two sermons following he speaketh particularly of some heretics in his time, and noteth them for some points by M. Bishop set down, as namely Purgatory, and prayer for the dead; but those matters he bringeth in a great way after in the end of the second Sermon, and we doubt whether for those only without greater cause he would have noted them for heretics, in as much as Petrus Cluniacensis, Bernard's equal, doth testify as the Centurists have observed, 
n Magdeburg. Centur. 12. cap. 5. pag. 839. Petrus Cluniacensis ter in ea ipsa epistola fatetur Catholicos quosdam de sacrificijs & orationibus pro defunctis dubitare.  that some Catholics did then doubt of sacrifices and prayers for the dead, and consequently of Purgatory, which dependeth thereon. He noteth them for other points wherein they are more like to the Papists than to us, as namely, first, that 
o Bernard. in Cantic. ser. 65. Firmaverunt sibi sermonem nequam, jura, periura, secretum prodere noli. etc. Quod immobili iure sancitum est, non peierandum scilicet, hoc tanquam indifferens pro sua voluntate dispensant.  they dispensed with themselves to swear and forswear for the concealing of their own secrets, as now the jesuits and Priests, by their equivocation and mental reservation teach their pupils to do. They 
p Ibid. Contubernio faeminarum nemo inter eos qui careat. etc. Vxornè tua? Non, inquit: nam voto meo istud non convenit. & ser. 66. In operimentum turpitudinis continentiae se insigniere voto: porrò turpitudinem in solis existimant uxoribus reputandam.  vowed continency, but yet would not be without the company of women, yea their vow of continency was but for the covering of their filthiness, thereby forbearing marriage as unclean, but in the mean time committing fornication, as Popish Priests and Votaries are accustomed to do. 
q Ibid. Quidam dissentientes ab alijs inter solos virgines matrimonium contrahi posse fatentur.  Some of them permitted the first marriage, but the second marriage they held unlawful, and the Church of Rome now denieth to it their sacramental benediction. They also condemned the eating of flesh, as a thing unclean, as the Manichees did; they thought they might every day at their own tables consecrate for themselves the body and blood of Christ; they derided the baptizing of infants: which things, with other like, were such as might justly move S. Bernard to inveigh against them. And these things he spoke as he was advertised concerning them of whom he spoke; but whether he were truly advertised it may be doubted, because he himself saith, that not only 
r Ser. 66. in fine. Non solum laici principes sed & quidam, ut dicitur, de Clero necno● de ordine Episcoporum eos sustinent.  Princes of the laity, but some also of the Clergy and of the Bishops were favourers of them; which it is not likely they would have been, if they had been men so ill conditioned as he reporteth them, howsoever he upon an unlikely rail impute it to their taking bribes of them. As for those matters which M. Bishop nameth, it is no wonder that Bernard living in a time of so great corruption and declination of Christian faith were somewhat entangled in the superstitions of that time; wonder it is rather, that in the most material points thereof which most nearly concern our justification and eternal life, he continued so sincere and sound as we find he did. Who although he had a conceit that the church of Rome should not err in faith, as M. Bishop allegeth out of his Epistle to Innocentius, yet if he lived now would disclaim that conceit, because he should see the church of Rome oppugning that Doctrine of the imputation of righteousness by Christ which he maintaineth at large in that epistle, as I have 
s Of justification, sect. 6.8.  before cited him in the handling of that point. Yea in sundry points from place to place I have showed how Bernard fully accordeth with us, and condemneth the doctrine which the church of Rome hath since drawn out of the puddles of her own schools; so that howsoever he were misted with some superstitious fancies, yet that letteth not, but that by his judgement, M. Bishop is one of those heretics against which he would have the church confirmed in the faith. For his further censure of the Bishop & church of Rome, I refer the Reader to that which hath been before said in the second part, pa. 70, 72. For conclusion of this point, I note how in answering my Epistle to the King, he taketh the same exception of misapplication to two other sentences borrowed by me from S. Austin. The one is prefixed under the title of the book: 
t Answer to the Epistle. ex August. de ciu. Dei. lib. 2. cap. 1. Eorum dicta contraria si toties refellere velimus, quoties obnixa fronte statuerunt non curare quid dicant dum quocunque modo nostris disputationibus contradicant, infinitum esset.  If we would so often refute their gainsayings, as they resolve with impudent faces not to care what they say, so that they may in any sort contradict what we say, there should be no end. Forsooth, S. Austin pronounced this against infidels, and with what countenance could M. Abbot cite it against us Christians, which in S. Augustine's meaning concerneth us not? Forsoorth, M. Bishop, because S. Augustine's words of those Infidels do sitly express the dealings of such Christians as you be, wh●se perverseness and wilful obstinacy in error is such 〈…〉 howsoever plainly your untruths be reprove ●●●d convinced, yet you verify of yourselves those other words of S. Austin, concerning other such Christians as you be; 
u Aug. de bapt. count Donat. lib. 2. c. 13. Malunt perversis vocibus veritati reluctari quàm confessis erroribus paci restitui.  They choose rather with froward words to strive against the truth, than by the confession of their errors to be restored to Christian peace. In the 
x Epist dedicat. to the answer to Doct. Bishops epist.  other place, mentioning M. Bishops threatening the King, that if he did not yield to them, God knows what that forcible weapon of necessity would drive men unto at length, I said, that they thereby verified in themselves that which S. Austin said of their predecessors the Donatists; Where they cannot by sly and wily cozenage creep like Asps, there with open professed violence they rage like Lions. Hear M. Bishop noteth, that both this sentence and the former out of Bernard, I set down in general, not quoting the very place, because I knew they made nothing for my purpose. But I would have him to note, that I penned that Preface being from my books, and though I did well remember the words, yet I could not by memory particularly note the place. But the words, he saith, are not to my purpose, because they were pronounced against the Donatists. Yes, they are therefore to my purpose, because as they served to express the usage of the Donatists of old, so they serve to set forth the usage of Popish Donatists and Circumcellions now. S. Austin compareth heretics to Asps, and telleth that 
y August. in Psal. 57 Aspides insidiosè volunt venena immittere & spargere.  Asps lurkingly seek to thrust in their poison and to disperse the same. This he apply to the Donatists, and declaring how Christian Emperors by barring them from the use of Churches, resisted them in that course, he showeth how these proceed were justified against the Donatists, by the example of the Donatists dealings amongst themselves, so as that their mouths were stopped, & they had not to plead further for themselves. 
z Ibid. Non est quod respondeant, etc. Ideoque ubi non possunt lubrica fallacia serpere ut aspides, aperta violentia fremunt ut leones: profiliunt & saeviunt armatae turbae Circumcellionum, daunt stragem quantam possunt.  And therefore, saith he, where they cannot by their wiles and subtleties creep like Asps (to spread their poison, being by laws restrained from their will) there by open violence they rage like Lions; the troops of Circumcellions come forth armed, and they murder and kill all that they can. Now do not these words fitly agree to M. Bishop and his fellows? who because they cannot be suffered like Asps to spread the poison of their heretical corruptions, do fall therefore to raging and threatening, to practices of surprising and blowing up with gunpowder, and if they durst, to open tumulting, and in the mean time saying, both M. Bishop, and his father and fellow Parsons, for they are both in one note, that patience often provoked is turned into fury, hereby to imprint in their followers, that it is no wonder being so hardly dealt with as they pretend, that they take their opportunity to play the Lions, to raven upon them by whom they are so ill entreated, that so howsoever they clear it for the time as M. Bishop doth, yet they may have them in affection prepared when time shall serve; though their 
* Reproof pag 30. Parson's Answer to the Apology for the oath of allegiance, pag. vlt.  eyes, I hope, shall rot the while, and they shall never see it serve? But here is to be noted that he saith, that those words may be applied to the Lutherans in Germany, and Protestants in England. But how I pray, M. Bishop, seeing S. Austin knew them not nor meant any thing of them? He will have it thought, because the Lutherans and Protestants do in like manner as the Donatists did. But then, M. Bishop, I pray you understand, that the words of Austin concerning those Pagans and Donatists are not misapplied to you, when you carry yourself in the like sort as did the Pagans and Donatists, or else by your own crooked rule you have abused S. Augustine's words, which you apply to me; 
p Preface to the Reproof pag. 16. ex August. count Gaudent. lib. 1. cap. 19 Nihil affert praeter lassum & quassum.  He bringeth nothing but what is weared and spent, because Austin spoke those words against Gaudentius the Donatist, and I am not Gaudentius.  
9 Another trick no less shameful, he objecteth to me in misconstruing the words of the fathers. He maketh it to be but 
q Answer to the Epistle, sect. 12. pag. 103. 104.  a fable of mine, that Gregory the Bishop of Rome commended the zeal of Serenus Bishop of Massilia, who could not endure that any thing should be worshipped that is made with hands, or did tell him that he should forbid the people the worshipping of them. But what will M. Bishop say that Gregory did? Marry, 
r Preface to the Reproof pag. 8:  he did not commend but reprehend the undiscreet zeal of that Bishop, who did break some pictures set in the Church, because some late converted heathens not yet well instructed in the Christian religion did adore them as if they had been Gods. Well, let Gregory tell his own tale, and then do thou, gentle Reader, judge thereof. 
s Greg. li. 7. ep. 109. Indigo dudum ad nos pervenisse quòd fraternitàs vestra quosdam imaginum adoratores aspiciens easdem ecclesiae imagines confregit atque proiecit. Et quidem zelum vos nequid manu factum adorari possit, habuisse laudavimus, sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse iudicamus. Iderirco enim pictura in ecclesiis adhibetur ut hi qui literas nesciunt saltem in parietibus videndo legant quae legere in codicibus non valent. Tua ergò fraternitas & illas servare & ab earum adoratu populum prohibere debuit, quatenus & literarum nescij haberent unde scientiam historiae colligerent, & populus in picturae adoratione minimè peccaret.  I certify you, saith he to Serenus, that it came of late to our hearing that your brotherhood beholding some worshipping images, did break the same Church-images and threw them away. And surely I commended you that you had that zeal, that nothing made with hands should be worshipped; but yet I judge that you should not have broken those images; for therefore is the picture used in the church, that they who are not learned by book, may yet by sight read upon the walls those things which they cannot read in books. Therefore your brotherhood should both preserve the images and forbidden the people the worshipping of them, that both the ignorant may have whence to gather the knowledge of the history, and the people may not sin in the worshipping of the picture. In the other epistle written of the same matter he wisheth Serenus, 
t Idem li. 9 ep. 9 Conuocandi sunt dispersi ecclesiae filii eisque Scripturae sacrae est testimonijs ostendendum, quia omne manufactum adorare non liceat, quoniam scriptum est, Dominum deum tuum adorabis & illi soli seruies.  to gather together again the Children of the Church, who upon offence of breaking those images had withdrawn themselves from him, and to show unto them by testimonies of Scriptures, that it is not lawful to worship any thing that is made with hands, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt serve. Now compare the words of my answer with these words of Gregory, and see whether I say any thing but what he saith. Consider where thou mayst find those skiruie shifts, of late converted heathens, and of worshipping images as Gods, seeing Gregory saith nothing of worshipping them as Gods, but merely and only of worshipping them, affirming, that worship by the testimony of scripture belongeth to God only. Yea it is to be noted, that M. Bishop himself confirmeth the same by the words of Gregory which he citeth, but that I know not how he is blind and seethe not his own way. 
u Gregor. ibid. Frangi non debuit quod non adorandum in ecclesiis, sed ad instruendas solummodò mente● fuit nescientium collocatum.  Gregory, saith he, telleth him plainly that that should not be broken which was not set up in the Church to be adored, but only to instruct the ignorant. Mark what he saith; only to instruct the ignorant. Surely if they be set there to be worshipped, than not only to instruct the ignorant; if only to instruct the ignorant, than they are not to be worshipped. Therefore he absolutely opposeth the one to the other, not to be adored, but only to instruct the ignorant, which cannot stand if it be true which M. Bishop saith, that in any manner or meaning they be to be adored. Yet he telleth us, that though S. Gregory forbidden images to be adored as Gods, yet doth he teach them to be worshipped as representations of most holy personages. But how may this appear? Marry, by his letters, saith he, to Secundinus, to whom he sent the images of our Saviour, of the blessed Virgin Mary, and of Peter and Paul. It is true indeed that Secundinus sent to Gregory for the picture of Christ, and Gregory sent it him; signifying to him, that his request did greatly please him; because, saith he, thou lovest him with all thy heart and whole intention, whose image thou desirest to have before thine eyes. Withal he sent him those other pictures which M. Bishop speaketh of. So then here we have pictures and images, and thereof we make no scruple, but we have yet nothing for the worshipping of them. For the affirming whereof, M. Bishop here very impudently abuseth his Reader by false translation. For the words of Gregory are thus: 
x Greg. lib. 7. ep. 54 Scio quidem quòd imaginem salvatoris nostri non ideò petis ut quasi deum colas, sed ob recordationem filii dei ut in eius amore recalescas cuius te imaginem videre consideras. Et nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem ante illam prosternimur, sed illum adoramus quem per imaginem aut natum aut passum sed & in throno sedentem recordamur: & dum nobis ipsa pictura quasi scriptura ad memoriam silium dei reducit, animum nostrum aut de resurrectione latificat aut de passione demul●et.  I know verily that thou dost not therefore desire the image of our Saviour that thou mayest worship it as God, but for a remembrance of the son of God, that thou mayest become fervent in his love, whose image thou considerest thyself to behold. And we verily fall not down before it as before the Godhead, but we worship him, whom by the image we remember, either as borne, or having suffered, or now sitting upon his throne. And whilst the picture, as it were a writing, bringeth to our remembrance the Son of God, either it rejoiceth our mind as touching his resurrection, or appeaseth it by his passion. Now whereas Gregory saith; We do not fall down or cast down ourselves before it as before the Godhead, M. Bishop readeth; We do cast down ourselves before the said Image, not as before a Godhead. And so he understandeth the former words, Thou worshippest the image, but thou dost not worship it as a God, taking the particle (as) to import a distinction of the variety of worship, which is only an exemplification of the propriety thereof. For Gregory hath no meaning to instruct Secundinus to worship the image or to kneel to it which we see before is the thing he wholly condemneth, but willeth him to understand that these devotions belong to God only, and therefore that he must beware not to put the image in the place of God to do to it those duties of religious humiliation, which are proper to God alone. For as when I say of another man, I will not kneel to him as to the king, I do not mean that I will kneel to him, though not in that manner as to the king; but whereas of duty I kneel to the king, I will not kneel to him: so when Gregory saith to Secundinus, that he is not to worship the image as God, or to kneel before it as before God, he meaneth not that he is to worship the image or kneel before it, though not in that manner as before God, but that this duty belongeth only to God, and is not to be performed to the image. And that this may appear to be Gregory his true meaning, and not any gloss of mine, it is undeniably confirmed by Gregory himself, where for conclusion of his instructions given to Serenus for the quieting of his people, he saith thus: 
y Idem. l. 9 ep. 9 Si quis imagines facere volverit, minimè prohibe: adorare verò imagin●● omnibus modis devita: sed hoc solicitè fraternitas tua admoneat ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem compunctiunis percipiant & in adoratione solius omnipotentis sanctae Trinitatis humilitèr prosternantur.  If any man will make images, forbidden him not; but by all means avoid the worshipping of images: but this let your brotherhood carefully advertise them, by the sight of the story to gather fervency of compunction, but humbly to fall down or kneel in the worship of the holy Trinity only. Now if he so forbidden the worshipping of images, as that he reserveth kneeling or casting down ourselves only to the worship of the holy Trinity, let it be esteemed with what conscience it is that M. Bishop saith, that he approveth the worshipping of images, even so far forth as to kneel before them. Albeit out of the very words themselves, the thing is manifest; for if Gregory had intended that images though they were not to be worshipped as Gods, yet were in other sort to be worshipped, he would by the adversative have opposed worship to worship, to express what that sort of worship should be, whereas now he setteth worship on the one side, and only remembrance on the other side, not to worship but for remembrance; not to fall down before it, but to worship Christ, whom we remember by it, still appropriating worship to God, but attributing nothing to the image save to be put in mind thereby of him whom it doth represent. Surely a senseless thing it is to imagine that he who would not have images to be worshipped as gods, and yet would have them to be worshipped, should never direct in what sort they should be worshipped, but teach absolutely as we have seen, by all means to avoid the worshipping of them. M. Bishop saith, that he hath divers other places to make good that meaning of Gregory: but he abuseth his Reader therein; he hath not one place more whereby to make any show of it, and therefore I hope it plainly appeareth, that I have not wrongfully alleged Gregory's words, but have justly affirmed that he in this point directly crosseth the doctrine and practice of the now-church of Rome.  
10. In the next place he chargeth me with the falsifying of Epiphanius, which yet he could not handsomely do, but that he must first play a false trick with me. The original of this matter is from Hierome, who inveighing against certain bishops of Spain, as I take it, for that they would admit none to be priests or deacons, except they were first married, detesting as it seemeth the horrible fruits of forced single life, allegeth in prejudice of them the examples of other Churches, namely the Churches of the East; none else save only the Churches of Egypt and Rome. Against this allegation of Hierome concerning the Eastern Churches, I say, 
z Answer to the Epistle sect. 8. pag. 62.  that Socrates who wrote his story within less than twenty years after the death of Hierom, 
a Socrat. hist. lib. 5. cap. 21. Id adeò cùm omnes illustres presbyteri in Oriente, & episcopi etiam, modò ipsi volverint, nulla lege coacti ab uxoribus abstineant; nam non pauci illorum, dum episcopatum gerunt, etam liberos ex uxore legitima procreant.  affirmeth of those Eastern Churches (which Epiphanius also an Eastern Bishop even in the time of Hierome, of some parts thereof acknowledgeth) that the Priests and Bishops thereof were not forced by any law to forbear their wives, and that many of them whilst they were Bishops had children borne unto them of their lawful married wives. Now mark I pray thee gentle Reader, the bad dealing of this untowardly wrangler; for whereas I rest the main report hereof upon Socrates, to Socrates he saith nothing, standing convicted hereby, that all the 
* Omnes illustres presbyteri.  famous Priests of the East, and the Bishops also at their discretion had their wives, and being bishops did beget children of them. Again, whereas I allege Epiphanius only as a party-witnesse, he perverteth my words, as if I made him a witness of the whole. He setteth down my words thus: Epiphanius an Eastern bishop, saith M. Abbot, even in the time of Hierome, acknowledgeth for true those words of Socrates, that the Priests and Bishops thereof were not forced by any law to forbear their wives, etc. whereas I say by a parenthesis only thus, which Epiphanius also an Eastern Bishop even in the time of Hierome of some parts thereof acknowledgeth. The difference is this, that whereas Socrates affirmeth the matter generally of the East, I allege Epiphanius testifying it only of some places thereof, though not concerning bishops, as M. Bishop excepteth, yet concerning Priests and Deacons, which was sufficient for my purpose, because Hierome against whom I objected it, spoke only of Priests and Deacons. Albeit he doth not wholly except Bishops, because saying, that 
b Epiphan. haer. 59 sed & adhuc viventem & liberos gignentem untus uxoris virum non suscipit, etc. diaconum & presbyerum, & episcopum, & hypodiaconum; maxim ubi synceri sunt canones ecclesiastici.  the Church receiveth not (amongst the rest) a bishop that liveth still the husband of one wife, and begetteth children, he addeth this limitation, specially where the ecclesiastical Canons be sincere or exact. He denieth not then but that bishops also were married and begat children, but he excepteth that it was not so, where the ecclesiastical Canons were sincere and exact. Upon this he addeth; 
c Ibid. At dices mihi, omninò in quibusdam locis adhuc liberos gignere & presbyteros, & diaconos, & hypodiaconos. At hoc non est inxta Canonem, sed juxta hominum mentem, quae per tempus elanguit, & propter multitudinem quum non inveniretur ministerium.  But thou wilt say unto me, that in some places Priests and Deacons and Subdeacons' do still beget children: He answereth; But this is not according to the Canon, but according to the mind of men, which in time hath fainted, and for number sake when there were not found to perform the ministry. So then he justifieth that that I affirmed, that Priests and Deacons in some places were married and did beget children, this being yielded to the frailty of men's minds, and for the supplying of the ministry, though it were not according to the Canon. M. Bishop presseth this, that Epiphanius testifieth, that the Ecclesiastical Canons had decreed otherwise; but the question is not, what was decreed by I know not what Canons, but what by practice in some places was done. The thing that I affirm is, that some places admitted no such Canons, but their Priests and Deacons and Subdeacons', were married men. Albeit it were worth the while to know of M. Bishop what Canons those were, & whence, which Epiphanius speaketh of. For there was before that time no general Council holden but only the Council of Nice, and the Council of Nice though some motion were made to bring in 
d Socr. hist. eccles. li. 2. cap. 8. Visum erat episcopis legem novam in ecclesiam introducere ut qui ●ss●nt sacris initiati, sicut episcopi, presbyteri & diaconi, cum uxoribus, quas cùm erant laici in matrimonium duxissent, minimè dormirent, etc. Paphnutius vehementer vociferatus est, non grave jugum ceruicibus illorum imponendum esse qui erant sacris initiati, honorabile esse coniugium inter omnes & thorum immaculatum etc. viri cum legitima uxore concubitum castimoniam appellarit.  a new law, as Socrates calleth it, to separate Bishops, Priests and Deacons from the company of their wives, yet gave it over upon the advertisement of Paphnutius, earnestly crying out that it was too heavy a yoke to be laid upon the Clergy, that marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, that the company of a man with his own wife is chastity. Yea there was an ancient Canon under the name of the Apostles: 
e Canon. Apost. 6. Episcopus vel presbyter, vel diaconus uxorem suam ne eijciat religionis praetextu: sin fecerit, segregetur; & si perseveret deponatur.  Let not any Bishop, Priest or Deacon, put away his wife under colour of religion; if he do so, let him be excommunicated; if he continue therein, let him be deposed. Which Canon, though abbridged in respect of Bishops, yet concerning Priests and Deacons is renewed in the sixth Council in Trullo, where those father's professing 
f Constantinopol. 6. in Trull. can. 13. Nos antiquum Canonem Apostolicae perfectionis ordinisque servants hominum qui sunt in sacris coniugia deinceps ex hoc temporis momento firma & stabilia esse volumus, nequaquam eorum cum uxoribus coniunctionem dissoluentes, vel eos mutua tempore convenienti consuetudine privantes. Quamobrem siquis dignus inventus fuerit qui hypodiaconus, diaconus, vel presbyter ordinetur, is ad talem gradum assumi nequaquam prohibeatur si cum legitima uxore cohabitet. sed neque ordinationis tempore ab eo postuletur ut profiteatur se à legitima cum uxore consuetudine abstenturum, etc. siquis ergò praeter Apostolicos Canones incitatus sit aliquem eorum qui sunt in sacris, presbyterorum, vel diaconorum, vel hypodiaconorum coniunctione cum legitima uxore & consuetudine privare, deponatur: similitèr & siquis presbyter vel diaconussuam uxorem pietatis praetextu eiecerit, segregetur, etc.  to observe the old Canon of Apostolic perfection and order do decree, that the marriages of Clergy men shall from thenceforth continue firm and good, and say, that they will not dissolve their conjunction with their wives, or deprive them of their mutual company in time convenient. Wherefore if any, say they, be found worthy to be made a Subdeacon or Deacon or Priest, let him not be put back though he dwell with his lawful wife; neither let it be required of him in the time of his ordination to profess that he will abstain from having lawful company with his wife. If therefore any contrary to the Apostolic Canons shall be moved to deprive any Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon of the company of his lawful wife, let him be deposed; and if any Priest or Deacon shall put away his wife under pretence of religion, let him be excommunicated; and if he so persevere, let him be deposed. Now if these were ancient Canons of Apostolic perfection and order, as the Council telleth us, than it was an error in Epiphanius to account those Canons sincere and perfect that were contrary to these. They were, it seemeth, some positive and local constitutions to which he referreth his speech, which as they were in some places accepted, so in other were rejected, but neither the Apostles nor any general Council had prescribed any such Canons to be used in the Church. Now therefore I have lost nothing by Epiphanius, because he plainly saith that for which I alleged him; neither hath M. Bishop gained by him any thing against me, because he can give us no authority for the Canons which Epiphanius nameth for him, and we give him very good authority for other Canons that are against him.  
11. But in this matter of falsifications M. Bishop yet meaneth to show himself more false. I objected it 
g Answer to the Epistle, sect. 14 p. 122.  as a horrible impiety written in their law, that they style the Pope, Our Lord God the Pope. He saith that herein is 
h Reproof in the Preface. pag. 10.  a double lie. First, for that I avouch that to stand in the Law which is only written in the Gloss. But is he so nice and strict in his terms that he never calleth Law but only the text of Law? Surely we call those Law books wherein matters of Law are handled, although there be no text of Law. And might not I say that was written in their Law which is written in the Gloss, that is the exposition of their Law, and which by authority amongst them is always printed together with the law? Albeit what I meant by the Law I expressed myself by setting down the quotation thus, Extravag. joan. 22. cap. Cum inter. in Glossa. Yea but the more shameful lie is, that it standeth not in the gloss neither, but I belly both the one and the other. Where I confess to thee, gentle Reader, that I thought that by their new editions he had had some advantage against me. I had read the words as I cited them long ago in a fair print of the Canon Law, in the library of the Church of Worcester. Now when I saw M. Bishop thus confidently avouching that I belied them, I thought undoubtedly that even for shame in their latter impressions they had altered those words, never imagining that he would be so shameless as to charge me with belying them in a thing apparent to the sight of every man. Thus I meant in simplicity to have passed it, with referring the Reader to the old books, though it were changed in the new. But now I pray thee to do the same that in the end for more assurance I thought good to do. Look to their edition of the Canon Law printed at Paris, Anno. Dom. 1601. and there thou shalt find it still as I cited it; 
i Extravag. joan. 22. cap. Cum inter. in glossa Parisiis. Anno dom. 1601 Cum privilegio Gregorij 13. & aliorum principum.  Credere dominum Deum nostrum Papam sic non potuisse statuere, etc. haereticum censeretur. To believe that our Lord God the Pope might not so decree, should be accounted heresy. Now whether shall we think here to be more impudent, the Pope or M. Bishop? Surely the Pope's sin is the greater, who by 
k Optat. lib. 3. Passus est homines per se sie jurare tanquam per deum: in quo si unusquisque hominum erraverat, ipse prohibere debuerat; cùm non prohibuit, deus sibi visus est.  Optatus his argument, because he doth not forbid this style, taketh upon him to be our Lord God the Pope. M. Bishop hath some grace to be ashamed of it, but little grace hath he to deny that which is so open for every man to see. By the hardness of his forehead in this thou mayest take occasion to esteem what he is in all the rest.  
12. Again he saith, that it is 
l Answer to the Epistle, sect. 13. p. 119.  a lie which I cite out of the Decretals, that they say the Pope is not a mere man. The words are, 
m Decretal. Greg. de translat. episc. Quantò.  Non puri hominis sed veri Dei vicem gerit in terris. Where I doubted not but that by a phrase of speech often used where the word of double government hath his proper signification only in respect of the latter, not of the former which it governeth, the meaning is that he hath not the condition of a mere man but is the vicar of the true God. And this meaning is elsewhere confirmed where it is said, that 
n Sext. proaem. inglossa. Ostenditur per mutation m●nominis facta mutatio hominis: cùm enim pr●ùs esset purus homo, nunc vicem veri deige●it interris.  by the changing of the Pope's name is imported the changing of the man; for where he was before a mere man, now he is God's vicar upon the earth; leaving it to be understood, that therefore now he is not a mere man. But yet because I knew they might make another construction of those words, I would not thereupon rest the proof of that that I said, that the Canonists persuaded the Pope that he was not a mere man, but added for that purpose their noble verse whereby they say to the Pope, 
o Clement. Prooem. in glossa.  Nec deus es, nec homo; quasi neuter●es inter utrunque; Thou art neither God nor man, but as it were a neuter or apparel betwixt both; even as elsewhere it is said, 
p Dist. 96. Constantinus in glossa. In hac part Papa non est homo sed vicarius dei.  The Pope in this behalf is not a man but the vicar of God. Tell us now, M. Bishop, did I lie or not? or do not you rather dally with your Reader in cavilling thus vainly at one place, when you saw the thing that I said purposely justified by another? Surely you take a wrong course; this is not the way to recover the credit that you desire.  
13. His next quarrel is concerning a place of Beda. I allege out of him, that 
q Answer to the epistle sect. 31. pag. 199.  in his time the Scriptures were in four several languages of so many several nations in this Island, beside the Latin tongue common to them all, thereout to search the knowledge of God's truth. This he saith, is a lie also, but to persuade his Reader that it is so, he leaveth out the words wherein I conceived the proof to stand. The words of Beda are these: 
r Beda hist. eccles. gent. Anglor. lib. 1 cap. 1. Haec in praesenti iuxtra numerum librorum quibus lex di●ina scripta est quinque gentium linguis unam candemque summae veritatis & verae sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur & confitetur, Anglorum videlicet Britonum, Scotorum, Pictorum & Latinorum, quae meditatione scirpturarum facta est omnium communis.  This Island at this present according to the number of books wherein the Law of God is written, doth in the languages of five Nations search and confess one and the same knowledge of the highest truth, and of true sublimity or height, namely of the English, the Britons, the Scots, the Picts, and the Latins, which by meditation of the Scriptures is become common to all the rest. Where I confess that in those words, according to the number of books wherein the law of God is written, I understood Beda his meaning to be, that they studied God's truth according to the Canonical Scriptures which are contained in a certain number of books; not conceiving, such was then my dullness, that it might be taken, that as the Law of God is written by Moses in five books, so this Island, in five languages, did study and search the knowledge of God's truth; which in further weighing the words I since considered. Now M. Bishop to show his fidelity, leaveth out those words, imagining that the Reader might perhaps take my first meaning to be as likely as this latter. These be S. Bedes words, saith he; This Island at that time did study and confess one and the same knowledge of truth (of the highest truth he should have said) in five sundry languages. But if he had meant honesty, and plain dealing, he would not have done thus; he would have set down the words, and left them to the consideration of the Reader, that it might appear what it was that might induce me to that that I affirmed thereupon. Albeit, setting those words aside, I would ask him, and he indeed should here have told us, how this Island should in five languages study and search the knowledge of the highest truth, if they had not in five languages the books of the highest truth? Tell us M. Bishop, we desire to know of you, and if you would needs answer the place, you should have declared it, how they should study the highest truth without having the books of the highest truth? And that they had so, we cannot doubt, because it was said by Theodor●tlong before, 
s Theodoret. de enrand. Graecor. affectib. lib. 5. Hebraici libri non modò in Graecum idioma conversi sunt, sed in Romanam quoque linguam, Aegyptiam. etc. semelque ut dicam in linguas ●mnes quibus omnes gentes in hunc diem utuntur.  that the books of the old Testament were translated, no● only into the Greek tongue, but also the Latin, Egyptian, Persian, Indian Armenian, Scythian, & all tongues which all Nations used at that time. But of that that Beda saith, that the Latin tongue by meditation of the Scriptures became common to the rest, M. Bishop maketh a very poor and simple collection, that they needed not to have learned the Latin tongue for the studying of the Scriptures if the Scriptures had been translated into their own mother languages. As if he should say, that because we have the scriptures now translated into our English tongue, therefore we need not for the studying of the Scriptures learn the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues. The absurdity of which connexion is such, as that we may think M. Bishop out of his wits that would so much disgrace himself as to be the author of it.  
14. Another notorious untruth and most malicious slander, he saith, I cast out against Austin the monk, whom he termeth our English Apostle, of whom I say in my answer, that 
t Answer to the Epistle, sect. 31. p. 198.  he being offended at the bishops of the Britons, for that they refused to be subject to his Romish authority, provoked against them Ethelbert, than King of Kent, by whose procurement an army of Infidels was sent to slay them, who cruelly and unmercifully performed the slaughter, not sparing them who in their shirts came forth to them to entreat mercy. For the justifying whereof, he saith, I can produce no ancient author, but am glad to shroud myself under an old nameless Chronicle cited by the Arch-liar and late partial writer jewel. I do not marvel that Bishop jewel in his reckoning is a liar, because he knoweth that where Bishop jewel is not taken for a liar, there he and his fellows must be accounted so to be. But as touching the story, if his eyes had served him, he might have seen that I cited not the old Chronicle only alleged by Bishop jewel, but also Galfridus Monumetensis, whom in the beginning of that narration I quoted as a witness thereof, who out of the ancient British story reporteth, that 
u Galfrid Monumetens. lib. 11. cap. 12. Augustino petenti ab Episcopis Britonibus subiectionem. etc. Dino●t diversis argumentationibus ipsos ei nullam subiectionem debere respondit. Et. c. 13. Edelbertus rex Cantiorum ut vidit Britones dedignantes subiectionem Augustino facere, etc. hoc gra●issime ferens, Edelfridun regem Northanumbrorum & caeteros regulos Saxonum instimulavit ut collecto grandi exercitu in civitatem Bangor Abbatem Dinoot & caeteros Clericos qui eos spernerent perditum irent. etc. Edelfridus civitate capta cum intellexisset causam adventus Monachorun (ut pro salute populi sui orarent● jussit in eos primum arma verti et sic mill du●enti corum in ipsa die martyrio decorati regni caelestis adepti sunt sedem.  in the city of Bangor there was a most noble Church of 1200. Monks, all living with the labour of their hands. Their Abbot was named Dino●ch a man marvelously well learned; who by divers arguments made it appear, when Austin required the Bishops to be subject unto him, that they ought him no subjection. Edelbert therefore the King of Kent, assoon as he saw them refuse to yield obedience to Austin and despise his preaching, stirred up Edelfride & other princes of the Saxons to gather a great army, and to go to Bangor to destroy Dinoochand his Clergy. Who taking the city, commanded the swords of his men to be turned first upon the Monks, and so twelve hundred of them the same day, decked with Martyrdom, entered the kingdom of heaven. By which record it is plain that though that slaughter were not committed by Ethelbert, as M. Bishop saith, yet by the procurement of Ethelbert, as I affirmed, it was done. Albeit our English Chronicle cited 
x Defence of the Apology. part. 5. in the beginning.  by M. jewel delivereth that both the Kings Ethelbert and Edelfride joined their power together, and so the murder was committed by them both; Austin also meeting them at Leicester as they were going to the place where that act was done. Moreover he citeth a Chronicle written in French by one 
y Ibid.  Thomas Grace, above two hundred years ago, wherein it is said, that Austin being so refused of the Bishops and other learned of the Britan's, made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert King of Kent, that forthwith he levied his power and marched against them, and slew them in most cruel wise, having no more regard of mercy then a wolf hath upon a sheep. So than it should seem that neither Austin nor Ethelbert, were free of that bloody and cruel murder, howsoever M. Bishop do his good will to clear them both. Yea by that which Beda reporteth, it may be well conjectured that Augustine's hands were not free of it, for that he threatened them when he saw they would not yield to him 
z Beda. hist. li. 2. cap. 2. fertur minitans praedixisse quòd si pacem cum fratribus accipere nollent, bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi.  that if they would not accept of peace with their brethren, they should find war of their enemies. But it may better be conjectured by the same answer as in two written Chronicles in the Library of Balliol College in Oxford it is expressed, where it is not, they should find war of their enemies, but, 
* Polychron. magn. & Polychron. Monachi Cistrensis. Quòd qui pacem cum fratribus accipere nollent, bellum ab eisdem forent accepturi.  if they would not accept of peace with their brethren, they should (ab eisdem) of them, or from them, find war and revenge, plainly importing that he himself would procure the same. For whereas M. Bishop allegeth out of Beda that Austin was dead and buried many years before that slaughter happened, Bishop jewel showeth that therein they have for Augustine's credit falsified the Latin story of Beda, because by Beda translated by Alfred seven hundred years ago into the Saxon tongue, the contrary plainly appeareth that, Austin after that slaughter was alive. Yea he produceth a Charter of the Church of Canterbury yet extant and to be seen, which was granted and confirmed by King Ethelbert, and by Austin accepted and subscribed the same year that that was done, whereby it is without all controversy manifest and clear that it is false which M. Bishop saith, that Austin was dead many years before. And for some further conjecture of this matter, I will not omit to note out of Doct. powel his history of Wales, certain verses of that famous and renowned Poet Ambrose Telesinus, or Taliessin, surnamed in his time, Ben Beirdh, the chiefest of the wisemen, which seem in all likely hood to tax Austin as a procurer of that slaughter. For although he mention the said Taliessin as having been a writer in the year 540. yet because there can be imagined no occasion of those words before Augustine's coming in, I conceive that either there is some error in the notation of the time, or that living perhaps to great years, as in those days was no rare thing, he wrote the Ode, whence those verses are taken, in his last time. I will define nothing hereof, but leave it to the judgement of the Reader to conceive as he seethe cause. The verses than he first setteth down in the Welsh tongue as they were written by him that made them: 

a History of Wales by Doct. Powel.  Gwae'r offeriad bid  
Nys angreifftia gwyd  
Ac ny phregetha.  
Gwae ny cheidw ye gail  
Ac efyn vigail  
Ac nys areilia  
Gwaeny theidw ei dhevaid  
Rhae bleidhi Rhufeniaid  
A'iffon gnwppa.   
These he repeateth in English thus: 
Woe be to that Priest yborn  
That will not cleanly weed his corn  
And preach his charge among.  
Woe be to that shepherd (I say)  
That will not watch his fold alway  
As to his office doth belong.  
Woe be to him that doth not keep  
From Romish wolves his sheep  
With staff and weapon strong.   
Where when he nameth Romishwolues, we cannot doubt but that he alludeth to some cruelty, caused or practised by some that came from Rome; which because it can have no application in those times but only to the slaughter of the Monks aforesaid, therefore I doubt not but that it hath reference to Austin the Monk, who came then from Rome, as the cause of that slaughter.  
Now because we are in hand with falsifications and misconstructions, I hold it not amiss to reduce hither two other taxations of his of the same nature, as most properly belonging to this place. The first by order of my book is a place of Matthew Paris, by whom I say it appeareth, that 
a Answer to the epistle, sect. 3. pag. 20.  for the space of twelve hundred years after Christ, the Pope's authority could gain no acknowledgement in Scotland, for that in the time of King Henry the third (the one and twentieth of his reign) when the Pope's Legate would have entered into Scotland to visit the Churches there, the King of Scots Alexander the second, forbade him so to do, alleging that none of his predecessors had admitted any such, neither would he suffer it, and therefore willed him at his own peril to forbear. Concerning this allegation, M. Bishop setteth down a postscript in the end of his book, when all the rest was finished in this courteous manner; Courteous Reader, I must needs acquaint thee with a notable legerdemain, which by perusing the author, I found out after the rest was printed. Now gentle Reader, I know thou lookest for some special great matter, which he was thus careful to add after all the rest was printed; but what is it I pray? M. Abbot, saith he, to prove that the Pope had no authority in Scotland twelve hundred years after Christ, averreth that Alexander the second utterly forbade the Pope's Legate to enter within his kingdom, which is not true. No is? Surely then M. Abbot dealt very undutifully with his Prince, to delude him with a false tale. But I pray you, M. Bishop, tell us what the truth is? For his author Matthew Paris declareth, saith he, that the King indeed did at the first oppose himself against that visitation of his kingdom to be made by the said Legate, not for that he did not acknowledge the Pope's supreme authority in those ecclesiastical causes, but because it was needless, the matters of the Church being (as he said) in good order, and for fear of overgreat charges. And is this all M. Bishop, that you could find, perusing the author so diligently as you have done? But I pray you put on your spectacles once more, and turn over your book again. Thou shalt understand gentle Reader, that the impression of Matthew Paris which I follow, is that 
b Tiguri in officina Froschoviana. 1589.  at Tigure, in officina Froschoviana, anno 1589. There in the one and twentieth year of Henry the third, being the year of our Lord 1237. pag. 431. which in the edition, cited by M. Bishop, I take by some notes of mine, to be pag. 597. thou shalt find Matthew Paris set down this matter in these words; 
c Math. Paris. in Henrico 3. anno 1237. pa. 431. Volenti autem domino Legato intrare reguum Scotiae ut ibi de negotijs ecclesiasticis tractaret, sicut in Anglia, respondit rex Scotiae, Non me memini Legatum in terra mea vidisse, nec opus esse aliquen esse vocandum, deo gratias, nec adhuc opus est; omnia benè se habent. Nec etiam tempore patris mei, vel alicuius antecessorum meorum visus est aliquis Legatus introitum habuisse, nec ego dum mei compos fuero tolerabo. Veruntamen quia fama te sanctum virum praedicat, moneo te ut si fortè terram meam ingrediaris cau tè progrediaris nequid sinistri tibi contingat, etc.  The Lord Legate being desirous to enter into the kingdom of Scotland, there to deal in Ecclesiastical matters, as he had done in England, the King of Scotland answered him, I remember not 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 yet 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. Notwithstanding, because by report you are a holy man, I warn you, that if ye do go into my country, ye go warily, lest any thing befall amiss to you. For unruly and savage men are there dwelling, which thirst after men's blood, whom I myself cannot tame, nor hold them back from me, if they fall upon you. These are the words of Matthew Paris; now ask M. Bishop, I pray thee, wherein standeth that notable legerdemain which he would acquaint thee with: Ask him what it is wherein I have varied from my author. I said that the king forbade the Legate to enter; so saith the story. I said that the King alleged, that never any Legate in the time of any of his predecessors had been admitted there: the story saith the same. I said that this was twelve hundred years after the time of Christ; the story noteth it to have been in the year 1237. Wish him now to tell thee where the legerdemain is, or whether it be rather some policy of his, thus to talk of legerdemain. But this place he would not see; yet the latter place he saw; he quoteth the page 667. justly agreeing with the edition, wherein I have formerly read the story; & is in the edition which I now follow, pag. 481. We see what he hath made of it; now let us see how Matthew Paris himself reporteth it. 
d Math. Paris. ibid. anno dom. 1239. pag. 481. Eisdem diebus Legatus in Scotiam intrare sestinavit, etc. Et antequam regnum Scotiae intrasset, occurrit ei Rex Scotiae non acceptans ingressum suum. Dixit enim quòd nunquam aliquis Legatus excepto illo solo in Scotiam intravit; non enim ut asseruit, opus erat: Christianitas ibi floruit, ecclesia prosperè se habebat. Et cùm sermones multiplicarentur, & rex ferè ad contradicendum erigeretur, confectum est scriptum, intercedentibus utriusque regni magnatibus inter eos, cuius tenor fuit, ut nunquam ratione illius adventus talis consuetudo in consequentiam verteretur; in super in recessu suo scriptum illud signaret, & hoc procuratum est ne confusus in Angliam quasi repulsus reverteretur etc. Rege verò in interioribus terrae commorante, Legatus sine Regis licentia clàm & subitò recedens praedictum scriptum asportavit.  In those days, saith he, the Legate hastened to enter into Scotland, and before he was come into the kingdom of Scotland, the King met him, not liking well of his coming. For he said that never any Legate, beside him, had entered into Scotland, for there was, as he said, no need; Christianity flourished there, and the Church was in good case. And upon multiplying of words, when the King was almost ready to chide, there was a writing drawn betwixt them by the intercession of the Nobles of both kingdoms; the tenor whereof was, that there should never any custom grow by reason of his so coming, and that at his departure he should seal that writing, and this was procured that he might not return into England with disgrace, as having received a repulse. But whilst the King was abiding in the innermost parts of his country, the Legate, without the King's licence, privily and suddenly departed and took away with him the writing aforesaid. Hear we see by both these places, that the King of Scotland denied the Pope's Legate any entrance into his land, protesting that never in his time, or in the time of his predecessors, any Legate had been admitted there; and although he were content the second time upon intercession to give him leave to visit that once, to quit him from disgrace, yet it was with caution, that no custom should grow thereof, neither should that example be pleaded to do the like another time. May I not then here say of M. Bishop as Austin said of Adimantus the Manichee; 
e August. count Adimant. cap. 15. O hominem pessimum securum de negligentiae generis humani ad occultandas deceptiones suas, etc.  O lewd man presuming of the negligence of men for the hiding of his own cozenage and deceit, that did not think that any man would be so careful as to take the book, and by searching find out how falsely and treacherously he dealeth in these things. Is this his convincing of me to be so perfidious and without all conscience in alleging ancient authors as that no man can repose trust in my allegations, as he here of inferreth? Ah wretched man that thus maketh havoc of his own conscience, and setteth his soul to sale for the defence of an unjust and wicked cause. As for that which he further allegeth, that the said King did afterwards acknowledge the Pope's Legate; and by his letters profess that he and his heirs were and would be obedient to his jurisdiction and censures, though I find no such matter by his quotation, yet though it were so, it skilleth not. I question not what befell after, but what had been before, knowing that the Pope where he had once set in foot was heedy to take all advantages and opportunities, specially of the distresses and troubles of Princes, to wind himself further in. And therefore as little to the purpose is that which he allegeth, where by order he answereth this matter, that when 
f Reproof, pag. 122.  King Edward the third, as he nameth him, indeed the first, would have given to the Scots john Balliol to be their King, they answered him, that they would not accept him without the Pope's consent, who had their country in protection, which was five and fifty year after the Legates first attempt to enter into that land, and therefore no prejudice to that that I have said.  
16. The other point that I have thought fit to touch in this place concerneth the opinion of Proclus the Origenist heretic, of whom M. Bishop alleged to the King, that he taught as we do, that sin in baptism is not wholly taken away, but only covered, citing Epiphanius, as mentioning him for this opinion to be an heretic. 
g Answer to the epistle. sect. 7. pag. 49.  I answered him as the truth is, that by this allegation he had sheathed a sword in his own side, for that under the name of Proclus he had by error cited the opinion of Methodius an ancient and godly Bishop of Tyrus, approved also by Epiphanius, and therefore had at once produced two ancient witnesses teaching by his own confession as we do, that original sin in baptism is not wholly taken away, but that the filth thereof cleaveth fast to us so long as we continue in the frailty of this life. The matter being clear and evident by that that I alleged, I told him that either he read the place too early in the morning, or too late at night, or else borrowed it from some of his Masters the jesuits, who make little conscience what they say. Now I find since, that as almost in all the rest, so in this also 
h Bellarm. de notis ecclesiae. cap. 9 & de baptismo. c. 13.  Bellarmine hath been his Master, and hath showed as little wit in this objection as he hath done. Yet he hath led himself along in a strong opinion, that he hath therein great advantage against me, and therefore though he have cunningly passed over all the rest of my answer under pretence of handling all things in their proper questions, and there follow 
i Of Original sin, sect. 9  a question afterward where this matter is mentioned, and to which it properly belongeth, yet not meaning in truth to trouble himself with any more questions, he would needs out with that that he had to say of this matter. And herein he mightily bestirreth himself, he setteth down opinions, noteth divisions and coherence of speeches, examineth circumstances, looketh into the Latin, looketh into the Greek, taxeth me for shameless audacity, for simple and shallow wit, for carelessness of credit in thrusting out such an impudent assertion; for gross ignorance; and in a word telleth me that I am passed all shame, and worthy to be thrust into an Ass' skin. But what, M. Bishop, can ye not be content to be a fool, but ye must be a fool in print? I must be thrust into an Ass' skin; but it seemeth that you need not be thrust into it: who do of your own accord so willingly put it on: or let the skin light to whom it will, sure I am that the ears must belong to you. Men would have thought before, that you had had some learning, but now you give them cause to think, that you understand not the Latin tongue, or if you do, then remember him that said, 
k Esay 5.20.  Woe unto them that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. Once again, gentle Reader, to give thee more full satisfaction in this matter, thou shalt understand that Epiphanius setting down the heresy of Origen, and intending as in the rest, a confutation thereof, 
l Epiphan. haer. 64. pag. 175. Contentus esse duxi his quae rectè a beato Methodio in sermone de resurrectione contra●psum Origenem dicta sunt. etc.  thought best for one part of it to borrow the said confutation from Methodius a Bishop of former time. Take knowledge by the way that I follow the edition of Epiphanius translated by 
m jano Cornario interpret. Basileae ex officina H. ruagiana. etc. 1578.  janus Cornarius printed at Basil, anno. 1578. Hereupon he setteth down from Methodius the words of Origen, and having ended them, there followeth towards the end of the next page this distinction set down by the translator: 
n Pag. 176. Hactenus Methodius Origenis verba retulit; sequuntur nunc Procli verba quae item Methodius recenset.  Hitherto Methodius hath rehearsed the words of Origen; there follow now the words of Proclus, which Methodius also setteth down, where in the Greek there is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the words of Proclus; who namely in the time of Methodius maintained the condemned opinions of Origen, and with whom it seemeth that Methodius had much to do. These words of Proclus extend to the seventh line of the next page 177. the very effect and substance whereof is this, as Master Bishop also hath expressed it, 
o Pag. 177. Siquis potens fuerit exactè intelligere, etc. cognoscet resurrectionem de hoc corpore non oportere accipi, ut sp non possit in a ternum i● mutabile permanere, sed despirituali, in quo idem ipse character qui nunc in hoc habetur conseruabitur quo unusquisque nostrum etiam secundum formam idem sit, quemadmodum & ab Origene dictum est, etc.  that the resurrection must not be understood of this body, as which cannot abide for ever without change, but of a spiritual body wherein the same shape that now is in this body shall be kept, that every one of us in form and proportion may be the same, as, saith he, Origen hath said. This being the opinion of Proclus by M. Bishops own confession, if he would have had all the discourse following to be taken for the words of Proclus, he should have showed us how the same had suited to this opinion, and have laid before us some of his arguments whereby he had endeavoured the proof of it. He saw that I had so done, and that the speeches which I alleged from Methodius do fully tend to the confuting of this opinion; which he in his book hath wholly suppressed, knowing that no man can see those words, but he must also see his folly, that would take those for the words of Proclus, which tend directly to the overthrowing of that which he confesseth to be the error of Proclus. But to make the matter plain, the words of Proclus being thus set down, there follow these words in the next line: 
p Pag. 177. Verùm hanc ipsorum contentionem & ex his & ex alijs pluribus quis redarguere poterit. Demonstrabimus enim in sequentibus ac sermonis progressu per naturae veritatem & non per coniecturaes neque Hieremiam vinctos terrae nos dixisse propter societatem ad corpus, neque Davidem hac de causa ligatos Operaepretium enim est haec proffer, in quibus maximè labi videntur. Proinde cúm de pelliceis tunicis & quòd ante structuram ipsarum primi parentes vixerunt cum corpore immortalitate fruentes, insuperque quòd non potest corpus vinculum & carcer putari, ea quae conveniunt dixerimus, o viri judices, deinceps ad consequentia me convertam, velut promisi, ut dilucidiùs videamus quod volumus.  But this which they contend for, a man by these and many other reasons may reprove; for we will show in the process of our speech following, by truth of nature and not by conjectures, that neither jeremy calleth us prisoners of the earth, because of the society with the body, nor David calleth us bound or fettered for that cause: for it is worth the while to allege those things wherein they specially seem to err. Therefore when we shall have spoken what is convenient of the coats of skins, and that our first parents before the making thereof, lived with a body enjoying immortality, and moreover, that the body cannot be taken to be a bond or a prison, than I will turn me to those things that follow, that we may the more plainly see that that we desire. Hear we see a disputation plainly propounded against the foundations of the opinion of Proclus before set down, whose Master Origen held 
q Pag. 173. An●●am hum●nam p●ae existere dicit; esse autem hae augelos & virtuces supernas in pe●catis constitutas & ea gratia in supplicium in hoc corpus conclusas. Quaproter inquit etiam vinculum vocatum est corpus, eò quod anima in corpore ligatdest, etc. Et hinc inquit Scripturam etiampelliceas tunitas indicasse, quia fecit ipsis, inquit, tunicas pelliceas & induit ipsos; hoc corpus est, etc. Et mortuorum resurrectionem defectnosam facit, etc.  that the soul was first created without the body, and that when it sinned, God created it a body and shut it up thereinto as into a prison wherein it is fettered and bound, and that this the Scripture meaneth where it saith, that God made to the man and the woman coats of skins & put upon them; by these, saith he, is understood the body. Hence drew he the rest of that absurd fancy, whereby as Epiphanius there addeth, he made the resurrection defective, inferring that sith this is the nature and use of the body, it cannot be that this body should rise again, but that God will create a more excellent and spiritual body for the soul to dwell in. And that this was the opinion of Proclus, appeareth in the dialogue which is afterwards set down betwixt Methodius and Auxentius on the one side, and on the other side, not Proclus and Origen as M. Bishop dreameth, Origen being dead many a year before, but Aglaophon and Proclus; Methodius on the one side speaking for Auxentius and himself, and Aglaophon as the better man on the other side for Proclus and himself, where Methodius saith to Aglaophon thus; 
r Pag. 185. b. Dicebator anima corpus hoc nobis circumsitum propter transgressionem suscepisse, cùm superioribus temporibus absque ipso foelicitèr degissetpelliceas enim tunicas corpora esse in quae concludi animas contigitsquo mortale gestantes pro his quae fecerunt poenam darent. Anon erant haec quae primùm in principio ante dicta sunt? Imò a●mone si non vidèor tibi rectè meminisse. Non opus habes, inquit ille, admonitione: haec ipsa enim erant quae inprimis à nobis dicta sunt.  It was said that the soul received this body that is about us for sin and transgression, when as before time it had litted happily without it; and that the coats of skin are these bodies wherein it hath befallen our souls to be shut up, whereby in state of mortality they may be punished for the things they did amiss. Was it not this that was before said? Tell me if I seem not rightly to remember. Aglaophon answereth, Thou needest no telling; thus it was indeed that we said before. Anon after he asketh him again; 
s Pag. 186. a Nun & illud, inquam, o Aglaophon, videtur tibi non rectè habere, dicere vinculum & pedicas corpus construclun esse contra animam, & quòd propheta vinctos terrae nos dixit, ideoque etiam David, ligatos? Et ille, Non habeo, inquit, in promptu quod tibi respondean. Et paulò post. Tu, inquam, ergo vinculis & carcerem & sepulchrum & onus & pedicas ipsum (corpus) esse dixisti. Vera, inquit ille, mihi dicis.  Seemeth it not amiss to thee, Aglaophon, to say that the body is made for fetters and chains against the soul, and that the Prophet called us prisoners of the earth, and that David termeth us men in bonds? Where being doubtful to be circumvented, he answereth, I cannot readily tell what to say. But being persuaded by Methodius to say his mind, and charged again that he said, that the body is a bond and a prison and a grave, and a burden and fetters, he answereth, It is true as thou sayest. Now sith this is the opinion of Aglaophon and Proclus according to the doctrine of their master Origen, whom in this behalf they followed, how is M. Bishop bewitched to take those words which propound the confutation of this opinion to be the words of Proclus? Yea it is further to be noted, that as in the latter part where M. Bishop confesseth Methodius to speak, so in the former also the speaker still directeth his speech against Aglaophon the companion of Proclus; 
t Pag. 177. c. At fortassis opponentis vosipsos adversus relata. O Aglaophon & dicetis, etc.  But you, Aglaophon, will oppose yourselves against the things that have been spoken. 
u Pag 180. b. Attend, o sapientissime Aglaophon.  Listen here, O wise Aglaophon. 
x Pag. 182. b. Vbi dominum pronunciasse dixisti, etc. mox intu●sti, etc. ignarus quòd qui, etc.  Thou sayest thus, Aglaophon, not knowing that he that hath made all things of nothing, etc. 
y Pag. 183. c. Sic te O sapientissime Aglaophon considerare oportet.  Thus it behoveth thee to consider, O wise Aglaophon. What will M. Bishop here say? will he to save himself set Aglaophon and Proclus together by the ears? Can he make us believe that Proclus here disputeth against Aglaophon his own fellow? Nay is he so mad as so to believe himself? But if this be not enough, let us look into the matter of the discourse and see how well it accordeth with the opinion of Origen and Proclus. Remember briefly what their conceit was, that the soul was first alone without the body; that in that state it sinned, and for a punishment was thrust into the body, and that this body is not that wherein we shall rise again, but that God will create a spiritual and more excellent body bearing only the figure and shape of this. Now the speaker in this discourse disputeth first, 
z Pag. 177. b. Homo verissimè dicitur secundum naturam neque anima sine corpore, neque corpus sine anima, sed quod ex compage animae & corporis in una boni formam compositum est, unde hinc immortalem hominem factum esse apparet.  that God in the beginning made man immortal, consisting of a body and a soul, because according to truth of nature man is called neither the soul without the body nor the body without the soul, but that which is made into one by the conjunction of body and soul. Mark here in the very beginning an express contradiction to the opinion of Proclus, namely, that man was at the first created not a soul alone but a body and a soul. Then he showeth that 
a Pag. 179. a Pollutus & inquinatus est homo à sententia Dei dis essione facta, & multas maliciei maculas sibi affricuit quas princeps ille & pater erroris peperit, etc. Deus omnipetens immortal malum ex insidijs ipsum factum intuitus, velut etiam diabolus seductor erat pelliceas tunicas ob id fecit velut mortalitate ipsos amiciens quò per corporis solutionem omne in ipso factum malum moreretur.  man became polluted & defiled by swerving and declining from the commandment of God, and did set upon himself many spots of wickedness, which the prince and father of error brought forth: and that God beholding man thus made by the subtlety of Satan immortally evil as Satan himself was, did make for the man and the woman garments of skins, as it were clothing them with mortality, to the end that by the dissolution of the body all the evil that was wrought in him might die. Hereupon he proveth, that the making of coats of skines cannot be understood of the making of bodies, seeing 
b Ibid. Adam confitetur se ossa habere & carnes, etc. Accepit Deus limun de terra & formavit hominem; quod propriè de corpore dictum esse apparet, non enim de limo & gravioribus essentiam aedepta est amma. Quarè verissimè certum est undequaque ante pelliceas tunicas incorporatum fuisse hominem.  it is evident that man before the coats of skins had a body, for that it was said by Adam concerning Eva; This is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone; and of the creation of man it is written, that God form him of the dust or slime of the earth, which is manifestly spoken of the body, because the soul had not his being thereof. This is also directly against the fancy of Proclus; for Proclus held that the making of those coats was the making of bodies, but this author proveth that the bodies were before the making of those coats. Then he further allegeth, that God having made for man coats of skins 
c Ibid. b. Non quòd non vellet Deus ipsum decerpere de ligno vitae ac edere, eiecit eum: poterat enim in aeternum vivere ubi rursus de ligno vitae edisset, sed ut ne immortale fieret malum etc. Eiecit eum ut mortificaretur primùm morte peccatum quo sic post mortem consumpto peccato excitatus homo purus ederet vitam, etc. Qui enim omninò decernit carnenhanc non esse immortalitatis susceptoriam, revera dementiae per morbum maledicus est.  cast him out of Paradise, not properly for that he would not have him to eat of the tree of life and live for ever, for why would he send Christ into the earth if he would have had man utterly to die and not to taste of life? but because he would not have sin to be immortal by man's living for ever in that state wherein he was. Therefore he cast him out, saith he, that sin first might be mortified by death, that so sin being consumed, man after death being raised up again might live pure and uncorrupt; setting down hereupon this conclusion, which I wish M. Bishop to observe how it fitteth his Proclus; that by a disease of folly or madness he speaketh amiss who in any sort determineth that this flesh is not capable of immortality. This he repeateth again, that 
d Ibid. prohibitus est autem ●t peccatum cooccisum cum corpore moreretur, corpus verò peccato perdito resurgeret.  man was hindered from eating of the tree of life, that sin being killed with the body might die, but the body, sin being destroyed, might rise again. What, M. Bishop, may we not well think that you were in a dream that would take those words to be the words of Proclus, that this flesh is capable of immortality, that this body, sin being destroyed shall rise again? And this again is set forth by two notable similitudes, whereof the one is taken 
e Ibid. c. Quemadmodum in aedificijs templorum pulchrorum ubi ficus enata est, etc. & in omnes compositiones lapidum per multum sarmentosas radices diffusa non priùs a nascendo quiescit donec tota evellatur, dissolutis lapidibus in locis in quibus enata est; possunt enim rursus in suos locos adaptari lapides, ficu sublata, quo templum quidem servetur, etc. ficus verò tota radicitùs ewlsa emoriatur; eodem modo Deus optimus artifex templum suum hominem, qui instar syluestris ficus peccatum produxit brevibus mortis ictibus dissoluit, occidens velut scriptum est & vivificans, quò rursus earundem partium caro post exsiccatum ac mortuum peccatum instar renovati templi immortalis & illaesa excitetur, peccato perfectè ac funditùs perdito.  of a Figtree growing in the wall of a goodly temple and spreading the roots into the joints of the stones; which ceaseth not to grow till it be quite pulled out, the stones being taken asunder in the places where it grew, which, the fig tree being taken away, may be put every one into his place again, that so the temple may be preserved, and the figtree pulled up by the roots may die. For even in the same sort, saith he, almighty God by the stroke of death dissolveth man who is his temple, who hath brought forth sin like a wild figtree, killing him, as it is written, and giving him life again, to the end that the flesh or body of the same parts (even of the very same parts) after sin dried up and dead may be raised up again immortal and without any hurt, sin being wholly and utterly destroyed. Then follow the words which first Bellarmine the Master and then M. Bishop the scholar object unto us as matter of heresy, that 
f Ibid. Vivente adhuc corpore antequam moriatur necesse est simul vivere peccatum intus in nobis radices suas abscondens etiamsi forinsecus per castigationum ac admonitionum fectiones fuerit refraenatum etc. Constat contrahi quidem ac so piri per fidem nunc peccatum ut ne fructus noxios producat, non tamen radicitus tolli etc.  so long as the body liveth sin must needs live withal, inwardly hiding in us the roots of it, albeit outwardly by the checks of chastisements and admonitions it be bridled and refrained; that certain it is that sin is now holden short and laid asleep by faith, that it may not bring forth noisome fruits but it is not pulled up by the roots; with other words more to that purpose which I have set down in answer to the epistle, this conclusion thereupon ensuing, that 
g Pag. 180. a. Proinde in auxiliaris medicamenti modum ab auxiliatore nostro & verè medico Deo ad eradicationem peccati ac deletionem assumpta est mors, ut ne perpetuò durans in nobis immortale sit peccatum, etc. Instar medicamentariae purgationis quo sic omninò inculpabiles & innoxij efficiamur.  therefore death is appointed by God our helper and Physician to be as a medicinable purgation for the rooting out and destroying of sin that it may not continue immortally in us, but we may be made blameless and without spot. To the same purpose than he addeth the other similitude, 
h Ibid. b. Videtur velut siquis summus opifex flatuam pulchram ex auro aut alia materia conflet, mutilatam repentè conspicatus a pessimo quodam homine qui prae invidia non tulit decoram esse statuam eamque laesit, etc. si volverit opus ipsum pulchrum esse ac irreprehensibile, confringi ac rursus conflari oportet, quo turpitudines & alterationes omnes ac quae ex insidijs ac invidia in ipso sunt per reparationem ac conflationem pereant, ipsa verò statua in speciem suam integra & inadulterata simillima sibijpsi fabricetur: statuae enim perire non contingit per artificem ipsius etiamsi rursus in materiam resoluatur; restitui enim potest; turpitudines autem & mutilationes perire contingit, colliquescunt enim, etc. Idem sanè videtur in nobis Deus disposuisse; hominem enim decentissimum suum opificium insidijs & invidia malè afflictum non sustinuit relinquere talem, etc. sed dissoluit rursus in materiam quò per reformationem colliquescant ac dissipentur omnia in ipso vituperabilia. Nam illit conflari statuam, est hic mori ac dissolui corpus: illic verò reformari materiam ac suo niteri restitui, est hîc post mortem resurgere.  that as a workman having made a goodly fair image of gold or some other metal, if he see it by any lewd body of envy maimed and disgraced, taketh course for the bringing of it to the former beauty to have it broken and cast anew, that all the disgraces and alterations and whatsoever is caused by practice and envy may by being repaired and newcast be quite abolished, and the image may be framed again perfect according to the former shape and fashion most like unto itself, because it befalleth not to it to perish though it be resolved into the matter again, for it may be restored; but the hurts and maims and disgraces thereof are by melting taken away; even so God beholding man his most goodly work brought to evil case by the subtlety and envy of the devil, would not endure to leave him in that case, for that he is gracious towards man, but dissolved him into his first matter, that by making him anew all things that are faulty in him may be as it were melted away and consumed. For what is the melting of the image there, the same is here the dying & dissolving of the body, and as is there the new forming of the matter and restoring of it to his beauty, the same is here the rising again from the dead. Hear I pray thee, gentle Reader, to bethink thyself the new building of a wall of the same stones, and the new casting of an image of the same gold, how well it agreeth with the opinion of M. Bishops Proclus that our bodies in the resurrection shall not be the same. Even as well agreeth that which afterwards he construeth of the words of God, 
i Deut. 32.39.  I will kill and I will make alive, I will strike and I will heal; 
k Pag. 181. b. Quid aliud docere vult quàm quòd ob hoc corpus prin●ùm occiditur & moritur ut rursus resurgat ac vivat; percutitur primùm a sauciatur ut rursus scluum ac sanum formetur.  what else doth he teach hereby, saith he, but that for this cause the body is killed and dieth, that it may rise and live again; and is therefore stricken and wounded, that it may be new, made whole and sound. Surely M. Bishop if your face can blush, I trow it will appear here, in that you have so outfaced us that Proclus the heretic speaketh here where the author doth thus Categorically determine against the heresy of Proclus. After this he answereth two objections directly made in the behalf of Origen and Proclus. The one is, that 
l Ibid. Stom●e quod genera●ū est aegrotat, & secundùm nativitatem & secundum aiimentum ab accedentibus angetur & ex decedentibus min●itur, etc. Patiuntur autem aegrotantia, etc. Quod verò paetitur & deficit & perit, etc. Non potest ergò exors laesionis esse homo & immortalis.  all things that are by generation are subject to sickness, both by condition of birth and by reason of food and nourishment; and are increased by that that is put to them and diminished by that that goeth from them, and being by this means subject to passion, are subject also, and therefore so is man's body, to failing and perishing and cannot be immortal. Thus doth Origen reason, before, 
m Pag. 175. c. Omne corpusque a natura continetur quae forinsecus aliqua disponit ac succenturiat instar alimenti in ipsum & pro ingestis alia se cornit, nunquam habet idem materiale subiectum: quapropter non malè flavius appellatum est corpus, cò quòd neque per biduum idem subiectum est in corpore nostro.  that that which from without receiveth and supplieth some things by way of food, and for the things which it putteth in evacuateth other, cannot continue the same material subject, and therefore is not amiss compared to a river not being two days the same: importing hereby that the resurrection cannot be said to be of this body, because it cannot be determined in so great alteration what it should be that should rise again, as he hath before more largely expressed. In like sort the words of Proclus are, 
n Pag. 177. a. Flaxile est corpus materiale & nunquâ manet in serpso ne minimo quidem tempore, sed accedit & discedit circa speciem quae hominem delineat, etc.  that the material body is fluxible and never continueth in itself so much as for a very small time, but cometh and goeth under the shape which proportioneth the man. The author of this discourse answereth, that 
o Pag. 181. c. Si omne quod factum aut generatum est perit, nihil enim refert utrum dicas, nam & primi parentes non generati sunt sed facti, facti sunt item & angeli & anime, etc. Percunt ergo angeli & animae ex ipsorum ratione. At neque angeli neque aenimae pereunt etc. Non placet autem ut illud dicatur quòd omnia funditùs pereant, & terra & aer & caelum non futura sint. Exardescet equidem ad purgationem ac renovationem mundus, etc. non tamen ad perfectum interitum ac corruptionem deveniet, etc.  there is no difference whether things be created or begotten; for our first parents were not begotten but created, who yet were in condition as we are; and if things that are by creation or generation must perish, then so must the angels and the souls of men, which yet neither of them do perish; yea and that the world itself shall not utterly perish so as there be no more heaven or earth or air, but shallbe burned only to the purging and renewing thereof. The other objection is taken from the words of Christ, that in the resurrection 
p Pag. 182. b. Qui resurrectionem assequentur erunt tunc velut angeli, etc. Angeli verò carnem non habentes in summa beatitudine & propterea gloria sunt. Ergo etiam nos, etc.  we shall be as the Angels; but the Angels are in perfect bliss and glory not having flesh, and therefore we shallbe so also. It is answered, 
q Pag. 183. a. Christus igitur si non esset resurrectio carnis sed anima solum seruaretur, suffragatus esset ipsis velut benè ac rectè sentientibus. Nunc verò respondit dicens, In resurrectione, etc. non quòd carnem non habent, sed quòd non matrimonium contrabunt, sed sunt de caetero in incorruptibilitate, & per hoc angelis assimilates dicit, etc. Sicut angeli; gloria nempe & honore coronati, etc. Quare absurdissimum est dicere, Quoniam Christus pronunciavit sanctos conspiciendos esse velut angelos in resurrectione, ob id corpora haec non resurgere.  that if there were no resurrection but the soul only were saved, Christ would have accorded to the Sadduces as being well and rightly persuaded. But now he answereth saying, In the resurrection they marry not nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels of God in Heaven, not because they have not flesh or bodies, but for that they marry not, but are thenceforth in state of incorruption, crowned with glory and honour, and thereby likened to the angels. In a word he saith, that it is a most absurd thing to say that because Christ saith we shall in the resurrection be seen as Angels, therefore these bodies (mark what he saith, these bodies) do not rise again. And that it must be understood of these bodies he proveth even by the term of resurrection. 
r Ibid. Resurrectio n●n de non lapso sed de lapso dicitur & resurgente, etc. Moritur autem caro; Anima enim immortalis est. Promde si anima est immortalis, corpus autem ipse mortuus, qui r●surrectionem quidem esse dicunt, verùm carnis non esse, high resurrectionem negant.  For resurrection is not named of that that is not fallen, but of that that is fallen and doth rise again. Now it is the flesh that dieth, for the soul is immortal; and if the soul be immortal, and it be the body that is dead, than they that say there is a resurrection but not of the flesh, do deny the resurrection. For conclusion he setteth forth death and resurrection by comparison of sleeping and waking, affirming, that 
s Ibid. c Quemadm● dum ex dormiendo excitari ac vigilari contingit: sic etiam vivere ex morte continget & non omninò qui mortuus est postquam mortuus suerit in eodem mane●.  as it befalleth a man to rise and wake from sleep, being the same rising that he was when he lay down to sleep, so doth it befall also to live again from death, so as that the dead doth not still continue in that state. Hitherto than it is plain that all this discourse tendeth directly to the confuting of Proclus and Origen, and therefore that M. Bishop was scarcely in good temper in the reading hereof, that took all these words to be the words of Proclus. One only exception he yet further hath, that what is Proclus his opinion and proposition in the beginning, where I designed it, the very same is his conclusion five leaves after, where he endeth his discourse with a comparison of our mortal bodies to a beasts hide filled with water. He setteth down the words and then saith: Do you not see how the same that Proclus propounded in the beginning with Origen, the same he concludeth in the end? Wherefore all that whole discourse between those two places was his own, and no word in it of Methodius. But by M. Bishop I see that a wise man would as well have looked to the middle as to the beginning and the end. It is true indeed that in the end as it is distinguished there are certain words of Proclus, but M. Bishop's understanding should have served him to look in what manner they come in. For the author of that discourse having proceeded so far as I have declared, concludeth that matter thus; 
t Pag. 183. c. etc. Caeterum de his plura dicere in praesens, eptime Theophile, voique reliqui sermonis judices, omittamus. Arriptamus autem ea quae deinceps ad haec consequuntur, quomodo longè ab eo ●p oportet discessit, quando in prophetia sexagesimi quinti Psalmi quam coactè & impropriè exponit, resurrectionem in sola specie servari sperare oportet, dicit.  But let us give over, O noble Theophilus, and you other judges of our speech, to speak any more of these things at this time. Whereupon follow these words; But let us take also those words which hereupon further follow, how far he departed from the right when in the prophecy of the threescore and fift Psalm which he expoundeth forcedly and unproperly he saith, We must expect that the resurrection shall be performed in shape only. Mark well, gentle Reader, how he that hath spoken all this while professeth to cite other words of Proclus, taxing him for departing from the right, for forced and unproper exposition, and setting down the opinion wherein he departed from the right to be this, that the resurrection shall be only in the same shape. What; do we hear him that speaketh condemning Proclus, and yet must we believe M. Bishop to take the words whereby he is condemned to be the words of Proclus? Nay hereupon are the words of Proclus rehearsed to the same effect as M. Bishop hath set down, that as a beasts hide being filled with water, if by little and little it be emptied, and by little and little be filled again, it carrieth still the same show though it be not still the same water; even so our bodies being by food and evacuation altered and changed from day to day, though they still have the same shape and show, yet in substance of flesh continue not the same, and therefore being not now the same for a few days together, shall not be the same at the resurrection. This he setteth down as the sum of origen's opinion, and then against the objection of the body of Christ he answereth, that Christ's body was not as ours are, his being not conceived in sin but by the power of the holy Ghost, whereas ours are sleep and pleasure and filth, fit to be lest to beasts and worms. The words of Proclus being thus delivered, the Latin interpreter maketh a division thus, Sequuntur nunc ipsius Methodij verba: there follow now the words of Methodius himself, where in the Greek there is no more but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the rest or the remnant of Methodius; wherein he setteth down a narration of that which befell as it seemeth upon Proclus his declamation already mentioned upon the threescore and fift Psalm, namely that thereupon they grew to a disputation, Methodius and Auxentius on the one side, Aglaophon and Proclus on the other side, as was before said. In which disputation Methodius having convinced Aglaophon, that 
u Pag. 186. Qui ligatus est non potest peccare; Coarctatur enim● nec permittitur a vinculo. At corpus ad peccandum est auxiliarium, etc. Non ergo corpus est vinculum, etc.  the body cannot be said to be the prison of the soul, as Origen held it to be, because a prison is for restraint of a man from doing that for which he is imprisoned, but the body is so far from being a restraint from sin, as that it is a helper thereto, goeth on forward again in another large speech to the same effect and purpose as hath been already declared. Thus I have at large handled the matter of that large discourse, that thou mayest see, gentle Reader, how absurdly and unhonestly M. Bishop dealeth with thee, who being admonished of his oversight, will yet wilfully go on to persuade thee that that is a bad discourse, as he calleth it, of an heretic, which so plainly appeareth to be a memorable speech of a reverend and godly Bishop. Proclus held that the same body shall not rise again. The author of that discourse proveth that the same body shall rise again. Therefore the author of that discourse was not Proclus but Methodius, which being approved by Epiphanius, my former speech is justified, that these two ancient godly Bishops, Methodius and Epiphanius did teach as the Protestants do, that sin is not utterly rooted out or taken away by baptism, but continueth in the regenerate so long as this life continueth. And now I pray you, M. Bishop, to tell us whether you or I be more worthy to be thrust into the Ass' skin, and whether you have not given us just cause to doubt that you are so hidebound therewith as that it will very hardly be pulled from you? Surely we shall think you are no Ass if you give us many more such tokens of your discretion and honesty as you have done here.  
17. To return now to his preface, again he telleth his Reader, that 
* Pag. 11.  if he would make a Catalogue of M. Abbot's corruptions, falsifications and other odd tricks, he should hither reduce the greatest part of his book: but this that I have here declared, saith he, cannot but suffice to discredit him with all indifferent men. But in thee, gentle Reader, the judgement resteth, whether he have said any thing to cast discredit upon me, or whether he hath not rather heaped shame and confusion upon his own head. Surely he that thus crieth out with a wide mouth of falsifications and corruptions, and in a whole book can bring no better proofs or examples thereof than he hath here done, doth exceedingly justify his adversary, and plainly declare that his outcry is not upon occasion but only by device. If, saith he, he hath wittingly misreported such worthy authors of purpose to beguile the credulous Reader, than he hath a most seared and corrupt conscience unworthy the name of a Divine, and walking alive is dead in conscience, and consequently in credit with all men that love the truth, for the tongue that lieth, killeth the soul. Be it so; I willingly subscribe the sentence; the doom is just, and let it so befall to him that dealeth in that sort. His untruths, saith he, are so plain and palpable that you need no more but compare his reports with the authors words, and at first sight any mean scholar shall find his cozenage and deceit. But therefore have I now set down the authors words which he hath not done, and thereby the Reader shall see where the cozenage and deceit is. He professeth to have read the places: if he have done that himself which he imputeth to me, he hath pronounced his own doom: if God give him not grace to repent, woe be unto him, and better had it been for him that he had never been borne. We are come now, he saith, to the last kind of abuse offered by me to the sacred Senate of those most renowned ancient fathers. And what is that? forsooth to deny their authority flatly, to control and censure them as simple men, to accuse them of error and falsehood, yea and to prefer the opinions of old rotten heretics before them, and herein, he saith, I do most ingenuously discover the right humour of a true Protestant. But I must tell him that the Protestants make more true account of the ancient fathers, and do yield them more honour than the Papists do. The Protestants give all authority to the ancient Fathers, save where the Fathers are overruled by the word of God. The Papists overrule the Fathers by their own Decrees, and the will and pleasure of a buzzardly Pope or of a few blind Bishops depending upon him, must be with them of more account and reckoning than all the Fathers of the Church. They doubt not plainly to say, that 
x 24. q. 1. Quotiescunque contra Papae authoritatem nec Augustinus nec Hieronymus nec aliquis Doctorum suam sententiam defendit.  neither Austin, nor Hierome, nor any of the Doctors may maintain his opinion against the authority of the Pope. I have before noted a speech of theirs generally of the Fathers; 
y Index Expurgat. Belg. in censur. Bertrami. Cum in Catholicis veteribus alijs plurimos feramus errores, & extenuemus, excusemus, excogitato commento persaepè negemus & commodum ijs sensum affingamus dum opponuntur in disputationibus aut inconflictionibus cum adversarijs.  In the old Catholic writers we bear with very many errors, but we extenuate and lessen them, we excuse and make the best of them: by some devised shift we often deny them or set some good meaning on them when they are opposed in disputations or in combats with our adversaries. What, and will a Papist now say that there are errors in the Fathers? Yes forsooth, where the Fathers speak as the Protestants do, there the Fathers must be said to err, yea, in very many things, and then their authority must be flatly denied, they must be censured for simple men, accused of error and falsehood, and the opinions both of old and new heretics must be preferred before them. But let us see in particular of whom he speaketh. The first is Eusebius that most famous Historiographer, as he calleth him; of whom I use these words: 
z Answer to the epist. sect. 26. pag. 177.  Let him give me leave to censure Eusebius a little, because the Canons of their own Church have censured him much more. And what is the censure whereof I spoke? No less than this, that 
a Gelas. 1. Decret. de Apocryph. dist. 15. sancta Romana. Historia Eusebij Pamphili apochrypha, etc. Haec & omnia his similia, etc. non solum repudiata, verumetiam ab omni Romana Catholica & Apostolica ecclesia eliminata, atque cum suis authoribus in aternum confitemur esse damnata.  his story by Gelasius Bishop of Rome with seventy other Bishops is pronounced Apocryphal and itself with the author abandoned with the rest, out of the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, which censure I noted to have been by Gratian also transcribed into their Decrees. Now is this judgement pronounced upon Eusebius in the church of Rome, and doth a Romanist think much that I touch Eusebius for an iniudicious & presumed application of an act of Constantine, and that when he himself giveth occasion to touch him therein, confessing that Constantine said nothing thereof, and declaring that Constantine at his death gave occasion to conceive the contrary? Thus is Ruffinus charged by Bellarmine, 
b Bellarm. de Rom. Pont. lib. 2. c. 13. falsa est expositio Ruffin.  with expounding falsely the Council of Nice, Socrates to be 
c Idem de cultu sanct. ca 10. Dico Socratem haereticum fuisse Novatiamum, neque eius testimonium in dogmatibus ullius esse momenti.  a Novatianheretike, and his testimony nothing worth in matters of doctrine; Zozomen to be 
d Idem de Clericis. cap. 20. ex Greg. l 6. ep. 31. Ipsam historiam (Sozomeni) sedes Apostolica reciperc recusat, quoniam multa mentitur, etc.  a liar in many things, which Gregory hath noted of him, and signified the rejecting of his story by the Church of Rome. May they now thus at their pleasure reject the ancient Historians of the Church, and was it so heinous a matter for me to censure Eusebius, being known to have been an Arian heretic, for fathering upon Constantine a superstition which it appeareth by himself he gave him no occasion to conceive of him?  
18. There followeth chrysostom in the next place, against whom Sixtus Senensis sticketh not to put in an exception, that 
e Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. sanct. l. 5. in Prafat. Chrysostomus impetu disceptandicum Manichaeis & Gentibus, etc. saeponumerò naturae nostrae vires plus aequo attollit.  by heat of reasoning against the Manichees and Heathens he doth often too much extol the power of nature; and Andradius, condemning Origen of great error for imputing sin to the Virgin Mary, saith, that 
f Andrad. Defence. fidei Trident. l. 5. Neque ab hoc Origenis errato Chrysostomus plurimum abfuit; etc.  chrysostom was not far from the same error of Origen when he charged her with importunity and ambition for that she interrupted her son as he was preaching. Will they again at their liberty thus tax chrysostom, and do I offend in saying, that 
g Answer to the epistle sect. 25. pag. 175.  as an Orator he apprehended a thing to speak according to present occasion which otherwise he approved not, when I give plain demonstration and proof that it is so? The place itself, gentle Reader, will satisfy thee, neither need I to use any defence of it. So will the other also, where I say of a speech of chrysostom concerning Constantine's son, that 
h Ibid. pag. 176.  howsoever it proceeded from him, it is much different from the certain story. I show that it is so: what a vain brangler is he to cavil at my words when as he is not able to control the proof?  
19 The next abuse that he noteth is to S. Austin, wherein he playeth Will summers part, striking him that is next him, but letting him alone by whom he himself is stricken. My words are these; 
i Answer to the Epistle sect. 8. pa. 54. ex Erasm. argument. in lib. Hieronym. adverse. joninian. Diws Augustin●o errores quosdam confert in iovinianum quos tamen illi non impingit Hieronymus, utique non dissimulaturus siquid tale docuisset, etc. Verùm apparet diwm Augustinum nec Iouiniani nec in hunc Hieronymi libros legisse: tantum rumore populari didicisse quod noverat de joviniano.  Erasmus observeth truly that Austin chargeth jovinian with some errors, whereof Hierome maketh no mention, who would not have passed by them if jovinian had taught them, whereby it appeareth as he collecteth, that Austin had neither read jovinians books nor Hieromes books against jovinian, but only by people's rumours and talk had learned that that he knew concerning jovinian. I note what Erasmus collecteth; Erasmus himself giveth reason of his so collecting, and was not this a mortal abuse committed by me towards S. Austin; that M. Bishop should say as he doth? In like manner he slandereth S. Austin for writing against jovinian, whose opinions, saith M. Abbot very audaciously, S. Austin knew only by hearsay and not of any certainty. Dost thou not think he is well skilled in his art that can so well bombast such a quarrel as this is? But there is forsooth another matter, that I say Austin was deceived where he said that no Priests embraced jovinians opinion. And did I not prove so much by Hierome himself that there were both Bishops & Priests of the same mind? Yea that the Clergy & Monks of the church of Rome notwithstanding the sentence of Siricius then Bishop of Rome retained still their opinion, that married wives are the same (with God) as Virgins are? the thing is plain, and were M. Bishop so wise as he should be, he would never trouble us with such idle stuff.  
20. I note Hierome 
k Ibid. pag. 54.  for rude & undecent speeches against marriage. He that will know whether he used any such or not, let him read his epistle, ad Gerontiam de Monogamia, and his first book against jovinian, in which his usage is such in that behalf as gave occasion of great offence in Rome, so as that the greatest part of his Apology to Pammachius is spent in excusing such speeches which notwithstanding, to say the truth, very slenderly he doth. That he wrote against jovinian with 
l Pag. 57  all indignation and stomach who doubteth that readeth what he wrote? who seethe not that he laboured to the uttermost of his power to disgrace him against whom he wrote? As for railing I mention it not by mine own words but by the words of Erasmus, who saith of him against Vigilantius; 
m Answer to the epist. sect. 9 pag. 67. ex Erasm. argum. in lib. Hieron. adverse. Vigilantium. In hunc ita convicijs debacchatur Hieronymus ut plusculum in eo modestiae cogar desiderare. utinam argumentu duntaxat egisset & a convicijs temperasset.  He doth so rail at him as that I cannot but wish that he had showed more modesty. I would he had dealt by argument only and had for borne railing speeches. False doctrine I name not, but if there be nothing false in Hierome how cometh it about that Bellarmine mentioning that 
n Bell. de Rom. Pont. lib. 1. c. 8. Videtur beatus. Hieronymus inea sententia fuisse ut existimaret episcopo● esse presbyteris maiores iure ecclesiastico non divino, qua sententia falsa est & suo loco refectetur.  Hierome seemeth to be of that opinion that Bishops by the law of God are not superior to Priests, saith, that that opinion is false, and he will afterwards refute it; or how doth Alfonsus De Castro say, that 
o Alphons. de Castro adverse. haeres. l. 6. apud Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. sanct. l. 6. annot. 324. Non veretur fateri Hieronymum hac in part errasse.  he doubteh not to confess that Hierome in that behalf erred, as Sixtus Senenfis hath reported of him? Thus it appeareth that I have not taken exception against any father but that they themselves also except against the same, as they do also against the rest. Of justinus, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Oecumenius Bellarmine saith, 
p Bellarm. de sanct. beatitud. c. 6. justini, Irenaei, etc. sententiam non video quo pacto possimus ab errore defendere.  I do not see how we can defend their opinion from error. 
q Idem de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 7. Videtur mortalitèr peccasse cùm praecepto expresso Apostolico non paruerit.  Cyprian, he saith, seemeth to have sinned mortally for that he obeyed not the express commandment of the Bishop of Rome. In another case he saith, 
r Ibid. cap. 8. Respondeo non esse omninò fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac part, quandoquidem ipse Montanista erat.  Tertullian is not to be believed because he was a Montanist. Again he saith, 
s Idem de verb. Dei interpret. ca 10. Constat quosdam ex praecipuis corum non levitèr in quibusdam lapsos.  It is certain that some of the chief of the fathers have greatly erred in some things. This being so, what other doth M. Bishop but play the Sycophants part in calumniating us for disclaiming sometimes the opinions of some fathers, when we deal therein no otherwise than they themselves do, nor do indeed dissent from them in so many things as they do? It hath hitherto, God be thanked, very well appeared, that though sometimes we dislike the opinion of a father, yet in all the questions that we have handled, the fathers have yielded more strength to us than they have done to them.  
21. But here he maketh haste to acquaint the Reader with the most shameless prank of all other, in which he hath showed himself as shameless as he hath done in all the other. In his epistle to the King he hath charged us with the heresies of Vigilantius, Aerius, jovinian. It hath been answered him in what sort and how far we agree with these, and what reason we have for that we do. Hear like the cuckoo he barely singeth over the same song again, and not here only but 
* Pag. 252.253. etc.  again also towards the end of his book; he disprooueth not our answer, he confuteth not our reasons, but only babbleth, that we prefer the most infamous condemned heretics even in the very points of their errors, before the most judicious, learned and sincere Doctors of the Church. For as the hackney that is accustomed to one way, if he be put beyond or beside that way hath no pace at all; even so he having learned a form to cry out against jovinian, Aerius and Vigilantius, is very expert and ready in that, but put him beyond that and he is dumb and hath nothing more to say. But I answer briefly, that it skilleth not what or how mean they were. We rest not our belief upon any of them, but only join with them, where they hold that which God hath taught both us and them. We know it to be true which the Poet hath said, that 
t Juvenal. Sape etiam stultus fuit opportunae locutus.  a fool many times speaketh a wise word, & which S. Austin saith and doubteth not thereof, that 
u August. de Anima cap. 1. Feri posse non ambigo ut aliquid imperito & indocto cuipiam scire contingat quod aliquis doctus & peritus ignorat.  it may befall to an ignorant and unlearned man to know something which the skilful and learned man is ignorant of. And in a word as Hierom though Epiphanius had noted Aerius for an heretic for that he affirmed that by the law of God. 
x Epiph. haeres. 79. Quid est episcopus ad presbyteruns? Nihil differt hic ab illo; unus enim est ●rdo, & unus honour, etc.  Bishops had no superiority over Priests, but they were both equal and the same, held that no reason for him to renounce therein the opinion of Aerius, whereof 
y Hieron. ad evagr. Apostolus docet eosdem esse presbyteros quosepiscopo●, & in Tit. 1. Idem presbyter qui episcopus. Noverint episcopi se consuetudine magis quàm dispositionis dominicae veritate presbyteris esse maiores.  he thought himself by good reason rightly persuaded; even so though Hierome and Austin have for some points taxed jovinian and Vigilantius as heretics, and Epiphanius in another point Aerius, yet is that no sufficient motive to us to forsake those opinions of jovinian, Aerius and Vigilantius, so long as we have warrant by the word of God and by good inducements of antiquity to be persuaded as they were. And as Hierome held it no prejudice to him that Aerius otherwise was an Arian heretic because in this he condemned him though he agreed with him in the other, even so it is no prejudice to us that either Aerius was an Arian, or jovinian and Vigilantius taught otherwise amiss, because we profess to agree with them only in the truth, but in what they taught against the truth are ready to condemn them. Further I say nothing here, but refer the Reader to that that in my answer to his epistle I have already said; only noting how untruly he saith, that I confess in the same place that the conceit of the holiness of virginity before the holiness in marriage was by the whole court of Rome maintained at those days, whereas I show that setting aside the Bishop of Rome, both Clergy and Laity, Nobles and others, Monks and such as professed continency were in that behalf adverse to Hierome and did most scandalously take it that he should say that virginity was a holier estate than marriage was, yea and gave honour and countenance to jovinian, which I verily resolve they would never have done, so well am I persuaded of the church and City of Rome that then was, if he had been a man of so base and bad condition as Hierome in his choler reporteth him to have been. As for his declamation hereupon following it is but idle stuff and an empty flourish of his Romish Rhetoric, his tongue mightily outrunning his wit, in talking of the poor miserable Protestants blindly bend to defend their own errors; of their consorting themselves with heretics; of likelihood that Austin, Hierom and Epiphanius, should see more than jovinian, Vigilantius and Aerius, as if the Protestants built any thing upon the sight and authority of any of these; of my misapplying, misconstruing, corrupting, and falsifying the Doctors sentences as Caluin saith the Libertines did the Scriptures, of their being deceived that thought I had beaten the Papists with their own weapons; of our catching hold only of some broken sentences of the Fathers to astonish and deceive the simple Reader: All these are but words, and we know his wind serveth him to give words enough, but how simply he maketh good his words appeareth by that that hath been and shall be said.  
22. He cometh now to show how reverently I behave myself towards the holy Scripture. One example he will give here whereby the Reader may take scantling of the rest. It is contained in some words of mine in answer of the first section of his Epistle. 
t Answer to the Epistle sect. 1. pag. 6.  This is the thing, say I, that M. Bishop laboureth for, seeking with Elymas the sorcerer 
u Act. 13.10.  To PERVERT THE STRAIGHT WAYS OF THE LORD, and whereas his Majesty as he confesseth hath made open and often profession of his vigilancy and care to advance the divine honour of our Saviour Christ and his most sacred religion, he would in stead thereof draw him to advance the idol 
x Dan. 11.38.  MAUZZIM the god of Antichrist, and to establish 
y 2. Pet. 2.1.  DAMNABLE HERESIES by him PRIVILY BROUGHT IN, whereby his agents and factors 
z vers. 3.  THROUGH COVETOUSNESS WITH FEIGNED WORDS MAKE MERCHANDISE OF 
a Revel. 18.13.  THE SOULS OF MEN, 
b Tit. 1.11.  SPEAKING THINGS WHICH THEY ought NOT FOR FILTHY LUCRE'S SAKE. The first fault that he findeth here is the dismembering of God's word, and renting of it in pieces, with which pieces oddly and idly patched together, he maketh up, saith he, as it were a poor beggars cloak rather than any testimony of Scripture. Now may we not think that this man was very destitute of examples of my abusing of holy Scripture, that upon such a pretence as this would bring in such an example as this is? I name Elymas the sorcerer seeking to pervert the straight ways of the Lord; I note the place where it is said that he did so. I mention Mauzzim as the god of Antichrist according to the exposition of sundry of the Fathers; I direct the Reader where it is that the Scripture maketh mention of him; I tell what the work of Antichrist shall be; I express it by the words of the Apostle Peter, which are a Prophecy of the time of Antichrist, that by himself and his he shall privily bring in damnable heresies, and through covetousness with feigned words shall make merchandise of men. And that this merchandise shall be of the souls of men, I forgot to note it, but should have done out of Revel. 18.13. where the souls of men are reckoned amongst the merchandise of the whore of Babylon. And how this shall be done, I note by the words of the Apostle concerning such deceivers and false teachers, that they speak things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake. Is this now that dismembering and renting of God's word in pieces that he complaineth of? Surely I have not dismembered the word of God, but it seemeth his understanding is dismembered that can no better conceive what it is to dismember the word of God. He is grieved that the word of God fiteth so rightly to describe the Master whom he serveth, and for whom he hath yielded so far to engage his own soul. But saith he, the words hang untowardly together; for if his Majesty should be persuaded to advance the idol Mauzzim the God of Antichrist, he could not establish heresies privily brought in. And why so? For that false God, saith he, will wholly oppose himself against Christ, and openly profess idolatry and compel others to do the same. And even so doth the Pope, even so, I say, the Pope doth wholly oppose himself against Christ, persecute the faith of Christ, tread under his feet the laws of Christ, openly profess idolatry, and compel others to do the same. But he is said privily to bring indamnable heresies, not because he doth not openly profess them, but because he bringeth them in underhand, by goodly pretences and colourable shows, by feigned & fair glozing words, hiding therewith so much as he can the iniquity and impiety that is contained in them. In which sort Saint Paul saith, that 
c 1. Tim. 4.1.2  the spirits of error shall speak lies in hypocrisy, so that though the doctrines which they teach be doctrines of devils, yet they shall colour them with fair pretences of piety and religion, that they may not seem to be that that indeed they are. For in this sort the Pope delivereth all his lies, colouring all with the pretence of the name of Christ. He is the vicar of Christ and whatsoever he doth, he doth it by the authority of Christ. He setteth up fairs and markets for selling and buying forgiveness of sins, and we must think that he doth it by a power received from Christ. He teacheth men to commit idolatry in the worshipping of images, but he beareth them in hand that therein they honour Christ and the servants of Christ. It would be too long fully to discover how Babylon being 
d Revel. 17.5.  the mother of the whoredoms and abominations of the earth, yet doth all in amystery, 
e 2. Thess. 2.7.  a mystery of iniquity, as the Apostle calleth it, giving her poison in a golden cup, and by golden terms commending those things whereby she impiously profaneth the true worship of God. Whereas M. Bishop saith, that Antichrist will not suffer any God to be worshipped but himself, it is a fable. He shall not deny the worshipping of God, but 
f 2. Thess. 2.4.  he shall exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped. So hath the Pope done, lifting up himself above God in that he taketh upon him to dispense against the Law of God, to repeal what God hath established, to unsay what Christ hath said, and to say otherwise what he list, verifying in himself that which S. Hierom saith of Antichrist; 
g Hieron. in Dan. cap. 7. Elevatur supra omne quod dicitur Deus cunctam religionem suae subijciens potestati.  He shall subject all religion to his own power. Nothing is God's word but as he expoundeth it; no article of faith is to be taken but as he declareth it; nothing to be approved for religion that hath not warrant from him, and what he list to warrant must be taken for religion. M. Bishops third exception is upon a false ground. These words, saith he, are most falsely and fond applied to us Roman Catholic Priests; for that false god of Antichrist shall not be advanced by the Romans, but fought against and foiled by them. A mere fancy: for that 
h Part. 2. in the defence of M. Perkins Prologue. pag. 39 etc.  Rome is Babylon and the Pope Antichrist hath been already proved, and that must stand till by M. Bishop it be disproved. The words of Daniel, The Galls and Romans shall come upon him, etc. belong not to Antichrist but to Antiochus, who though in his outrage and fury against the Temple and people of God he prefigured the abomination of desolation that should stand in the holy places of the Church; and the prophecy of Daniel be so far forth to be extended both to the one and to the other, yet in the same prophecy had many things otherwise proper to himself, which to apply to Antichrist is most ridiculous and vain, and that the rather for that there is mention made of some nations therein which were being in the time of Antiochus, and the prophecy in them was accomplished, 
i Dan. 11.41.  the Edomites, the Ammonites and Moabites, whereof there is now no more name or remembrance under heaven, that the prophecy of Antichrist should be expected to be verified in them.  
23. As for covetousness and desire of filthy lucre, and making merchandise of souls for the satisfying thereof, it properly concerneth Romish Priests. It is well known to the world by what means they have formerly gotten the riches of the world into their hands. By the same means now do Seminary Priests feed their bellies and  their backs; if not in such manner as they desire, it is but with them as many times it is with whoremongers and drunkards who are content to live otherwise in penury & want, so that they may have but to continue them in their beastly and filthy life. But, M. Bishop, we too well see that you and your fellows have too little cause to complain thereof. A friend of yours could once familiarly tell an acquaintance of his what base reckoning is made of our Ministers, but for them how they were magnified and honoured, and where they came had all things at command. The truth is, that according to the world it is better with you than it is with many of them whom you envy for their Bishoprics and Deaneries, and many other also that are honester than you be. As for Tyburn you have not to fear it for religion but for treason only, because you yield your loyalty and fidelity from your Sovereign and natural Prince to an usurping foreign Priest. So long as you do so, whatsoever your colours be, justly shall Tyburn belong to you. I know how much ado you have made both in the beginning and end of your book to acquit yourself in that behalf. You shot out your bolt to the King, God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity may constrain and drive men unto at the length. You are desirous to persuade us that that was but a friendly caution against that you feared might come to pass, not any threatening of any thing to be done. And although the words were used when the powder-treason was in hand, yet it was not meant thereof, neither were any of their part consenting or willing to it but a few green heads, some rash unadvised Catholics for the greater part decayed in their estates. But his disloyal and traitorous mind therein appeareth, that he thus dreiveth this matter to a few green heads, when as by course of legal proceeding and by the King's majesties Declaration to foreign States it is made manifest that that hellish designment had the privity and consent of sundry their principal jesuits, and there were then commonly amongst them all prayers for the success of some special enterprise in their behalf, though they knew not what it was. For my part concerning all that justification of his, I briefly answer with the words of S. Austin; 
k August. in 1. joan. tract. 3. Opera loquuntur & verba requirimus? Quis enim malus non benè vult loqui?  Your deeds speak, and shall we listen after your words? for who is so bad but he will say well? S. Austin said to Petilian the Donatist; 
l Idem. count lit. Petilian. l. 2. c. 64. De vestra mansuet●dine non tuae voces; sed Circumcellionum fustes interrogentur.  Of your gentleness we will not ask your words, but the bats and clubs of the Circumcellions. So say I to M. Bishop; Of your fidelity we will not question your words, but the continual and manifold plots of villainies and treasons that have proceeded from your consorts.  
24. The conclusion of his Preface concerneth me. He telleth his Reader, that he shall seldom light upon any Divine that dealeth more unsufficiently or perfidiously, that I set a brazen face upon the matter, speak confidently, convey cunningly, gilled artificially, seeming some jolly fellow and a rare flourishing writer, and being one of the most shallow and beggarly writers of these days; a very Mount-banke, setting forth for fresh and new merchandise the very rif-raf and refuse of other Protestant authors, bringing nothing that hath not been by their part, so shaken, battered and beaten, that it can not be but a foul disgrace among the learned to put into light and to set to sale so base, overworn, threadbare and ragged stuff. But what, M. Bishop, is all that I have said so threadbare, so overworn, so many times answered in so many of your books, and could not you all this while contract so much marrow and pith out of your large volumes as should serve to reply to one whole part of that that hath been answered to you? I smile at his folly herein, and can not withal but pity him, that he hath not so much wit as to think that every man will wonder, that against such a writer and such an answer he should not be able in three years and more to defend so much as his Epistle to the King, yea and that to make good that which he saith, he can bring no better exceptions than he hath here done. I see that he is not willing to make sale of me; he would feign have me stick still to him, and so, God willing, I will, till my rags have choked him, and my threadbare stuff have worn him so bare, as that he shall be ashamed to come any more into the company of honest men.  
25. In the mean time and until I can give further defence against his Reproof, I pray thee, gentle Reader, by some few examples to take knowledge what sincerity or fidelity thou art to expect of him who hath so deeply charged me with the want thereof. And here first I wish thee to observe how, that he may lay an imputation of untruth upon me, he sticketh not to eat and deny his own words. I said in my Epistle Dedicatory to the King, that he chargeth the religion professed by his Majesty with heresies, impieties, blasphemies, etc. He answereth me thus: 
m Reproof, pag. 25. 26.  You in the weightier part falsely slander me, which I will prove even by your own testimony; for I say, as it may be seen in your own book, that I will let pass their impiety that make God the author of all wickedness, and say nothing of their blasphemy who touch our Saviour with doubting, if not with despair of his own salvation; in which speech I tax by the way Caluin and Beza and some other, etc. Whereas both in my book and in his own his words are general as touching the Protestants religion which the King professeth: 
n Answer to the epistle. sect. 13.14. pag. 109. 121.  Thus much for my first reason collected from the untruth of the Protestants religion. The second shall be grounded upon the ungodliness of it, where I will let pass that high point of impiety that they make God the author of all wicked actions, etc. and will beside say nothing of that their blasphemy against our Saviour, etc. See here, the protestants religion, the ungodliness of it, they make God the author of sin, their blasphemy against our Saviour, all in general, no show of restraining it to Caluin and Beza, and yet, as if he presumed that the books were all lost and no further to be seen, he dareth to challenge me for slandering him, and to refer me thereupon to mine own book, where he saw and where it is open for every man to see that he himself lieth: but this is a trifle perhaps, to deny his own words; thou shalt discern him much more plainly in the usage of mine. In 
o Pag. 12.  answer to the second section of his Epistle I say thus: 
p Bulla Pij. 5. & de Mayor. & obed. cap. unam sanctam.  Behold, saith the Pope, we are set over nations and kingdoms, to build up and to plant, to pull up and to destroy, etc. and therefore what the wisdom of God saith, as M. Bishop allegeth, 
q Prou. 8.15.  By me King's reign, the same the Pope blasphemously apply 
r Ceremon. eccles. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 2. Ad sum. mum pontificem D●i vices gerentem in terris tanquoam ad eum per quem reges regnant, etc.  to himself, Per me reges regnant, By me Kings reign. To prove that the Pope saith, that By him Kings reign, I alleged his own book, Sacrar. ceremon. eccl. Rom. l. 1. c. 2. where it is expressly said, that it is he by whom Kings do reign, as I have now set down in his own words even as 
* supra. sect. 5.  before I noted him, saying of the Emperor, By me he reigneth. Now in setting down my text in 
s Reproof. pag. 82.  his book he quite leaveth out the citation, and then telleth his Reader, 
t Pag. 84.  This is the fift lie that he makes within the compass of less than half a side: for albeit the Pope use the words spoken to the Prophet jeremy, Ecce nos constituti sumus, etc. yet doth he not those by King Solomon uttered in the person of God's wisdom, which M. Abbot deceitfully shuffleth in. But, M. Bishop, do I lie indeed? What, will you tell me that I lie, and in the mean time suppress the proof whereby it should appear that I do not lie? If I should thus deal, I know what you would term it, and I could not but acknowledge it; what it is in you, let the world judge: I forbear to give it the right name. Another prank he playeth of as great honesty as this, in putting in of words which are none of mine. 
u Answer to the epistle, sect. 3. pag 19  Our faith therefore, say I, because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolic faith, and our Church ex consanguinitate doctrinae, by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is procued to be an Apostolic church. At the end of which words M. Bishop 
x Reptoofe, pag. 103.  in setting down my text hath put in &c. as if there were something else to come in than he hath expressed, and in the rehearsing of them in his answer addeth these words, 
y Pag. 114.  And is the only true Catholic church; as if I had said, that our Church of England is the only true Catholic church, and is proved by perfection of doctrine to be the only true Catholic church, hereupon running upon me for saying the same which I reproved in the Donatists; whereas the words against which he fighteth are none of my words, but are most lewdly and falsely thrust in by himself. You tell me of tricks, M. Bishop, but if I had used such tricks as these and many other of yours, I would be ashamed ever to set pen to paper again. Remember what yourself have said, 
z Reproof, pag. 283.  The devils cause it is that needeth to be bolstered out and underpropped with lies.  
26. Yet further, gentle Reader, to give thee some small taste of his answers to the authorities by me alleged, thou mayest first take knowledge of those words of Austin; 
a Answer. to the epistle, sect. 3. pag. 18. ex August. count lit. Petilian. l. 3. c 6 Siquis sive de Christo sive de e●us ecclesia, sive de quaecunque re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram, non dicam, Nos, etc. sed si angelus de caelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in scriptures legalibus & Euangelicis accepistis, anathema sit.  If any man, nay if an Angel from heaven shall preach unto you concerning Christ or concerning his Church or concerning any thing pertaining to our faith and life but what ye have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospel, accursed be he. What saith M. Bishop here? 
b Reproof, pag. 112.  To S. Austin I answer, first, that those are not his formal words which he citeth. Is that all? But if those be not his formal words, why doth he not tell his Reader what his formal words are? Surely if he were a man formally honest, he would deal more materially than to mock his Reader in this sort. Well, though he will not tell the formal words, yet he expoundeth the meaning to be; if any shall preach contrary to that that is written, whereas S. Austin telleth us, that 
c August. de Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9 In ijs quae apertè in scriptura posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vinendi.  in those things which are plainly set down in the Scripture are found all those things which contain faith and conversation of life, and therefore meaneth not only, if any preach contrary, but as his words are, if any preach any thing beside that that is written, accursed be he.  
27. I alleged that S. Paul writing his epistle to the Romans 
d Answer to the epistle, sect. 4. pag. 24. ex Theodoret. praefat in epist. Pauli.  comprehended 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. The first part of these words in Latin he leaveth out in my text, and in his answer saith to it thus, 
e Reproof, pag. 132. 133.  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 M. Bishop this dealing of yours is somewhat too gross. Me thinks you should seek to be acquainted with some Egyptians, that you may learn of them somewhat more cunningly to shift and convey. Thou seest, gentle Reader, that he hath dashed out Omnis generis Doctrinam, all kind of Doctrine, wherein the force of the words consisteth, and then saith that by legerdemain I have Englished, Dogmatum pertractationem, all points of Doctrine. Do not marvel that he doth so, because he well perceived that by these words of Theodoret his Reader should see that if the Apostle comprehended in that epistle all kind of Doctrine, than the doctrine of the church of Rome, that now is, cannot be the same that it was of old, because they have so many Doctrines now, whereof there is nothing contained in that epistle.  
28. I produce Agatho Bishop of Rome professing 
f Answer to the epist. sect. 4. pag. 29.  duty of obedience to the Emperor Constantinus the fourth, and taking upon him obediently to perform what the said Emperor commanded. Hear his own words, gentle Reader, and judge thereof. 
g Agatho. epist. in synod. 6. Constantinop. Act. 4. Meliori resectus sum confidentia paulatim quae per mansuetissimae fortitudinis vestrae sacram dudum praecepta sunt efficaciter promptam obsequentiam exhibere, ut personas quales se●undum tempor is huius defectum ac seruilis provinciae qualitatem poterant inveniti pro obedientiae satisfactione inquireren, etc. Olim hoc quod vix tandem nunc fieri potuit, studiosa obedientia noster famulatus impleret. etc. secundum pijssimam iussionem a Deo protegendae mansuetudinis vestrae pro obedientia quam debuimus; non pro confidentia corum scientiae quos dirig imus praesentes confamulos nostros, etc. curavimus demandare, etc. Hoc imperialis vestra benignitas clementèr iul ens hortata est & nostra pusillitas quod iussum est, obsequentèr implevit, etc. Et paulò ante. Pro quibus flex● mentis poplite, supplicitèr vestram clementiam deprecamur ut acceptione eos dignos efficient, etc.  I am encouraged effectually to show ready obedience to the things commanded by your majesties writ; to inquire out for giving satisfaction of my obedience such persons as by the scarceness of this time and state of this servile Province may be found; this our service would long ago have performed with careful obedience, according to the most godly commandment of your Majesty I have had care for the obedience that I own, not for the confidence of the learning of them that I send, to direct unto you such and such my fellow servants; this your Imperial grace with gentleness commanding hath wished, and my pusillity hath obediently performed your commandment; for whom with bowing the knee of my heart I humbly beseech your clemency to vouchsafe to grant them acceptance. We here see what Agatho saith; now let us understand M. Bishop's answer: observe it well and think whether thou hast known any man's forehead so hard as his. First, he saith, 
h reproof pag. 180.  that he findeth no such words in the place by me quoted, marry, that he hath indeed but the abbridgement of the letter as it stands in the sum of the Counsels. But it is strange that he should light upon such an abbridgment whence he would take words going before and words following after, as he hath done, and could light upon none of these. This smelleth somewhat strong, but thou shalt perceive him by and by to stink outright. Forsooth he will not stand upon denial of the words, but by this kind of arguing, he saith, I might prove every Pope to profess due obedience to every private servant of God, because his ordinary style is, The servant of God's servants. But M. Bishop, I argued not; do not seek to blind your Reader in this sort; I did not of other words conclude a duty of obedience, but I brought the Bishop of Rome in his own words acknowledging this duty. The Pope calleth himself indeed the servant of God's servants, but we do not hear him say, that he oweth obedience to any, which he scorneth to profess or yield to the Emperor his Lord and Master, and we know the service which he professeth towards the servants of God standeth not in obeying but in ruling and commanding them. But we hear Agatho professing in terminis, that he oweth obedience to the Emperor, that he was careful to give satisfaction of his obedience, that he obediently performed the emperors commandment; that in his mind and affection being absent, he did bow the knee to entreat the emperors favour towards those whom he sent. How lewdly then doth M. Bishop presume of the blindness of his Reader that thus goeth about to persuade him that both these cases are alike? Well yet, all that we shall have is but this, that 
i Pag 170.  they are common and usual words of courtesy, 
k Pag. 181.  words uttered of custom & courtesy in all countries, and it is but a miserable shift of mine to use such words for sound proofs. Whether it be a miserable shift of mine let the Reader judge, but sure I am that he hath put it off with a very miserable and shameless answer. If all Italians and Frenchmen, saith he, that will say they are your servants should be taken short at their word and thereby be pressed to your obedience and service you might soon become a great signior over many stately servants that will do what they list. Yea but, M. Bishop, we see that Agatho doth perform obedience and service, and acknowledgeth to owe the same, and therefore what is that to this? And what; are all your Italians and Frenchmen so courteous as that they will profess by way of courtesy to owe obedience, and take upon them for giving satisfaction thereof to do what they are commanded? Surely, Sir, we see that you have learned much courtesy in Italy, and France, but we say commonly, Much courtesy, much craft, and therefore it is that here together with your courtesy you have showed us your craft also. You should not think any man to be so ignorant as not to know that though men use such complemental words of service each to other, yet never doth the superior take upon him to owe obedience to his inferior, specially one that is so infinitely superior, as they say the Pope is to the Emperor, and surely the Pope now, as courteous as he is, is far from that courtesy. I cited Leo to the same purpose, but it would be too long here to show how he abuseth him, and therefore I leave it to a larger answer.  
29. I alleged Gelasius Bishop of Rome affirming that in the Sacrament 
l Answer to the epist. sect. 4. pag. 27. ex Gelas. contra Eutych & Nestor. Nec tamen esse desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini.  there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine. He answereth, that 
m Reproof pag. 162.  the meaning is, that the nature of bread doth not wholly cease to be in the blessed Sacrament because the form, taste & savour of bread which be natural qualities thereof do still remain, though the whole inward substance be turned into the body of Christ. Compare his answer, I pray thee, with the allegation, and see how well and handsomely they agree, Gelasius saith, that there ceaseth not to be the substance of bread, and his meaning is, saith M. Bishop, that the substance doth cease to be, being wholly turned into the body of Christ. Gelasius saith, that the substance of bread remaineth, M. Bishop saith that he meaneth that the form, taste and savour of bread remaineth, but the substance remaineth not. Dost thou not think that this man hath a wonderful dexterity in answering, or canst thou wonder that with little ado, if need were, he should answer all the Fathers, yea and the whole Bible also that can tell us that where it is said, it ceaseth not, the meaning is, that it doth cease? But yet he saith that Gelasius in that place signifieth so much in that he affirmeth, that by the operation of the holy Ghost the bread and wine do pass into a divine substance. And it is true indeed that Gelasius so saith: But M. Bishop, did your eyes serve you to look no further? 
n Gelas. ut supra. Indiviuam transennt sancto spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen in suae proprietate naturae.  They pass, saith he, into a divine substance, but yet they remain in the propriety of their own nature; even as to the same purpose Theodoret saith; 
o Theodoret. dial. 1. Symbola & signa quae videntur appellatione corporis & sanguinis honoravit, non naturam quidem mutans sed naturae gratiam adijciens.  Christ honoured the visible signs with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature but adding grace unto nature. Now if they still continue in their own nature as before, than they do not so pass into a divine substance but that there is still the substance of bread and wine. The thing whereto Gelasius driveth that speech, is to show against Eutyches, that as in the Sacrament the bread and wine become unto us the body and blood of Christ and yet retain the same nature and substance as before, so the manhood of Christ being joined into one person with the Godhead is not thereby drowned or swallowed up, but continueth in substance the same that it was from the beginning. This he imagined to be very direct against the heresy of Eutyches, but by M. Bishps' transubstantiation it proveth wholly to the advantage thereof, for that it may be said that as in the Sacrament the substance of bread and wine are extinguished though there remain the show and likeness and taste thereof, so in the union of the manhood with the godhead there continued the semblance and likeness and outward appearance of a man, but the substance thereof was swallowed up and continued not. And this M. Bishop helpeth to strengthen by expounding nature to be understood of natural qualities, whereas Gelasius as he speaketh of the bread and wine, there ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine, so saith of Christ, 
p Gelas ibid. Dicimus proprietatem uniuscuiusque substantiae vel naturae in Christo manner perpetuam.  We say that the propriety of each substance or nature abideth continually in Christ, understanding still by nature the same that he doth by substance, as he hath said before, 
q Ibi. Substantia nulla est quae non natura dicatur.  There is no substance but it is called nature, even as Austin saith, 
r August. count julian. li. 1. ca 3. Natura est ipsa substantia. & cont. serm. Arianor. c. 36. unius eiusdemque substantiae vel ut expressiùs dicamus essentiae, quod plantùs dicitur, unius eiusdemque naturae.  The nature is the very substance, and, Of one and the same substance or essence, is more plainly said, of one and the same nature; which made the Euty chians that they could not endure to name 
s Gelas ibid. Quis ferat eos dedignari vocabula promere naturarum?  two natures in Christ, because thereby should be imported two entire and perfect substances. And albeit it be true that sometimes the name of nature is used to signify some intrinsical properties issuing immediately from the essence of the thing, yet he that shall say that the nature of bread and wine is the form and taste and savour thereof may be thought to speak like a natural rather than like a learned man. His exception that this Gelasius was not Bishop of Rome, is vain. It hath been still and is printed by themselves under his name. The conclusion doth give token that it was his; 
t Ibid. in fine. Hanc regulam Catholicae fidei, etc. cùm sedem Apostolicam vestram dilectio unanimitèr teneat, constantèr praedicet, sapien tèrque defendat.  seeing you beloved do with one mind hold fast the Apostolic sea, therefore constantly preach and wisely defend this rule of the Catholic faith, yea and that very fragment which we now have, is cited by 
u Bibliot. sanct. Patr. edit. 2. Iom. 4. pa. 557.  john the first his successor soon after to the same very purpose whereto he wrote it, which alone is sufficient for approbation thereof. Again I cited 
x Pag. 35.35.  Theodoret making mention, that the Council of Laodicea did forbid to pray to Angels or to worship them, and I alleged Austin noting them for heretics that did so. To S. Austin M. Bishop answereth nothing at all, with whom, as I cited, they are recorded for heretics, and termed 
y August. ad Quod vultd. haer. 39 Angeliciin Angelorum cultu inclinati.  Angelici, who were bowed down in the worship of Angels. How trimly he answereth to Theodoret and the Council of Laodicea shall be the better discerned if I first set down the words of Theodoret himself. Who handling the words of the Apostle, 
z Col 2.18.  Let no man at his pleasure be are rule over you by humbleness of mind and worshipping of Angels, saith thus, 
r Theodoret. in Col. 2. Qui le● g●m defendebant eos etiam ad angelos ●olendos inducebant, dicentes fuisse legem per eos datam. Mansit autem diu hoc vitium in Phrygia & Pisidia. Quocircae Synodus quoque quae convenit Laodiceae quae est Phrygiae metropolis lege prohibuit ne precaerentur Angelos. Et in hodiernum usque diem licet videre apud illos & eorum finitimos oratoria sancti Michaelis. Illi ergò hos consulebant humilitate utentes, dicentes, universorum deum nec cerni nec comprehend● nec perveniri ad eum posse, & oportere per Angelos divinam sibi henevolentiam conciliare. Hoc antem dixit Apostolus, In humilitate & cultu Angelorum.  They who defended the law did induce them (the Colossians) to worship Angels, saying that the Law was given by them. And this corruption continued long in Phrygia and Pisidia. Wherefore the Council of Laodicea the chief City of Phrygia, did by decree forbidden to pray to Angels. And even to this day we may see amongst them and others near to them Chapels of S. Michael. And this they persuaded pretending humility, saying that the Lord of all might not be seen nor comprehended nor come unto, and that by the Angels we must procure or obtain the good will or favour of God. And this, saith he, the Apostle meant by humility and worship of Angels. And what doth M. Bishop now say to this? The Council forsooth meant it 
s Reproof pag. 238.  of leaving our Saviour, jesus Christ, to commit idolatry to the Angels, preferring the Angels before him. But Theodoret knew well the meaning of the Council. Theodoret knew the occasion of that decree, namely a superstition brought in by the false Apostles to worship Angels and to pray to them, and that under the same pretence by which the Papists excuse their praying to Saints and Angels, that we may not presume immediately to go to God himself, but must by them procure favour and make way to him. This superstition continued, he saith, in Phrygia and Pisidia. They builded Oratories and Chapels in the names of the Angels whither they assembled themselves for the exercise of this devotion. This saith Theodoret was the thing which the Council condemned. Yea, but see the Canon, saith M. Bishop, and you shall find M. Abbot's legerdemain. But why did not he himself set down the Canon? He knew well that he wrote to them that would never see the Canon, and doth he thus let the matter slip, with See the Canon? Be well assured, gentle Rreader, that he would never have omitted to set down the Canon if there had been any thing in it, either to help himself or to cross me. The Canon is this; 
t Concil. Lao. dicen. c. 35. Quod non oportet Christianos relicta Dei ecclesia abire (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) & angelos compellare vel congregationes facere, quod est prohibitum. Siquis ergò inventus fuerit huie occultae idoloatriae vacare, sit anathema; quia reliquit dominum nostrum jesum Christum & accessit ad idoloiatriam.  That it behoveth not Christians forsaking God's Church to go and call to the Angels, or to make assemblies, which is forbidden; if any man therefore be found to give himself to this secret idolatry, accursed be he, because he hath forsaken our Lord jesus Christ and hath resorted to idolatry. Mark well the Canon, I pray thee, and see whether thou canst find that I have committed any legerdemain, or whether it be not rather one of M. Bishop's tricks of legerdemain, thus to object the same to me, that he in the mean time may be thought to be free from it, with whom indeed is no other but legerdemain. The Council plainly instructeth us that to pray to angels is idolatry; that the assemblies of those superstitious people to pray to Angels were assemblies of idolatry; and that to forsake the Church to go to pray to Angels, is to forsake Christ and to repair to idolatry, leaving us thereby consequently to understand, that to bring invocation of Angels into the Church, as the Papists have done, is to bring idolatry thereinto. M. Bishop would make us believe that the Council meaneth not that it is unlawful to pray to Angels, but so to pray to them as to forsake Christ, and to prefer them before Christ, whereas the Council saith not a word of preferring the Angels before Christ, nor speaketh of forsaking Christ, but it saith that to forsake the church to go to pray to angels, is to forsake our Lord jesus Christ to run to idolatry, plainly resolving that to pray to angels is idolatry and in no sort to be received in the Church of Christ. We conclude therefore against M. Bishop, that the Church of Rome in praying to angels doth commit idolatry, and is not now all one with the ancient Church of Rome that did condemn the same. This then is the advantage that M. Bishop hath gotten by referring his Reader to the Canon, that we are to account his talk of legerdemain but as the preaching of the fox, crying out upon falsehood that he himself may the more securely practise it, as I might further show, but that for a taste I have said enough already by his answers concerning Carpocrates and Marcellina and concerning a Canon of the Council of Gangra in the very same place.  
31. To show his treachery in citing antiquities, one or two examples shall suffice. To attribute unto the Bishop of Rome a sovereign power for the assembling of Counsels, he allegeth certain words written by some Eastern bishops, as to Damasus bishop of Rome; 
u Reproof, pag. 176.  By the commandment of letters sent the last year by your reverence unto the most royal Emperor Theodosius we undertook the journey even to Constantinople; whereas those words were not written to Damasus only, but also to Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, Acholius, Anemius, Basil, and other holy Bishops assembled in the city of Rome; neither are as he citeth, By the commandment of letters, etc. but, 
x Theodoret. hist. lib. 5. cap. 9 Concurreramus Constantinopolim ad vestrae reverentiae literas post concilium Aquileiense missas Theodosio summa pietate Imperatori.  Upon the letters of your reverence sent after the council of Aquileia to Theodosius the most religious Emperor we assembled together at Constantinople. Did he here mean any truth that would bring that as proper to the Bishop of Rome which was common to a whole Synod of Bishops, and would translate letters of commandment where there appeareth nothing at all but that they were letters of request? In the very next words he committeth the same fraud, alleging that in the Council of Chalcedon the Bishops of Maesia writing unto the Emperor Leo, do say; that many holy bishops met together in the city of Chalcedon by the commandment of Leo bishop of Rome, who truly is the head of bishops; whereas it is not there only 
y Concil. Chal. ced. epist. episcop. Maesiae ad Leonem Imperat. per iussionem Leonis Romani pontificis qui vere caput est episcoporum & venerabilis sacerdotis & patrairchae Anatolij concilio celebrato.  by the commandment of Leo bishop of Rome, but it is added, and of the reverend Bishop and patriarch Anatolius; so that Anatolius the Patriarch of Constantinople, is made here a commander as well as the bishop of Rome, each of them of those bishops which within their several precincts and bounds were subject unto them, and both by virtue of the emperors writ, as appeareth plainly for that 
z Ibid. Act. 1. Facta est synodus ex decreto fidelissimorum Imperatorum. etc. & in Epist. Concil. act. 3. Synodus secundum Dei gratiam & sanctionem vestrae pietatu congregata.  the Council is said to have been assembled by the Decree of the emperors Valentinianus and Martianus, and so in an Epistle to the said Emperors professeth itself, by the grace of God, and by their commandment, to be there gathered together. It were worth the while, but that I am loath here to be overlong, to declare how notably he abuseth his Reader concerning Tertullian and the Montanists. I will for the time only note first, that whereas I set down Tertullia's relation of the arguments used by the Catholic Church against him and the rest of his sect, the knowledge whereof is very effectual to give light of judgement concerning the point in hand, he under a lying pretence that I have 
* Reproof, pag. 222. 224.  mangled them, and peeced them together at my pleasure, very treacherously suppresseth them, as before I showed he did in the very same sort, the words of Methodius concerning original sin; and secondly, that he saith that 
a Ibid. pag. 223.  Tertullian confesseth there that Catholics held themselves bound to fast the Lent, and on Wednesdays and Fridays, whereas in Tertullian there is no such matter, and he contrariwise plainly saith of them 
b Tertul. de jejune. Certè in evangelio illos dies ieiunijs determinatos putant in quibus ablatus est sponsus; & hos esse iam solos legitimos ieiuniorum Christianorum.  that in the Gospel they thought those days determined for fasting wherein the Bridegroom was taken away (which were good Friday and Easter even) and that these only were the days by law appointed for Christian fasts. Such juggling tricks are not dainty with him, and thou shalt see store enough of them when hereafter we shall come to examine him more at large.  
32. Now here to observe the same course that he hath done, it shall not be amiss before I end with him to show by one or two places with what conscience he carrieth himself in the usage of holy Scripture. And first I note his prodigious impudency in the defence of that damnable prayer which heretofore they have used as touching Thomas Becket, who though by undue course, yet died no other but a rebel and traitor to his Prince; 

e Breviar. in translat S. Thom. canturians.  Tu per Thomae sanguinem quem pro te impendit,  
Fac nos christ scandere quò Thomas ascendit.  
By the blood of Thomas which for thee he did spend,  
Make us O Christ to climb whither Thomas did ascend.  This prayer the masters of the Church of Rome were ashamed of; and in the reforming of their Portesses they have put it out, it being one of the great infamies of their church that ever it came in. But this jolly gamester resolving to play at all, will have us think that they were fools and did more than they need to do, because this prayer may be warranted 
d Reproof, pag. 109. 110.  by example of the like, recorded in the old Testament, Lord remember David and all his mildness; for why may we not (saith he) as well beseech God to remember the constant fortitude of S. Thomas, as they did the mildness of David? he should say, the affliction or trouble of David. But did he not know that sundry great authors both old and new, and namely, 
e Leo in Nativit. dom. ser. 4. Hinc david promissionem Dei prophetico spiritu canit, dicens, juravit dominus David & non frustrabitur. etc.  Leo Bishop of Rome, have taken that Psalm to have been written by David himself, and do thereby exclude that blasphemous construction of his? And if it were not so, will he make it all one for the people to beseech God to remember David's trouble, and for us to pray by the blood of Thomas to be brought to heaven? The people entreat God to remember the affliction of mind and care that David had for the building of the Temple, upon which God took occasion to make promise to him of his son to sit upon his throne by whom that should be done. To this care of David, and to the promise thereupon made, they desire God in the beginning of Solomon's reign to give effect. chrysostom maketh it the prayer of Solomon himself, and giveth the effect thereof thus; 
f Chrysost. in Psal. 131. Quoniam genus ab co duxi & qu●mam cum tibi acceptum fuisset cius studium & diligentia dixisti te eius genu & regnum erec●urum, propterea haec pacta conventa nunc a te exigimus.  Because I am borne of him, and for that when his study and diligence was acceptable to thee, thou saiedst that thou wouldst raise up his stock and kingdom, therefore we now desire of thee the things that thou hast covenanted and promised. Now this being so plain and clear a meaning of that place, what may we think of him that would thus impiously wrest it to the maintenance of a horrible blasphemy, which far hath it been from any ancient Christian writer to imagine to be meant, either there or any otherwhere.  
33. Again, 
g Answer to the epistle sect. 25.  the Apostle, say I, in express terms affirmeth the imputation of righteousness without works. The words are plain, 
h Rom. 4.6.  David declareth the blessedness of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works. Now what doth he say hereto? Forsooth 
i Reproof, pag. 135.  touching imputation of righteousness, the Apostle speaketh not like a Protestant of the outward imputation of Christ's justice unto us, but of inherent justice, to wit, of faith which worketh by charity, which are qualities powered into our hearts by the holy Ghost; so that, saith he, there is only a bare sound of words for the Protestants, the true substance of the text making wholly for the Catholics. Thus he confesseth, that the words sound for us; and may we be sure that the Apostle hath any other meaning than he soundeth by the words? Forsooth M. Bishop telleth us so, and we must so believe it, though his exposition be a mere contradiction to the words of the Apostle. Inherent righteousness is the righteousness of works. The Apostle speaketh of imputation of righteousness without works. And yet we must think that he speaketh of imputing inherent righteousness. Surely the very phrase of imputing inherent justice is in the Apostles drift a thing very absurd (for 
k Origen. in Rom. cap. 4. Quid videbitur gratiae justo reputari justitiam ad justitiam?  what grace or favour should it seem to be, saith Origen, that to a just man his justice should be reputed for justice?) but to say that by the imputing of righteousness without works, is meant the imputing of inherent justice, that is, the imputing of the righteousness of works, it is a construction so frantic, so senseless, so shameless, as that we have good cause to fear that the author of it hath desperately resolved himself rather to say any thing than to confess the truth. The thing is plain by the words in which the Apostle saith, that David declareth the blessedness of that man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, namely, 
l Psal. 32.1.  Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin. Whereby it is manifest, that not the imputing of inherent justice but the forgiveness of sins by faith in Christ is the imputing of righteousness without works. Man having no works whereby to appear just in the sight of God, yet by forgiveness of sins is reputed just, because 
m August. Retract. li. 1. c. 19 Omnia mandata facta reputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur.  all the commandments of God are reputed as done when that is pardoned which is not done. Now what impudence is this man grown to, that dareth thus apparently delude & abuse the world? Surely these shifts of his are such, so wilful, so wretched, as that they give all men just occasion to detest him, crying out of falsifying and corrupting, of cozenage and deceit, when he himself intendeth and practiseth nothing else. Such as thou hast seen him here gentle Reader, such shalt thou find him almost in all his answers throrowout his whole book; which when I shall have stripped out of those rags wherewith he hath clothed them, thou shalt see him a poor Doctor, and shalt well perceive that he was put to a cruel shift and straining of conscience for the writing of this book.  
34. In the mean time I calling him to give an answer to this advertisement. He hath with wide mouth cried out upon me for false and corrupt dealing. I challenge him to make good his accusation against this brief Defense. I know he loveth not to meddle with the answering of long books, and when I shall have given check to his Reproof, he will not be at leisure to give me at large a countercheck. I challenge him therefore to clear himself, if he can, against those exceptions that I have here taken against him, and setting down plainly the authors words in their own tongue, as I have done, to make it appear, if it be so, that in charging me with falsehood and lying, he hath done the part of a trusty and honest man, being no further so to be taken, if having made such a clamour against me of lying, lying, it now prove to be but a cry of course, not for any matter in me, but only of form in him. I pray thee gentle Reader, to urge him by all means thereunto. Tell his friends and followers, that if in these few matters he cannot better acquit himself, it shall be a shame for them to suffer themselves any longer to be deluded by such a shameless man. If he say he will do it in his second part, understand that he doth but mock thee. The book that he hath now published, was coming forth without any name of the first part. The Press being then surprised, they have since by some common advice amongst them reviewed and better furnished it, and now for a colour have called it The first part. Thou hast been three years and more in the expectation of this little piece; let him not hold thee three years more in the expectation of another part. But whether it be this piece or that part, thou mayest now by thine own experience judge of both. If God continue my health and strength, and the use of those eyes at the distemper and soreness whereof he so often sporteth himself, I will by the assistance of his grace give thee further experience of him in the rest. Albeit I think thou wilt not wish that I either trouble thee or myself with all his wandering discourses, his idle descants, his fond surmises, his imagined contradictions. Much work he maketh that I should say, 
n Reproof, pag. 50.  I would stop the adversaries mouth, and leave him nothing to reply. But let him remember that to that part whereof I said so, he hath yet replied nothing, and let him understand withal, that I take not every dogs barking to be a reply: He chargeth me with 
o Ibid. pag. 62.  contradiction, for that I say that in his dedication he had no hope to prevail with his Majesty, and yet I say that in his book he thought himself to have performed some great exploit, that is, saith he, to prevail marvelous much with his Majesty. But his Commentary fitteth not my text, because his great exploit there intended, was not in prevailing with his Majesty, but as I there declared, in writing a famous and worthy work, the marrow and pith of many large volumes contracted and drawn into a narrow room. Another contradiction he fancieth in that I 
p Ibid. pag 267. 268. etc.  say that he revealed a counsel and secret of his own and his fellows, in saying, God knoweth what that forcible weapon of necessity will drive men unto at length, and yet I bid him be of good cheer, and tell his fellows, that we knew their mind before. I answer him, that in their desire it is a secret which by all means they conceal and hide, and which they would not have us by any means or in any sort to imagine of them; and yet by experience we have learned to judge of them, that they are, as there I said, treacherous, falsehearted, faithless, waiting for time and opportunity, if power would serve, to compel his Majesty to their order. Now to what end should I spend either time or paper for the examining of such dreams? To the matter and question of religion, or if there be any thing else material, I will answer him, if God will; the rest which serveth only for the lengthening of his book, I will pass by with contempt.  
35. Now then to leave M. Bishop for the time, I come to M. higgon's, who having upon mere discontentments lately revolted from us, and being strangely become a proselyte of the Church of Rome, to the great grief of his father, the untimely death of his mother, the wonder of all who have known what formerly he was, hath of figtree leaves like Adam made him a mantle to cover this nakedness and shame, delivering under the name of motives certain fantastical apprehensions, whence as he pretendeth he took the occasion of this revolt. In these motives taking upon him to censure the state and proceed of our church, and to tax sundry of our men who by writing have applied themselves for the defence thereof, he picketh here and there some petit quarrels against me amongst the rest, as if in writing against Doct. Bishop I had not dealt sincerely and uprightly in the report and allegation of some things. The matters are but few, and those such, as that I shall not need to stand long upon any of them. The matter that chief troubled his head, & gave him occasion of this apostasy was, as he pretendeth, our denial of Purgatory and prayer for the dead, which he now upon the sudden hath learned to be an Apostolical tradition. And amongst other reasons that have induced him so to conceive of it, one is a proposition delivered by Doct. Field, that 
q First Motive of T.H. book. 1 part. 1 ch. 2. § 2. num 8.  whatsoever all or the most famous in all ages or at least in divers ages have constantly delivered as received from them that went before them (no man doubting or contradicting it) may be thought to be an Apostolical tradition. This he affirmeth to be true of prayer for the dead, that the most famous and renowned in all ages, have constantly delivered it as received from them that went before, and none have gainsaied it but damned heretics, and therefore that it must by Doct. Fields rule be taken to be an Apostolical tradition. Whence, saith he, I was compelled to infer, that Doct. Abbot doth willingly deceive himself, saying, that prayer for the dead is a tradition and ordinance of the Church, to which purpose he misinforceth the testimony of Epiphanius, whereby he would exempt Aerius from the crime of heresy justly laid unto his charge by S. Austin and many others. But I answer him, that though as a man I may be deceived, yet God hath given me more grace than that in these matters I will willingly deceive myself. In this matter of Epiphanius I do not take myself in any sort to be deceived. His conclusion against Aerius as touching prayer for the dead is this: 
r Epiphan. haer. 75. Ecclesia necess●r●ò hoc perficit traditione à patribus accepta; quis autem poterit staturum matris dissoluere aut legem patris, velut Solomon dicit, Audi fili, fermones patris tui & ne repudies statuta matris tuae? ostendens per hoc quòd & in scriptu & sine scripto decuit pater; matter autem nostra ecclesia habet statuta in se posita indissolubilia quae dissolui non p●ssunt●● Cùm itaque ordi nata sint in ecclesia statuta & benè se habeant & omnia mirab●ittèr fiant, confuta●us est tursus etiam hic seductor.  The Church necessarily doth this by tradition received from the Fathers, and who may dissolve the statute of his mother or the law of his Father? as Solomon saith, My son hear thy Father's words, and refuse not thy Mother's statutes? hereby showing that both in writing and without writing the Father hath taught, and our Mother the Church hath statutes set down in her which are inviolable and may not be broken. Seeing then, saith he, that there are statutes ordained in the Church, and they are well and all things are admirably done, this seducer is confuted. Now then, do I say that prayer for the dead is a tradition? Epiphanius saith the same, that the Church doth it by tradition from the Fathers. Do I say that he maketh it a statute or ordinance of the Church? He himself expressly calleth it so, and finally presseth the authority of the Church only for the confuting of Aerius. He allegeth no Scripture, his words import that he hath none to allege; Only to grace the ordinances of the Church he wresteth a saying of Solomon nothing pertinent thereto, as if we were taught that God without scripture teacheth us by the Church. And if he mean any otherwise but that it is the ordinance of the Church, very vainly and idly doth he here name the ordinance of the Church. But M. higgon's will say, that though Epiphanius name it thus a tradition and an ordinance of the Church, yet he meaneth it to be such a tradition and ordinance as is from the Apostles. But let him mean what he will, yet so long as he maketh it a tradition without Scripture, my words stand good which I used to M. Bishop; 
s Answer to Doct. Bishop's epistle. sect. 10. pag. 79. 80.  Epiphanius resolveth us that prayer for the dead is a matter of tradition and an ordinance of the Church, and therefore freeth us from any trespass against any thing that Moses or the Prophets or Christ and his Apostles in the Scriptures have delivered unto us. If it be no matter of Scripture with Epiphanius, than I say rightly that he cleareth us from impugning therein any thing that is delivered in the Scriptures. Albeit because it is by Epiphanius his confession a tradition without Scripture, therefore we resolve undoubtedly that it came not from the Apostles, because whatsoever they taught concerning faith and salvation, is contained in the Scriptures, as before hath been showed at large. Yea and how unsoundly Epiphanius urgeth Apostolic tradition is to be seen in the point which he speaketh of immediately before, where he saith, that 
t Epiphan. haer. 75. Decreverunt Apostoli quarta & prosabbato jeiunium per omnia excepta Pentecoste, & de sex diebus Paschatis praecipiunt nihil omninò accipere quàm panem & salem & aquam.  the Apostles decreed a fast upon Wednesdays and Fridays continually, save betwixt Easter and Whitsuntide, and that six days before Easter men should receive nothing but bread and salt and water, whereas S. Austin professeth, that 
u Aug. epist. 86. Quibus diebus non oporteat ieiunare & quibus oporteat praecepto Domini vel Apostolorum non invenio de finitum.  what days to fast or what days not to fast, he findeth it not defined or set down by any commandment of Christ or his Apostles; and by Tertullian it appeareth, that the Primitive Church alleged against the Montanists, 
x Tertul. de jeiunio. sic & Apostolos obsernasse, nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorun & in common ●mnibus obeundorum ●etunorum.  that the Apostles imposed no yoke of standing and common fasts; and of the Lent-fast Socrates resolveth, that 
y Socrat. hist. li. 5. c. 21. Quoniam nemo de ea praeceptum literarum monumentis proditum potest ostendere, perspicuum est Apostolos liberam potestatem in eadem cuiusque menti & arbitrio permisisse ut quisque nec metu nec necessitate inductus quod bonum est faceret.  because no man can show any written commandment thereof, it is manifest that the Apostles left it free to every man's will and discretion that without fear or necessity every man should do what good is. Now we cannot wonder that he that would thus unadvisedly name Apostolic tradition for the one, should do the same for the other also. Albeit if M. higgon's can justify prayer for the dead according to Doctor Fields rule, we will not stick with him to grant it to be an Apostolical tradition. But he might have seen that I had put it without the compass of that rule, if he had been desirous to know the truth and had not resolved first upon other occasions to fall away and afterwards to seek shifts to excuse his fall. I showed by Origen that the Church at first used no prayer for the dead; by the author of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy that when it was first used, it was used only for just and holy men of whose souls they were resolved that they were in heaven, for what causes I have expressed there; by Epiphanius, that they added afterwards to pray for evil men also and public offenders; by Austin that there was not known any definite and certain use and effect of prayers and offerings for the dead, and that many in his time did plead that if any good were to be done for the soul after death it should rather be by it own confession of sins than by offerings procured by other men. And lastly whereas prayer for the dead by M. higgon's confession dependeth upon Purgatory, I showed by Augustine's express words that he had no certain belief or knowledge of any such place, which are more clear to that purpose than that by any Popish sophistications they can be shifted or deluded.  
36. Albeit I did not only allege him doubting of Purgatory, but also plainly excluding it upon occasion by denying any third place. This denial of a third place M. higgon's 
z Book 1. part 1. ch. 2. § 4. num. 10.  acknowledgeth, and noteth me in his margin for citing the places where it is denied, but seeketh to avoid it by saying that Austin thereby only denied against the Pelagians any third place of eternal rest here upon earth after the day of judgement for children dying without baptism; for this is the brief of the differences that he hath there set down. But this will not serve his turn, because Austin doth not merely deny their third place, but from the absolute denial of a third place inferreth that their third place cannot be. 
a August. de peccat. mer. & remiss. l. 1. cap. 28. Non est ullus ulli medius lo●us ut possit esse nisi cum diabolo qui non est cum Christo. Hinc & ipse dominus volens auferre de cordibus malè credentium istam nescio quam medietatem quam conantur quidam parunlis non baptizatis tribuere, etc. definitivam protulit ad haec ora obstruenda sententiam ubi ait, Qui mecum non est, contra me est.  There is not any middle place for any man, saith he, that he may be but with the devil that is not with Christ. He addeth. Hereupon the Lord himself also willing to take away from the hearts of misbelievers this I know not what middle place which some seek to assign to children unbaptised, hath to stop their mouths pronounced a definitive sentence, where he saith, He that is not with me is against me. There is then no middle place for infants unbaptised because there is not after death any middle place for any man and therefore doth the Lord pronounce that definitive sentence, from which how M. higgon's will shift Purgatory I cannot well tell. The other sentence is as plain; 
b August. Hypognostic. lib. 5. Da mihi praeter hunc alterum locum ubi vitae possit requies esse perennis. Primum enim locum fides Catholicorum divina authoritate credidit regnum ess● coelorum, etc. Secundum Gehennam ubi omnis Apostata vel à fide Christi alienus aeterna supplicia experietur. Tertium penitùs ignoramus, imò nec esse in Scriptures Sanctis invenimus.  Give me beside this, (that is, the kingdom of heaven) any other place where there may be perpetual rest of life. For the first place the faith of catholic men by divine authority have believed to be the kingdom of heaven. The second hell fire, where every Apostata and alien from the faith of Christ shall feel everlasting punishments. A third we are utterly ignorant of, yea we find by the holy Scriptures that there is none such. Where we see that S. Austin taking in hand to refute the third place affirmed by the Pelagians, distinguisheth generally how many places there be, and resolveth that that third place of theirs cannot be, because there is no third place. Heaven and hell he saith he findeth in the Scriptures, but third place he findeth none, and therefore maketh us confident against believing any Purgatory, because in the Scriptures we find none. The Papists say they find it there, but they say untruly; they find it in their own constructions, forced upon the Scripture, but in the Scripture itself they find it not. All the places which they allege have their just and perfect use even by the exposition of the fathers themselves, without any Purgatory to be inferred thereby.  
37. In the same chapter num. 12. he toucheth me again, for that whereas Austin reverenceth Epiphanius as a holy man, and famous in the Catholic faith, it seemeth good to me to justify Aerius a damnable heretic against him. But I reverence Epiphanius as far as Austin did, or teacheth me to do. I acknowledge he was a holy man, and famous in the Catholic faith, but yet I say of him as S. Austin said of Ambrose another holy man, and famous in the Catholic faith, 
c August. con. Pelag. & Cele. lib. 1. cap. 43. Quantis praedicat laudibus quamlibet sanctum & doctum virum nequaquam tamen authoritati Canonicae Scripturae comparandum.  Though he were a holy and learned man, yet is he not to be compared to the authority of the Canonical Scripture. I descent from Epiphanius as Austin himself did concerning fasting days, as I touched a little before, who denieth that to be Apostolic tradition which Epiphanius affirmeth to be so. I justify Aerius against Epiphanius in one point, as in another point S. Hierome did, as I have showed also 
d Sect. 21.  before; not rejecting a truth, for that either an heretic hath affirmed it, or a Catholic doctor hath denied it, but therefore embracing it wheresoever I find it because God hath taught it. And although Aerius for Arianisme were justly to be accounted a damnable heretic, yet do I not think that M. higgon's can make good his word which before he hath given, that for those matters wherein we approve him, there were beside Epiphanius and Austin many other, that did condemn him. Epiphanius indeed doth so, and Austin professing to follow Epiphanius, transcribeth the same from him; but Philaster and Theodoret writing of heresies, mention no such matter; neither do I think that M. higgon's can bring us any father or story of those times that taxeth Aerius in that behalf. Yea, I may not omit that which I pointed at before, that when Dulcitius moved the question to Austin, 
e Aug. ad Dulcit. quaest. 2. Vtrum oblatio quae fit pro quiescentibus aliquid eorum conferat animabus, etc. Ad quod multi dicunt quòd si aliquis beneficij in hoc locus esse possit post mortem, quantò magis sibi anima ferret ipsa refrigeria, sua per se illic confitendo peccata, quàm in eorum refrigerium ab alijs oblatio procuratur.  Whether the offering that is made for the dead, do avail their souls any thing, he setteth down the opinion of many in that time concerning that point; Many say to this matter, that if herein any good were to be done after death, how much rather should the soul itself obtain ease to itself by confession of sins there, than that for the ease thereof an offering should be procured by other men, which opinion he would never have set down, neither would Saint Austin have let it go without hard censure, if it had been then publicly taken for heresy so to think; yea Dulcitius would never have moved the question thereof, if Purgatory had been a known and undoubted point of faith as M. higgon's would feign have it thought to be. But this is not all that he hath here to blame me for; for in the margin he chargeth me, that I pervert the sense of Epiphanius, as though the church had prayed for the Saints, etc. If they did not so, what is it then that Epiphanius reporteth? Epiphanius reporteth, saith he, that when we make a memorial of Patriarches, Prophets, Apostles, etc. we separate Christ from the order of men, by the honour and adoration which we perform unto him, that is to say, saith he again, We do not offer thanks for him as we do for some other men but unto him as being God of equal Majesty with his Father. But it is he himself indeed that by this exposition doth manifestly wrest the words of Epiphanius, the circumstance whereof by him guilefully omitted, doth clearly convince that they can by no means be taken as he expoundeth them. His words are these: 
f Epip. haer. 75. Verun enimuerò eò quòd nos saepe dum in mundo sumus fallimur & erramus tum inviti, tum voluntariè, quòid quod perfectius est significetur & pro justis & pro peccatoribus memoriam facimus; pro peccatoribus quidem misericordiam dei implorantes; pro justis verò & patribus, & Patriarchis, Prophetis, Apostolis, Euangelistis, etc.  do minun jesum Christum ab hominum ordine separemus per honorem quem ipsi exhibemus & ut adorationem ipsi praestemus, illud mente voientes quòd dominus non est alicui homini adaequatus ●tiamsi millies & ultra in justitia degat unusquisque homo; quomodo enim possibile fuerit? Ille enim est Deus, hic homo; & ille in coelo, hic in terra per reliquias in terra.  Verily for that whilst we are in the world, we are often deceived, and go awry both unwillingly and with our will, to the end that that which is more perfect may be signified, we make a memorial both for the just & for sinners; for sinners entreating the mercy of God; but for the just, the Fathers, the Patriarches, the Prophets, the Apostles, the Martyrs and Confessors, the Bishops and Anchorites, and the whole order that we may separate our Lord jesus Christ from the order of men, by the honour which we yield unto him, and may perform worship unto him, weighing this in our mind, that the Lord is not compared to any man, though a man live in righteousness a thousand times and more; for how should it be possible? for the one is God, the other man: the one in heaven, the other in earth by remainder of his body in the earth. Where thou art to note, gentle Reader, that Epiphanius saith not as M. higgon's reporteth; We make a memorial of the just, of the Patriarches, etc. but for them; neither doth he say only, we make a memorial for the just, but we make a memorial for the just and for sinners; meaning by sinners such as had been publicly noted some way or other for evil life. Now the phrase being one, & the act one both for the one and for the other, how shall M. higgon's persuade us that it was a prayer for the one, & only a thanksgiving for the other? Epiphanius saith not so, nor giveth any ground whereupon to conceive it to be so; and that this memorial or commemoration was a prayer for them that were thus remembered, appeareth by S. Austin, saying, that 
g Aug. de cura pro mortuis gerenda cap. 4. Supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum quas faciend as pro omnibus in Christiana & Catholica societate defunclis sub generali commemoratione suscepit ecclesia.  the church hath received under a general commemoration, to make supplications for the spirits of the dead, even for all that are dead in the Christian and Catholic society. Now if it were a prayer which was used for all that have died in Christian society, than it was a prayer which was used for the Saints, Martyrs, Confessors. etc. Therefore chrysostom faith, that 
h Chrysost. de sacerdot. lib. 6. Deprecator est apud Deum ut hominum omnium non viventium modò sed etiam mortuorum peccat is propitius fiat.  the Priest prayed to God to be merciful to the sins of all, both quick and dead. I question not here what construction latter times made hereof; I know that this custom as it grew to be used, grew to be questioned; and because it seemed absurd to pray for them that already are in heaven, which notwithstanding the church formerly had done, as out of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy I most clearly proved, therefore though the form of words were one and the same for all, yet by interpretation they made them a prayer for some only, and a thanksgiving for the rest, S. Austin I take it being the first that ever brought in that rule, that 
i August. de Verb. Apost. ser. 17. I●uria est orare pro martyr.  he doth wrong to a martyr that prayeth for him. But let M. higgon's wrangle hereof all he can, by the very place of Epiphanius, that which I say is plainly evicted. For when he saith, that we often are deceived and go awry so long as we are in this world; he thereby expresseth the cause why they did make that memorial both for the sinners and for the just, there being none so just but that that is verified in them, that they are often deceived and go awry. Now will M. higgon's make Epiphanius to say of the Saints and just men, that because so long as they were in this world they were often deceived and went amiss, therefore now we give thanks for them? It were very absurd to say so; but the other way the words are clear, that because we are all subject to sin, therefore we pray for all. And if by this it be not plain enough, the rest shall make it more plain. For out of this reason issueth another of as great effect, when he saith, that this memorial is made for just and holy men, that we may separate our Lord jesus Christ from the order of men, by the honour that we do unto him. Which honour wherein it standeth, is understood by those former words, that that which is more perfect may be signified; noting it to be the acknowledging of his most high and glorious perfection; he only being free from all spot and stain of sin and uncleanness, but all other carrying the marks of frailty and corruption, betokened, not in giving thanks, as I hope M. higgon's will confess, but rather in praying for them. To which purpose he yet further more plainly addeth those other words, And that we may yield worship to him. But how? Weighing in our minds that there is no man compared to him, though a man live in righteousness a thousand times and more. By which words it is clear as the light, that that separation whereof he speaketh, hath no intendment of the difference which M. higgon's mentioneth of giving thanks to the one and for the other, but that it concerneth righteousness and sin, it being to be known by this memorial, that all the Saints, even they that attained to the greatest measure of righteousness, yet being men, were subject to infirmities and imperfections; that so Christ alone may have the glory to be transcendent and beyond the condition of frail and sinful flesh. Now because no part of this could be imported in that memorial, if it were a thanksgiving for the Saints, therefore whether M. higgon's will or not, it must necessarily be taken to have been a prayer for them. And hereof there is one argument more in the last part of the comparison, when he saith of Christ that he is in heaven, and of the Saints that they are in the earth by their bodies yet resting in the earth. Where it hath some reason that they should say, We pray for them as respecting that their bodies lie yet in the dust of the earth, expecting a blessed and happy resurrection, which we crave to be revealed upon them, but to say that they meant to give thanks to God for that the bodies of the Saints lie buried in the earth, it were senseless and absurd. And because it is confirmed unto us by the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, that the Church did pray for the dead, in respect of the resurrection, therefore we cannot doubt but that the memorial here spoken of by Epiphanius, used for the Saints in respect of their bodies in the earth, was a prayer for them to wish their full and perfect consummation by the resurrection from the dead. My former conclusion therefore hence deduced, standeth good, that sith the ancient Church thus prayed for the Saints and Martyrs, therefore that certain it is, they did not pray unto them. And because they thus prayed for the Saints, whose souls they were assured were in heaven, therefore they prayed for the dead without respect of Purgatory, which now is made the only ground and reason of prayer for the dead.  
38. The next matter for which he questioneth me is concerning the opinion of the Greek churches as touching Purgatory and prayer for the dead. My words are such as might have served to weaken his motive, had he not been resolved without any motive to remove and run away. What could he have better to resolve him then that which I say, that the Papists themselves confess that Purgatory was not received or believed in the Greek Churches, and therefore that it is certain that they had no respect of Purgatory in their prayer for the dead? I did not only say, that the Papists confess it, but I cited the places of their confession. Alfonsus De Castro saith; 
k Alfons. De Castro adu. haeres. lib. 8. tit. de Indulgent. In antiquis scriptoribus de Purgatorio feré nulla mentio, potissimum apud Graecos Scriptores: quae de causa usque in hodiernum diem purgatorium non est a Graecis creditum.  Of Purgatory there is in a manner no mention at all with the ancients but specially with the Greek writers; for which cause Purgatory is not believed of the Greeks' until this day. Yea not of the Greeks' only, but of the Armenians also, he acknowledgeth, that 
l Ibid lib. 12. de purgatorio unus ex notissimis erroribus Graecorum & Armeniorum est quo docent nullum esse Purgatorium, etc.  they teach there is no Purgatory, calling it an error well known, concerning them both. The words of Roffensis their great and holy Martyr I cited out of Polydore Virgil: 
m Polyd. Virg. de invent. rer. lib. 8. cap. 1. ex Roffensi. De Purgatorio apud priscos nulla vel quàm rarissima fiebat mentio; sed & Graecis ad hunc usque diem non est creditum esse.  Of Purgatory there was none or very rare mention made amongst the ancient Fathers; yea and with the Greeks' it is not believed till this day. Thus did they ingenuously acknowledge as the truth is, and did it nothing stagger M. higgon's to find this so plainly acknowledged? Did it make him nothing doubt of his imagined mutual dependence of Purgatory and prayer for the dead? Surely he was a very voluntary convert, or else he might easily have seen that it is no good connexion to say, They prayed for the dead, therefore they believed Purgatory; but rather, they believed not Purgatory, therefore they prayed not for the dead in any such meaning as the Papists now do. He might have remembered that which I told Doct. Bishop, that many amongst us of custom, and of human affection of love, do use many times words of prayer for the dead, who notwithstanding from the bottom of their hearts do utterly defy both Purgatory and the Pope.  
39 In another place he saith, that it is 
n Book 1. part. 2. cap. 3. ¶ 4. num. 2.  to our great disreputation that I name the Albigenses as professors of the same faith and religion which we now prefesse. But why? Forsooth he knoweth no cause himself, but referreth his Reader to Parsons the jesuit, in his treatise of the three conversions of England. Yea M. higgon's, would you make Parsons his narration a motive of your recantation? Would you give heed to him whom you knew by the testimony of his own fellows to be a man of Belial; an infamous wretch, a mere politizing Atheist, and therefore likely, if it were to serve his turn, to deal with the stories of the ancient Christian Martyrs as he hath done with M. Fox's story, carrying himself in all that work like a very Porphyry or julian, applauding himself and seeking to be applauded in a jollity of forcing all things even against the hair to scorn and mockery? You say, the Albigenses in their opinions followed the Waldenses, as indeed they were the same, some part of them only being so called of the town wherein they dwelled; and would you believe Parsons concerning the opinions of the Waldenses, who 
o Exam. of Fox his calen. cap. 3. num. 13. Of these Waldenses see at large Simon Goulart. Catalogue. test. veritatis. lib. 15. Where thou shalt see how lewdly Parsons hath dealt with them.  disclaimeth Aeneas Silvius, who was afterwards Bishop of Rome, testifying their faith and doctrine uprightly and faithfully as of his own knowledge, that so he may give way to other either careless or malicious reporters, who impiously fathered upon them strange paradoxes, in no other sort than Friar 
p Edm. Campi. decem. rat. cap. 8. & passim.  Campian lately dealt with us? Yea and is not ashamed to cite 
q Three Conuers. pag. 2. c. 10. num. 29.  Prateolus and Sanders for witnesses thereof, whose joy it hath been to find out any thing, were it never so untrue, which they might report opprobrious and disgraceful to them? I doubt not but that the Waldenses and Albigenses might happily in some things be otherwise minded than we be (and what? are they in the church of Rome all in all things of one and the same mind?) but if we respect the substance of their faith and doctrine as we may discern the same, not only by 
r Aeneas Sylu. de Origen Bohem. cap. 35.  Aeneas Silvius, but also by 
s Alfons. adu. haeres. passim.  Alfonsus De Castro, and specially by 
t Sleidan. Comment. lib. 16.  the confession of their faith exhibited to the French King, as Sleidan hath recorded, it shall be no disreputation to us that we have joined with them, neither shall it be to M. higgon's any reputation with God that he hath departed from them.  
40. I may not omit that mentioning elsewhere, that Luther termeth their religion by the name of Popery, though this were but a very small occasion, yet his gall casting upon the sudden he addeth: 
u Book. 2. p. 1. c. 1. ¶. 1. num. 7.  Whom I might more justly call a foul-mouthed-dogge, then D. Abbot bestoweth this homely courtesy upon a very learned Priest, meaning thereby T. Wright. Let the Reader esteem whether it were not a meet courtesy for him that was not ashamed to set it down for an article, 
x Certain Articles or forcible reasons, etc. part. 2. art. 5.  That the Protcestants make God the author of sin, the only cause of sin, that man sinneth not, that God is worse than the devil. If Luther have any where in that leaned and impious manner calumniated the Church of Rome, I will not deny but that M. higgon's should have cause to style him afoul-mouthed dog; but if he have not so done, then is M. higgon's to blame to assign to him that which of right belongeth to another man. Whom indeed we think to be a man of some kind of learning whereby he can audaciously and impetuously wrangle where he may have his way; but he that would give forth to the world for forcible reasons such misshapen stuff, as specially some of those are which he hath published, is very far from the worth, where he is uprightly judged, to be accounted a very learned Priest.  
41. His last matter touching me concerneth a difference betwixt Doct. Field and me. Doct. Field thinketh that the cause why Aerius was condemned of heretical rashness, was for that he durst condemn the laudable custom of the commemoration of the dead by way of giving thanks for them. Against this opinion of Doctor Field he produceth me amongst others for a witness, though mangling and disordering my words to other purpose in some sort than I intended them. But the sum of all is, that I hold it to have been the cause why Aerius was taxed of heresy for that he reprehended and denied prayers and offerings for the dead. Whereupon D. Field groundeth his opinion I cannot tell: by Epiphanius and Austin I conceive that it is right which I have said. But upon this occasion M. higgon's, because I had said that Austin and the Papists as touching the end of prayer for the dead, did agree like harp and harrow, returneth my phrase and saith; Do not these men agree like harp and harrow? Where I cannot but think that he was very idly disposed and wanted matter that would so much trouble himself as he hath done with a difference of so small effect. If Doct. Field conceive rightly of the opinion of Aerius, then in the condemning of Aerius we all accord with him. If we conceive more truly of Aerius that it was prayer for the dead which he impugned, then in the approving of Aerius Doctor Field accords with us. And may we not think this to be a great matter to trouble M. higgon's mind? Did he see no greater differences than this in the Church of Rome? Had he not found in Bellarmine concerning sundry weighty points of faith, a first opinion of such a one, a second opinion of such a one, a third, yea a fourth opinion of such and such? To let other matters go, did you not M. higgon's remember your two great Cardinals, Baronius and Bellarmine standing in great difference, the one that it is directly, the other that it is indirectly, that the Pope hath a power over Kings and Princes to depose them; yea and another opinion regnant amongst many of your great Divines, that the Pope hath no such authority either way, and that they are but Parasites and pickthanks that soothe him in so unjust and undue a claim? Go, M. higgon's, go and tell your own Cardinals, haec est mendaciorum natura ut probè cohaerere non possint, for the third opinion proveth them to be liars on both sides. As for yourself you are now become one of those peddling merchants, in the exercise of whose trade you shall indeed find it true, that they cannot thrive at all unless they can lie much.  
42. I pity your folly, M. higgon's, and cannot but for your friend's sake lament that miserable state whereinto you have wilfully cast yourself. Surely it was a strong and a strange humour that possessed both your head and your heart, that could drive you to this extremity for Purgatory and prayer for the dead. Doubtless it was not Purgatory nor prayer for the dead that you respected; but when you had resolved to run into this ruin, you thought these points most plausible and ready whence your wit might weave some spider's webs for the hiding of your shame. I doubt not M. higgon's, but if you were here as you would wish to be, you are able yourself to show that all you have said is no other but a spider's web. God give you grace to understand what you have done, that if it be possible you may return again out of the snare of the devil and out of that hell of inward terrors whereinto you have desperately plunged your own soul. I know you are in the hands of Gryphs and Vultures that do not easily let go the prey that they have once seized upon, but I commend you to his mercy who is able to do more than we can any way expect of you.  
43. And so for the time I leave both M. Bishop and M. higgon's, but with mind speedily to take M. Bishop in hand again. The mean while, gentle Reader, I have given thee this Advertisement for some satisfaction concerning his late book, that thou mayest with the more patience expect the full answer thereof. And albeit I have here made it appear that he hath prostituted his conscience, and set himself to sale, to say and face and outface any thing to serve the Popes and his own turn, so as that hereby he hath voided himself of that credit which he would detract from me, and his book shall remain for no other but the record of his own shame, yet I will not so leave him but will go forward, if God will, more thoroughly to pull the vizard from his face and to make him appear in those colours that do belong unto him. Assist me with thy prayers unto God for the doing of the work of God, that it may be to his glory, to the convincing of the adversary, and to the edification of the church of Christ. Amen.   

Some faults escaped to be corrected thus.  
PAg. 126. line 5. room, read no room. p. 129. l. 3. in mark vitiosas, r. vitiosus. p. 139. l. 4. integrity, truth, r. integrity and truth. p. 143. l. 2. visibly, r. visible. p. 175. l. 17. public, r. public. p. 190. l. 8. strive, r. stir. p. 195. l. vit. see in the, r. see the. p. 201. l. 12. most ancient, r. the ancient. p. 214. l. 37. the article, r. that particle. p. 215. l. 2. certainly in the, r. certainly the. p. 262. in mark l. 24. ipè, r. sibi. p. 368. l. 16. approved, r. reproved. Ibid. l. 26. the Church, r. that the Church. p. 380. in mark l. 5. obiurat, r. obdurate.  
Thus far I saw the book before it came forth: what faults shall follow, I must pray thee by thine own judgement to amend.