after the old and new Testament written and the Canon of the Scriptures established and confirmed there bee any thing further to bee receiued for doctrine of faith and truth appertaining to saluation that is not contained in the Scriptures Tradition as he here speaketh thereof is confounded with Scripture because it is one and the same doctrine first preached by word of mouth and afterwards committed to writing in the Scripture but Tradition as we question it is diuided against Scripture and importeth doctrine ouer and beside that which is now taught vs by the Scriptures We know well that the doctrine of saluation vntill the time of Moses was only taught by word of mouth but is that an argument to proue that now that wee haue the Scriptures we must also receiue vnwritten Traditions besides the Scriptures Nay when it seemed good to the wisedome God to commit his word to writing hee would not doe it in part only but fully and perfectly so that a Exod. 34. 4. Moses wrote all the wordes of the Lord and said of that which he wrote b Deut. 12. 32. What I command thee that only shalt thou doe vnto the Lord thou shalt put nothing thereto nor take ought therefrom Therefore although the word of God were afterwards also deliuered by word of mouth in the Preachings and Sermons of the Prophets yet were they in their Sermons to preach no other doctrine neither did they but what had authority and warrant by Moses law Now their Sermons being also written for exposition and application of the law of Moses and a further supply added of the Scriptures of the Apostles and Euangelists how much more ought we to content our selues with the Scriptures without adding to them or taking from them receiuing and beleeuing only those things that we are taught thereby as being assured of that which the Scriptures themselues teach that c 2. Tim. 3. 15. the Scriptures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus Hereby then appeareth M. Bishops fallacy in the citing of those texts which he hath here alleaged St. Paul willed the Romans d Rom. 16. 17. to marke and auoide them that made dissensions and scandals contrary to the doctrine which they had learned True it is and what then But the doctrine saith he which they had then learned before St. Paul sent them this Epistle was by word of mouth and Tradition for little or none of the new Testament was then written Marke what he saith before St. Paul sent them this Epistle for hereby hee in a manner acknowledgeth that St. Paul comprised in this Epistle the doctrine which they had before learned by Tradition The Apostles intendment then appeareth plainly to be this that they should shunne those which dissented from the doctrine which they had hitherto learned by Tradition that is by preaching and word of mouth the summe whereof he had now sent them written in this Epistle that they might henceforth learne to shunne them that dissented from the same doctrine deliuered to them in the Scriptures How ill-fauouredly then doth M. Bishop argue out of these wordes that we are now to receiue other doctrines then are contained in the Scriptures There can no argument be rightly framed out of that text whereof it can be any harme to vs to grant the conclusion If he will set it in due order it must be this The doctrine which the Romans had learned they had learned hitherto by Tradition but the Apostle teacheth them to auoide such as dissented from the doctrine which they had learned therefore he teacheth them to auoide such as dissented from the doctrine which they had hitherto learned by Tradition This we grant and what will he conclude thereof Surely if he will inferre any thing against vs hee must goe on and say But they learned somewhat then by Tradition which is not since deliuered in the Scriptures Which if hee will say wee require proofe of it and the text which he here alleageth will yeeld none We say that the whole doctrine which the Apostles first deliuered by Tradition and word of mouth they committed afterwards to writing ech his part as God inspired and directed for comprehending of the whole Seeing therefore they were tyed to shunne all that dissented from the doctrine receiued by the Tradition and Preaching of the Apostles wee hauing the same doctrine contained in the Scriptures are likewise tyed to shunne all doctrine that hath not testimony of the Scriptures Albeit it is here further to be noted how rashly M. Bishop saith that the doctrine which the Romans had learned they learned only by Tradition and word of mouth inasmuch as the Apostle telleth vs that the Gospell as it e Rom 1. 2. was promised in the Scriptures of the Prophets so was also f Rom. 16. 26. preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets so that St. Luke telleth vs that the noble Iewes of Berhea hearing the Apostles preaching g Acts 17. 11. searched the Scriptures daylie whether those things were so and that our Sauiour Christ when he sent them forth to preach h Luke 24. 45. opened their vnderstanding that they might vnderstand the Scriptures that so they might be enabled for their preaching I haue i Chap. 4. §. 5. before shewed out of Gregory and others that the whole faith which the Apostles preached they receiued from the Scriptures of the Prophets and therefore they deliuered not the Gospell only by Tradition but what they taught they confirmed by the Scriptures So then the Apostles admonition to the Romans will fall out to be this that they should auoide them that dissented from the doctrine which they had learned by the Scriptures though not yet by the Scriptures of the new Testament yet by the Scriptures of the old k Luke 24 27. 44. the law of Moses the Prophets and the Psalmes l Aug. cont 2. Gaudent lipist l. 2. cap. 23. Quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis which Christ named for his witnesses and whereof he said m John 5 39. Search the Scriptures for in them yee thinke to haue eternall life and they are they that testifie of me The two next proofes which hee bringeth are such as that he iustly deserueth to be dubbed for them It is of record saith he how St. Paul n Acts 15. 41. walking through Syria and Cilicia confirming the Churches commanded them to keepe the precepts of the Apostles and of the Ancients and o Acts 16. 4. when they passed through the Cities they deliuered vnto them to keepe the decrees that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients which were at Hierusalem and the Churches were confirmed in the faith And what hereof It appeareth saith he that those decrees were made matter of faith and necessary to be beleeued to saluation before they were written Yea were But did not you know M. Bishop that
z Aug. cont Faust Manich. l. 15. c. 2. Vetus testamentum recte intellâ—gentibus propheâ—a est noui testamenti the old Testament to them that rightly vnderstand it is a prophecie of the new that a Idem de Catechiz rudib c. 4. In veteri testamento est occultatio noui in neuo testamento est manifestatio veteris in the old Testament is the hiding of the new and in the new the manifesting of the old To be short Leo faith b Leo in Natiuitat Dom. serm 3. Quod praedicauerunt Apostoli hoc annunciauerunt Prophâ—tae c. quod semper est creditâ—m What the Apostles preached the same the Prophets haue declared and the same hath alwaies beene beleeued Now if the Apostles receiued the whole faith of the Prophets and the same haue alwaies beene beleeued if the preaching of the Prophets and Apostles be the same if the two Testaments differ in nothing one from the other and the new be contained and hidden in the old then haue I rightly affirmed that the words of St. Paul are generally true that in preaching the Gospell he said no other things but those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come In the rest of this diuision we may thinke that M. Bishop was scant sober when he wrote it or else wrote in a dreame when he neither knew what was said to him nor what he was to say The Apostle saith not that he taught any one article which the common sort of the Iewes did beleeue And what then To what end M. Bishop doe you here tell vs a tale of the common sort of the Iewes Who spake of them or gaue you occasion to make any mention of them The matter is what the Prophets taught and the elect of God beleeued not what the common sort of the Iewes beleeued who commonly beleeued not the Prophets but killed and stoned them when they were sent vnto them How many saith he beleeued that their Messias should die so shamefull a death or that Moses law should be abrogated by the same Messias or that the Gospell of Christ should be preached vnto all nations All say I that vnderstood and beleeued the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets in which they were forewarned of these things The vnbeliefe or ignorance of the rest I trow hindereth not but that these things were then contained in the faith of the Church and in the doctrine of that time vnlesse M. Bishop will say that in Popery those are no articles of faith which the common sort of their Christians doe not conceiue who haue only the Colliars faith to beleeue iust as the Church beleeueth when they neither know what the Church beleeueth nor what they themselues ought to beleeue In a word the Prophets then foretold nothing for matter of faith which was not matter of faith then as well as now W. BISHOP §. 6. MAster Abbot runneth like a wandering Planet to a third that all which the Apostles taught they committed to writing which is notwithstanding as false as any of the former for many of them who neuer ceassed to preach left not one sentence in writing behinde them and he that wrote most did not write the hundreth part of that which he taughtly word of mouth We know well that they left the Gospell in writing and many other most diuine and rare instructions in their Epistles wherfore he needed not cite Ireneus to witnesse that which no man is ignorant of but that they wrote all which they preached or all things necessary to saluation Ireneus saith not a word but plainly signifieth the contrary where he most sagely counsaileth all men when any controuersie in religion ariseth to make their recourse to Euseb 〈◊〉 Eccles lib. 5. c. 19. the most ancient Churches where the Apostles had conuersed amongst which he commendeth the Roman for principall of all the rest and from them to take their resolution he then was of opinion that the decision of all controuersies were not to be searched out of the written word but rather to be taken from the resolution of the Church Oh but Tertullian saith That beleeuing De Praescriptionibus this we desire to beleeue no more because we first beleeue that there is nothing else for vs to beleeue Beleeuing this beleeuing what the written word only nothing lesse for in that very Treatise his principall drift is to proue that Heretikes cannot be confuted out of the written word but by ancient customes and traditions which he calleth Praescriptions but saith he when we beleeue the whole doctrine of Christ both written and deliuered by Apostolicall tradition then we desire to beleeue no more of any vpstart Heretikes new deuices To S. Augustine I answere first that those be not his formall wordes which he citeth Secondly admitting the sense if it be rightly taken I say that these wordes If Galat. 1. any man or Angell shall preach any thing besides that which is written where he alludeth to the Apostles like wordes are to be vnderstood as S. Augustine himselfe expoundeth those of the Apostle that is If any man shall preach contrary to that which is written For this is his owne interpretation The Apostle saith not Aug. lib. 17. cont Faust cap. 3. more then you haue receiued but otherwise then you haue receiued for if he had so said he had preiudiced himselfe who desired to come to the Thessalonians to supply what was wanting to their faith He that supplies addeth that wanted but doth not take away any thing that was before so that you see when he saith that nothing is to be preached besides that which is written his meaning is nothing which is contrary to it allowing withall that much more conformable to it may be added for a supply to make it full and perfect R. ABBOT THe Planets though in respect of other Starres they seeme to wander because in their orbe they change their place yet in their wandering and change doe alwaies obserue a certaine and constant course I seeme to M. Bishop to wander by going from a Prosyllogisme to a Syllogisme and from a maior to a minor but yet he seeth to his griefe that I inferre a direct and certaine conclusion as I haue before briefly declared in the first Chapter I came by processe of speech to shew that our faith and not Popery is the Apostolike faith To proue this I alleaged that what faith and Gospell the Apostles taught they committed the same to writing and because ours accordeth fully with that which they wrote therefore ours is the Apostolike faith It offendeth M. Bishop that it should be said that all which the Apostles taught they committed to writing Well what is his instance to proue the contrary Forsooth many of them who neuer ceased to preach left not one sentence in writing behinde them and he that wrote most wrote not the hundreth part of that which he taught Where we see the
I will take it here in his due place making it to appeare that this mistaking in a circumstance altereth nothing of the substance of that comparison which I had there in hand The first branch then of the comparison shall bee this The Donatists did set vp a particular Church to be the Catholike Church all of them first in the south of Africa some of them afterwards namely the Rogatists at Cartenna in Mauritania and so haue the Papists done at Rome in Italie Against this branch as it was before set downe hee giueth two exceptions First that they doe not hold it so to be at Rome aâ— the Rogatists did at Cartenna And what is the difference Marry they hold it to be so at Rome as that it is dispersed also all the world ouer but the Rogatists held it to be wholly included in the bounds of Cartenna and confines thereof The first part of which answere on their owne behalfe is false and the second part thereof concerning the Rogatists is vaine For it is false that hee saith that their Romish Church is dispersed all the world ouer and hee knoweth well that the Churches of Greece and all the Easterne Churches are holden by them to be Schismatikes because they disclaime subiection to the Church of Rome True it is they would haue it all the world ouer and they make simple fooles beleeue that it is so but they themselues know that the skirts of it are too short to reach so farre and that a huge part of the Church there is that will haue nothing to doe with them And this drew from Bellarmine that caution that I before mentioned in the first Chapter that a Supra cap. 1. §. 1. though one only Prouince did imbrace the true faith yet the same should truly and properly be called the Catholike Church so long as it could bee plainly shewed that it is one and the same with that which at any time or times was ouer the whole world Now hereof it followeth that the other part of his exception concerning the Rogatists is vaine For although the communion of the Church of Rome be farre larger then that was of the Rogatists at Cartenna yet doth neither of them containe any more but a part and their doctrine as touching their communion sorteth all to one For whereas M. Bishop saith that the Rogatists included the Church within the bounds of Cartenna and the Countrey thereabout it was not by position of doctrine that they so included it as if it could not be any where else but because they pretended that the Church was only in their communion and there were none in any other part of the world that tooke part with them it followeth of this defect that they so included it But though there were now not aboue b Aug. Epist 48. Tu cum decem Rogatistis quâ— remansistis c. ten or eleuen Bishops of them remayning as Saint Austin obiecteth to them yet by that hee vpbraideth them with this number remayning it appeareth that they had beene of greater number and extent and wee cannot doubt but that they would as willingly haue had the whole world to ioyne with them as the Church of Rome would Now inasmuch as they held themselues only to bee the Catholike Church And there were none of them otherwhere to bee found to Baptise and reconcile peâ—itents but only within the confines of Cartenna Saint Austin rightly obiecteth it as an absurdity ensuing thereof that c Ibid. Quisquis fâ—â—rit hac praedicatione commotus in qualibâ—t paâ—te orbis terâ—arum nisi quaesierit inuenerit latentâ—m in Mauritania Caesariensi Cartennensem Vincentium aut aliquem ex cius nouâ—m aut decem conâ—ortibus dimitti ei peccata non posâ—int c. Nisi Cartennas venerit aut in viâ—â—iam Cartennensium mundari omninâ—â— delictis suis non potâ—rit then whosoeuer there were in any part of the world that were moued with the preaching of the Gospell vnlesse he did seeke and finde out Vincentius Bishop of Cartenna lurking in Mauritania Caesariensis or some one of his nine or ten consorts he could not haue remission of sinnes or as otherwise hee expresseth it except hee came to Cartenna or into the Countrey neare adioyning hee could not bee clensed from his sinnes Now although the Roman Church as M. Bishop vnderstandeth it is of much larger extent and stretcheth it selfe into sundry Countries and Nations yet being but of small compasse in comparison of the whole world the exprobration of the same madde fancy lyeth vpon it that whosoeuer in the further parts of the world shall be moued with the preaching of the Gospell and conuerted thereby vnlesse hee come to Rome or into some part of the world where he may meete with a Popish Priest hee cannot bee baptised or reconciled to God hee cannot obtayne the remission of his sinnes it being by them resolued of themselues as by the Rogatists of themselues that out of their particular communion there is no saluation Therefore both Rogatists and Papists let them goe together and the truth is that in this behalfe there is no difference betwixt them As touching his second exception although it bee not generally true of the Donatists that they placed the Catholike Church at Cartenna yet it is not altogether vntrue because the Rogatists were Donatists d August vt supra Vos qui non solum cum illis communiter Donatistae a Donato verumetiam propriè Rogatisâ—â— a Rogatâ— appâ—llâ—nuâ— being in common with the rest called Donatists of Donatus as Saâ—nt Austin noteth and by a more proper name Rogatists of Rogatus For although they had in some spleene and vpon some peâ—uish quarrell diuided themselues from the rest yet the substance of their doctrine was still the same as before as appeareth by St. Austin who disputing against Vincentius the Rogatist chargeth him in effect with nothing else but the common positions of the Donatists and therefore they were all at once coÌ„monly comprehended vnder the name of Donatists The Donatists then though not all the Donatists but of them the Rogatists only placed the Catholike church at Cartenna and to the Rogatists then being a part of the Donatists the Papists are like who doe in the same sort place the Catholike Church at Rome Yea and although the Donatists in generall did not seate the Church at Cartenna yet M. Bishop is not ignorant that they in generall before some quarrelling fell amongst them did in effect the same thing by designing the place thereof in Africa properly so called so as that none should be called Catholikes in any part of the world but such as did communicate with that African Church of theirs For although they acknowledged that the Church by the preaching of the Apostles had beene dispersed ouer the world according to the manifold testimonies and prophecies of holy Scripture in that behalfe which they professed to beleeue â—et they said that c Aug. de
will teach you when I come some new doctrine and points of faith which Christ hath not taught or commanded me to teach but I haue added of mine owne If he thinke so let him tell vs that we may wonder at him If he doe not thinke so to what end is it that he alleageth those wordes Surely he who a little before so religiously telleth them that o Vos 23. he receiued of the Lord that which he deliuered to them should not seeme likely presently after to say that he would hereafter teach them other matters of his owne which he had not receiued of the Lord. M. Bishop therefore should haue vsed his discretion to put a difference betwixt matter of order and matter of faith so to vnderstand that though the Apostles might as the Church alwaies may prescribe orders for decency and conueniency in the publike assemblies and gouernement of the Church yet that in doctrine and faith neither they then nor the Church now may adde any thing to that which Christ our Lord commanded and deliuered both to them and vs. Of the same kinde is his other proofe out of that which the Apostle faith for aduice to the vnmarried so still to abide concerning which he professeth to haue receiued p 1. Cor. 7. 12. 25. no commandement from the Lord for what is this to shew that the Apostle hereby added a new point of faith when as whether the married or the vnmarried whether they that follow his aduise or they that follow it not all are saued by the same faith Aduise is of things arbitrary to be done faith is of things necessary to be beleeued The Apostle therfore might giue wholsome aduise without coÌ„mandement of the Lord and yet cannot hereupon be said to teach a new article of faith I said further in my answere that the Apostles preached only q Rom. 1. 2. the Gospell promised before by the Prophets in the holy Scriptures M. Bishop telleth me that I belye the Apostle and corrupt the text by adding the word only But I set downe the word only in a letter distinct from the wordes of the text as appeareth in my booke though he would not obserue it but hudleth all together and therefore there was no cause for him to charge me with corrupting the text And what will he say notwithstanding that it was not meant that they preached only the Gospell promised in the Scriptures Surely the Apostle noteth his calling and seruice to haue bin to preach the Gospell of God This Gospell of God he saith God had promised before by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures Now if M. Bishop will say that though the Gospell were there promised yet the whole Gospell was not promised he wrongeth the Apostle by making his wordes partly true and partly false true in one part of the Gospell because one part was promised false in another part because that other part was not promised Which to auoide he must confesse that the whole Gospell was promised in the Scriptures of the Prophets and because the Apostles preached only the Gospel of God therefore they preached only the Gospell promised in the Scriptures And thus in the end of the same Epistle the Apostle speaketh againe to the same effect that r Rom. 16. 26. the myslerie of the Gospell was published amongst all nations by the Scriptures of the Prophets We doe not thinke he dallied in so saying as to meane the Gospell is published that is to say a part thereof but not the whole but the Gospell entirely and perfectly is preached by the Scriptures of the Prophets Therefore elsewhere he professeth that in preaching the Gospell f he said no other things but what the Prophets and Moses did Acts 26. 22. say should come But here M. Bishop saith I mangle the text and breake off in the midst of a sentence that it might seeme appliable to all points of the Apostles preachings which the Apostle applieth only to Christs death and resurrection and the preaching and carrying of light to the Gentiles But he himselfe rather doth wrong in so abridging the wordes of the Apostle contrary to the practise of the Apostle who though here he name only a briefe of some principall points as accuslomably is done yet vnder these as the chiefe comprehendeth the whole doctrine which he taught He vsed the wordes to take away the offence which was generally conceiued against his preaching and seeing he did not preach these only particulars which are here set downe neither were they offended only at these therefore he must be so vnderstood as that the wordes must be applyed to all the rest and that taken as put in steede of all whereat they were offended most of all And if we doe not so take them we make him subiect to calumniation because he could not affirme that he said no other things then the Prophets and Moses did say should come if in any other points he taught any thing that had not the testimony of Moses and the Prophets Yea when the same Apostle saith generally of t Rom. 3. 21. 22 the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ that it hath the witnesse of the law and the Prophets how can M. Bishop perswade vs that in the preaching of the righteousnesse of God by the faith of Iesus Christ he should teach any thing but whereof hee had witnesse and warrant of the law and Prophets especially when wee see him as in other of his Epistles so specially in the Epistle to the Romans instifying all points of faith accordingly And that this is a truth not to be contradicted we will take witnesse of Gregory Bishop of Rome who saith that u Gregor in Cant c. 5. Apo 〈…〉 a Pro 〈…〉 â—ruâ—n dâ—ctis vt 〈◊〉 persisterent fidem integram 〈…〉 the Aposiles receiued the whole faith from those things that were spoken by the Prophets And againe x Idem in Ezech hom 6. Qued praedicat lâ—x hoc â—iani Prophete quod dâ—nuilciant Prophatae â—o◠〈…〉 bâ—t 〈◊〉 quod exâ—â—ourt Euangelium hoc praediâ—aâ—erunt Apostoâ—â— per mundum Looke what the law preacheth the same also doe the Prophets and what the Prophets teach the same the Gospell hath exhibited and what the Gospell exhibited the Apostles preached through the world Thus the law and the Prophets and the Gospell and the preaching of the Apostles haue all deliuered only one and the same thing Therefore he saith that y Ibid. Vâ—raque Testamenta in nullo a se dâ—screpant c. Inâ—st testamento veteri testamentum noâ—um c. Prophetia testamenti noâ—i testamentum vetus est expositio testamenti veteris testamentum nouum the two Testaments differ not in any thing one from the other that the new Testament is contained in the old that the old Testament is a prophecio of the now and the new Testament the exposition of the old The same had St. Austin said before that
inferiore apud Polycarpum essem c. Commemorarequeam quomodo se cum Joanne ac reliquis qui DominuÌ„ viderunt conuersatum esse dixerit sermones eorum memorauerit quae ex illis de Domino audierit de virtutibus eius doctrina tanquam ex ijs qui ipsi verbum vite viderant percepta cuncta sanctis Scripturis consona recâ—nsuerit that he had beene in his childhood with Polycarpus and that he had heard him tell how he had beene conuersant with Iohn and the rest that had seen the Lord and remembred their speeches and what he had heard of them concerning the Lord and his miracles and doctrine as receiued from them who themselues had seene the word of life and reported all things agreeable to the holy Scriptures Here is a commendation of the Scripture and an intimation giuen that tradition ought to be no other but consonant and agreeable to the holy Scripture but of referring to the Churches in cases of controuersie not so much as one word But though his head here failed hiâ— yet I know well what the place is that he meant to cite which followeth in the booke whence I alleaged the sentence to which he answereth And yet there is nothing in that place fitting to his purpose Ireneus hauing there to doe with Heretikes who being reproued by the Scriptures reiected the triall of the Scriptures vpon the like pretences as the Papists now doe and therefore being forced to vse against them the testimony of the Churches from the time of the Apostles for proofe of those things which were cleare by the writings of the Apostles as we now doe against the Papists but saying nothing at all as to deliuer a rule that when cases of controuersie doe arise we should alwaies haue recourse to such testimony of the Church Of that place of Ireneus I haue spoken sufficiently m Answere to Doctor Bishops Epistle to the King sect 11. before and therefore I will not here againe trouble the Reader any further therewith In what sort also he attributeth principality to the Roman Church I haue already declared in the n §. 2. first Chapter of this booke Now as he is impudent in answering Ireneus so in his answere to Tertullian he is much more impudent The sentences of those two Fathers I cited as depending one vpon another Ireneus saith that the Gospell which the Apostles preached they afterwards deliuered to vs in the Scriptures Tertullian saith o Tertul. de Praescript Nobis non est opus curiositate post Christum nec inquisitione post Euangelium Cum hâ—c credimus nihil desideramus vltrà credere hoc enim prius credimus non esse quod vltrà credere debemus Wee neede no curiosity after Christ nor further enquiry after the Gospell when we beleeue this we desire to beleeue nothing further for this we first beleeue that there is nothing further for vs to beleeue Marke well gentle Reader the coherence of these wordes The Apostles committed the Gospell to writing we neede no further inquiry after the Gospell we desire to beleeue nothing further we beleeue that there is nothing else for vs to beleeue To this what doth M. Bishop say Beleeuing this beleeuing what the written word only nothing lesse The Gospell M. Bishop it is the Gospell you see of the beleefe whereof he speaketh and beside which or after which he desireth to beleeue nothing yea beleeueth that there is nothing further to be beleeued Seeing then the Gospell is written as Ireneus saith it followeth by Tertullian that beside the written word there is nothing else to be beleeued Nothing lesse saith M. Bishop And why For in that whole Treatise saith he his principall drift is to proue that Heretikes cannot be confuted out of the written word but by ancient customes and traditions which he calleth Prescriptions Where he most shamefully abuseth that worke of Tertullian expounding Prescriptions to be meant of old customes and traditions whereas Tertullian hath nothing to that purpose but by Prescriptions meaneth grounds of reasons and arguments whereby to proceede and deale against Heretikes for the reprouing and conuincing of them Neither doth he goe about to proue that Heretikes cannot be confuted by the written word but only sheweth that it was to no purpose to deale with them by the Scriptures or written word because they receiued and reiected Scriptures as they list did put in and blot out alter and chop and change so that whatsoeuer made against them should goe for no Scripture Yea the matters of their heresies were touching those articles of our faith which are clearely and manifestly testified by the Scriptures and therefore M. Bishop dealeth very lewdly with Tertullian to make him to say that they could not be confuted thereby I neede not stand hereupon hauing p Of Traditions sect 10. before at large discouered M. Bishops dishonesty herein and shewed out of the matter of the booke how falsly he fathereth that drift vpon Tertullian Only it is here to be noted what a prety meaning he maketh of those wordes which I cited thence namely this When we beleeue the whole doctrine of Christ both written and deliuered by Apostolicall tradition then we desire to beleeue no more of any vpstart Heretikes new deuises Where I pray thee to note how his two answeres agree together He told vs before to Ireneus that the Apostles left the Gospell in writing Here to Tertullian speaking of the Gospell he answereth that the Gospell signifieth the whole doctrine of Christ both written and vnwritten So when he list the Gospell is written and when he list the Gospell is vnwritten and he cannot tell certainly what it is If the Gospell were left in writing then the Gospell is no doctrine vnwritten or if the Gospell doe signifie also vnwritten doctrine then the Apostles did not leaue the Gospell in writing but only a part and parcell thereof But we beleeue that the Apostles left vs a perfect written Gospell and therefore we say to M Bishop and his fellowes as Athanasius said to the Arian Heretikes q Athanas de Incar Christi Si Discipuli estis EuangelioruÌ„ ne loquamini contra Deum iniquitateÌ„ sed per scripturas cedite Quòd si diuersa à scripturis fabulari vultis cur nobiscum concertatis qui neque â—oqui neque audire sustinemus quod extraneum sit ab istis dicente Domino c. If yee be Schollers of the Gospell speake not iniquity against God but goe by the Scriptures but if you will babble things diuerse from the Scriptures why doe you meddle with vs who endure neither to speake nor heare any thing which is strange from the Scriptures our Lord Christ telling vs If yee abide in my word then shall yee be free indeed Now to shew that beside the written Gospell and word of God there is nothing else to be receiued I alleaged a peremptory sentence of St. Austin r Aug.
him bring in Iacob 5. v. 14. the Priests of the Church and let them pray ouer them anoiling them with Oile in the name of our Lord c. Confesse therefore your sinnes one to Ibidem 16. another These and an hundred more plaine texts recorded in that fountaine of life wherein our Catholike Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse tearmes to wit Thereall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament That Priests haue power to pardon sinnes That Christ built his Church vpon S. Peter That good workes doe in iustice deserue eternall life That we are iustified not by faith alone but also by good workes That in extremity of sicknesse wee must call for the Priest to anoile vs with holy Oile That we must confesse our sinnes not to God alone but also vnto men these and diuers such like heads of our Catholike faith formally set downe in holy Scripture the Protestants will not beleeue though they bee written in Gods word neuer so expresly but doe ransacke all the corners of their wits to deuise some â—dde shift or other how to flie from the euidence of them Whereupon I conclude that they doe not receiue all the written word though they professe neuer so much to allow of all the bookes of Canâ—nicall Scripture For the written word of God consisteth Lib. 2. de Trinitate ad Const not in the reading but in the vnderstanding as S. Hierome testifieth that is it doth not consist in the bare letter of it but in the letter and true sense and meaning ioyned togither the letter being as the body of Scripture and the right vnderstanding of it the soule spirit and life thereof he therefore that taketh not the written word in the true sense but swarueth from the sincere interpretation of it cannot be truly said to receiue the written word as a good Christian ought to doe Seeing then that the Protestants and all other sectaries doe not receiue the holy Scriptures according vnto the most ancient and best learned Doctors exposition they may most iustly be denyed to receiue the sacred written word of God at all though they seeme neuer so much to approue all the Bookes Verses and Letters of it which is plainly proued by S. Hierome vpon the first Chapter to the Galathians R. ABBOT I Haue noted a §. â— before in this Chapter that St. Austin faith of the Prophets and faithfull of the people of the Iewes that though not in name yet in deede they were Christians as we are As they were Christians then with vs so are we now Iewes with them not according to M. Bishops vnderstanding of the name of Iewes to whom I may well say as Austin said to Iulian the Pelagian b August coÌ„â— Iulian. l. 4. c. 3. Cùm insana dicis rides phrenetico es similis When thou speakest madly and laughest thou art like to a frantike Bedlem but according to the Apostles construction thereof c Rom. 2. 29. He is a Iew which is one within and d Phil. 3. 3. we are the circumcision which worship God in the spirit and reioyce in Christ Iesus and haue no confidence in the flesh We must be Iewes by vnity of faith with them as they were Christians with vs because they with vs and wee with them make but one body and one Church whereof though there be diuers Sacraments yet there is but one faith from the beginning to the end receiued first by the Patriarches written afterwards by the Prophets written againe more clearly by the Apostles so that e Ephes 2. 20. vpon the foundation not foundations but one foundation because one euen one written doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets the houshold of God are built and our faith resteth wholly thereupon I haue walked no rounds I haue broken through no brakes of thornes but haue kept a direct and euen way and haue so strongly builded all this as that I scorne M. Bishops poore paper-shot as much too weake to throw it downe To him I know these things are rounds and mazes he knoweth not which way to get out of them they are brakes of thornes he lyeth fast tyed in them God giue him grace to yeeld to that which he seeth himselfe vnable to reproue He is very angry it seemeth as touching the last point that I should say that the Protestants receiue and beleeue all the written word He saith that therein I begge that which is principally in question and thinketh that I haue little wit or iudgement to thinke that they would freely grant me that But our vsage and debating of questions with them is sufficient to put that out of question We vse the Scriptures our selues we translate them for common vse we reade and expound them publikely in our Churches we exhort men to reade them priuately in their houses wee instruct them to receiue no doctrine but what they see there wee make the same written word the soueraigne Iudge of all our controuersies wee defend the authority and sufficiency thereof against the impeachments and disgraces which Papists haue cast vpon it What may we doe more to make M. Bishop beleeue that we receiue and beleeue the written word Surely if I tell him that the Sunne shineth at noone day he will not beleeue it if it seeme to him to sound any thing against the Pope But he will giue instance to proue that we doe not so first for that we reiect diuers bookes of the old Testament Wherein he saith vntruly for the bookes of the old Testament are the bookes of Moses and the Prophets the Psalmes f August coÌ„t Gaudent lib 2. cap. 23. Non habent Judaei sicut legem Prophetas Psalmos quibus Dominus testimonium perhibet tanquam testibus suis To which saith Austin our Lord Iesus gaue testimony as his witnesses of which we reiect none the other bookes that are adioyned to these we doe not reiect but we reade them and commend them yea we say as much of them as M. Bishop vouchsafeth to say of Pauls Epistles and the rest that they contayne many most diuine and rare instructions but yet we giue them no authority for confirmation of matters of faith because Christ and his Apostles haue giuen no testimony or witnesse of them and the primitiue Church in that respect hath expresly disclaimed them as I haue shewed at large g Of Traditions sect 17. before and resteth hereafter in this booke to bee shewed againe Secondly he bringeth sundry texts of the new Testament to proue that we doe not rightly vnderstand and beleeue all that is written in Gods word wherein he saith their Catholike Roman doctrine is deliuered in expresse termes First to proue the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacrament he citeth the wordes This is my body which shall be giuen for you c. But if the Romish doctrine be here deliuered in expresse termes how is it that their owne Scotus saith that
heauen The other points were touched before and shall be shortly againe But I would in the meane season be glad to heare where the written word teacheth vs that Kings and temporall Magistrates are ordained by Christ to be vnder him supreme Gouernours of Ecclesiasticall affaires because M. Abbot made choise of this head-article of theirs for an instance that the written word was plaine on their side he should therefore at least haue pointed at some one text or other in the new Testament where it is registred that Princes are supreme Gouernours of the Church Nay are temporall Magistrates any Ecclesiasticall persons at all or can one that is no member of the Ecclesiasticall body be head of all the rest of the Ecclesiasticall members or is the state Secular higher and more worthy then the Ecclesiasticall and therefore meete to rule ouer it though they be not of it to say so is to preferre the body before the soule nature before grace earth before heauen or is it meete and decent that the lesse worthy-member should haue the supreme command ouer the more honourable where the Christian world is turned topsie-turuy that may be thought meete and expedient but in other places that will not be admitted for currant which in it selfe is so disorderly and inconuenient without it had better warrant in the word of God then that new position of theirs hath R. ABBOT THe truth of mine assertions hath hitherto appeared by my defence of them but let them no further be taken for true then he is here found to be false that is the oppugner of them He saith that my conclusion conuinceth me euen by the verdict of my selfe to fall into the foule fault and errour of the Donatists To proue this he maketh me to speake in my answere in this sort Our faith because it is that which the Apostles committed to writing is the Apostolike faith and our Church by consanguinity and agreement of doctrine is proued to be an Apostolicall Church c. and is the only true Catholike Church c. Hauing set downe all these as my words he inferreth thus see you not how he is come at length to proue their Church to be Catholike by perfection of their doctrine which was as he himselfe in this very assertion noted a plaine Donatisticall tricks reproued by St. Austin c. But I pray thee gentle Reader to looke where thou canst finde those wordes by me set downe And is the only true Catholike Church Aske M. Bishop if thou meete with him where he found them and if he cannot tell thee aske him in sadnesse what spirit he thinketh it was wherewith he was led when he set them downe for my wordes Fie M. Bishop fie for shame doe you talke so against lying and will you in the meane time lye so wittingly and willingly so as that there is no meanes to salue it no colour to excuse it I did not say that ours is the only true Catholike Church I made no shew of prouing it by perfection of doctrine to be the Catholike Church I neuer wrote it I neuer thought it and therefore once againe I wish you to bethinke your selfe of your words whereof I remembred you before a Reproofe pag. 283. The diuels cause it is that needeth to be bolstered out and vnderpropped with lyes Surely it is beyond doating folly it is desperate fury that draweth men on to such courses To let that goe foule and shamefull as it is he telleth vs next that he liketh well of Tertullians obseruation that our faith ought to haue consanguinity and perfect agreement with the Apostles doctrine But he curtolleth Tertullians obseruation by this recitall of his because Tertullian doth not only say what our faith ought to haue but telleth vs that b Tertul. de Praescript Quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authoreÌ„ suum proferaÌ„t vt mâ—â—tò posteriores quae denique quotidiè instituiâ—tur tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non mâ—â—us Apostolicae depâ—tantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae those Churches which cannot bring any of the Apostles or Apostolike men for their authour as being much later euen the Churches which daylie are begunne yet according in the same faith are for this consanguinity or agreement of doctrine reputed Apostolike Churches no lesse then the rest Hence I concluded that our Church because it agreeth in faith and doctrine with the Apostles is therefore to be reckoned an Apostolike Church But that saith M. Bishop is not the question at this time And what then is the question Marry saith he whether our doctrine or the Protestants be truly called Catholike that is whether of them hath beene receiued and beleeued in all nations ouer the world But did not he see that the one of these directly followeth of the other for the faith of the Apostles is it that was spred ouer the whole world Our faith is the same with the faith of the Apostles because it is that which is recorded in the Scriptures of the Apostles Therefore our faith it is that was spred and beleeued through the world Abrahams faith was it that was spred ouer the whole world for Abraham is c Rom. 4. 12. 16 the father and patterne of all that beleeue both circumcised and vncircumcised Our faith is the same with Abrahams faith Therefore againe it is our faith that was generally receiued throughout the world At this M. Bishop biteth the lip it troubleth him that he knoweth not what to say to it He seeth this proofe to be most certaine and impregnable aboue all other and therefore he seeketh by all meanes to diuert and turne away his Reader from listening to it He telleth him that I doe not deale plainly and soundly that I goe about the bush that I fetch wide and wild windlesses from old father Abrahams daies But I answere him that I haue so gone about the bush as that I haue scratched him with it and my wide and wild windlesses haue so inclosed him as that he cannot finde which way to get out againe Well if my course like him not what would he haue me doe I should he saith haue demonstrated by good testimony of the Ecclesiasticall histories or ancient Fathers that the Protestants religion had flourished since the Apostles daies ouer all Europe Afrike and Asia I haue done already sufficient to demonstrate that I haue astonished him and choaked him with the euidence of Scriptures Stories Councels Fathers so as that hitherto he hath left all that he hath written to the question of religion without defence I shall make further demonstration thereof in this booke euen in the Roman Church What am I the nearer with him by that that I haue done What shall I be the nearer when I haue all done for he hath resolued himselfe to a wicked course and therefore though the light shine into his eyes yet he will sweare that he seeth it not He blameth me for concluding without
if thou wouldest be a iudge only and wouldest not be mercifull but wouldest marke all our iniquities and seeke after them who could endure it who could stand before thee and say I am innocent who should stand in thy iudgement Our only hope therefore is for that with thee there is mercy If then with the iust iudge there be no hope without mercy then surely it is not for merit that the iust Iudge rendereth vnto vs the crowne of iustice but according to the law of faith he crowneth his owne gifts in vs and vs in them euen for his owne mercies sake M. Bishops arguments therefore are all vanished into winde and the indifferent Reader may well perceiue that the Protestants cause is better strengthened by St. Paul then that it neede to stand in feare of such Popish deluding sophismes A blinde shift he hath vnder pretence of g 2. Pet. 3. 16. some things in St. Pauls Epistles hard to be vnderstood to colour his cauilling at those things which are professedly disputed and most plainly and clearely spoken In all his Epistles saith he being vnderstood as he meant them there is not one word or syllable that maketh for the Protestants But how I maruell should wee attaine to vnderstand them as he meant them May we learne it of M. Bishop or are we to goe to the Pope to know it of him Surely a mad meaning shall we haue of St. Pauls Epistles if we will yeeld to take them after their meaning What way hath M. Bishop or the Pope to vnderstand St. Pauls meaning that we should not vnderstand it as well as they or what reason can they giue vs why we should not by St. Pauls wordes vnderstand his meaning as well as by their words we vnderstand theirs Was St. Paul so hard of speech as that he wanted wordes to declare his meaning or was he so desirous to conceale his meaning as that he would speake one thing and meane another yea the contrary to that hee spake Would hee bee a Protestant in wordes when in meaning he intended to be a Papist They bewray hereby what they are be thou out of doubt gentle Reader that they are no welwillers to the Apostles meaning that teach so many things contrary to the Apostles wordes We see how perspicuously frequently constantly hee teacheth the same that wee teach where to giue a meaning different from that which he saith is no other but maliciously to peruert his meaning Neither doe we affirme any thing by his wordes wherein we haue not the certaine testimony of the ancient Church concurring with vs as M. Bishop in all these points seeth to his owne confusion when as in the meane time it is enough with him to cite texts but whether they make any thing for proofe of that for which he citeth them it skilleth not And this we shall see in that plenty of plaine texts which he saith he hath to produce for their vncatholike faith which when I shall haue examined it will easily appeare to the Reader whether his discourse or mine bee the more idle If the tast that hee will giue vs bee no better then that which vvee haue already tasted it will vtterly distast the Reader vnlesse hee bee such a one as hath lost his tast CHAP. XIIII That the Scriptures are loosely and impertinently alleaged by the Papists for proofe of their false doctrines as namely of Iustification before God of Free-will of the Merit of single life of Relikes and Images of the Masse and Transubstantiation and sundry other such like ANSWERE TO THE EPISTLE PAul saith nothing for those points for the deniall whereof M. Bishop condemneth vs c. to Well M. Bishop let vs leaue Peter and Paul c. W. BISHOP §. 1. WE haue here a dainty dish of M. Abbots cookery a large rhetoricall conclusion deducted out of leane thinne and weake premises He assayed to make a shew out of the Apostle that there was not a little which would serue the Protestants turne and cited to that purpose certaine sentences out of him but so properly that some of them indeede seemed to sound for him though they had in truth a farre different sense others had neither sense nor sound nor sillable for him Neuerthelesse as though he had gotten a great conquest he singeth a triumph and striketh vp a braue victory that all in Peter and Paul is for the Protestant nothing for the Papist Afterward as it were correcting himselfe he addeth nothing but in shew at least serueth the Protestants turne which is one of the truest words he there deliuereth The Protestants indeede be iolly nimble witted fellowes that can make any thing serue at least for a shew of their cause and when all other things faile them Ad fabulas conuertuntur they turne their eares away 2. Tim. â— vers 4. from truth as the Apostle speaketh and fall to fables and one Robin good-fellow I woene for lacke of a better is brought vpon the stage to spit and cry out Fie vpon Peter fie vpon Paul that had not remembred to say one word for Popery but all for the Protestant Fie I say vpon such a cause that must be vnderpropt with such rotten baggage stuffe What shadow of likely-hood is there that one should tell the Pope such a tale to his face or that Erasmus who was in most points a Catholike should report it or could there be any poore Robin excepting M. Abbots himselfe so simple and poore-blinde that in all the writings of those blessed Apostles he could not finde one word that gaue any sound or shew for the Catholike cause You haue heard already that I haue to euery place picked by M. Abbot out of S. Paul in fauour of their religion opposed another out of the same Epistle that speaketh more plainly against them for vs I will here out of the abundance of testimonies which the same S. Paul whom the simple Protestants take to be wholly for them beareth to our doctrine set downe some store euen in defence of those very points which Master Abbot hath made speciall choise off to obiect against vs. R. ABBOT WE note well M. Bishop that no Cooke can fâ—t your diseased appetite but such a one as is brought vp in the Popes kitchin whilest you like better a Numb 11. 5. the fish and leekes and oinions and garlicke of Aegypt then Manna that came from heauen We see it commonly so as hath been before said that corrupt stomackes are best pleased with the most grosse and vnwholsome meates and as the horse-leach sucketh out of the body the most noisome and putrified bloud and the Spider in the garden or otherwhere gathereth that only which may be turned to venime and poison so you out of the body of the Church draw that only which is noisome and poisonfull and nothing pleaseth your humour but what serueth for the corrupting both of your selfe and other men This is the cause why my premises
another Psalme handling the wordes at large expoundeth them as in al these places he hath done z Idem in Psal 80. Qui aedificat amorem terrenorum super fundamentum regni coelorum c. ardebit amor rerâ—m temporalium ipse saluus erit per idoneum fundamentum â—t paulo ante Grauâ—tèr conturbâ—ntur foenum stipula ligna ardent Si tristis perdis saluus eris tanquam per ignem He that buildeth the loue of temporall things vpon the foundation of the Kingdome of heauen that is vpon Christ his loue of temporall things shall burne namely by sorrow and griefe in the losse of them but he himselfe shall be saued by the right foundation Thus very constantly doth he vnderstand the fire spoken of by the Apostle of the griefe and tribulation that God layeth vpon the faithfull in bereauing them of those earthly goods which they haue ouer-carnally affected and desired Now in all these places it is to be noted that Saint Austin was so farre from expounding that text of the Apostle concerning Purgatory as that in euery of the former he hath signified expresly that hee doubted thereof and in the last of all denyeth it expresly In the first place hee saith a De â—ide Oper. c. 16. Siâ—â— in haâ— vâ—â—a tantum homines ista patiuntur siue etiam post hac vitam â—alia quae dâ— iudicia subsequnâ—â—r non abhorret quantum arbâ—â—ror à ratione veritatis iste intellâ—ctus bâ—â—us â—â—ntentiae Whether in this life only men suffer such things or whether after this life also some such iudgements fâ—llow the meaning which I haue giuen of this sentence as I suppose abhorreth not from the truth In the second place hee saith b Enchirid. ad Laurent c. 69. Tale aliquid 〈◊〉 pest hanc vitam â—eri incredibile nâ—a est vtrum ita sit quaeri potest aut inueniri â—ut latere nâ—nnullos fidelâ—s per ignem quendam pâ—rgatoriii quatò magis unâ—usue bâ—na pereuntia dâ—lexerunt tanto tardâ—â—s citiâ—sâ—â— saluari That sâ—me such thing there is also after this life it is not incredible and may be enquired of whether it be so or not and either be sound or remaine hidden that some faithfull by a kinde of Purgaâ—ory fire by how much they haue either the more or the lâ—sse loued transitory goods are either the sooner or the more slowly saued The repeating of both these places to Dulcitius without any reuocation or alteration may serue in steede of a third testimony of his doubting of it And in the last place he saith againe c De ciâ— Dâ—â— lib. 21. cap. 26. Post istius corâ—oris mortem c. si hoc 〈◊〉 â—tâ—ruall◠〈◊〉 tus defunctorum eiusmodi ignem dicuntâ—r perpeti c. sâ—â—â— ibi tantum sâ—u◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vt noa ibi secâ—laria quamâ—â—s à damnatione vemalia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inueniant non redarguo quiâ— forsiâ—an verâ—m est After the death of this body if the soules of the dead in this meane time till the râ—surrection be sâ—id to suffer some such kinde of fire and whether there only or both here and there or whether here they finde a fire of transitory tribulation burning their secular desires that they may not finde it there I reproue it not I say not against it because perhaps it is true Here we finde it is not incredible and it may be disputed whether it be so and perhaps it is so but vpon his best aduice hee could not finde in the Apostles wordes or in any other place of Scripture that certainely it is so Yea in the last place which is worthy to be noted propounding to answere some who by pretence of the Apostles wordes here in question hoped to be saued by a Purgatory fire he vseth these words d In Psal 80. 〈◊〉 per 〈◊〉 salaus eâ—o Nam quid est quod art Apostolus fundamentum aliud c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 das esse volo 〈◊〉 est enim non vobis dare securitatem malam Non dabo quod non 〈◊〉 tâ—meus terreo securos vos saccrem si securus â—iâ—rem ego Ignem aeternum tin â—â— Non 〈◊〉 nisi ignem aeternum de quo â—lio loco Scriptura dicit c. Brethren I am very fearefull it is not good to giue you any euill security I will deliuer nothing but what I receiue in feare I terrifie you I would secure you if I could secure my selfe I feare eternall fire I receiue or learne no fire but that that is eternall of which the Scripture saith in another place Their fire shall neuer goe out and so hee goeth on to expound the place in such sort as I haue said Marke this well St. Austin will deliuer nothing but what he hath receiued and hee professeth to haue receiued no other fire but only eternall fire Therefore very definitely he saith elsewhere e Hypognost l. 5. Tertum loâ—um penitus ignoramus un mò nec esse in Scripturis inuenimus Wee are vtterly ignorant of any third place yea and we finde in the Scriptures that there is none and therefore he diuideth all the soules of the dead either to perpetuall ioy or perpetuall torment as I haue shewed f Answere to Doctor Bishops Epistle sect 10. otherwhere As Austin so Gregory also though hee expound the place concerning Purgatory as M. Bishop citeth yet saith elsewhere that g Greg. Dial. 〈…〉 c. 39. Hoc de â—â—â—e tribulationis in hac nobis vita adâ—nbito potest intelligi the same may be vnderstood of the fire of tribulation applyed vnto vs in this life and if it may be vnderstood of tribulation in this life then can it be no proofe for warrant of a Purgatory in the life to come Now it is true indeed that Gregory was superstitiously conceipted concerning Purgatory although allowing of it only h Ibid De quibusdam 〈◊〉 culpis de paruts minimâ—â—que peceatis for very small and light offences but it is worth the while to note how sometimes the truth forcing it selfe vpon him hee crosseth himselfe in this behalfe and putteth that downe in one place which he buildeth in another For he writing vpon Iob he saith i Greg. Mor. l. 8. c. 8. Quem nequaquam modo miserecordia eripit sola post praesons seculum iustitia 〈◊〉 Hinc Salomo ait quia lignum ta quocunque loco ceâ—â—derit c. qua â—um humani casus tempore fiue sanctus fiâ—e malignus spiritus egredientem amnâ—a claustra carnis acceperit in 〈◊〉 secum 〈◊〉 pernâ—â—tat 〈◊〉 aterâ—is suppliâ—iis vltra ad remedium creptionis ascendat Whom mercy now deliuereth not him iustice only after this world imprisoneth Hereof Salomon saith that in whatsoeuer place the tree falleth whether towards the South or towards the North there it shall be because when at the time of a mans death either the good spirit or the euill spirit shall receiue
stubble and hay is thereby consumed and brought to nought And thus Cyril saith as Aquinas alleageth him o Cyril apud Tho. Aquin. in Luc. 12. Ignem veni mittere c. Mos est sacrae Scripturâ— ignem quandoque dicere sacros diuinos sermones that it is the manner of the holy Scripture to call the sacred wordes of God by the name fire and Chrysostome one where alluding to the wordes here handled expoundeth p Chrysost de PoeniteÌ„t hom 8. Igne examinemus verbo scilicet doctrinae fire to be the word of doctrine who though they both make the application of that construction to reformation of manners yet considering what hath beene said doe both iustifie the same construction to our vse Now all these things being well waighed it well appeareth how little hold Popish Purgatory hath in those wordes of the Apostle and because in the fall of Purgatory is the fall of prayer for the dead therefore M. Bishop hath yet said nothing out of St. Paul for prayer for the dead W. BISHOP §. 4. I Come now to Images and Relikes of which he affirmeth that S. Paul saith nothing where was the goodmans memory when he wrote this or remembring the matter well enough was he so fiercely bent to deceiue others that he cared not what vntruth he vttered The Apostle maketh honourable mention of the Images of Heb. 9. v. 4. 5. the Cherubins placed gloriously in the vppermost part of the Israelites Tabernacle which for the holynesse thereof was called Sancta Sanctorum Further that within the Arke of the Testament standing in the same place were reserued pretious Relikes as the rodde of Aaron that blossomed a golden pot full of that Angelicall foode Manna which God rained from heauen and the Tables of the Testament to which if you ioyne the sentence of the same Apostle That all hapned to them in figure and were written 1. Cor. 10. v. 11. for our instruction may not we then gather thereby that Images are to be placed in Churches and holy Relikes in golden shrines And the same Apostle in the same Epistle declaring that Iacob by faith adored the Heb. 11. ver 21. toppe of Iosephs rodde which was a signe of his power doth he not giue all iudicious men to vnderstand that the Images of Saints for their holy representation ought to be respected and worshipped R. ABBOT THou maiest not wonder gentle Reader if it grow wearisome to me to follow the sent of this Fox who only casteth dust in mine eyes to stoppe me from pursuing him too fast as being afraide to be otherwise sodainly griped to death Obserue I pray thee what proofes hee hath here brought for Images and Relikes Hee doth not only omit wholly the Epistle to the Romans whence hee was required the proofe but bringeth arguments so ridiculous so idle so impertinent as that euen hereby it is easily to bee discerned that it is a desperate cause which hee hath in hand For Images hee saith that St. Paul maketh honourable mention of the Images of the Cherubims where hee putteth in the Images as thinking it should bee some grace to him that the Reader not looking the place should beleeue that the Apostle had named Images But see further how hee stuffeth this skar-crow with his litteâ— of idle wordâ—s Hee maketh honourable mention of the Images of the Cherubins placed gloriously in the vppermost part of the Israelites Tabernacle which for the holynesse thereof was called Sancta Sanctorum A simple man would thinke that this strowting tale should certainly import some speciall matter but it is like the picture of Beuis that makes a great shew and strikes neuer a stroke a Heb. 9. 5. Ouer the Arke saith the Apostle were the glorious Cherubins shadowing the mercy seate but what is this to M. Bishops purpose Marry saith he the same Apostle saith b 1. Cor. 10. 11. that all things happened to them in figure and were written for our instruction Be it so and what then May not wee then gather thereby saith hee that Images are to be placed in Churches You may indeede M. Bishop but it shall bee no otherwise then as Spiders doe which gather poison of sweet flowers It is true though it bee not proued by the wordes which hee vnduely citeth that all things happened to the Israelites in figure but did the Cherubins prefigure the hauing of Images in our Churches If they did wee desire that he make it appeare to vs which I thinke hee hath not so little wit as to vndertake If they did not what a foolish conclusion hath hee made that because there were the Cherubins in the Iewish Tabernacle figuring something for our instruction therefore wee may set vp Images in Churches c Heb. 9. 11. The Tabernacle as the Apostle teacheth vs prefigured the body of our Lord IESVS Christ The Arke was the place where God yeelded d Exod. 25. 22. Numb 7. 89. his presence to his people to dwell amongst them and from which hee spake and declared his will vnto them The Cherubins as e Of Images sect 8. M. Bishop himselfe acknowledgeth betokened the Angels prest and ready in the presence of God to doe his will What shall now the thing figured be but that God in Iesus Christ is alwaies present with vs and his Angels still assisting in his presence to receiue commandements for our behoofe being f Heb. 1. 24. ministring spirits as the Apostle saith sent forth to minister for their sakes which shall be heires of saluation And must we now let this truth goe that ministreth strength and comfort to our faith that wee may giue M. Bishop roome for his blinde Idols But see withall how handsomely this matter is peeced together The Cherubins did represent the Angels What the shape or fashion of those Cherubins was neither M. Bishop can tell nor any man else as I haue g Of Images sect 8. before shewed They were set in the Sancta Sanctorum as he confesseth where they were wholly out of sight and whither no man came but h Heb. 9. 7. the high Priest only once euery yearâ— And doth not hee then very fitly and substantially alleage the example of these Cherubins for their Images of Men and Women to bee set vp openly in Churches not only that the people may behold them but that they may also fall downe to them worship them pray to them offer and burne incense to them according to all the abhominations of the Heathen accustomed to their Idols Doth hee finde that the Iewes tooke thereby warrant to set vp in the Temple the Images of Abraham and Isaac and Iacob and other holy Fathers to doe the like to them Doth he not know that he abuseth his Reader hereby and will hee yet goe forward so to doe But for an expresse and briefe answere to him I cannot say any thing more fitly then that which Tertullian of old answered to them
the body of our Lord Moreouer he speaketh of the Church of Rome being then but in her cradle most honourably saying Your faith is Rom. 1. vers 8. renowmed in the whole world and after Your obedience Rom. 16. ver 19. is published into euery place But no maruaile to the wise though he did not then make mention of her Supremacie for that did not belong to the Church or people of Rome but to S. Peter who when S. Paul wrote that Epistle was scarse well setled there neither did that appertaine to the matter he treated of R. ABBOT NOw to the Masse sâ—ith M. Bishop but there is no wise man that readeth what he hath here written but would thinke that hee had done much more wisely to keepe him from the Masse I cannot tell whether more to pitty his folly or to detest his wilfulnesse See with what a graue preface he entreth to a most ridiculous and childish proofe The same profound diuine St. Austin with other holy Fathers who were not wont so lightly to skimme ouer the Scriptures as our late new Masters doe but seriously searched them and most deeply pierced into them did also finde all the parts of the Masse touched by the Apostle St. Paul in these wordes I desire that obsecrations prayers postulations thanks-giuings be made for all men This phrase of skimming ouer the Scriptures he learned of his Masters of Rhemes who vpon those words of St. Paul alleaging by that place of Austin and some other Fathers that all those kinds of prayers were publikely vsed in the Lyturgie of the Church conclude thus a Rhem. Testam Annot. 1. Tim. 2. 1. So exactly doth the practise of the Church agree with the precepts of the Apostle and the Scriptures and so profoundly doe the holy Fathers seeke out the proper sense of the Scriptures which our Protestants doe so prophanely popularly and lightly skimme ouer that they can neither see nor endure the truth So then it seemeth we must diue very deepe to finde the Masse in the Scriptures but wee are in doubt that they which goe about to diue so deepe will certainly bee drowned and neuer finde that that they seeke for And tell vs in good sooth M. Bishop did St. Austin in your opinion finde in those wordes all the parts of your Masse Nay did he finde that at all to which the name of the Masse is by you properly referred You hold the Masse to be a proper reall sacrifice of the very naturall body and bloud of Christ offered to God for propitiation of the sinnes both of quicke and dead and doth St. Austin speake any thing to that effect or could he finde all the parts of the Masse without finding this Yea that the impudency of him and his Rhemish Masters may the better appeare doth St. Austin say any thing there but what properly belongeth to our Communion and not to their Masse Thou shalt vnderstand good Reader that Paulinus wrote to Austin to be instructed by him of the difference of those sorts of prayers which St. Paul commendeth to Timothy in the wordes aforesaid St. Austin answereth him that b Aug. Epist 59. Illa planè difficillimè discernuntur c. Aliqua singulorum istorum proprietas inquirenda est sed ad â—a liquidò peruenire difficile est Multa quippe hinc dici possunt quae improbandâ— non sint sed eligo in his verbis hoc intelligere quod omnis vel penè omnis frequentat Ecclesia vt precationes accipiamus dictas quas facimus in celebratione Sacramentorum antequam illud quod est in Domini mensa incipiat benedici orationes cum benedicitur sanctificatur ad distribuendum coÌ„minuitur quam totam petitionem ferè omnis Ecclesia Dominica oratione coÌ„cludit Interpellationes siue postulationes fiunt cum populus benedicitur Tunc enim antistites velut aduocati susceptos suos per manus impositionem miserecordissimae offerunt potestati Quibus peractis participato tanto Sacramento gratiarum actio câ—ncta concludit they are very hardly discerned that there is some propriety of euery of them to be enquired of but very hard it is certainly to attaine vnto it For many things saith he may be said hereof which are not to be disliked but I make choise to vnderstand in these wordes that which the whole Church or almost the whole accustometh to take those to be called precations obsecrations as M. Bishop termeth them out of their vulgar Latin which we make in the celebration of the Sacraments before that which is vpon the Lords table beginne to be blessed Prayers those which are vsed when the same is blessed and sanctified and broken to be distributed all which petition almost the whole church concludeth with the Lords prayer Intercessions or postulations which are made when the people is blessed for then the Priests as aduocates doe offer to the most mercifull power them whom they haue receiued by imposition of hands All which being done and after the participation of so great a Sacrament thanks-giuing concludeth all Now what is there in all this that doth concerne the Masse M. Bishop telleth vs that St. Austin findeth all the parts of the Masse here touched by the Apostle and see saith he all the parts of it very liuely painted out but can any man but thinke that he was scant sober when he looked vpon the place and therefore his eyes being troubled thought hee saw that which hee saw not Here is the celebration of a Sacrament the setting of bread and wine vpon the table of the Lord the blessing and sanctifying thereof the breaking of it to be distributed to the people the peoples participating of the Sacrament and in the meane while prayers supplications intercessions giuing of thanks the very true description of our Communion but who seeth any thing here appertaining to the Masse What M. Bishop is there no end of your trifling will yee still goe on to play the wiseman in this sort But to helpe the matter he telleth vs that though he calleth not that celebration of the Sacrament by the name of Masse yet he doth giue it a name equiualent Sacri Altaris oblatio the oblation or sacrifice of the holy Altar It is true indeede that St. Austin nameth the oblation of the holy Altar but nothing at all to M. Bishops vse For willing to giue a reason why the prayers vsed in the very act of the administration of the Sacrament are termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he taketh the same from the composition of the word and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often vsed to signifie a vow therefore he saith that c Ibid. Ea propriè intelligenda est oratio quam facimus ad votum c. Vouentur autem omnia quae offeruntur Deo maximè sancti Altaris oblatio quo Sacramento praedicatur aliud nostrum votum maximum quo nos vouimus in Christo esse mansuros id est
those decrees were written when they were first made Did you not reade that Iames so propounded p Acts 15. 19. 20. My sentence is that we write vnto them c. Did you not finde that it was executed afterwards accordingly q Vers 23. They wrote letters after this manner c. and namely to the brethren that were in Syria and Cilicia of whom you speake But all is one any thing will serue the turne to tell them that will neuer search whether you lie or not With as much discretion and fidelity doth he alleage the other places which follow Paul chargeth his Disciple Timothy r 1. Tim. 6. 20. to keepe the depositum that is saith he the whole Christian doctrine deliuered vnto him by word of mouth as the best Authours take it But who are those best Authours that so take it Forsooth Doctor Allen and the rest of his Rhemish Masters for other hee can name none wee should certainly haue heard of them if he could Againe Paul saith to Timothy Å¿ 2. Tim. 2. 2. Commend to faithfull men the things which thou hast heard of mee by many witnesses Was not this saith he to preach such doctrine as hee had receiued by Apostolike Tradition without writing No M. Bishop there is no necessity to take it so He receiued the doctrine of the Gospell by the preaching of the Apostle but it doth not follow that therefore he receiued it not in writing yea the Apostle euen there telleth him as I haue before alleaged t 2. Tim. 3. 15. The Scriptures are able to make thee wise vnto sâ—luation through the faith which is in Christ Iesus To answere him in a word as touching that depositum and the things which Timothy had heard of Paul hee himselfe will not doubt but that those things which are written doe appertaine thereto The wordes then hauing a necessary construction of those things that are written how will he make it appeare to vs that they haue further reference also to some things that are not written They must perforce grant that a great part of those things is written and how doe they proue that not the whole The same doe I answere him and haue answered him before concerning the wordes which he citeth to the Thessalonians u 2. Thess 2. 15. Hold the Traditions the things deliuered vnto you which you haue learned whether by word or by our Epistle He calleth Traditions those things which hee had written to them in that Epistle Hee had not set downe in that Epistle all the doctrine of the Gospell which is contained in other Scriptures which all notwithstanding hee had by word preached vnto them Hee willeth them therefore to hold fast both the things which hee had written to them in his Epistle and all the things which hee had preached vnto them which are written otherwhere this we are sure of but how may we bee sure that hee meant to commend to them the holding fast of those doctrines which are neither written in that Epistle nor otherwhere Surely if the wordes may haue a sufficient meaning being vnderstood of those things which are written though not in that Epistle yet in other either Gospels or Epistles then vainely are they alleaged as a necessary proofe for receiuing of doctrines which are not written any where And therefore whereas M. Bishop inferreth You see that some Traditions went by word of mouth from hand to hand aswell as some others were written he sheweth that he himselfe seeth not what he saith because the place proueth only that the Apostle wrote not all in the Epistle whereof hee speaketh but that all otherwise is not written it proueth not and that all is written that is necessary to eternall life I haue before sufficiently proued out of the very doctrine it selfe of the ancient Roman Church Now therefore it is neither ignorance nor insolency nor impudency in me to say that the Apostle saith nothing for Popish Traditions but it is M. Bishops trechery to bring texts to that purpose to deceiue thereby simple men when as they haue plaine and cleare construction otherwise W. BISHOP §. 9. I Could were it not to auoide tediousnesse adde the like confirmation of most controuersies out of the same blessed Apostle as that the Church is the pillar and 1. Tim. 3. ver 15. ground of truth wherefore any man may most assuredly repose his faith vpon her declaration That Christ gaue Pastors and Doctors to the edifying of that his mysticall Ephes 4. vers 11. 13. body vntill we meete all in the vnity of faith c. Therefore the Church shall not faile in faith vntill the day of iudgement nor be inuisible that hath visible Pastors and Teachers Also that Priests are chosen from Hebr. 5. vers 1. among men and appointed for men in those things that appertaine to God that they may offer gifts and sacrifices for sinne That Preachers and Priests are 1. Cor. 3. vers 9. Gods coadiutors and helpers and not only idle instruments That S. Paul and Timothy did saue other 1. Cor. 9. ver 23. men and therefore no blasphemie to pray to Saints to helpe and saue vs. That S. Paul did accomplish those 1. Tim. 4. v. 16. things that want to the passions of Christ in his flesh for Christs body which is the Church therefore Christs passion doth not take away our owne satisfaction That he gloried in preaching the Gospel of free cost * Coloss 1. v. 24. which was a worke of supererogation That a Ephes 5 v. 32. Marriage 1. Cor. 9. ver 16. is a great Sacrament That b 1. Tim. 4. v. 23. grace was giuen to Timothy by the imposition of the hands of Priest-hood whence it followeth that Matrimony and holy Orders bee true and perfect Sacraments But what doe I I should be too long if I would prosecute all that which the Apostle hath left in writing in fauour and defence of the Roman faith This I doubt not will suffice to confront his shamelesse impudency that blusheth not to affirme there was not a word in S. Paul that sounded for the Catholike but all in shew at least for the Protestant As for S. Peter I will wholly omit him because the Protestants haue small confidence in him Here I may be bold I hope to turne vpon M. Abbot this dilemma and forked argument which S. Augustine framed against the Manâ—chean Adimantus Hoâ— si Lib 1. cont Adimant imprudens fecit nihil caecius si autem sciens nihil sceleratius If M. Abbot did ignorantly affirme Saint Paul to haue said nothing for the Roman Catholikes what could be more blinde then not to be able to discerne any thing in such cleare light if he said it wittingly knowing the contrary then did he it most wickedly so to lie against his owne conscience to draw after him selfe other men into errour and perdition R. ABBOT MArke here I pray