giuen any credit vnto the Apostles doctrine vnlesse by S. PETER and the other Apostles it had bene first examined and approoued * Tertal li. 4. in M rc Hierom. ep 89. que est 11. inter ep Augustinâ— August lib 28. cont faâ—st c. 4 Againe when there arose a most dangerous question of Abrogating MOSES Lawe Was it left to euerie Christian to decide by the written Worde Or would many of the faithful beleeue S. PAVL that worthie Apostle in the matter Not so but vp they went to Ierusalem to heare what the Pillers of the Church would saye Where by the decree of the Apostles in counsell the controuersie was ended Which S. PAVL afterward deliuered in his Preaching commanding all to obserue and keepe the decree and ordinance of the Apostles * Act. 16. And if it would not be tedious I could in like maner shew how in like sort euery hundreth yeere after errors and heresies rising by misconstruction of the written Word they were confuted and rejected not by the written Worde onely but by the sentence and declaration of the Apostles Schollers and successors See Cardinall BELLARMINE * Tom. 1 lib 3. cap 6 I will onely recorde two noble examples of this recourse vnto Antiquitie for the true sense of Gods word The first out of the Ecclesiasticall Historie * Lib. 11. cap. 9 whereof Saint GREGORY NAZIANZEN and Saint BASIL two principall lights of the Greeke Church this is recorded They were both noble men brought vp together at Athens And afterwarde for thirteene yeeres space laying aside all profaine bookes imployed their studie wholie in the holy Scriptures The sense and true meaning whereof they sought not out of their owne Iudgement and presumption as the Protestants both doe and teach others to doe but out of their Predecessors writings and authoritie namelie of such as were knowen to haue receiued the rule of vnderstanding from the Tradition of the Apostles These be the verie wordes The other example shall be the principall pillar of the Latine Church S. AVGVSTINE who not only exhorteth aduiseth vs to follow the decree of the auncient Church if we will not be deceiued with the obscuritie of doubtful questions * Lib. cont Crescon cap. 33. but plainely affirmeth That he would not beleeue the Gospel if the authoritie of the Church did not mooue him vnto it * Cont. ep fund c. 5. Which words are not to be vnderstood as Caluin would haue them that S. AVGVSTINE had not bene at first a Christian if by the authoritie of the Church hee had not bene thereunto perswaded but that when he was a learned and Iudicious Doctor and did write against Heretikes euen then he would not beleeue these bookes of the Gospell to haue bene penned by diuine inspiration and no others and this to be the true sense of them vnlesse the Catholike Church famous then for antiquitie generallity and consent did tell him which and what they were So farre was he off from trusting to his owne skill and judgement in this matter which notwithstanding was most excellent This matter is so large that it requireth a whole question but being penned vp within the compasse of one objection I will not dwell any longer in it but here fold-vp this whole question of Traditions in the authorities of the auncient Fathers out of whom because I haue in answering M. P. and else-where as occasion serued cited alreadie many sentences I will here be briefe S. IGNATIVS the Apostles Scholler doth exhort all Christians * Euseb lib 30.36 To sticke fast vnto the Traditions of the Apostles some of which he committed to writing POLICARPVS by the authoritie of the Apostles words which he had receiued from their owne mouthes confirmed the faith full in trueth and ouerthrew the Heretikes * Ibid. lib 5 cap. 20. S. IRENEVS who imprinted in his heart Apostolicall Traditions receiued from POLICARP sayeth * If there should be a controuersie about any meane question ought wee not to runne vnto the most auncient Churches in the which the Apostles had conuersed and from them take that which is cleere and perspicuous to define the present question For what if the Apostles had not written any thing at all must we not haue followed the order of Traditions which they deliuered to them to whom they deliuered the Churches ORIGEN teacheth that the Church receiued from the Apostles by Tradition to baptize Infants * Rom. 6 ATHANASIVS sayeth e Lib. de decret Nâ—caeni conâ— We haue prooued this sentence to haue bene deliuered from hand to hand by Fathers to Fathers but ye O new Iewes and sonnes of Caiphas what Auncestors can ye shew of your opinion S. BASIL hath these words * De Spâ— Sanct. c. 2 We haue the doctrine that is kept and preached in the Church partly written and part we haue receiued by Tradition of the Apostles in mysterie both which be of the same force to godlinesse and no man opposeth against these who hath at the least but meane experience of the Lawes of the Church See GREGORY NAZIANZ Orat. 1. in Iulian. Because I haue cited alreadie some of the Latine Auncient Doctors Insteede of the rest I will recorde out of them in a worde or two how olde rotten Heretikes vsed alwaies to reject vnwritten Traditions and flie wholy vnto the written worde See the whole booke of TERTVLLIANS prescriptions against Heretikes which principally handleth this verie poynt The same doth IRENEVS witnesse of the Valentinians and Marcionis * Lib. 3. c. 2 The Arrians common song vnto the Catholikes was I will not admit to be read any words that are not written in the Scriptures as witnesseth S. HILARY in his booke against CONSTANTIVS the Emperour against whom he alleadgeth the preaching of the Apostles and the authoritie of the auncient Bishops expressed in his liuely colours S. AVGVSTINE some thousand two hundreth yeeres agoe recordeth the very forme of arguing which the Protestants vse now-a-daies in the person of Maximinus an Arrian in his first booke against him in the beginning If thou shalt saith this Heretike bring any thing out of the Scriptures which is common to all wee must needes heere thee but these wordes which are without the Scriptures are in no sorte to bee receiued of vs when as the Lorde himselfe hath admonished vs and said in vaine doe they worship me teaching commandements and precepts of men How S. AVGVSTINE opposed against them vnwritten Traditions hath ben afore declared The like doth S. BERNARD affirme of certaine Heretikes of his time called * Hom. 62 Cantica Apostolici So that most truely it may be concluded that euen as we Catholikes haue learned of the Apostles and auncient Fathers our noble progenitors to stand fast and hold the Traditions which we haue receiued by worde of mouth aswell as that which is written Euen so the Protestants haue receiued as it were from hand to hand of their
that you finde no reliefe at all in Saint Bernard touching the mayne point that either the Pope or Church of Rome is Antichrist And all the world might meruaile if out of so sweete a Doctor and so obedient vnto the Pope anie such poison might be sucked Lib. 2. de Cons ad Fugea specially weighing well what he hath written vnto one of them to whome he speaketh thus Goe to let vs yet enquire more diligently who thou art and what person thou bearest in the Church of God during the time Who art thou A great Priest the highest Bishoppe thou art the Prince of Bishops the heire of the Apostles and in dignity Aaron in authority Moyses in Power Peter thou art he to whome the Keyes were deliuered to whom the sheepe were committed There are indeede also other Porters of Heauen and Pastors of flockes but thou art so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a more excellent name aboue them they haue their flocks allotted to them to each man one but to thee all were committed as one flocke to one man thou art not only Pastor of the sheepe but of all other Pastors thou alone art the Pastor And much more to this purpose which being his cleare opinion of the Pope how absurd is it out of certayne blinde places broken sentences of his to gather that he thought the Pope of Rome to bee neither sheepe nor Pastor of Christs Church but verie Antichrist himselfe There is a grosse fault also in the Canon of Pope Nicolas as he citeth it that the Popes was to be created by the Cardinals Bishops of Rome As though there were some 30. or 40. Bishops of Rome at once but of the matter of election else where M. PERKINS hauing lightly skirmished with a broken sentence or two out of one Catholike Authour flyeth to a late heretike called Ioachim and quoteth Iewell for relator of it A worshipfull testimonie of one heretike and that vpon the report of an other he the most lying Authour of these dayes As for the late Poet Petrarke his wordes might easely be answered but because he quoteth no place I will not stand to answere it But to close vp this first combat a sentence is set downe out of the famous Martir Ireneus that Antichrist should be Lateinos a Roman Here be as many faults as words That learned auncient Doctor discoursing of Antichrist his proper name Cap. 13. out of these wordes of the reuel the number of the beast is 666. And obseruing the letters of the greeke Alphabet by which they doe number as we doe by ciphers sayeth that among others the word Lateinos doth contayne those letters which amount just to the number of 666. and consequently that Antichrists proper name perhaps might bee Lateinos but more likely it is to be Teitan as he sayeth there and lastly that it is most vncertayne what his name shall be See the place gentle reader learne to beware of such deceiptfull merchants as make no conscience to corrupt the best Authours and being often warned of it will neuer learne to amēd Ireneus leaueth it most doubtfull what shall be Antichrists name And among diuerse wordes esteemeth Lateinos to be the vnlikeliest And yet M. PERKINS reporteth him to say resolutely that his name shall be Lateinos and then to make vp the matter turneth Lateinos a proper name with S. Ireneus into Roman an appellatiue which noteth only his country Fie vpon that cause which cannot be vpholden and maintayned but by a number of such paltry shiftes Thus come we at length to the end of M. PERKINS proofs reproofs in his prologue where we finding litle fidelity in his allegations of the fathers badde construction and foule ouersight in the text of holy Scripture briefly great malice but slender force against the Church of Rome we are to returne the words of his theame to all good Christians Goe out of her my people Forsake the enemies of the Roman Church And as our Ancestors did the Pagan Emperours who drewe out her most pure bloud so let vs flie in matters of faith Religion from all heretikes that of late also spared not to shedde abundance of the same most Innocent bloud vnlesse to your greater condemnation you had leifer be partakers of her sinnes and receiue of her plagues And because I purpose God willing not only to confute what M. PERKINS bringeth against the Catholike doctrine but some what also in euerie Chapter to fortifie and confirme it I will here deliuer what some of the most auncient most learned most holy Fathers doe teach concerning ioyning with the Church and Pope of Rome from whose society Protestants labour tooth and nayle to withdawe vs. And because of this we must treat more amply in the question of supreamacie I will vse here their authority onely whome M. PERKINS citeth against vs. S. Bernard is cited already S. Ireneus Scholler of S. Policarpe he of S. Iohn the Euangelist of the Church of Rome writeth thus To this Church Lib. 3. c. 3. by reason of her more mighty principality it is necessarie that euery Church that is the faithfull on all sides to condescend and agree in and by which alwayes the tradition of the Apostles hath beene preserued of them that be round about her Saint Ierome writing to Damasus Pope of Rome sayeth I following none as chiefest but Christ doe in participation ioyne with thy blessednesse that is with the chayre of Peter I knowe the Church to be builded vpon that Rocke Whosoeuer doth eate the Paschall Lambe out of this house is a profane fellowe he that is not found within the Arke of Noe shall when the floudes arise perish And a litle after I knowe not Vitalis I refuse Meletius I take no notice of Paulinus he that gathereth not with thee scattereth that is he that is not with Christ is with Antichrist Marke and embrace this most learned Doctors Iudgement of joyning with the See of Rome in all doubtfull questions he would not trust to his owne wit skill which were singuler nor thought it safe to rely vpon his learned wise neighbours he durst not set vp his rest with his owne Bishoppe Paulinus who was a man of no meane marke but the Patriarke of Antioch but made his assured stay vpon the see of Rome as vpon an vnmoueable Rocke with which sayeth he if we doe not communicate in faith and Sacraments we are but profane men voyde of all Religion In a word we belong not to Christ but be of Antichrists trayne See how flat contrary this most holy auncient Father is to M. PERKINS M. PERKINS would make vs of Antichrists bande because we cleaue vnto the Bishoppe of Rome Whereas S. Hierome holdeth all to appertayne to Antichrist who be not fast lincked in matters of Religion with the Pope and See of Rome And so to conclude with this point euery true Catholike must say with S. Ambrose Lib.
foundation maketh not Christ a Pseudochrist as you say here or else you teach your disciples very pernitiously to hold the same necessary heades of Religion with it But to leaue to you the reconciliation of these places let vs examine briefly how you confirme your paradox that the Church of Rome maketh Christ a false Christ which you goe about to proue by foure instances The first is because the seruant of his seruants may chaunge and adde to his commaundements hauing so great power that he may open and shut heauen to whome he will and binde the very conscience with his owne lawes and consequently be partaker of the spiritual kingdome of Christ Here are diuerse reasons hudled vp in one but all of litle moment for all these seuerall faculties which the Pope enioyeth being receiued by the free gift of Christ and to be employed in his seruice onlie and to his honour and glorie are so farre off from making Christ a Pseudochrist that they doe highly recommēd his most singuler bounty towardes his followers without any derogation to his owne diuine prerogatiues The particulars shal be more particularly answered in their places hereafter Now I say in a word that Christs Vicar cannot change any one of Gods cōmaundements nor adde any contrarie vnto them but may well enact establish some other conformable vnto them which doe bind in cōscience for that power is granted of God to euery soueraigne gouernour Rom. 13. as witnesseth S. Paul saying Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers And that as it is in the 5. verse following of necessity not only for wrath but also for conscience sake So that to attribute power vnto one that is vnder CHRIST to binde our consciences is not to make CHRIST a Pseudochrist but to glorifie him much acknowledging the power which it hath pleased him to giue vnto men In like manner what an absurde illation is that from the power to open and shut heauen gates which all both Catholikes and Protestants confesse to haue beene giuen to Saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles to inferre that CHRIST is made a Pseudochrist as who should say the master spoyled himselfe of his supreame authority by appoynting a stewarde ouer his housholde or a porter at this gates he must be both Master and Man to belike And thus much of the first instance Come we now to the second It is that we make Christ an Idoll for albeit we call him a Sauiour yet in vs in that he giues his grace to vs that by our merits we may be our owne sauiours c. I meruaile in whome he should be a sauiour if not in vs What is he the Sauiour of Angels or of anie other creatures I hope not but the mischief is that he giues grace to vs that there by we may merite and so become our owne Sauiours This is a phrase vnheard of among Catholiks that anie man is his owne Sauiour neither doth it folowe of that position that good works are meritorious but well that we applie vnto vs the saluation which is in CHRIST IESVS by good works as the Protestants auouch they doe by faith onlie In which sence the Apostle S. Paul sayeth to his deare Disciple Timothe Tim. 4. For this doing thow shalt saue both thy selfe and them that heare thee And this doth no more diminish the glorie of our Soueraigne Sauiours infinit merits then to say that we are saued by faith onlie good works no lesse depending if not more aduancing Christs merits then only faith as shall be prooued hereafter more at large in the question of merits Now that other good mens merits may steede them who want some of their owne may be deduced out of an hundred places of the Scriptures namely out of those where God sayeth that for the sake of one of his true seruants he will shewe mercie vnto thousands as is expressely said in the end of the first commandement In like manner I answere vnto your third instance that for Christ to haue taken away by his blessed Passion the eternall payne due vnto our sinnes to haue left a temporall to be satisfied by vs is not to make himselfe a false Christ but a most louing kinde and withall a most prudent Redeemer Wiping away that by himselfe which passed our forces and reseruing that to vs which by the helpe of his grace we wel may ought to doe not only because it were vnseemely that the parts of the body should be disproportionable to the head but also because it is reasonable as the Apostle holdeth Rom. 8. that we suffer here with Christ before wee raigne with him in his Kingdome In your last instance you say that we make Christ our mediator of intercession to GOD thinking out of your simplicity that therein we much magnifie him sing Osanna vnto him Whereas we hold it for no small disparagement vnto his diuine dignitie to make him our Intercessor that is to pray him to pray for vs who is of himselfe right able to helpe vs in all we can demaund being aswell God as Man And albeit one in thought singling out the humanity of Christ from his diuine nature and person might make it an intercessor for vs Yet that being but a Metaphisical cōceipt to separate the nature from the person since the Arrian heresie which held Christ to be inferior to his Father it hath not beene practised by Catholikes who alwayes pray our Sauiour Christ to haue mercy vpon vs neuer to pray for vs. And consequently make him no mediator of intercession but of redemption And to come to your grieuous complaint that withall his Mother must be Queene of heauen and by right of a mother commaund him there Who can sufficiently meruaile at their vnnaturall grosse pates who take it for a disgrace to the Sonne to aduaunce his owne good Mother or else who wel in his wits considering Christs bounty to strangers and his enemies will not be perswaded that on his best beloued mother he did bestowe his most speciall fauours For hauing taken flesh of her hauing suckt her breasts and receiued his nuriture and education of her in his tender yeares and being aswell followed of her as of any other Is it possible that he should not be as good to her as to others vnto whome he was not at all beholding Againe the verie place of a mother requiring preheminence before all seruants and subjects of what dignitie soeuer doth not the right rule of reason lead vs to thinke that Christ the fountayne of all wisdome replenished the B. Virgin Marie his deare Mother with such grace as should make her fit for that place it lying in his hands and free choise to doe it And therefore is she trulie tearmed of holy and learned Antiquity our Lady and Queene exalted aboue all quyers of Angels That which you impute vnto vs farther that she must in the right of a mother commaund her Sonne is no
bookes of holy Scripture put together do contayne all necessary instruction Now then the argument followeth but some of those bookes of holy Scripture haue bene lost therefore some poynts of necessarie doctrine contayned in them are not extant in the written worde and consequently to be learned by Tradition M. P. answereth First supposing some of the bookes to be lost that all needfull doctrine which was in them is in some of the others preserued But why did he not solue the Argument proposed were then those bookes supersluous Doth the Holie Ghost set men to pen needelesse discourses which this answere supposeth Therefore he giues a second more shamefull that none be perished which is most contrary vnto the plaine Scriptures * 1. Paral. vlt. 2. Paral 9. as S. IOHN CHRYSOSTOM prooueth * Hom. 9. in Mat. E◠Hom. 7. in priorem ad Corinth where he hath these expresse words That many of the Propheticall bookes are lost may be prooued out of the historie of Paralipomeneon which they translate Cronicles Now as for M. P. gesses that some of them are yet extant but otherwise called some were but little rolles of Paper some profane and of Philosophie I holde them not worth the discussing beeing not much pertinent and avowed one in word onely without either any reason or authoritie M. P. His fourth objection of the Jewish Cabala is a meere dreame of his owne our Argument is this MOSES who was the Pen-man of the Olde Law committed not all to writing but deliuered certaine poynts needefull to saluation by Tradition nor any Law-maker that euer was in any Countrey comprehended al in letters but established many things by customes therefore not likelie that our Christian law should be all written That MOSES did not pen all thus we prooue It was as necessarie for women to be deliuered from Originall sinne as men Circumcision the remedie for men could not possible be applyed to women as euery one who knoweth what circumcision is can tell neither is there any other remedie prouided in the written law to deliuer women from that sinne Therefore some other remedie for them was deliuered by Tradition Item if the Childe were likely to die before the eight daie there was remedie for them as the most learned doe hold yet no where written in the Law Also many Gentils during that state of the Old Testament were saued as IOB and many such like according to the opinion of all the auncient Fathers yet in the Law or any other part of the Old Testament it is not written what they had to beleeue or how they should liue wherefore many things needefull to saluation were then deliuered by Tradition To that reason of his that God in his prouidence should not permit such a losse of any parte of the Scripture I answere that God permitteth much euill Againe no great losse in that according to our opinion who hold that Tradition might preserue what was then lost Now insteede of M. P. his fift reason for vs of milke and stronge meate wishing him a Messe of Pappe for his childish proposing of it I will set downe some authorities out of the written word in proofe of Traditions Our Sauiour said being at the point of his passiō * Ioh. 16.12 that he had many things to say vnto his Apostles but they could not as then beare them * Act. 10. Our Sauiour after his resurrection appeared often vnto his Disciples speaking with them of the kingdome of God of which little is written in any of the Euangelists * 1. Cor. 11 I commende you brethren that you remember me in all things and keepe the Traditions euen as I haue deliuered them to you * 1 Tim. 6. O TIMOTHY keepe the dispositum that is true which I deliuered thee to keepe * 2. Tim. 1 Hold fast by the holy ghost the good things committed vnto thee to keepe which was as S. CHRISOSTOM and THEOPHILACT expounde the true doctrine of CHRIST the true sence of holy Scriptures the right administration of the Sacramentes and gouernment of the Church To which alludeth that auncient holy Martir S. IRENEVS * Lib. 3. c. 4 saying that the Apostles layd vp in the Catholike Church as in a rich treasurie all things that belong to the trueth S. IOHN who was the last of the Apostles left aliue said * Epi. 3.13 that hee had many other things to write not idle or superfluous but would not commit them to inke and pen but referred them to be deliuered by word of mouth And to specifie for example sake some two or three poynts of greatest importance where is it written that our Sauiour the Sonne of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of the same substance with his father Where is it written that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Sonne aswell as from the Father Where is it written that there is a Trinitie that is three persons reallie distincte in one and the very same substance And that there is in our Sauiour CHRIST IESVS no person of man but the substance of God man subsisting in the second person of the Trinitie Be not all and euerie of these principall articles of the Christian faith and most necessarie to be beleeued of the learned and yet not one of them in expresse tearmes written in any parte of the holie Bible Wherefore wee must either admit Traditions or leaue the highest mysteries of our Christian faith vnto the discretion and courtesie of euerie wrangler as shal be more declared in the argument following The sixt and last reason for Traditions Sundrie places of holy Scriptures be hard to be vnderstood others doubtfull whether they must be taken liberally or figuratiuely If then it be put to euery Christian to take his owne exposition euery seueral sect will coyne interpretations in fauour of their own opinions so shal the word of God ordayned only to teach vs the trueth be abused and made an Instrument to confirme all errors To auoide which inconuenience considerate men haue recourse vnto the Traditions and auncient Records of the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and deliuered to the posteritie as the true copies of Gods word see the true Exposition and sense of it and thereby confute and reject all priuate and new glosses which agree not with those auncient and holy Comentaries So that for the vnderstanding of both difficult and doubtfull texts of Scripture Traditions are most necessarie M. P. His answere is that there is no such neede of them but in doubtfull places the Scripture it selfe is the best glosse If there be obserued first the analogie of faith which is the summe of religion gathered out of the cleerest places Secondly the circumstance of the place and the nature and signifycation of the wordes Thirdly the conference of place with place and concludeth that the Scripture is falsely tearmed the matter of strife it being not so of it selfe but by the