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.
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
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
men p Iren. l. 3. c. 3. Ad hanc Ecclesiam propter potentâ—rem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt vndique fideles in que semper abhis qui sunt vndique conseruata est ea qua est ab Apostolis Traditiâ— To this Church saith he because of her more potent principality it is necessary for euery Church to accord that is the faithfull euery where wherein the Tradition which came from the Apostles hath beene alwaies preserued Now take this reason added by Ireneus which by M. Bishop is concealed and it will plainly appeare why it was necessary for other Churches to accorde with the Church of Rome For this Church for the renowme and famousnesse of the place being then the seate of the Empire was the most eminent Church in the world and therefore continuing still in the doctrine of the Apostles without alteration or change it was most fit of all other to be propounded as a patterne to other Churches whereto to conforme themselues and with which whosoeuer accordeth not did thereby swarue from the doctrine of the Apostles But the case is now altered because the Church of Rome it selfe is now questioned for swaruing from the Tradition of the Apostles which being so that cannot be said to be necessary now which was necessary so long as shee continued in that Tradition And thus sarre we finde only a necessity of consenting then in doctrine with the Church of Rome but for her superiority in gouernement wee finde nothing Yes saith M. Bishop for Ireneus attributeth to the Church of Rome a mightier or more potent principality which what should it import will he say but a superiority of Dominion and gouernment ouer all other Churches But I answer him that principality doth not enforce soueraignty and dominion for he himselfe is holden for a principall man amongst the Seminary Priests and yet hee hath no rule or dominion ouer them Principality importeth specialty and chiefty and noteth an honour of estimation and account and thus the Church of Rome though hauing no title of dominion for ruling and gouerning yet had the honour to bee a chiefe and principall aboue other Churches Now principality is alwayes potent and they that are chiefe and eminent aboue others sway much by their example and perswasion and their very names are very auailable to induce other whom notwithstanding they haue no authority to command according to that which Hilary saith that q Hilar. Epist apud August tom 7. Plureâ— sunt in Ecclesia qui authoritate nominum in sententia tenentur aut ad sententiam transferuâ—tur in the Church there are many who by authority of names are moued either to hold still their opinion or to alter and change the same Such and no other was the potent principality of the Church of Rome and thus doth Ireneus in the same place say that that Church r Iren. vt supr scrip Sit qua est Româ— Ecclesia potentissimas literas Coâ—inthijs c. wrote most potent letters to the Corinthians namely such as were effectuall and strong to moue them and the rather for that they came from such a famous and renowmed place And that M. Bishop may vnderstand that I doe not answere him by a deuice of mine but according to the truth he shall find that Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome Å¿ Cypr. lib. 1. Epist 3. Ad Petri Cathedram Ecclesiam principalem c. the principall Church and yet in the same place he denieth t Ibid. Nauigare audent ad Petri CathedraÌ„ c. Oportet eos quibus praesumâ—s non circumcursare c. Nisi paucis dâ—speratis â—erditis minor esse videtur authoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorlâ— c. the authority of the Bishops of Africa to be inferiour to the Bishop of Rome And thus the African Councell acknowledgeth the Church of Rome to be u Conc. Afric cap. 6. Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princâ—ps Sacerdotum aut summus Sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodi sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus the first or principall Sea and the Bishop thereof they terme the Bishop of the first or principall Sea and yet they denied to the Bishops of Rome to haue any authority ouer them Yea when Zozimus Bonifacius and Celestmus challenged the same by a forged Canon of the Nicene Councell those x Ibid. c. 101. Quia hic in nullo câ—diâ—â— Grâ—câ— ea poâ—â—imus inuenirâ— ex Orientalibus Ecclesijs vbi perhibetur eadem decreta posse etiam authentica reperiri magis nobis desideramus adferri African Bishops for the disprouing thereof sent to the Patriarches of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople for authenticall copies of the said Councell wherein they found no such matter and y Ibid. c. 105. Vt aliqui tanquam à tuae sanctitatis latere mittantur nulla inuenimus patrum Synodo constitutum Quod ex parte Nicem Concilij transmisistis in Concilijs verioribus tale aliquid non potuimus reperâ—â—e Executores Cleâ—icos vestros quibusque petentibus nolite mittere c. thereupon wrote to Celestinus that he should forbeare to send his Legates to entermeddle in their matters and z Ibid. c. 92. Non prouocent nisi ad Africana Concilia vel ad primates Prouinciarium sâ—â—rum ad transmarina autem qui putauerit appellandum à nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiatur forbad all appeales saue to their owne Councels excommunicating them that presumed to appeale to Rome and in this recusancy of subiection they continued afterwards for the space of an hundred yeares vntill Eulalâ—â—s the Bishop of Carthage if it be true which is reported of him and not coyned at Rome betrayed the liberty of that Church and submitted the same to Boniface the second who doubted not most wickedly to say of those African Bishops of whom the learned Father St. Austin was one that a Bonifac. 2. Epist ad Eulal tom 2. Concil Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiâ— olim Episcopus cum collegis suis infâ—igante Diabolo superbire teÌ„poribâ— praedecessorum Bonifacij atque Celestini coÌ„tra RomanaÌ„ Ecclesiam coepit by the instigation of the Diuell they had then begunne proudly to demeane themselues against the Church of Rome As for that potent principality of the Roman Church and necessity of according therewith which M. Bishop intendeth Polycarpus knew it b Euseb hist l. 5. c. 23. Neque enim Anicetâ— suadere Polycarpâ— poterat ne seruaret c. quae semper seruauerat not when he would not be perswaded by Anicetus Bishop of Rome to keepe the feast of Easter according to the manner of the Church of Rome Neither did c Ibid. cap. 22. Episcopis per Asiam qui morem ipsis ab antiquo traditum retineÌ„dum esse affirmabant prâ—erat Polycrates Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus with the rest of the Churches of Asia acknowledge
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
mouth full of blasphemic a Syluest Prier cot Luther conclus 56. Indulgentiae non innotuêre nobiâ— authorâ—tate Scripturae sed authoritate Ecclesiae Romanae Romanorumque Pontificum quae maior est Indulgences or Pardons haue not beene knowen to vs by the authority of the Scriptures but by the authority of the Church of Rome and Bishops of Rome which is greater then the Scriptures b Alphons de Cast adu haer lib. 8. tit Indulgentiae Inter omnes res de quibus in hoc opere disputamus nulla est quam minùs apertè sacrae literae prodiderint de qua minùs vetusti scriptores dixerint Et post pro indulgentiarum approbatione sacrae Scripturae testimoniâ— apertum deest There is nothing saith Alphonsus de Castro which the Scriptures haue declared lesse plainly or whereof the old writers haue said lesse There is no plaine testimony of Scripture for the approuing of them And yet M. Bishop no skimmer ouer the Scriptures I warrant you but a man of great obseruation and insight into them will take vpon him to haue found where S. Paul teacheth of Pardons not obscurely or darkely but in very formall termes He citeth to this purpose the wordes of S. Paul concerning the incestuous excommunicated Corinthian now much humbled by repentance and hauing giuen thereof great satisfaction and testimony to the Church c 2. Cor. 2. 10. Whom you haue pardoned any thing I so doe also for my selfe also what I haue pardoned for your sakes I haue done it in the sight of Christ that we be not circumuented of Satan Here he saith that the Corinthians and S. Paul himselfe did giue a pardon he did release some part of the penance of that incestuous Corinthian which is properly to giue pardon or indulgence Iust as well fitted as if he had put a Goose quill to a Wood-cocks taile Hee might euen as well haue alleaged our Bishops as giuers of Popish Pardons because they doe release to men vpon occasion some parts of penance inioyned them for criminall demeanours and had he not made a great speake if he had so done What are we come to vnderstand by the Popes Pardons the releasing of Penitents from the bond of excommunication for the restoring of them againe to the communion of the Church It is true which he saith of this that if S. Paul could so doe S. Peter could doe as much and other principall Pastours of Christs Church haue the same power and authority who doubteth hereof But we speake of a power which the Pope challengeth as proper to himselfe to giue Pardons and Libels of Indulgence or to giue authority to others to giue the same out of the Church treasury of the supererogations of Saints not for absoluing Penitents in foro Ecclesiae but in foro Coeli for releasing of soules from Purgatory and for giuing of them remission for so many dayes or yeares or hundreds or thousands of yeares not only to men for themselues liuing but also for their friends dead and that for doing such and such deuotions or paying so much money for such or such vse or aiding him in his wars against Christian Princes or doing any other worke and seruice that he requireth A lewd and wicked deuise and practise of the Popes of some latter ages and as lewdly coloured by M. Bishop by pretense of that that doth in no sort appertaine vnto it For all that the Apostle intendeth in the words alleaged is that which St. Ambrose briefly expresseth thus d Ambros in 2. Cor. 2. Orat ne adhuc exulcerato aduersum illum animo durum esset illis habere cum illo coÌ„munionem Ecclesiae Hee prayeth them that they would not any longer by a minde exasperated against him bee hard to haue with him the communion of the Church This is the forgiuenesse this is the pardon that he desireth in his behalfe that inasmuch as he hath sufficiently shewed himselfe penitent for his fault they will no longer forbeare to haue Christian society and fellowship with him M. Bishop therefore would neuer haue brought vs this place for Popes Pardons but that by a resolute course of impudency he maketh choise to say any thing rather then to say the truth W. BISHOP §. 8. THe last of M. Abbots instances is That S. Paul saith nothing of traditions wherein hee sheweth himselfe not the least impudent for the Apostle speaketh of them very often Hee desireth the Romans to marke them that make dissentions and scandals Rom. 16. ver 17. contrary to the doctrine which you haue learned and to auoide them but the doctrine that they had then learned before S. Paul sent them this Epistle was by word of mouth and tradition for little or none of the new Testament was then written wherefore the Apostle teacheth all men to be auoided that dissent from doctrine deliuered by Tradition And in the Acts of the Apostles it is of record how S. Paul walking through Syria and Silicia confirming the Churches Commanded Act. 15. vers 41. them to keepe the precepts of the Apostles and of the Ancients Item when they passed through the Citties they deliuered vnto them to keepe the decrees Act. 16. vers 4. that were decreed by the Apostles and Ancients which were at Hierusalem and the Churches were confirmed in faith c. Where it also appeareth that those decrees were made matter of faith and necessary to be beleeued to saluation before they were written Hee doth also charge his best beloued Disciple Timothy To 1. Tim. 6. ver 20 keepe the Depositum that is the whole Christian doctrine deliuered vnto him by word of mouth as the best Authours take it auoiding the prophane nouelty of voices and oppositions of falsly called knowledge Againe he commandeth him to commend to faithfull 2. Tim. 2. vers 2. men the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses Was not this to preach such doctrine as he had receiued by Apostolike tradition without writing And further which suppresseth all the vaine cauils of the sectaries he saith Therefore Brethren stand and 2. Thess 2. v. 15. hold the Traditions which you haue learned whether it be by word or by our Epistle where you see that some Traditions went by word of mouth from hand to hand as well as some others were written and were as well to be holden and stood too as the written proceeding from the same fountaine of truth Gods spirit Thus much in answere vnto the instances proposed by M. Abbot which he very ignorantly and insolently auoucheth to haue no proofe or sound of proofe out of S. Paul R. ABBOT HEre M. Bishop playeth the Iugler againe and casteth a mist before his Readers eyes by altering the state of the question betwixt vs and them For the question is not whether the doctrine of truth haue beene at any time deliuered by Tradition that is by word of mouth without writing but whether
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