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
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
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
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